CEU eTD Collection Prof. Eszter Timar Eszter Prof. First Supervisor In partialfulfilmentof therequirements fortheDegree ofMaster of Artsin Gender Studies Intersexuality and its Intersections withDisability: A Biopolitical Perspective A Biopolitical Department of Studies GenderDepartment of Central European University Central European Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Submitted to Submitted Arpita Das 2011 By Prof. Grazyna Zygadlo Second Supervisor CEU eTD Collection disabilities. aim toquestion these normalization procedures and theirimpact on intersex people andwith people and chromosomes, it alsotakes shapethroughprocesses ofgenetic engineering.Through my thesis, I the eraof molecular biopolitics, where normalization procedures aredirected atthe level ofgenes the normal.These corrective procedures arenotrestrictedtopeoplewho arealreadyborn,butwithin or non-citizens, they are subject to corrective surgeries and other alterations to fit them to the idea of vulnerable toextreme marginalization and discrimination within society including abuse. As partial and lack equal rights including the right toconsent and theright tobodily integrity andare therefore within thelogicof normalization, they are therefore not treated with rightsat parwith othercitizens similar ways by processes and ofnormalization deemed ‘the abnormals’.Aspeoplewho do notfit medicine. Because of thiscollision,bothpeople with disabilities andintersex people are influenced in intersex people with discourses ofdisability which isreflected through the language of law and hierarchizing peoplearound the‘norm’. I argue that thereisacollision between discoursesof intersex people and disability within therealm ofbiopolitics thatworks towards classifying and of theporous natureof theseboundaries between I explore identities. theintersections between Recent developments toinclude intersex people within discourses of disability are indicative Abstract i CEU eTD Collection me. me butnot always.least, my Last, the gratitude Alankaaryougreatest to mean – theworld to emotional I support. thank myfamily for being a supportconstant inmy life and believingin I would like tothank myfriends, especially Manoela, Svitlana, and Tiina for their help and academically fulfilling. inforhelp their andsupport several waysdifferent makinginand for my Hungary time University Central European everyone Departmentthe of Gender Studies, at to I am grateful in SummerTheNetherlands. NOISE School Lenaand Eckert Dr.Katherin lookingThiele for my at andwork offering feedback during the writing workshops and the presentation of my study proposal. I would alsolike to thank Dr. Renkin and Dr.Anna Loutfi providedwho valuablecomments andfeedback duringthethesis Sandor who helpedinform myinitial ideas Iam and thoughts. also thankful Dr. Hadley to This work would nothave been possible without the support of Dr. Linda Fisher and Dr. Judit my thesis. of draft of herfeedbackandencouragementduring University my Lodz, onthefirst study for at the constant her for supervisor, my second Zygadlo, Grazyna Dr. thank to like also would feedback. extensive my I and givingher of fordrafts several work goingthrough grateful to am I extremely for myvision work. and support and patience for herendless Timar, Eszter Time for acknowledgements! First and foremost,I would like tothank my first supervisor Dr. Acknowledgements ii CEU eTD Collection eeecs...... 80 ...... References 76 Conclusion...... 56 ...... framework thebiopolitical within intersections of points disabilities: with people and people 5:Intersex Chapter Chapter 4: 42Discourses of Law and Medicine...... 30 ...... Chapter 3: Disability Chapter 2: Intersex 18 people within biopolitics...... Chapter 1: The ‘Abnormals’ within 7 Biopolitics...... 1 ...... Introduction iii ...... Table of Contents ii Acknowledgements...... i ...... Abstract 5.4 Genetic 70Engineering and Eugenics...... 65 5.3 Consent ...... and Bodily integrity 60 5.2 The Exceptions...... 5.1 Discourses 57 of abnormality...... 4.3 Discourses on intersexuality by organizations working 52 on intersex issues...... 50 4.2 ...... Discourses of medicine 45 4.1 ...... Discourses of law 3.3 Disability 36 and Biopolitical framework...... 333.2 Monsters and Freaks...... 30 3.1 Disability ...... –Abrief Overview 2.4 Intersex 27 people within the biopolitical ...... framework 2.3 Intersections within discourses 26of transgender people and ...... intersex people 2.2 The 23 decision making process...... 2.2 Intersex 20 people: The politics of naming...... 2.1 Positioning intersex 18 people within the ...... sex/gender paradigm Table of Contents iii CEU eTD Collection have fantasies about them. The study fantasieshavehow people in them.marks stalk about actively study thesegroups and The worshipandamputees communities who as peopleas well (2004) highlights thepresence of p.45). Inher (Colligan,2004,Kafer study, of fantasies often outsiders” projected, repressed 2004). (Colligan, sexuality their stereotypes about andthe “titillate groups Both these 2010). ‘hypersexual’ arealsoIntersex (TARSHI, subjectedinpeople tonegative images turn Peoplegroups. disabilities aseitherbeing facebeinglabelled asexual with often or these both for sexuality to regard with assumptions of number a also are there addition, tobe‘fixed’.and In inneedof therefore cureand ‘conditions’ medicalizedtreatment as are disability and intersexuality Both ability. and shape, size, body of in terms differences accords more importance to the disability rather than the people themselves. people the than rather disability the to importance more accords 2 wanted to adiscussionhave abouttheir gender. intended to bring attention to their sex and not their gender. I have1 used the terms men and women wherever I ‘proper’ males or females. People with physical disabilities had undergomultiple to many surgeries a timeswithout conformtheir to consent beingto female nor male neither considered are intersex people example, For nature. of anomalies considered Asare both body. such, they for the‘normative’ society sets that place. inthefirst ‘disabled’ or as ‘intersex’ their categorizations lead to often medicalization of silence and 2004);anumber (Colligan, of studies shame would processes these that contend subjected to processes of medicalization,medical classifications, as well as being subjected to similarities. Both these groups - intersexIntroduction people and people with physical disabilities are I have used the terms male and female and not men and women very consciously throughout the thesis as I as thesis the throughout consciously very women and men not and female and male terms the used Ihave Politically, Ialign myself with the term people/persons with disability and not ‘disabled people’ as the latter Both people with physical disabilities and intersex people do not fit inBoth peoplefit physical disabilities and with the intersex donot standards people certain from share each other different quite although disability and Intersexuality 1 2 also make tangible their tangible make also 1 and have often CEU eTD Collection normalization procedures andimpact theirintersexprocedures normalization on people with andpeople disabilities. foetuses through processes of genetic engineering. Through my thesis, Iaim questionto these directed at the level of genes, are procedures normalization where biopolitics molecular born,era butwithin the already of chromosomes, cellspeopleare who to restricted not are procedures corrective These normal. idea of the the and tissues, it is also directedcitizens, they to areunborn therefore subject toextreme marginalization andincluding discrimination society within As abuse. non- partial correctiveor surgeries and other alterationsintegrity. to fit them to Because bodily consentto theyto andtheright right including the andlackequal citizens rights other lack equal rights notas fit withinother the logic citizens, of normalization, they arethey thereforesimilar ways by processes arenot of normalizationtreated thereforeand deemedwith ‘the abnormals’. rights As people at who dopar with vulnerable of intersectdiscourses influenced in with disability)people are their (because discourses to languagethe oflaw andmedicine. Icontend that both people with disabilities and intersex through is reflected which of disability discourses with people intersex of between discourses classifying andhierarchizingis that people there around a the ‘norm’. Iargue collision within biopolitics realm the andof of governmentality processes works that towards identities. intersex to referring when disability of terminology the use therefore Discourses be corrected. to needs which a disability to clearly by but medical community the bysomeinternational intersex also suggests organisations just not ‘disorders’ as such terms of usage The female. strictly or male strictly being suggest internal genitalia, chromosomal level and/or hormonal levels may not be perfectly aligned to disability. their because of specifically with amputees and even relationships sexual contact desire close I am interested in exploring the intersections between intersex people and disability and people intersex between intersections the in exploring interested am I or external their that except problems other any have not may people intersex Many 2 CEU eTD Collection lead people who do not fit in within these neat categories to be termed as ‘the abnormals’. I be abnormals’. termed to as‘the fitin categories notdo these neat who within lead people that normalisation and regulation of itis processes these However, operations. and efficient factor insignificant andclassifying populationsregulating into neatcategories for smooth of power on all aspects of human wherein regulates execution the populations through of the government biopoliticalstate the life and therefore the health of the population becomes a my some of arguments. substantiate to context Indian the from examples few a be using therefore will I logic. such behind may not beformalised asalaw,is itunderstand Ithink imperative to the argumentation disability.Although inclusion by hasbeen and this disability opposed sexuality activists and intersexthis included proposal, law bewithinpeople would theambit national the on of include peopledisorder within with developmentsex purviewthe of law.Accordingthe to to had proposed totheon law national disability suggest amendments in India to constituted policies. The impetus for my thesis also comes from a recent development when a committeelaws andshaping and of lot arecurrent concerns Ithinkthese a from where examples India be drawing also will I necessary. wherever my arguments substantiate to contexts regional this thesis,explore the legal and medicalI discourseswill in different countries; however, for the purposes beof focussingspecific discourses of law and medicine. Also,it would be fascinating and perhaps relevant to onspecifically be looking atdiscourses labelwhich intersex people asdisabled, especially the the globaltheir scenario intersex lookdrawing at peoplecondition)to pertinent even whoand interesting be would mayIt them. of examples all upon touch beme to for intersexbe possible at as wellthe fromas suffersame people as well as fromon peopledifferent with disabilities, due to constraintstime.a of time andphysical space it would not disabilityHowever, (other thandue to the same constraints, I will In the theoretical account in chapter one, I will be discussing Foucault’s (2003) idea Foucault’s Iwillbediscussingin one, (2003) chapter In the account theoretical Although is there a vast amountof literature already available intersex exclusively on 3 CEU eTD Collection purposes of purposes thesis Iwillbefocussingthis on disabilities.physical Social of constructions disability issubjectbroad areaincludingboth physical and intellectual for butdisabilities the These are some of the questionsa conclusion parametersthe used one’s incoming to Arethey about disability? universal? I will be focussing as a disability?Whatcounts disability? around Whatare discourses anddebates Whatare the on in this chapter. Suffice to say paradigm. biopolitical thatthe as‘the abnormal’intersex people within how imaginary, alsobe discussing will aretreated I asadisability popular the construed within gets often intersex intersexuality of Since people. arguments could for be transgenderused be people aswell, Iwill focussing onspecificissues the of Althoughsome two. between the differences aresignificant there that contend I commonalities, share may they Although activism. and advocacy within also but discourses Intersex people andissues their are often confused with transgenderissues not justin popular terms and also present abrief outline someof of the studies and work around intersex people. people. two, Iprovide chapter debatesconcerning In the asummary of the usageof these intersex about talk to used are intersexuals, intersexed, intersex, hermaphrodites, as such with disabilities, who are deemed as ‘the abnormals’. people and people intersex as such people on has it impact the understand to normalization and thebiopoliticalitsunderstand logic machinations the of state to of important Miller’s (2007) idea normal isled population by also andhere(re)production of questions of be Iwill using Ruth the womb as a paradigmaticwithin biopolitics as well as idea Rose’s (2007) molecular of biopolitics. The idea of the space of biopolitics.people with Iwill disabilities. Agamben’s also belooking idea at of (1995) barelifethe I argue that intersex as as impactpeople well procedures how normalisation these itwill be exploring is In chapter three, I will be doing a brief review of some of the literature on disability. on literature some of the of brief review a I willbedoing three, In chapter There is no consensus on the terms used for intersex people. Different terminology 4 CEU eTD Collection normal. This situation however gets reversed in certain situations such as sports where certain than less as themselves finding thus integrity bodily to rights their including rights of devoid often are people intersex as well as disabilities with people paradigm, biopolitical the within how discuss also I eugenics. as as well engineering genetic surgeries, corrective as such such thusmakingimpacted through systems procedures vulnerable them classification to people andintersex areoften people with disabilities Both some people as abnormal. of disability.deem through procedures howbiopoliticsnormalization discuss Iwill works to working on intersex issues and the definitions they use to refer to intersex people. organisations international few a at look also will I them. disable and medicalize pathologize, people. I will explore(WHO) ifas thea representative definitionsisinlaws? thelanguageused looking Iwill these be also World atthe Health Organisation internationalthey use for What issues. intersex include laws on disability intersex international in whether exploring interested organisation people and exploreare Iam Inparticular, of disability? discourses the with intersex collide people for discourses the or canhow theybe used define to of language the does people; define intersex issues intersex on working doorganizations how intersex people disabled; areconsidered emergingdo discourses onincludedisability intersex people; through explore to wish that I occur in questions these discourses the of of law Some and medicine. disability and intersexuality between intersections of points the explore I particular, In level. impact people with disabilities. realm of biopolitics. Iwillbe expandingonsome of these constructions and howthey may People with disabilities are often not considered a part of the productive population within the disability also present them as a burden, sapping the resources of the family and the state. In chapter five, I will discuss some of the intersections between intersexuality and intersexuality between intersections some of the will five, I discuss In chapter In chapter four, I look specifically at discourses of law and medicine at the global this study are: what is the language used for intersex people; when and how intersex how and when people; intersex for used language is the what are: study this 5 CEU eTD Collection and hopefully a smaller part of hopefullyand a part of smaller a work-in-progress. notprofesscomprehenddefinitions Ido is and tentativediscourses. to them. all work of This how it works on intersex people and people with disabilities. and state the machinations of the understand me for to aprocess is this primarily work that Again,I acknowledge disabilities. intersex with and impact people peopleand its on examine populations means of governing more efficient for categories neat into andmade governed are understandways inwhich people to the state atlook biopolitical the to important andworks affects peopledifferent my studies asapartof is in Ifeelit Studies. Gender a workin andprogress not conclusive in manner. any is intricaciesthe of Thisstudy both languageanddiscourses usedfor the these communities. in also but disabled and/or intersex are who people of experiences in the just not nuances the intersex issueslearn specificthe andpeoplepeople Iam to disabilities. with grappling with morethisisunderstand aprocessfor me study and that with Iacknowledge to disabilities. on disability has been focussed mostly looking on issues at of gender and forsexuality people based violence.actively Ihave not intersexissuesengaged with prior My to this work. work gender- and sexuality gender, of issues in interested profoundly been has who scientist social tentative very Itread my claims and inmaking Iam cautiously a any through work. primarily dramaposition butto Also, myself within I would like state work. this thisthat to workis par. butnever at more normal less either the be than or than as to treated people continue as threats to orderthe of normalcy.Within paradigm,this with disabilities people andintersex andintersex more people havebeen normal people than as with disabilities and seen regarded I acknowledge the multiplicities and complexities in the meanings of terms, of meanings the in complexities and multiplicities the acknowledge I it how and machinery its and state bio-political the with fascinated been also have I To my knowledge, I am not an intersex person. I write this not to create a moment of 6 CEU eTD Collection molar level to the molecular level fascinating in terms of discussing which bodies are bodies which discussing of in terms fascinating level molecular the to level molar considered worth living. Further, Ifind Rose’s ideas aboutthe adventmedicineof from the framework.Iwillthat further Agamben’s bediscussing life ideasnot whichwas of within functioned sovereign the of rights the how and governmentality on ideas Foucault’s In betalking chapterIwill by Agambenthis developed about (1995)andRose(2007). whichbiopolitical framework hasbeen byFoucault 2003) andfurtherespoused (1993, of littlenormal and worthy from others valuecanberendering while therefore understood a a woman. or man a being of norms that the intersex person is construed as an ‘abnormal’ if the person fails conformto to societal be it inferred narrative, From can this 2000). of (Fausto-Sterling, penis depend size on the the itwould males genetic for whereas potential preserve their reproductive females soasto as females genetic raising of is followed often rule The male-female. of binary the within in tobe‘fixed’ medical a plethoraorder procedures of to female. They subjected are often few or all of these, do not fitin within stereotypical conceptions of being a ‘normal’ male or a a of a combination or make-up chromosomal a different or levels hormonal different organs, person. intersex the of case in the law medico-legal the to way gives also law juridical The etc. inheritance related tomarriage, such asdestabilisinglaws destabilised juridical regularities of ‘humanthe monster’ which notdisrupted onlythe idea of human perfect bodiesalso but was many representations of one the figure the of how ‘hermaphrodite’ the where heargues Chapter 1: The‘Abnormals’ within Biopolitics Procedures and apparatuses which function in terms of labelling certain people as labelling certain people in of terms function which andapparatuses Procedures reproductive internal or genitals external variant have either may who people Intersex Foucault(1997) has discussed intersex the as person figurethe ‘abnormal’the of 7 CEU eTD Collection healthy population. and normal a of parameters the fit not did they as sovereign the and state the by enough intersex people as wellprotecting such remainedwas unprotected people not for as still responsible who them. The as people with disabilitiesbe although for lives,In helditnot taking sovereign latter, the the people’s could responsible were those one. its inthesecond citizens livesof the playing inprotecting arole not actively first caseto whose lives were not in the its citizens of lives actively taking in located sovereign valuedcould be the between two the life makelive” to“makelive and 2003,p.240).The let and difference die” (Foucault, placea in transition argues that 19 took the power of the sovereign to decide whether the subjectcompartments. narrow has the rightthese into fit not do often to who others be among alive disabilities with people and people intersex or dead. He impact peopleas how can procedures such ideasthese enhance our are not, who about those and ‘normal’ the into populations categorising through function which governmentality biopolitical Understandingbiopolitical framework. and the state the of processes ideas ofwombIrving’s being wellas the ideaabout spaceas the productivity Miller’s of the can fromalso be understood lensthe of productivity and reproductivity. Iwill be discussing considered worthy and which are left in out the process. The idea of ‘worth’ humanof beings from the focus on the individual body to the focus on man-as-species. Disciplinary forms of in during of twotime-periods the describes this power techniques transformation the Foucault constituted to protect lives the ofits citizens, howthen couldhehave life? the right totake hadbeen sovereign If the be began debated. to lives of people take sovereign to the According to Foucault, during 17 the According to In his entitled lectures ‘Society be must defended’, Foucault(2003) discusses the th century from the right of the sovereign to “take th 8 and particularly 18 the th century the right of right the century CEU eTD Collection individuals, institutions and communities. It derived a lot of its power from its control of the formed a major part of Foucault’s idea on ‘governmentality’. Statistics mortality etc. longevity birth-rate, on statistics through of surveillance new methods many generations throughininvalid have level the turn andthis consequencesatbyaffectingwould population the of genetics. It was during masturbatingbody of childthe thisbring would upon sexual depravity leading the child be to time of transition itthat was notunder both disciplinary as well as thereregulatory power. For example, the undisciplined emerged levels if different at two andhad both of effects forms these power of intersection was atthe formsmutually well. werenot Sexuality These and influenced each of power exclusive other. This includedreplacement. of newform as of elements disciplinary power power regulatory a caseofclean not was form power of regulatory the to disciplinary the from this transition However, an population. of entire surveillance of for purposes necessary were andstrategies newerdevices andtherefore a whole population to of catering itwastothe extent of power, hiswords, In man-as-species. but man-as-body to not anda regulatory applied changetopower beganto inspections such as surveillance, power The government was therefore part of complex relations between different between relations of complex part was therefore The government pp.2-3). Gordon, Colin Effect, (TheFoucault sovereignty” of political relationsconcerned theexercise with and,finally andcommunities institutions social interpersonal relations involving some form of control or guidance, relations within “Government asanactivity could concern therelationbetween selfand private self, forms regulatory in the for accounted still were bodies individual if even Therefore, p.242). 2003, andsoon”(Foucault, illness, production, death, contrary, massthatisaffected a global byoverallprocesses characteristic ofbirth, onthe they form, that extent buttothe bodies, individual thantheir more nothing establishedthat isbeing technology Andthatthenew be,punished. used,and,ifneed trained, is addressedbodies thatcanbekeptundersurveillance, intoindividual bedissolved and must to a multiplicity“discipline tries to rule a multiplicity of men to the extent that their multiplicity can of men, not to the extent that they are 9 CEU eTD Collection decisive”. Agamben says: “politically being of extentto the important lifebecomes biological when transition the and anomalies.Agamben other idea(1995) developed Foucault’s of biopolitics by discussing preventor modify them. included Biopolitics not just old age infirmityand butalso accidents either to further and events of probability the predict to also but population the within events control the just not to attempts were There programs. in surveillance be included these to medicalization population.the of Issuessuch and as mortality birth reproduction, rate began nation. the of in productivity the decelerating and result population the energy of sap the would lastingTheseinresultexpenditure. illnesses state butdeaths whichwouldcreated conditions inresult frequent from inthatthey not did epidemics were endemics. Endemics different justfertilityissues butmorbidity.butstarted dealing of not that of also epidemics also with It withoutdo ones the whoproved aburden Theon state. the started state dealingjust withnot make to and therefore population have and productive a healthy to for thestate was important population furtherlooked atfrom lenswas healthy, healthy of not It not. the or productive or justpopulation presentthe on butwhatalso on would countasthe population. future The words,throughother governing all of lives.aspects people’s The of focus was not state the the sovereignframework, focussed ongoverning in an entire population biopower or through etc. women, Within health status life biopolitical the expectancy children,their the of the for fertility of the accounting such the as various statistical procedures population through be in force, isolationand of the corpus, bare life, in himself. It is true that iflaw needs a body inorder to one can andthe exception ofthesovereign therepetition be constitutedassuchthrough speak, in appearthis later as the bearer of rights and, (...), as the new sovereignsense, subject (...) can only the root ofof modern democracy’s secret biopolitical calling“law’s lies here: he who will desire to have a body,” This in resultedturn in developmentthe medicineof and public hygiene and ledto the 10 CEU eTD Collection be encroaching not just in matters in notjust morality matters medicinebe of body on encroaching the and politics and butalso molecular life and therefore life itself (Rose, 2007). Thus, capitalistic of butalsonew forms to opportunities offers exploitation.creating of Further, this andexperimentation just innovation totechnical not body the exposes medicalgazethus the molecules through X Rays, ultrasounds,fetal images, EEG of the brain etc). This transition in level (i.e., the domain of limbs, organs and tissues) to the molecular level (i.e.., at the level of molar the from century nineteenth the to comparison in changed had century twentieth the medicalthe individual stillattention on was bodies,thegazeinspatialized lastthe of quarter courts for law be courts the executed. to with the institution of 125) [italics ininstantiates significancethe framework original]. He on this body the within individual liberties subjection tosovereignbearer power andof both of “ the discussed and of politics new subject the body as orthe medico-juridicalAgamben discussesthe‘corpus’ the thus well.extendedto domain as well This being as isolated. subjection of body the juridicalnot limitedwas to law but alone law as tothe subjected being both thebody through about came Thisfor. care be cared had to anonymous life of Withinpeople. individual thisframework, bodies within population the In this new era of molecular biopolitics, doctors gain In thisnew inmolecular eraof doctors biopolitics, to and arefound prominence p.15) 2007, (Rose, to politics. open become has itself with processes that previously did andcombined properties andaccorded not controlled, may bemobilized, oflife elements exist. At this molecular level, that molecular in whichsuch the nowconcernsall ways biopolitics” Molecular “(...) is to say, life Nicholas Rose in his book on Thus, for democracy to work, it had to be located on individual bodies, i.e., bare p.124-125). 1995, (Agamben, body to thecareofthis assume law compelling by tothisdesire democracy responds habeas corpus habeas which which individualrequired bodies be presentedto in the The Politics Life of Itself 11 corpus atwo-facedbeing,the as (2007)arguedthatalthough ” (Agamben,p. 1995, CEU eTD Collection within thebiopolitical framework. (Re)production is therefore importantan in ingredient be andcorrected. altered not neededto which did While bodies which adhered notionsto normalityof were integrated within the state, the ones and government. as bodiesthe be of state came consideredthe but to alone bodies natural be to ceased Thusindividuals waslocated. state of the politics spaceswherethe the considered was evaluatedlife bare which in normalisation of processes to subjected thus were bodies Individual bodies. in terms haveof a controlits overvalue this populationdiverted its attention fromor individual bodies to that worth.of thethe population. However,gaze in order to of the stateThe had tobodies be still fixed blur.as enhancementseemed to onof individual individualsplausible to correct were and alter bodies therefore asbut the boundaries also between treatment, at just levelcorrectionthe not organs of be at traced could the abnormalities Further, aswell.and corrections as levelwell of alterations include has been compoundedto function medicine the biopolitics, of molecular chromosomes of age in the body, normative the to adhere to people helping and bodies in abnormalities and genesWhereas,in arrestingwork medicine16-17). earlier times, towards wasknownto etc. Therefore, it was now considered the programmatic level by certain presuppositions about human beings” about bycertain programmaticpresuppositions the level instruments,knowledges, persons, systemsjudgment, buildings of andspaces, underpinned at comprised notjust of andequipment techniques,also but included “hybrid assemblages of Thetechnology evidenceimpetus. on the gaveitused an of added genes and chromosomes lives protectingare worth andwhich Theare not. claims made bymedicine which were based orrathernot, which livingarbitersjustice whichlivesareworth andwhich decidingare of on which were earlier not considered their domain. They are therefore considered the new The ‘abnormal’ can also be evaluated from The ‘abnormal’from also beevaluated can lensof the andproductivity reproductivity Through this biopolitical framework we can thus see the trajectory of how the state 12 (sic) (Rose, 2007,p. (Rose, CEU eTD Collection certainin taboo be actually may woman a homosexual cultural or woman single a of womb functioning contexts.more valued if it belongs to a woman who is in a heterosexual monogamous marriage.States A isalso In womb certain the reproduce. cultures willing arenot to or cannot who others over often decide womenfirst may have who of all a functioningreproduce, womb alsoand bewilling must to which argument, itwouldsurmisebe easyto this that logicwombs of hierarchizesreproduction certain to revereleading toand procreation whichwomb,to the but space itself. Therefore, womb the inquestionmust beafunctioning one, and thereforenot to. the expansion(Miller, 2007). In addition,of the ‘population’.Miller bearing entity draws asa rights for foetus the arguing not she is womb, the indiscussing that attention not to Drawingthe person who isfrom shefoetus, clarifies the debateson of thethe Mindful for biopolitics. space paradigmatic as the ownerher of the Millerrights. (2007)develops theideas andof Foucault Agamben forand womb the argues not. are which those over reproductive and homosexual, over heterosexual of colour, overpeople bodies malee.g. female bodies healthy over bodies, unhealthy, white over able-bodied disabled, over considered more productive and areprioritisedtherefore within modesthese production, of are bodies Certain and sexuality. race of sex, gender categories heteronormative reinforces and not are that those and (re)productive able, healthy, are that bodies between distinctions modesin capable of make of part of taking Discourses capitalist production. productivity recognised as a productive being,the transsexual body must constitute a working body assubjects viablemembers and not) society of (or be reinforce relations. To exploitative influence suggestsmodes thatcapitalist of construction transsexual of production often the to transsexual notion Irving theproductivity people.of He with respect (2008)discusses deciding human beings in of theworth his processes the article,In of governmentality. Dan The of politics reproduction majoralso plays a rolein of citizenshipdiscussions and 13 CEU eTD Collection others justothers with power the of reproduction? thereproduction Does babiesof whichare much as revered as Are wombs with these a disability? /or intersex and which areeither possesses Further, afunctioning thatreproducebabiesthis howdoes womb? position wombs if she even woman able-bodied an as empowered equally she Is disability? aphysical with intersex body then get counted incapableas of giving birth anandto rearing babies, abnormal? even if that may notbe the case) fit? Does the Howconsidered be may or do potential we reproductive the have positionnot either may (which body intersex the body of a woman functioningthe does based of alegitimate womb, where the possession empowered status on have more normal and acquireda healthy andwomen appear to andpopulations, reproduce people whose disabilities? with biopolitical In main modern the isstate produce purpose to “artificial p.149)wombs” (Miller, and 2007, aregranted citizenship status. acquire men that consent women’s the is through it Thus, womb. functioning legitimate a a secondary status. to They in only gain power areinpossession when a woman of they with just their own family but also the entire species. Within this framework, men have to conform significant players in this system as they possess the wombs. They become the carriers “makelet die”, live in become as and ideology shift women with centre the biopolitical the of not wombs therefore gain theirthrough power ability procreate. to “women Thepeople (Miller, political in 2007, p.152). are the actors” of these possession linkagehealth between and womb the the the population of the framework and within this just responsiblecommunities. Thewomb becomesthus bearerof the one’s isethnicity and not nationality. It in reproducing and races cultures, countries, different across wombsdiffers of valuation and hierarchization Therefore,one’s family but an entire wombs population. of Millercertain draws the communities are valued more than the others. This I would now like to draw our attention to where does this leave intersex and people leavewhere this does to drawlike attention our to now I would in reproductive the extentsexualandlegislation Millerare put further to argues that 14 CEU eTD Collection intersex people as well as people with disabilities wholike the refugees, are notconsidered at citizenshipideas to extend about Miller’s like my to Iwould In thesis, of context citizenship. ideas Miller in integrity arguesthat meaningful become andbodily consent of the only citizens. as other of rights beholders considered equal not as may whoare be(who adults) refugees including consent butalso others incapable of are considered simply who children isit not that people’s attention logic bring to the and complicate a refugee of to example levels theirmaturity of and ageareconsideredHowever,Miller incapable usesthe of consent. of because who non-citizens or citizens from partial consent full of are capable who citizens being bodily She as integrity possessedof p.6). a (Miller,elaborates by distinguishing 2007, status biological acitizen’s with collides individual consenting a as status political citizen’s (Miller,political structures Sheisin 2007,p.6). looking interested waysthe in at which a sexual, twin asthe and integrity consent andbodily of pillars appropriate work reproductive, andreproductive health sexual playsof population asignificantrole.the Shearguesthat politics to biopoliticsconstruction law-boundof abstract, the citizen (Miller,p.2). Within 2007, from shiftthis where the in than rather citizen, flesh-bound the physical, the of construction the in focus tools as stitching is more on the life or the health of of enjoy citizens.other equal rights the population, not do therefore who as thelessercitizens and considered and discrimination marginalization people who do not fit into they intofit parameters ofbeing and fitthesein healthy, able-bodied, binary. themale/female The parameters of normalcy are thus subjected to beneed answered. to processes of questions that Thesearesignificant by thesewombs? with any further reproduction women intersex and/or with a disability put these wombs under the scanner? Does this discourage Miller (2007) discusses rights and citizenship as “instrumentsand ofcutting, splicing and rights citizenshipas Miller (2007)discusses if normal considered therefore are bodies certain framework biopolitical the Within 15 CEU eTD Collection direct their energies towards other women. other towards energies their direct for men to have right on womenphysically, economically and emotionally. To counter this, sheHeterosexuality urges women and to Lesbian Existence as ofthemselves process rendering in continuous people are the in Intersex society. reiterated intersex genitals) variant idea the that (with people of‘perfect’ isformedgenitals and of the original idea isthe that copy the of presence is in the it and the original copy precedes the that discusses formed. By the samewith logic, disabilities it could be held that who it areis in originalthe excluded destabilisingthus thenotion theof which precedes other.the presence fromof becomesandin turn original precedesthe (heterosexuality) copy therefore (homosexuality) the realm of heterosexualitydiscourse. is the Inoriginalits thus derivatives, inits to arguing position only opposition original claims that the her onlyargument, so far as it presupposeshomosexuality Butler ashomosexuality the copy. She complicates as its copy. the position The of the original as prior to copy by 3 heterosexuality of notion compulsory the She debates original. the notion of the produce to iterativestrategies of set a and animitation gender as about copy. talks the She of theconcept of analysis focusesthe on in text this argument inexist lawin either in or name of terms lesbianism. Shefocusesactual on prohibition. Her acts of prohibition but also through the constitution of “unviable un(subjects)” who do not relywouldlike ideas just to works noton Butler’s (1993) directthat oppression of through normal.the Here I giveidea about to an abnormal the exists procedures, andnormalisation whichthat is normal and thereforewithin this framework which through operates regulation affirm to helps abnormal the of presence The abnormal. the of presence the on heavily leans I will elaborate on this in chapter five of my study. of normalfit andhealthypopulation. citizens parameters the donot par with other asthey the The concept of compulsory heterosexuality was introduced by Adrienne Rich in her essay in her Rich by Adrienne introduced was heterosexuality of compulsory concept The I think this argument could be extended to include intersex as include aswell intersex people people be to extended could argument I think this It is significant at this juncture to also acknowledge that the biopolitical framework biopolitical the that acknowledge also to juncture at this is significant It (1980) whichin she argues that the institution of heterosexuality allows 16 3 posited as the original and Compulsory CEU eTD Collection within within may beor by impacted framework. biopolitical the of debates the surrounding them. Inaddition, discuss Ialso how intersex people may infit some to attention bring and people intersex about overview brief a give I chapter, next the In normal while relegating all others as abnormal subjecting them to corrections and alterations. some hierarchize toclassify as bodies,deeming executed and various on whole populations abnormal. the and normal the being ends logic normalization theideaa binary normalization. two through with alsoworks of This person. Thus, itis the presence of the normal as well as the abnormal that lends to the logic of able-bodied ‘normal’ the of idea the formulate to helps that disabilities physical with people there wouldbe no existence of male/female as the original. Similarly,is it the presence of the copy, as intersex of for existence the if not it were Therefore, female identities. male or either Biopolitics thus forms an important frameworkBiopolitics an thusforms important tounderstand regulatory ishow power 17 CEU eTD Collection one of the reasonsprobably is This could. thatgender whereas be changed, influenced not could sex how of analysis an about doctors and sexologists suchgender differencebehaviour aboutthe andAwareness roles. betweensexandgenderbrought as John Money to carry out by genitaliabe ‘appropriate’ should followed ‘correct’ presenceof the supposing that could also beunlearned (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). gender behaviour could be learned and therefore gender differences between men and women weredifferent, female functions male and reproductive thatalthough feminists stressed categories, two between the difference the popularized sexologists whereas sex and gender; in between 1970saswellfeministsemphasized this unlearned.the Sexologists difference also be therefore and learned could be gender fixed, to considered sex Whereas was largely as understood sociologicalthe and psychological processofbeing aman awoman.or has been ofa gender person, attributes as anatomical or biological the has been understood sex Whereas asdifferentconcepts. been have understood gender sexand fewdecades, last the 2004),over performances sex (Colligan, between and gendered relation assumed linear is an there Although decision. social a as body the gendering that and process complex vagina, clitoris for females? Is it thepresencemale of genitals such penis, foras males testes andfemale genitals suchas afemale? abiologicalmaleor constitutes what male afemale. However, being a or to either maketo them medicalmanagement adhere necessitates binary troubles and therefore sex the female. When a person is born with genitals that2.1 Positioning intersex people within the sex/gender paradigm do not fit in as eitherChapter 2: Intersex people within biopolitics male or female, it Sex and genderareoften in considered a linearrelationship for people almost pre- In her book, peoplefit maleinGender to norms necessitate neatboundaries being either or of Sexing theBody , Fausto-Sterlingdetermining (2000)talks about sex as a 18 CEU eTD Collection can be shaped by the socialization process, he nevertheless found it important that the child the that important it found nevertheless he process, by socialization the can beshaped and with born is one sex the of independent be may behaviour gender that believed Money key role in impacting human behaviour. determinantof human behaviour, model the social thatsociety construction argues plays a construction model.While model the biological determinism of biology that asserts is a key social the and determinism between biological debates somethe of instantiates example biological sex a personinfluencedof aperson’s not gender and socialisationthe This process. prove that the to Diamond this case asamale. was reassigned used andperson surgery, this treatment hormonal After 1998). (Kessler, years 14 ageof the at malesex the to converted he that be hadidentity heand requested gender never the female that had accepted reported and boy a as living then was who later, years girl the found Diamond Milton researcher, sex another However, brother. twin her than different quite was and agirl of behaviour infant model that the genderwas abletodevelop asMoney the determinism reported by the biologicalwas ablowgenderconstructionismsocial of to model considered rear him as a girl as well aseffected undertook through multiplebe could gender his in a change aboy, a born change was child the if even corrective that believed Money in the waysurgeries he was reared. on the behaviour toexplore and influence the of andbiology He socializationchild. the Inthisprocess. case, advised The casethe child’s parentsshedwould helpto lighton whether identical twins could differentgender develop rolesand also to therefore and was anidentical twin infant the as interesting particularly was considered identity inhis theKessler absence of penis(Kessler,this 1998). that case (1998)discusses The premise of the case was that the boy would not be able to develop a normal male gender femalereassign on gender borna biologically male whosepenis asurgery.was cut off during experiments oninfants. In a much in publicised case 1972, Money a conducted surgery to This case in question presents a number of interesting points to ponder about. While about. ponder to points interesting of number a presents in question case This 19 CEU eTD Collection male and female. of categories neat oft-perceived the between overlaps the and confusion the out bring females Spain, asmale being tested when all livestheir they had perceived themselves asbeing from from (Fausto-Sterling,Soundarajan pp.1-2) Maria Patino 2000, 2008) or (Saner, India asSanthi such sports-persons, and athletes several of Examples female. the and/or male the constitutes what of definitions clear-cut give to difficult increasingly is It individuals. these person to determine the sex, gender identification today is dependent on a plethora of tests on check theexternal okay genitalia Whereasof a to itwas considered (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). nowdecades haveundergochromosomal andqualify they to to female asmale tests or few last the over changed has This sex. their of determination the for committee the of Forexample,parade nakedsports. hadin competitors until the Olympics 1968 the toinfront of field in the is apparent becomes evolution this in which contexts the of One levels person. the of chromosomal and hormonal the to organs external the of level the from i.e., molecular, the of domain from in to biopolitics molar the the can further transition beevidencedwith the (ISNA, 2011).The prerequisites ofbeing afemale amaleor have evolved with time. This variations anatomical forms of have subtler who people numberof far greater area there that is contended it intersex, as births thousand two or hundred fifteen in every one mention 2.2 Intersex people:Thepolitics of naming in enhancedfurther intersex caseof the people. constructionto the it whetherof sex.isgender or genderthatconstructs Thiscomplexity is leads is it whether sex that with each other, relationship sex inacomplex are gender and that beit argued can gender, of person’s the determination the leads to sex one’s not Whether or gender. person’s the of determination its and person the of biology the on primacy more perform behaviour. hand,his Diamond, possess the other gender to allowed penis the on Intersex people have always been part of been medical Intersex havealways part of population.people the experts Although 20 CEU eTD Collection together as an identity intersexof group people toprotest againstmedical (mis)management mobilised havefemale, they male fix aseitheror altered them to or corrected been may have variance sexual their people, intersex many for Although arena. international in the rights assert their to together people arecoming intersex of associations and intersex people with working organisations terminology used, irrespective the of However, medical discourses. and legal the on chapter the in organisations intersex by used terminology the about more discussing be will I ‘intersex’. of terminology the use to chooses Australia in organisation wouldbeHowever, Organisation reduced. Intersex an (OII-Australia), International to, subjected areoften intersex people that stigmatisation and marginalisation itself, the disorder tothe in focus the shifting that believe people. They on not the itself and disorder the is on focus the that doing in that believe they as (DSD) development’ sex of ‘disorders as ISNA and Accord Alliance in which is notthe casethe alarge for Organisations numberintersex of (ISNA,such 2011). people USA choose to address intersex‘hermaphrodite’ signifies thepeople simultaneous presence of both male andas female characteristicspeople with term for them. The a factual description isnot ‘hermaphrodite’ term the that contend in theUSA hasbeeninvolvedwhich in initiatives severaladvocacy aroundissues, intersex many intersex including of Americagroups Society Intersex North (ISNA), an organisation of male orfemale asintersex. fall categories beingin the areconsidered between People who 1998). Kessler, (Fausto-Sterling,penetrate 2000; beingable to requisite of size grow tothe potential the to penis or size requisite hadthe person as maleifthe person givedepending ability on when to person’s birth the similarly they older; a would consider child is male or female.determine consideration importantthe areoften whether to birth, reproductiveabilities an Doctors and sexologists have often considered a person as female Intersexuality has also been termed as hermaphroditism (Kessler, 1998). However, 1998). hermaphroditism (Kessler, as been termed hasalso Intersexuality With the advent of hospitals and clinics and interventions to fix intersex children at children intersex fix to interventions and clinics and hospitals of advent the With 21 CEU eTD Collection aware of their intersex state till they seek medical help for their infertility etc. Therefore, itis Therefore, etc. infertility for help their till seek medical they state intersex aware of their being without lives their through live people intersex many that is possible It womb. the (ISNA, 2011).Some of them may have been exposed to an unusual mix of hormones in while born with mosaicindividuals be may There make-up. chromosomal their or genetics levels hormonal their on depending so that some of their of labia molecular (ISNA,2011).Atthe level, people maybe asintersex categorised chromosomes are maywho beborn XXwithout avaginal boysopening and maybe whose scrotum dividedlike that and the rest as XY There aregirlsKarkazis, 2008). 1998, Kessler, bymanydocumented 2000, (Fausto-Sterling, disciplines. The use of a phallometerof a clitoris or a penis bydiffer doctorsacross time, contexts, tocountries determine as well as doctors from different large clitoris and boys whothe maybe born with a tiny penis. The notions of length perfectthe sex of an infant has been not match the sex of the external genitalia. There are biological girls who maydo that organs havebereproductive female internal but a of or borna male genitalia external perfect with a stereotypesthe fit not may that of genitalia external with beingbe born not may who people of consist may it a male or a female. There may also be othersface. people intersex that and discrimination marginalisation the who may be born with perpetuates of terminology bipolarity such sex system. The usage binary the of affirms the contains value judgmentsmadeby whethertheorists consciously unconsciously or and instead ‘ambiguity’. of The term ‘ambiguity’ meansvaguenesswhich confusion or again of the For purpose thesisthis be Iwill usingKessler’s ‘variability’p.8) terminology (1998, of binary. fit p.5) intersexuality 1998, sex (Kessler, to the into at “correctable” individuals as these infantthrough surgeries The medical 1998). (Kessler, however community look continues to Intersex as a category is difficult to define. At the molar level, or the level of levelmolar or organs, level, the of define.At the to is difficult as Intersex a category Someintersex definitions of define people ambiguous themaspeople genitals. with 22 CEU eTD Collection pressure to make a decision about the gender of the person. There is usually a team of doctors awhilearrivetake most to and till parents and immense caregivers experience other then results may involved. Thesetest person genderof the about the make decisions conclusive alignments in the chromosomal, hormonal and gonadal make-up of the person in order to tofind conducted the out are tests atbirth. there Further, other females areusually detected strictly female. Thosegenetic, born with external chromosomal genitalia that do ornot appearhormonal2.2 Thedecision processmaking as ‘normal’ levels males or dochallenging ways our of thinking in simplistic sex binaries. not adhere thereby female or male strictly being to adhere not does that make-up hormonal or and/ to beingchromosomal a have or female nor male eitherstrictly being neither to conform that genitals with strictly male or relationship between sex and gender,sexlike genderis also socially determined. complex Within this (ISNA, 2011). variation” realbiological reflects category that being amale,femaleintersex or is socially determined. “Intersex is asocially constructed govern what kinds of organs, hormones or chromosomes people are born with, the status of beingthat Whereas may maleorfemale isnot acategory biology bynature. predetermined indicates also intersex for definition a common across coming in instability This disciplines. sex and gender justice. regardingdecisions of of acquire thus status arbiters professionals However, who the also differ medical on still rests and rested achild to sex assigning of decision years,the the over across medical doctorsmayit even not be advisable. withindifficultif not impossiblethe to come to a decision regarding a definitionsame for intersex people and discipline or across As discussed above, intersex people are those who either due to their gonadal, to due either who those are people intersex above, As discussed For the purposes of my study, Iconsider intersex people as those who are either born Although of process the determining sex and genderoninfants may have changed 23 CEU eTD Collection parameters of so-called ‘normal’ bodies or suffer thethe possibilitiesinto fit to has body of being that left but outbody of functioning a have to sufficient considered not is therefore It female. and male of binaries the within bodies the fixing and mind in aesthetics infants with onintersex most areconducted corrective surgeries individuals. However, for aninterestingpeople mayhavefunctioning other most Intersex study. bodies as gender. and sex their about consent informed an make can person the when postponed be if any, interventions, surgical that recommend They necessary. deemed be may that those except involved person the of consent the without for interventions nosurgical advocate openly as OII-Australia aswell Alliance Accord as such intersexorganisations ISNA, Manyinternational & 2006). experienceBhatia, (Warne the of recollections minimum have would they so lives in their earlier surgeries the their late childhood or adolescent years unequivocally mentioned that they would have liked had in surgeries genitals hadgenital who with in ontenadults ambiguous recentstudy India A intervention. require not anymedical may as aperson and activities therefore with other status for a long time male afemale or Some peoplebe (Karkazis, may 2008). aware intersex not of intersex their until they adequate an for areis enough exposure tested. androgen much how clear not still is it woman the of Being intersex in medical community most importance the realizes of a ‘normal’ hormonal inenvironment uterus the casesthe While doesperson. the of level hormonal the and not level chromosomal the of interfereimportance the acknowledges increasingly identity, community medical determination sexual the the of tests. of the results the by going gender the about decision a to come they and etc psychologists urologists, decideto the genderassignmentof babyconsistingthe of endocrinologists, paediatrics, The intentionsinterventions behind and corrective surgeries intersexon people make factor inAlthough of of isanimportant appearance the external the genitaliaa person 24 CEU eTD Collection decision-making process (Frader et al., It 2004). is (Frader et very decision-making from process littleevident that studies these ‘cosmetic’ surgeries havethey undertaken when not participatedid anopportunity in to the number of the respondents reported a lower study,al.,In another a et 2003). clitoralundergo surgery (Minto not respondents whodid level of sexual responsiveness as a surgery had higherratesonnon-sensuality andinability achieveresultto orgasms than 10 the of the whohadclitoral 18respondents the It wasalsoet al.,2003). that (Minto observed difficulties sexual had them of all and active sexually were them of 28 enrolled, respondents individuals,analyse clitoral surgery of on of 39 the sexual the of effect the outcome individuals In sexual retained theirstudy to a cross-sectional responsiveness. conducted see if to the important not was it female male or perfect the for aesthetics of attainment females, the For by testes. accompanied penis for the size have right the hadto it male, for a Thus, clitoris individuals were closehad whatto was considered the right measurements for amale or afemale. to adhere to the right genderthe in which individualsthese were being raised. size accompaniedmatched external genitalia the that itwas important consideration, into istaken individuals the potential of After reproductive the for has same. the latter if capacity the individual, bythe theintersex the of vagina. potential reproductive the retaining on stressed issues intersex on working In the note John fewfirstmedical of is experts to that the one Money, activity. interesting It sexual penetrative penile-vaginal inhetero-normative participate be ableto erectable to is and penis the of size right the have they is whether parameter important the however, men For gender. feminine the conform to to get person the made to are efforts procreate, to is able female asawoman. reproductivea had the person of can organs andthe person If reproduce processes of governmentality. Decisions could also be guided by the idea of whether the It was also vital that the size and the measurements of the external genitalia of the 25 CEU eTD Collection doctors becausedoctors there something unusual hasbeen found abouttheir (ISNA, bodies 2011). notice of the to come intersex people Most identity. gender their have about doubts not inand theirsexidentity conflict consider intersexmost with their genderidentity, do people informed choice on one’s own. make untilget not an personcan to childoperated intersex theirhave the parents opted cases where also are There time. with evolved have also and countries across differ however, surgeries throughtheirlivesbeing without informed aboutthem.protocols Treatment choose genital surgery. Manyof them genitalundergo surgeries at birth andhave multiple to right the enjoy not do often people intersex interventions, other among surgery genital a have to opt may people transgender Whereas consent. of that is groups two the between distinction of point important an However, assignment. sex of procedures and surgery/ies genital undergo aregoing or to of, undergone are desirous have who well, aspeople as in samegroup theymaybeclustered the andin by societies certain nation states, treated 2.3 Intersections withindiscourses oftransgender people and intersexpeople interventions. medical of affordability the and family by alsoinfluenced be itbe ofthe socio-economicthe quite condition also expensive, could can assignment and sex determination of these processes because aswell. addition, In factors sons within the society, for is a preference India there where as such in example, countries For contexts. economic sex determinationchange as well acrossas assignment different could times, be guided geographical by are conducted. these contexts,attention is paid towards the sexualas responsiveness of the intersex wellpeople after these surgeries as diverse socio-cultural and Also, although transgender people are usually born in typically male or female bodies are in howthey people transgender with share commonalities also people Intersex and very complex of sex are often assignment and determination for The parameters 26 CEU eTD Collection marginalising others. while some people which hegemonicprivilege binary systems and and strengthen whereas the others may not. Irving (2008) suggests that these systems of normalisation create norms. Some may eventually fitinto the sex and the gender categories allotted to them causingperform imperative destabilising societal that any without disruption gender or the bodies functional make aremade to Efforts gender. specific normstheir of to adhere thereby in general look at ways of getting the intersex bodies to conform to male/female five.chapter norms and in processes indetail be aseugenicswhichIwill of genetic aswell engineering discussing alsopower eliminating works towards chancesreproducing of moreintersex through people ismuchthere emphasis onfixingindividual bodies through regulatory disciplinary power, While genitals. their of fit genderstereotypes madethe is to behaviour also Their gender surgeons began to intervene to make themWhereas conform to being a largestereotypical majority males Intersex be people medicalized thus beganto birth. 2000). (Fausto-Sterling, and‘fixed’ at or females. of intersex peopleborn are as they assoon corrected surgically are they as disappear neither/both” - “either/or do not need any kind were abnormal ofinand therefore need ofcorrection (Fausto-Sterling,Infants born 2000). with surgery, doctors andauthority not just to decide about ailments and framework 2.4 Intersexpeoplewithinthebiopolitical treatments but also framework. to biopolitical a decide within disability with which bodiesintersections their and people intersex to thesis my of focus the limit will I societies, within marginalised andare nature, of anomalies being both as they share commonalities Although Along with the medical community, families of intersex people as well society the as aswell people intersex of families community, medical the Along with As an disciplineorganized by latenineteenththe century, began biology gain to the 27 CEU eTD Collection Sterling, 2000). However, whether or not they are biologically able to reproduce, therenot isan whetherbiologically they ableto or However, 2000). are Sterling, male make person the (Fausto- would along female characteristics with presence of testes the female andsimilarly a person considered the would get characteristics masculine number of a alongside iftheyexist even of ovaries presence in The relationship. a sexual penetrator men being For significant it perform being reproductive. be to would rolethe the of by as a fulfil herworth woman isableto a female into ifshe is converted The person beings. convert an intersex infant intoa male or a female body so as to make them into(re)productive neat stereotypicalduring theirlifetime) for the removal someof of these reproductive organs tomake them into males several (once or on times been have manyoperated who are fertile, there and are organs or reproductive the with females.be born may who Of those not. may others many reproduce, to ability Doctors the with born be may them of some While procreate. to able being of function the lack may often considerlogic disable-ed. While they may be perfectly functioning bodies in most ways, some of them it theirthe lens of reproduction. Intersex people, who are often considered ‘notcomplete’, are by that moral imperativearound which wereinstituted.formed parameter important an normalisation procedures the to productivity and their society the contribution to and state.Thus, the people’s productivity their their worth, to according hierarchized and classified People thus assessed, are p.144). mechanisms by“distributing thelivingin the valuedomain of and 1990, utility”(Foucault, 1990, p.141).This productivity is ensuredbyboth disciplinary as well regulatory as economic production and population istowards the (Foucault, other the on processes geared for used being constantly are bodies individual hand one the on where society capitalist is productive anindispensableof malesor(re)productive females.Biopower component the constantly being made to fix intersex people at birth to make them conform to being either Another importantAnother component in determining people’s productivity would be through However, within biopolitics with its emphasis on normalisation, attempts are attempts normalisation, on emphasis its with biopolitics within However, 28 CEU eTD Collection well atas look the disabled body within biopoliticalthe framework. bodies’ as ‘freak or ‘theabnormals’ bodies as‘monsters’ aroundthe disabled perceptions the considered as disabled and disempowered. thus mendependent on and reproduce healthy babies, ability bodiesintersextheir own to could be and is men women’s status status of framework enjoy a superior patriarchy Withinwhere this some women in owning afunctioning womb beand the carriers of an entire population. being born as ‘perfect’are not considered males, at leastmales, not fully so. Not only may they lack masculine power in not they may also aswellthey toincludeintersex inferred people This be could p.149). as not-male” (2007, not be able to claim footnote to this argumentshethe ‘women’ toinclude expands “transsexuals anyone –or defined secondary power ofwomen have acquired a political identity, they have to conform masculineto stereotypes. In a that extent tothe that male. Sheargues is also incidentally who citizen” neutral “normative lack one. of power holding they the atthat, one functioning and aperfectly berefta ‘womb’ reproduce.of in and possibility the Thus, therefore not owningto awomb implicit assumption that they lack reproductive abilities. They may therefore be considered as In the next chapter, I will be briefly looking at some of the discourses on disability, the as relationship sovereign liberal in a player significant most the discusses Miller 29 CEU eTD Collection acquiring certain benefits from the state, should the state identify the particular condition as a disability,many may not.others While identifying as a person with disability may help in body. and‘able’ ‘normal’ onthe and in debates the locating discussions am interested exclusion. However,in this thesis, Iwill be focussing on people with physical disabilities as I social face considerable and under-researched areoften intellectual disabilities People with of one ormore disability. presence the and sexuality location, class,age, geographical caste, race, gender, across varies disabilities of experience the Also, individual. every to unique is disability of experience The contexts. and countries different across debated is a disability considered be can diabetes or HIV/AIDS whether example, For in others. so be considered not may they regions, certain in adisability may be considered conditions Whereastime as vary certain as region.across well positingit as a dynamicprocess and phantasmatic insome ways. of Definitions disability intragedy in India (2002)refutes imagethe 1984. Shildrick of body the as static instead inenvironmental hazards theChernobyl disaster such as Bhopal the in1986or Ukraine gas with disabilities. inthenumberof people War therewas increase World the a considerable II, example after aging, many through accidents due may to orfightinginothers disabilities acquire wars.For Still composition or their genetic through mayacquireadisability some Whereas lifetime.their others during acquiredisabilities many be others disability whereas people born with a certain may acquire2006). Therearemany(Silverberg, of kinds –physicalintellectual.disabilities and Some disabilities – 3.1 Disability A briefOverview dueChapter 3: Disability to natural disasters, as well as Disability is also a matter of identity. Whereas one may identify as a person with a person as identify may one Whereas identity. of matter a also is Disability others. than and facemore discrimination stigma disabilities certain with People be assuch not treated andmust a homogenous group not are disabilities People with 30 CEU eTD Collection within the social model. According to thewithincould UPIAS,whileimpairment model.be defined as According theto social inmovement Unitedthe Kingdom since 1972, wasinstrumental in positioning disability Against important Segregation an organisation(UPIAS), working on disability the rights thePhysically Impaired The Union of p.570). 2004, (Thomas, one singular insteada of disability of sociologies multiple of presence the of indicative is two the between distinction the inequality; social some as well as suffering entails that impairment bodily the and illness socialone talks about inequities and other domain the oppression, physical talks aboutthe limitedface becauseof participation. access they and andmarginalisation social exclusion the but disability the causes that itself impairment bodily the or physical the not is it view, can feel equally disabled the worldwithin hearing-impaired.the of According tothis world hear well aperson whocan fact, impaired. hearingIn are who people homeat other amongst may feelcompletely they in world with although interpreter hearing the a sign accompanied not if disabled feel may impairment hearing with aperson Similarly disabilities. with people of needs varied the accommodate donot or elevators no either have which buildings nolimitedaccess isbut or having to disabling not awheelchair theof that actis using the manyin feelstructural disabling create society. Forexample, itconditions that problems systemicthe and but disability, causes the that itself handicap or the impairment the not is it that contend activists Some disability conditions. their disabling accentuate sometimes these some people do not want to be identified as one with disability. uniqueness itindividuals. of Further, expands unilinear notions reasons For of ability. such as This view acknowledges diversity amongst people and their and abilities recognises others. than able’ ‘differently but disabled being as identify not do also people Many society. in discrimination and stigma to people subject also may process identification this disability, There are thus two separate domains that discuss the sociology of disability. Whereas of disability. thesociology discuss that domains separate two thus There are society within face disabilities with people that discrimination and stigma The 31 CEU eTD Collection recognition of disabilities in laws and policies forms a significant element of advocacy. of element significant a forms policies and laws in disabilities of recognition Therefore, from state. the andwelfare benefits helps acquire laws policies and international and national in disability Framing contexts. and time with changing keep policies and laws into translations their and disability of definitions Thus, disorder. health mental a considered associations in many countries including India. However, homosexuality islonger no Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and resultantly by and the mental healthDiagnostic the under Association Psychological American the by disorder mental laws and policies of a state define it. For example,2004). homosexuality was earlierdisability,itwould beimportant todeal multiple bio-psycho-socialwith factors (Thomas, considered a of theory an adequate address To disabilities. impact with people that factors cultural a theory of disability thatdisability is often ignored,gives if not negated. Critics of the social model of disability duethus call foror importanceimpairment the of physicality the exclusion, and inequities social the to toimportance bodily impairment as welldisabilities (Thomas, 2004,p.573).Themedical model believesdisability of thatin according as the socio- Watson whoargue that bodilythe andimpairments disability impactalso people with and Shakespeare such as by disability experts critiquedhas been impairmentheavily physical of disability’ by Mike Oliver (Inahara, 2009, p. 51). model coinageto the phrase ‘social the of leading thus insocial of activities” mainstream the participation from them excludes thus and impairments physical have who people of account no or little which takes social organization by a contemporary caused activity of restriction or disadvantage “the as defined was disability mechanisms)”, psychological (including “lacking part or all of a limb or having a defective limb, organ or mechanism of the body Whether a certain condition qualifies as a disability or not also depends upon how the notalso upon depends conditionWhether qualifiesasadisability or a certain The emphasis on social ramifications of disability while denying the effects of 32 CEU eTD Collection the society’s ideas about normality and ability. In ways that female sexuality has been has sexuality female that ways In ability. and normality about ideas society’s the meaning totheidea of itisdisability, also presencethe of disabledbodiesthe which shapes gives bodies ‘normal’ of presence the as much as culture, binary a of kind this In disability. to the ‘able-bodied’lacking andisfound binary within vs. this categorical system of ability 3.2 Monsters and Freaks methods, and expectations offunctioning” (WHO & Worldthe Bank,2011,p.21). conditions, collection data sources, health design,reporting question definitions, –the factors environmental related restrictions, participation limitations, activity impairments, – examined of disability aspects the disability, of conception the data, the of application and purpose the to according vary of disability measures “Operational so far. it have ratified n.d). Around148countries intotal conventionare signatories tothe and 100countries around a ‘fixed’Nations, (United not one andtherefore concept’ isit an‘evolving recognises that mind their own needs anddisabilities. This isconvention as itunique framed by was with people disabilities keeping in requirements. The Assembly inconvention need for aseparate the for December 2006recognising people with definition of disabilityPersons within thewith convention of Rights the on Nations Convention the United through internationally were recognised Disabilities (UNCRPD) which disabilities. with was adoptedconsiderably lower incountries offerwhich nosubsidies additional benefits foror people by the Unitedemployment. Initiatives toinclude acertain condition as a disability would perhapsbe Nations Generalincentives on such as public anddiscounts transportation, in affirmative action education and recognise that in states higher be would disabilities as conditions certain include to initiatives disabilityAdvocacy as one of the parameters for distributing welfare benefits and other In the socio-politico-cultural context the disabled body is often positioned in relation from Apart laws national the level and policies, theneeds of people with disabilities 33 CEU eTD Collection referred to as ‘midgets’, fat people, hirsute people, hermaphrodites, people without limbs, without people hermaphrodites, people, hirsute fat people, as ‘midgets’, referred to people included whoarealso tall people,disabilities. short Theyhave conjoined twins, These bodiesextraordinary have included a variety of people including people with wouldhelp also the believe onlookers in and thenormalcy find solace of their bodies. own it but curiosity their aroused bodies these because only not often shows these visit to come infitdid normalcy theideas exhibited of not were infreakshows.Onlookers would often challenging notions of what it is to thus be world, human. human the and science between spaces the navigating when acyborg as viewed be could everyone how discusses Haraway article, In this 1991. in published Century’, Twentieth Late inthe Feminism 5 found lacking on those parameters. been has and sexuality male to relation in conceptualized been always has sexuality female how discusses she 4 cyborg of the representations more the contemporary to narratives from earliest monstrous the the of the concept discusses Shildrick (2002,p.1) speculation” 1996,p.1). (Garland-Thomson, ‘freaks’ they“defy the as mock anxiety ordinary and theboth exciting predictable, and Bodies‘deviant’. look differentwhich have beencalled asmonsters and more recently as fitwhichnot do image, this periphery. tothe promotes the idea of a singular image of a whole body and therefore relegates all other bodies It also others. the over bodies certain normalizes whole body of the thus and context the lacking. beseenonly within lackthe Thisideaof world seen asweakand can andtherefore atfrom isin looked thatdisability able-bodied (2009) herarticle lensof often the argues the a lack as sexuality female of notion the Just asIrigaray debates 2009). (Inahara, parameters basisable-bodied the on of conceptualized alsobeen has disability masculineparameters, of basis the on conceptualized This is in reference to Donna Haraway’s article on ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist- and Technology Science, Manifesto: Cyborg on ‘A article Haraway’s Donna to in reference is This This idea has beenborrowed from Luce Irigaray’s (1977)seminal work on ‘thesex which isnot one’ inwhich 5 Shildrick (2002)describes in freakshows heldthe wherein times earlier people who Disabled bodies have also been looked at from the lens of the ‘monstrous’ and the as a “deeply disruptive force”. asa “deeply disruptive 4 with regards to masculinist and patriarchal Inahara cultures, and patriarchal masculinist to with regards 34 CEU eTD Collection ‘natural’ concept but more of a cultural one, acquiring its meanings from what is considered from its more meanings what of but acquiring one, a cultural ‘natural’ concept projection in the presence of others it would be safe to state that the monstrous is not a finds it Because others. of reactions the to meaning inrelation its acquires butown right notion which is projected on the other. The idea of the monster does not therefore stand on its asa of monstrous the theconcept discusses (2002) bodies. Shildrick ‘normal’ so-calledother its freakishness it in was freak but from not, wasderived what to comparison was considered bodies judging of was parameters the through not thebody able-bodiedness.in It itself that freakas the considered wereoften People with disabilities p.4). given” 2002, (Shildrick, a parameter of the normallocated in the woman as opposed to the man, sometimes itbody. was race that played avital role as Thus, “all bodies freak the body andtime.Sometimes couldideas context across normalcy of be differed are discursively constructed rather than monstrous or freak body. being ‘abnormal’ wasthus of genitalia inaddition colour exhibited asone such to aperson have to was considered Baartman who body of Saartje museums.The aswell shows into body the andthusexhibited white infreak andbeenturned the a freak of colonial gaze to been various subjected also have backgrounds normalised from body.called People ethnic from may so- the they inhow of abilitydiffer but terms or of appearance linear definition Thomson,p.1). These 1996, exceptional bodies are categorised nottherefore any on uni- regulation”inspire incite and (Garland- presence “compel representation, explanation, very bytheir bodies, theexceptional or extraordinary The etc. lion-faced are people who Thus the body was an important location where politics of normalcy were played. The p.10). 1996, assume tobeafreakofnature wasinstead afreak of culture” (Garland-Thomson, Thus, whatwe the freak. figureof bythesinglemultivalent all –represented variation and disability as inextricable yet particular exclusionary systems legitimated by bodily aberrance, ethnicity, race, reinscribed gender, sexual also simultaneously exhibitions the embodied deviance, as an freak icon ofgeneralized the “By constituting 35 CEU eTD Collection with regardsdiffer also may Experiences differently. people impact and to affect also thedisabilities physical visibility Different of experiences. gendered of their meninterms than a disadvantage more at considered a particularbeen have Women disability. their with experiences same the have disability. disability same the with people two No differently. people Fordisadvantage however may Disability example,marginalisation. and the experiencesfaceWorld & social Bank, 2011).Peopledisabilities all exclusion over theworldthe with of a more than a billion people in the world who face some form of disability or the other (WHO 3.3 Disabilityand Biopolitical framework fixed and normalised. be and needed to therefore could be whichmeant then thiserror corrected 1996, p.3) that (Garland-Thomson, error” becomes ‘wonder Thus normal. the of notions society’s the with comply them fix andmake bodies to these methods the considered were often medicalization they gradually began tobeviewed asunusual Pathologizationand aberrant. and evenasspectacular, and from therefore lens mysterious of wereviewed the bodies the these marvellous the tothediscourse of deviant”the (Garland-Thomson, 1996,p.3).Thus, while moving p.2) of from “discourse the 1996, medical shows (Garland-Thomson, tothe theatre in discourse modern age the bodies begantobe these from pathologizedfreak andrelocated bodies have alsobeen with associated criminal behaviour. abnormalhow and to theatre evidence filmsalsoprovide in literature, villains andvamps of characters playing disabilities with people of presence The population. white than the in activities have higher criminal beenwith people participation of colour often associated behaviours linkingbodies’‘monstrous monster often with their Forexample, behaviours’. criminal with associated been also have bodies abnormal These is not. what and normal People with disabilities have always been part of the population. At present, there are there present, At population. the of part been always have disabilities with People scientific in the rise the with earlier, in mystery shrouded were bodies these While 36 CEU eTD Collection of of productivity within biopoliticalthe framework.Within this framework populationthe is could also be classified not just in terms of their appearance but also in terms andabilities.with varied capacities of their levels notion of single, fixed, able and normal body and instead highlight the multiplicities of bodies intoquestion the abnormal bodies call or vii). deviant p. These appearance” (Hall, 2002, reinforcethat dominant cultural norms raced,and of gendered, function classedbodily and docileinto bodies identity) of racial conceptions and gender (such as defining dominant those bodies, bodies that blurthreaten to underminebinaries and, thus, organizing ofsocial life transform deviant bodies seekto all intersexedcorrect to designed surgeries andgenital surgery, hearing aids,diet prosthetic andexercise regimes, limbs, Viagra, anti-depressants, cosmetic shoes, suchasorthopedic technologies unrelated “seemingly norms through these from deviate bodies on that and subjected are reinforced ofnormalization These processes heterosexuality compulsory classism, questionfeminist studiesideasnormalization to disability of patriarchy,within racism, undertaken correct andto fix bodiesbirth.disabled at normalization procedures be andguides possessed andcan body istherefore achievable This likelihoodgivespossession theimpression andable this 2009).that whole (Inahara, of wholenesswholeness therefore is an importantis criterion in order to be normalized. Further,valued this visibility on of normalization norm” of [italics (Inahara, 2009,p.53) in visibility original].of The the market and gives the impression of the likelihood of its which emphasizes on the male right overthe physical, mental and emotional access to women.the heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’ in 1994 in whichshe discusses heterosexuality as a violent institution 6 wheel chair. If is physical vieweddisability “it asabnormal is because from impairmentmay hearing person with be considerably uses a person different who a Adrienne Rich discussed the notion of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ inher article on ‘Compulsory People disabilities with dependingonthe nature and extent the of their disabilities by has been used discussedbyFoucault normalization The ideadisciplinary of 6 as well as compulsory able-bodiedness (Hall, 2002). 37 to beseen is modethe CEU eTD Collection expanding one’s family but also the nation’s population. It is important therefore to give birth give to therefore important is It population. nation’s the also but family one’s expanding from notjust is important frame, lensof the this procreation considered biopolitical nation’s population. Under the theof productivity kind thusdiminishing moretheir own of and whomayprocreate monstrous deviant they consideredas reproduce, are often capacity to notoften considered asbeing worthy Even of procreation. in cases they maywhere have the are the normalizing paradigm.with disabilities this constitute population according to People functioning with wombs of inpossession women functioning aswellmenwho are womb expanding the human species and in particular the national population.Women who possess a be elementimportant partof to can helptowards (re)productivethe population who plays an important role sapping itstherefore nation resources. the of in classifying naturethe of theiris they be countedamong disability severe, could the dependentpopulation the population.could be then ‘fixed’ by to makedoctors them as‘normal’ productive ifcitizens. However, as wellThe as possessionthe nation state. family the productivity adding by to society.stigmabe the of on Their countered them could If theof nature a womb and within may face and work lessmarginalisation produce to capacity whohavethe disabilities extent is of antheir disability theirthrough labour are onsociety burden viewedthus asa and marginalised. People with could be cured, not cannotcontributescale disabilities with or whodo of productivity, including those people they from unskilled,thementhe from women and(Fiedler, 1996,p.11).According children this to literallyfrom bodies, between skilled workers separating the physical owners, relationships well from the homes to the as relocated but and reshaped body notonly reconstituted human was the industrialization, factories and created a “new thenot-so-productiveproductive or populations.With adventofmodernizationthe and geographyas the classified is and bodies of individual as labor”not and sovereign bythe entirety its in considered changing the Within this biopolitical framework, reproduction reproduction alsoor thecapacity framework, Within procreate biopolitical to this 38 CEU eTD Collection as ‘normal’ ones, regulatory power also plays a significant role with the whole dimension of dimension whole the with role significant a plays also power regulatory ones, ‘normal’ as disabilities. While could disciplinary power be tolook atindividual used bodies fixand them Both forms –disciplinaryof power as well as be couldregulatory, usedlook atpeople to with within thesociety. reducingtheirworth burden thenational thus addingis to as considered andchildren rear reproduce society, their choicethe Since aburden on to they areconsidered be is partof rear achild doubted. population productive the abilities also effectively to to anyone else and the expression of sexuality is unique to each individual. as as sexual are disabilities with people However, etc. mobility,access employment, of that 2006) of disability and keepspeople away from discussingissuesimportant the more such as thecause” (Silverberg, “fragments issuesinterpersonal anddisability told talking that about often are they Also, them. for “luxury” a is sex and with deal to things important more many (Tarnai,pp. 161).Peoplemore 2006, with likelybe are disabilities toldthey haveto that got perceivedor as themfrom a problem sexuallyinto which prevents adults” developing mature reach puberty. The sexuality of persons with cognitive disabilities is frequently either ignored minors handle even after they “Parents perpetual often (Silverberg,children as their 2006). of mainstream society;denied including sexual rights tomarry have the rights and keep to children, to them outside they are althoughoften their sexuality isneglected, it remains a significant part of their lives. They treatedare often as that affirm disabilities with people However, careof. been taken have needs when allother children who are devoid of sexual procreate butalso their sexuality isand suspect underscanner. rights capacity to only their suspicion. Not under is often disabilities for with people of procreation to healthy, able-bodied babies who may therefore contribute to the nation’s worth. The ability In cases where people with disabilities can reproduce and chose to do so, their Sexuality is often treated as a soft subject for people with disabilities, to be dealt with 39 CEU eTD Collection examine if the language of these definitions uses the discourse of disability. Lastly, Iwill also people.intersex includes law the of language the whether Similarly, explore and organizations international I will also be people then be considered within of framework the disability?lookingintersex Can normality. of boundaries the outside fall also athormones of levels different some of the onesdefinitions that don’t parts of populationthe as‘normal’, correcting, towards fixing theywork andnormalizing the of fit.intersexuality Intersexignoringmultiplicities and diversity within the population. While acknowledging certain people to(re)productivevs. non-(re)productive worktowardsclassifying therefore thepopulation often born with variant genitalia,chromosomes. eliminating the chances of foetuses may reproducing which have problem-causing chromosomal impetus from biomedicine health and hasbeenpublic researching waysandmeans of count or for added along Genetics the timewith seen not as welcome. are with disabilities, children of soon after at which point produce view, wombs, birth.corrected a eugenics or From during aredetected disabilities beingmade sothat pregnancy, could least efforts be at the be could disabilities most that extent the to made been not has progress While birth. before be eliminated they could so adisability of presence the may indicate that chromosomes population p.54).(Rapp, 2000, Science andbiomedicine arethus on lookout the for genes and of thought in as normal morea primitive characteristics andtraits represent to considered they as ‘mongolism’ as were to referred initially was syndrome Down example, race; for generations. them andthrough reproduce emphasis More genetics. have isincreasingly being to ‘normal’ provided healthy population In chapter four, I will be looking at some of the definitions of disability used by vs. people disabled, asable-bodied that segregate normalization systems Binary of of much inferior a have to characteristics areconsidered with Somedisabilities people 40 CEU eTD Collection disability and I am interested in exploring some of the ways in which they intersect. is people there that inthe languageof these intersex Icontend enmeshing of an discourses. logicguides indicative that of a certain be years andmay in therefore andrecent policies laws inthelanguageof arebecomingmore visible connections between the discourses these ways meet the ofintersex with people discourses inwhich the those of argue that disability. I working in onissuesofintersexuality. The purpose suchexplorations all find be would out to explore languageused define the to intersex byafew people international organizations 41 CEU eTD Collection are enforced and implemented. These kinds of administrative procedures require people to be requireto people These procedures kindsof are enforced andimplemented. administrative populations. Theyform upon basis the which all administrativeof procedures governmentthe chapter. organisationsthe they may belongThese are to? some of Iexplore questions the in this intersex languageand acceptable to people in people? intersex Is the theseconstructions used language in used andmanagingdefining intersex people. Isthelanguage used disabling for on intersex issues define intersexuality? inI am interested looking atthediscursive powerof working organisations international and national do How disability? of in laws for accounted issuesintersex getframed within international national and laws? Do intersex get people lawmedicine. and within with of disabilities people with discourses resonance Idiscussthis some chapter, on intersex of waysin peoplewhich discourses overlap andfind In itself. in adisability as intersexuality at looking towards is trend there increasingly Also, abnormals. as others the and worthy and normal as people some deems which normalization regime the bemay of scanner,within ‘abnormals’ the under considered biopolitical the analysed when groups Both well. as commonalities few a share disabilities with people and intellectual disabilities etc. However, as the two previous chapters show, both intersex people with people to rise giving minds in their located be also may disability the disabilities, with for intersex people, their intersexuality is situated in their bodies, whereas for some people may identity; with nothave their sex aconflict disabilities with whereas people scanner, the disabilities are different Intersex andpeoplewith them people andframework. within situated biopolitical the in certain ways, e.g., for intersex people theirChapter 4: Discourses of Law andMedicine sex identity is under Laws aresignificant and policies is in on enforced ways which governmentality How do laws and policies address issues of disability and intersex issues? How do Till now,wehave atintersex looked individually andpeoplepeople with disabilities 42 CEU eTD Collection cluster people in neat boxes of able-disabled or male-female. or peopleboxes inneat of cluster able-disabled to difficult is therefore It people. intersex of asin case the etc body inthe chromosomes levels organs, internal andcould the of hormones extend also the to reproductive other words, the variability in people’s sexes is not limited to theIn externalsexes. five genitalia just alone than but array wider even an in come would sexes people’s genitalia, external from the apart characteristics biological other various atlook if were to one that discussed laterher revised (2000)articlegenitals). Fausto-Sterling as female predominantly with genitals variant with (persons hermaphrodites pseudo female and hermaphrodites (persons with variant genitals maleboth with andfemale genitals present) male genitals), with variantgenitals predominantly with hermaphrodites (persons pseudo male as: between in sexes other three with and ends opposite the at females and her article, females. In males or aseither onsex based neatcategorisations no are There gender identity. concept of disability is also fluid with some people acquiring a disability and losingThe itlater. shape. and size particular a of body the of fitness and normalcy defining and bodies people’s looking at of ways uni-dimensional of butbecause itself obesity the of because much be so not may This anairplane. on seats narrow occupying or doorways narrow moving feel Forexample,through situations, disabled obesewhen personmay time an etc. disability and these definitionsacross individuals, keep changing societies, contexts, for definition one no is There individual. same the of lifetime the within even and times and contexts in different shifting forever are points These ability/disability. and male/female morelike continuums with people different occupying theextremes within points of many variations within the spectrum of arehowever male/female. There or of boundaries indisabled/non-disabled neat categorised one’s ability and on one’s sex. These spectrums are Similarly,have we seen that there are no neat alignments of a person’s sex with one’s The Five Sexes The Five , Fausto-Sterling (1993), talksat leastfive, Fausto-Sterling (1993), males about with sexes 43 The Five Sexes Revisited The FiveSexes and CEU eTD Collection the machinations of machinationsthe atof a biopolitical work. state The ideamy study is touse not also of demonstrate also examples these Further, awork-in-progress. of piece a small instead is and exhaustive means no by is policies and laws these of listing the that reiterate to like would language of laws the and policies interesting andevoking further debatesand discussions. I findI have examples whereI Instead, the locations. chosen geographical certain or countries selectionThe in India. policies and laws from examples ofsome drawing be also will I theseissues. intersex laws and policiesfrom a few other islaws however, and examples be drawing people.policies Iwill intersex includes its definition explore whether place to acrossnot theso worldmuch to find from out if thetheir definitionsviewpopulations worldwide.of includeselecting on whichhavehad pastdecade ina bearing level the an international shortly) at will explain limitprojectlookingmy and to Iwould therefore lawsandpoliciesproject atcertain (whichI However, looking at most laws and policies on intersex issues and disability can be a colossal people as as peoplewell with language and the disabilities, usedin laws andpolicies. these intersex frame policies and laws how at in looking am interested I state. any of policies becomeobvious lawsand morevisiblethrough the and abnormals’. Thesecategorisations as‘the termed arethus able ofandthe (re)productive categories slip neatfrom the these who minimal People with slippages. areusually watertight categorisations These children. nation’sthe contributing nation the productivity by healthy or to normal,procreating and able to contribute to capacity be their ability, of people’s basis couldmadeon the categorizations them. These to catering of rationale the with in neatcategories compartmentalised Thus, we can its ‘population’. cater tothe needsof to administrative procedures create need to feels the see the workings of a biopolitical state in which populations have to be I will be looking at some of the international laws and policies on disability that are in are that disability on policies and laws international the of some at looking be will I The arises categorisingneed for andclustering people when ingroups governmentthe 44 CEU eTD Collection locomotor disability, mental retardation andillness” mental (Disability n.d). India Network, includes such conditions “blindness,low-vision,leprosy-cured, as impairment, hearing allow anyinclusion for intersex of its purview within the people law.very of It clearly thesis. this of completion the of time the until finalised been not has and progress in is still however, law the of constituting process The 2010’. Act, Disabilities with Persons of andInclusion be of Effective Participation Dignity,to renamedas‘TheRights proposed totheact amendments propose to been constituted has currently acommittee However, (Equal in enacted Protection Opportunities, Rights & Full Act, 1995. Participation) of Disabilities with Persons the in place has India level, national the At convention. international abideratify itsby intentionthe of countries whichshowed to convention clauses the to the seven in 2007. India first the and wasamong March states Community European the member by 81 signed was which convention international is an UNCRPD The (UNCRPD). clauses of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People the with Disabilitiesincorporate to disability on law national the upon improve to impetus an was There apparent tome with the changes that were being proposed to a draft law on disability in India. 4.1 Discourses oflaw language them their the construct as disabled through discourses? of intersex people of definitions Do themselves. represent to choose organisations intersex international other how and intersexuality defines (WHO) Organisation Health World the to explore if they are used from the lens of disability. For example, I will be looking at how definitionsintersex of being are that used bydifferentworldwide organisations and agencies the language look atbut andsay not) to replicable certain therefore whether (or to are good they examples of some of these laws and policies. I will also be looking at some of the The law in Act Disabilities presently India, not the Persons use of with 1995 does more issues became and intersex disability between year, intersections Last the 45 CEU eTD Collection groups groups mayof individuals helpnetworks, it alignmentsandsupport informing portrays also Althoughbringing the same these asbelonging of group. to categories these this together gamut of people including “ The definition persons with of disorder undersexual development lawincludes this also a interpretations. varying to left therefore and clear made not however is abnormal or normal ways lookingof organs at and bodies asbeing either abnormal. normal or isWhat defined as binary the highlights also ‘abnormalities’ as ‘conditions’ the of framing The a disability. development of gonads, genital tracts and the external genitalia, are seen as or constructedin whichas intersexuality which according to this law has been defined as‘abnormalities’ of the ways the to attention draws It issues. intersex with disabilities between interconnections the although they may not be fully formed” (Karna, 2010). beenhave defined “individuals as born with physical the both sexual genders,organs of having sexual disorder” (Karna,development 2010)and"intersexuals" according this law to Intersexual/ Transexual)” ambit of ‘disability’ are “Disorders of Sexual Development (Hizras/ hermaphrodite/ 2010). Among the number of conditions andthathaveimpairments beenincluded underthe (Karna, others” with basis equal an on society in participation effective and full their prevent may barriers various with interaction in which impairments, sensory or intellectual mental, physical, long-term have who individuals such “all include to defined been has disability intersexof people. beappear any to doesnotinclusion there of thespecificities this definition, space forWithin behavior” (Karna, 2010). A 2010). behavior” (Karna, external the genitalia andgender-specific theof genital indevelopmenttracts, gonads, the the The inclusion of disorder’persons with ‘sexual development under law this highlights According to the changes proposed in the draft law for people with disabilities, (sic) hizras hizra which has been defined in the proposed law hasbeen inwhich theproposed defined as“abnormalities or hermaphrodite has therefore been defined as "a person / hermaphrodite/ Intersexual/ transsexual” and assumes all assumes and transsexual” Intersexual/ hermaphrodite/ / 46 CEU eTD Collection as time. Further, itnotdoes treatdisability somethinginas needfixing of buthighlights the fixed (United Nations,n.d). The definition of disability can vary with country, context as well itdisabilitynot in asan convention, therefore recognisesdisability and evolving concept this an equal basis with (Unitedothers” Nations, Although n.d). isthere noclear definition of interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on in which impairments sensory or intellectual mental, physical, long-term have who and loci for debates discussions. become significant therefore and intersections these intersect development’ within ambit highlightsthe the disability of ways in whichthese discourses national committee on disability law felt the need to include ‘persons with disorders of sex a factthat However, the moment. atthe is of in law version includedthe unclear final the gets of sex as‘disorders itWhether oneof definedunderdevelopment’ categories the disability. include doesnot instate itscurrent and several revisions haslaw undergone The draft included and intersex activists dueconsultation onlywith with andorganisations. transgender andbe must debated inclusion any such that emphasized Advocates process. formulation disorders met with law isstillin the ofbeing process The worked out. inclusion certain peopleof with sex development debates draft the However, for exclusion. and its argument adequate orif wasan there definition from the discussions by statusadvocates of a person. who Itare is unclearpartlevels of whetherthe which chromosomal the law-mention not does itbut genitalia wasexternal and gonads the in a arelapse‘abnormalities’ alsoin excluding considered the chromosomal‘abnormal’ and ‘disabled’. The definition of an the sex leveldevelopment disorderimportantbeing as spells them ascribes out clearly law the of language The communities. particular of claims factor in the dilution boundaries between leadthem which potentially could to needsand specific of determinationthe blurring thus another one with confused be often may groups these which in ways the of the intersex At the international level, the UNCRPD discusses persons with disabilities as “those 47 CEU eTD Collection and could be influential in the process of formulation of laws and policies. I use the example the use I policies. and laws of formulation of process the in influential be could and Further, UN documents such most tobe states. broad all of inclusive areusually conventions underthe kept definitions or as the UNCRPD also serves globalorganization level at the includes a and numberthe of as itscountries memberstates, as a guidelinean is UN the as However, policies. and forlaws in their memberdeclarations and conventions UN states member countries, which means that member states are notlegally required toincorporate the the on binding legally not are conventions UN the well, as broad intersexuality of quite is consist may and UNCRPD the with disability of definition the Although, disability. of ambits convention it be although explored to remains if they be would likeincluded to thewithin definition of this be included impairment. people the within therefore Intersex could convention does notexpressly spell it out, intersex condition couldbe construed as a physical the Though impairment. an as therefore condition their and ‘impaired’ as construed external genitalia (or because of it) as male/female, those thattheir do notalso fit and in could people of alsoin society be alignments binary With condition”. whole or perfect in diminishing some material ‘impaired’respect and word means “beingthe in a lessthan Dictionary, Merriam-Webster the to theAccording impairments. sensory meaning and mental physical, long-term of the word ‘impair’ mentioned language aspartof However,mentions convention. the the of convention the is “to damage or makeexpressly not are ofsex development disorders with persons hermaphrodites, as people such worse by or as if intersex with by associated terms other or intersex clear term asthe Thisisnot well? people as intersex include underthis convention language the Does spectrum of and conditions. people disabilities we can see that thedisability convention aims at keeping it inin not limitenvironment thandefinition itthe of the addition rather itself;disability does broadto so a as tofew include a peoplewide makein negativeforandbarriers society environmental adisabling attitudes that (United Nations, n.d). Through the definition of people with 48 CEU eTD Collection mental functions”, or a part of the body, “the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of Australia, definition the of includesdisability “the total partial or loss of person’s bodily or Act, 1992inAccording broad-based thequite andinclusive. Disability discrimination to to use definitionthis in courts lawof where nodefinition of disability may currently exist. definitionexpand beused disability of the to existing in of definitions disability countries or itthisinclusive is definition and broad, hasbeenrecommendedquite considered thatthis Because (Schulze,2006,p.31). or imputed” intermittentmay temporary, bethat permanent, conditions other or intellectual medical, neurological, psychosocial, sensory, physical, with physical, economic, social and cultural environments and/or personal factors thatinteract impactof concomitant or by separate the islimited choice his/her own of in community the life inclusive an lead to ability whose individual is“an adisability with a person disabilities, nationalinternational and andorganizations individuals working with with people may be permanentor transitory (Schulze,in nature” 2006,p.29). illnesses or conditions impairments, Such illness. mental or conditions medical impairment, occurring People inany [...] maybe by population sensoryintellectual disabled physical,or Rules, “the term ‘disability’ summarizes a great number of different functional limitations Persons by UN General Assembly, isfollowed According bymany states. Standard tothe aswith in Disabilities an was adopted 1993, which outcome of Decadeof Disabledthe for Persons Opportunities of of followed Equalization the Rules approach bytheStandard policies. but to serve document international as bean enforceable UNCRPDto present the not to UNCRPD of asthe a guideline that member states could follow in enacting their laws and At the national level, the laws on disability in Australia and the USA alsoappear Australia the USA in and lawsondisability level,the At national the of network global the (IDC), Caucus Disability International the to According the disability, for definition international acceptable standard no is there Although 49 CEU eTD Collection definitions in every country and therefore I will restrict my study to certain international certain to my study restrict will I therefore and country every in definitions for intersex people in medicine. It would be difficult if not impossible to look at the allows for inclusion of intersex people, I now proceed to looking 4.2 Discourses ofmedicine at some of the definitions theselaws. making claims against or ininclusion laws these for advocating are intersex people explore whether to interesting be would It people. intersex of inclusion for allow may it whether and disability of laws the clear and beyond the scope of this study. In my thesis, Iam more interested in the language of disability. Whether this law is used to make claims for intersex people under these laws is not which restricts one majorfurther“reproductivelaw impairment functions’ The mentions (ADA,the that 2009,p.7). life activity does not havebodily functions as defined by law this amongcomprises “endocrine” others, and to affect any other to people major in toincludecases. intersex The aswell, andcertain broad beinterpreted be could considered a moreor majorlife activities of individual”the (ADA, 2009,p.7). The discourse of lawthis is definition includes of “amental disability physical impairment substantiallyor limits that one as well. ofintersexuality conditions certain enough to include broad law sounds intersex further couldbe languagepeople atopic of the research.However, Australian of the beenlaw of in hasfavour used Whetherthe actually ‘malformation’. or ‘malfunction’ in another manifesting thus be curtailed also may people intersex some of functions may beoften considered‘malformed’ andnot functioning properly. The reproductive law. If the external genitaliawe can intersex seethat perhaps could bepeople included under perhaps ambit the of this of a person do not conform law, this language atthe of look If n.d). we carefully body” (DREDF, a partof person's the to being either male or female, it Havinglooked atsome of lawsthe on disability and whetherornot theirlanguage As per Americans the with Disabilities Actof 1990 which was in amended 2008, the 50 CEU eTD Collection limitations and maysituations lead participation Intersexuality restrictions. to whereinalso included definitionsbroader in the includeof disabilities which activity impairments, inabnormality the reproductive sexuality and system individuals,of it perhapsbe could or irregularity an causes intersexuality If connections. some infer can perhaps closely, we individual inin involvement lifesituations”. Lookingby WHO atboth the definitions executing action; restriction is by a taskor aparticipation problem experiencedwhile an in individual by an encountered difficulty isa limitation activity an structure; or function (WHO, 2011).WHO (2011)further mentions animpairmentthat is “a problem in body WHO,“impairments, limitations, include activity disabilities and participation restrictions” the According to “abnormal”. different”, “something common rule”, from the “deviation “irregularity”, an means ‘anomaly’ term the Dictionary, Merriam-Webster the to According 2011). intersex” (WHO, of thedefinition to parameters concrete no are because there make isto intersex difficult birthprevalence of the about An estimate system. and sexual reproductive the of anomaly “a congenital as, intersex defines health of matters on system global level. impact makelimitedlookingdefinitions atthe I have an shared andwhich at this study to fascinating area forfurther research. However, again due constraintsto of time and the scope, in-depth at howguidelinesfor jobwould management the specificof go againbeanarduous It cases. these to these different of or sets definitions varying mayhave country in contexts different of teams experts teams Eachof these as urologists. aswell endocrinologists includingpaediatricians, intersex people of expertsof management medical in the involved be may experts of A number community. medical may view such and influenced intersex sets areaffected community,people by from of experts different the casesmedical the of in terms Also, and level. global the at impact an make Ithink which woulddefinitions be a The World Health Organization (WHO) which is the coordinating authority in the UN 51 CEU eTD Collection defines intersex as: intersex defines since2008 in USA NewJersey, sex development of disorders with people for andadvocacy within discourses of intersex organizationssome workingthe issues. on organizationsand is Iusetheirprominent definitions asa smallsample to talk the about representativebe not may that Although OII-Australia. and ISNA, Alliance, Accord organizations: of the entire4.3 Discourses onintersexuality byorganizations working onintersex issues body of work tip of the penis whereon it usually is for most males. intersex maleof genitalia and/orhypospadias whichmeans thatthemale urethral openingis notatthe issues,cervix orothermalformations female of This genitalia.includes also congenital malformation the work whichorgans furtherincludes congenital malformations of ovary the andof or uterus the of thesein listed are 56 of malformations XVII.Thisincludescongenital blocks Q50to chapter of genital the abnormalities chromosomal threeand deformations malformations, congenital system, tothis classification According version of classification. latest the is 1994 and the currently since in states force into WHO the in1990,came Assembly World Health the at endorsed diagnostic classification system for all epidemiological and health management purposes disability. of be scope the included within deemthem to participate in could functions to these Inability order. within normalcy hetero-patriarchal the of signs moral society as the of codes by which are upheld the activity,sexual penile-vaginal participate inpenetrative unable to norms set by the society. For example, some intersex people may be unable procreateto or be individuals maybeparticipate unable in to sexualthe and systems reproductive asperthe According to Accord Alliance, a not-for profit organisation working for health forcare health working profitorganisation Accord Alliance,not-for a According to international three by intersexuality of definitions the about talk I section, this In The International Classification ofDiseases (ICD) -10, the international standard 52 CEU eTD Collection chromosomal level or at the hormonal level and thus may not be visible to the eye. Australia, mention 2010). They further intersexthat includecould also differences at the (OII- stature” and development breast hair distribution, mass, muscle as such characteristics sexual secondary in differences physical also is Intersex on. so and ovaries clitoris, vulva, anatomicalis, sex.That physical inlikedifferences reproductiveparts the penis,testicles, working onintersex issues in Australia intersexdefines as “congenital a in difference to decideidentity. sexand one’s gender one’s consequently (Karkazis, 2008). Although these are ‘natural’ processes, these are usually used as parameters an impact on one’s sex identity,itis still tosay difficult how much itwouldof beenough normal doeshave dosay inAlthough some hormonal a that environment theuterus doctors female. a or male a as identified be to stage pre-natal in the have individual the should what type one should have the clitoris should individualshave fit into category, either how many chromosomes and to be a male or female or penis of the either length measurements and a female,what male or awoman, a a man or and what degree of individual is an humans whether it decide who is construction as usually category as asocial androgen exposure the They discuss (ISNA, variation” 2011). real reflects biological category constructed that definitions of female isseem doesn’t sexual fit person or that born with anatomy to typical the a reproductive or male” (ISNA, 2011). Further, it discusses intersex as a “socially- Organisation Intersex International Australia Limited (OII-Australia) an organisation (OII-Australia) an Limited Australia International Organisation Intersex ISNA defines intersex as “a general term used for a variety in a which of avariety conditions for term “a used general as intersex ISNA defines 2011). Alliance, (Accord treated” are DSDs with different kinds of adultswith many term“intersex” hasallowed thegeneral Using experiences. and their DSDs to come together bodies their talk about DSDsto with often usedbyadults is Theterm other animals. and work for progress term thatcoversmanydifferentconditionsappearinhumansaswell umbrella in the way disorders Like ofsexdevelopment, it isan orafemale. considered standardforamale families “a term sometimes used to refer to the condition of having a sex anatomy that is not 53 CEU eTD Collection the Intersex, there appears to be no consensus on these issues. I agree with OII-Australia with agree I issues. these on consensus be no to appears there Intersex, the on statement aconsensus Despite contexts. countries, individuals, vary across issues therefore for aswell.be aimed must what isnot aconsensus such as intersex for definition single on a no consensus is there happens in the case aswhat colour andpathologized weightor inheight, differences sameway as inbe the seen of the usageshould issues intersex that believe They anomalies. of the and disorders DSD the on focus undue give (OII-Australia,they as DSD with or ‘intersexuals’ ‘intersexed’, as not and intersex as to be referred should 2010). They people intersex that believes hand other the alsoon OII-Australia ‘abnormals’. and emphasizeanomalies that usage individuals againfocuses‘disorder’ intheterminology onthese term of the as the that believe who groups and individuals are there and term the of usage the on unanimity isanatomic Ahmed& sex Thereishoweverno (Lee,Honk, 2006). atypical” Hughes, defined as“congenital conditions in of which chromosomal,development or gonadal, was DSD statement, consensus the As per document. aconsensus formulate to groups got andformed working together for(ESPE) European Society Paediatricthe Endocrinology WilkinsworldPediatric and includingmembers of Lawson the Society Endocrine (LWPES) the over all from experts fifty where Intersex the on Conference Consensus International atthe was coined asa terminology DSD person. the not and medical conditions the labelling individualsinsteadthe of medicaltheir They condition. DSDasitprefer focuses on to lead inadvertently they and ‘intersex’ term the of definition the on consensus no is there that argue organisations former The - intersex. that just be called should people intersex term ‘disorders of sex development’ (DSD) for intersex people, OII-Australia insists that AllianceAlthough ISNA preferboth the andAccord and problematic. inaccurate therefore Differences in definitions, terminology as well as guidelines to approach intersex approach to guidelines as well as terminology in definitions, Differences All three international organisations argue that terms such as ‘hermaphrodite’ are as ‘hermaphrodite’ such terms arguethat organisations international All three 54 CEU eTD Collection abuse within society. within abuse state, lack rights at par with other citizensand people donotfit with disabilities stereotypesthe of normal the within the biopolitical and are resultantly subject to marginalization intersexbecause people that both Iargue intersex andpeople with disabilities. both people and governbe populations. ableto in to females order malesand of categories makesstrict which society of norms stereotypical to the relation in but initself abnormality bean not may abnormality This individual. the in ‘irregularity’ the and ‘abnormality’ the on emphasis more puts experts international with consultation in at been arrived which has statement in consensus the ‘disorder’ term the usage of The aim. ultimate the even or desirable necessarily is not a consensus that say they when In the next chapter, I will be exploring how these discourses of abnormality impact of abnormality discourses how these Iwill be exploring chapter, nextIn the 55 CEU eTD Collection to the level of limbs and organs but at more minute levels of genes and chromosomes. When restrictednot ofnormalization were procedures the by (2007), asdevelopedbiopolitics Rose level molecular amongst Atthe (re)produce, others. of andability theirto of appearance adhere to societal notions of an able and functioning body. These bodies could differ in terms tonormalizationsubjected Bodies rendered procedures. not were abnormal didwhen they attention on individual bodies, some of which were rendered normal thus leaving others to be individual the populationfrom still asawhole, bodies functionedwith to sovereign the biopolitical framework.withinframework, Within thealthough had this attention the shifted body. of the stereotypes normative in the fit to order in lifetime their through interventions of anumber through go also normalised aftersurgery andright correction birth.Peoplewith through disabilities physical are children intersex example, For body. non-standard the normalise that interventions Garland-Thomson (2002)pushes for afeminist disability theory which can helpin critiquing etc. medication regimes, fitness rigorous following surgeries, corrective as such measures Ideas of normalisation push people intoaiming for a certain kind of body through a variety of specialists. health by as well as media inpopular forth ispushed which body ‘normative’ feminist normative andfithave Both critiqued the standards. theory theory disability peoplehave with areboth considered andpeople disabilities notbodiesphysical to whichdo sections of people in the same ways, Iwill be discussing a few of the commonalities. Intersex engineering andabnormality. Although ofintersections these points donotaffectboth Someframework. of of intersections these points include medical genetic (mis)management, people with disabilities which have a bearingand on areinfluenced by biopolitical the framework biopolitical the Chapter 5: Intersex people andpeople with disabilities: points of intersections within I will befocussing on fewa dimensions whereintersexuality intersects with disability and intersex people between a few intersections I highlight of the In this chapter, 56 CEU eTD Collection calledbodies ‘normal’ marginalising dis-privilegingwhile and the others.According to atypical and ‘abnormal’ as per societal norms. These norms accord more privilege to the so- 5.1 Discourses ofabnormality genetic make-up. the or environment in pre-natal the making alterations by be born, to yet whoare those practices the level of genes through of processes through levelthe genes of made at also are alterations These and bodies. alter correct to in order management medical alteration to these abnormal bodies, both disabled bodies and intersex bodies are subjected to making powerhavepeople decision- less argue that abnormal to integrity.are considered deemed as I relatedbodily and consent to rights their of deprivation the into translates therefore to abnormality of their own notion the that discuss them. I by around by but others made not them are bodies their about bodies. Lastly, guided by notions of correction and normative bodies are deprived of their rights to their of rights aredeprived bodies normative non-possess to are considered who people aswellintersex disabilities people with redefiningyet norm deeming the thesebodies as Withinabnormal.framework, both this circumstances in exceptional is construed abnormality how of study interesting an for make cases These able-bodied. to the athreat instead but dependent as weakand not are considered also are there In addition, Theseframework. bodies are considerednon-normative andnotadding to nation’sthe worth. bodies are rendered and intersex disabled how discussing be will I level. molecular the at also but level molar the at just not studied level atthe molecules,of biopolitics hope of the gave altering andcorrectingbodies Both intersex bodies as well as bodies of people with disabilities are considered intersex bodies disabilities of as well as bodies with Both people . These corrections are aimed not just at children who are already born but also on also but born already are who children at just not aimed are corrections These . exceptions abnormal , where both intersex people and people with disabilities genetic engineering and therefore in andtherefore need of correction within this 57 consent and sometimes bordering on bordering sometimes bodily integrity where decisions where eugenic CEU eTD Collection either “atrophy (Garland-Thomson, 2002, orenlargement” degeneration”“hypertrophy “atrophy eitheror or of on basis the rendered People disabled are pathologized. therefore rendered ‘abnormal’and shows as human curiosities and worked for Barnum’s shows as entertainers (Merish, 1996). Lavinia Warren ‘little diminutivealso known as exhibited Queen’ were people inBarnum’s colour. Similarly, in to them beingrelation characteristics of often their people Onlookers discussed animal Charlesbe orpeoplefor describeddiscusscannot andleft theviewers‘nondescript’ who to openly. Stratton liminalitythe hybridity betweenman andanimal.and Thesepeople wereusuallyexhibited as also knowndepict These 1996). to from were usually twocharacters exhibited (Cook, person New Jersey as ‘Barnum’sThere was also William Henry Johnson who was a mentally retarded, short African American General 1996). (Cook, meat etc raw and eating jumping, as grunting depicted “monkey” characters Tom Thumb’in origin and butNew Yorkwith unusually small legs in to proportion restof the his body, possibly Caucasian with disguised‘ hands inshowman nineteenth a the Barnumconducted century,number P.T. namedexhibitions of and face stained hisasa career instance, throughout well ideas body.documented the a ‘normal’ In another of as a bepersonin exhibited 1810to andbylarge.objectified publicatthe Herbody fit didnot therefore of colour and enlargedbuttocks from genitalia Greatcame a slavefamily andwas Britain into brought who playedunder public the scanner. Saartje,was supposed have who to anunusual body with large ‘abnormal’ arerenderedand put bodies racedandhow example is different Venus of another theHottentot 3)alsoas in known chapter to (referred Baartman Saartje of public exhibition marking bodies resultingin an unequal of distribution andresources within power society.the Garland-Thomson (2002,p.5), differentiating ability-disabilitysystem the through works and What isit? In addition, bodies which are rendered too short, too tall, too fat, too thin are also The sex. and/or ability of level the at just not happens bodies of normalisation The ’ in which he employed a variety he’ in from which anactor avariety employed such Leech, as Hervey people of 58 CEU eTD Collection circumstances when there are a plethora of different opinions and notions of normality, “ normality, of and notions opinions of different aplethora are there when circumstances constantly butalsoconstructed, it is constantly being (Preves, produced 2002). Under the normalcy is only not Thus, not. is what or normal is what of notions society’s by influenced normality justare alsoguided not by andmedicinebiomedical discourses but these are resultsthe of and ontheperson’s gender tests still abilityreproduce.Theothers ideasto of on lay more significance who others are there genitals, external sizeof the the to importance greater accord may physicians some While physicians. among even female, a or male a being of idea singular no is there However, 2002). (Preves, misery in lives their lead would they intersex people, on conducted werenot if surgeries corrective claims that pathological with stage. a very early at management medical through female or male strictly being to conform to them get and bodies their 1996). (Grosz, be attained to ideal an as ‘normal’ the having or ‘normal’ as system a classificatory bodiesmonstrous into the scientific language of illnessan which could then be rendered into with associated often and fascination horror the helps in transforming process medicalization norm one standardThis conform getting (Garland-Thomson, 2002,p.14). them to to improving social, environmental butand economic infrastructures on individual bodies and medicalization and pathologization of bodies. The stress of treatment and cure is not towards ability system” (Garland-Thomson, 2002,p.10). This is often done through meansthe of means are employed to also push“discipline for one uniqueform of body in shape, appearance as well as ability; thus, ways and but ‘abnormal’ therefore and different as thebodies specific render bodyonly not differences These to conform to dictates set of physical whilethe abilities, inbody disabledis some wayincomplete” (Inahara, 2009). of both gender and p.7). theThe able-bodied paradigm is based on the notion of “a whole body, a single and fixed Intersex bodies are also subject to these normalising procedures in order to ‘correct’ The medical model accords the intersex body body intersex as the The medical model accords 59 the CEU eTD Collection of of events organisedfor people with disabilities (IPC, n.d). injust sportspeople numberof the in participating the paralympic variety gamesbutalso the increase not has yearsan been the there Over games. style Olympic were heldinRomewith WorldWar IIveterans with injuries,spinal cord itwas in 1960 that the firstparalymic games infantilised.Although first competition the sports for disabled people washeld in 1948 for disabilities with portray people of Representations people. able-bodied with along activities sports them asin participate fit to and considered able not are often with People disabilities sports. arena of weak, lackingin the especially intersex people and bedisabilities between with people Parallels can drawn wellin as intersexability people as people disabilities Both physical (re)productivefall with cracks.the paradigm,through are considered and and able-bodied the in within fit not may who those all and to categorised neatly physicalhavetherefore bodies that do notcompartmentalised in ways –able/different disabled, (re)productive ornot. Bodiesfit are notionsstrength. of normality. They5.2 TheExceptions are also often makenormaller. them to andalterations corrections and toprocessesframework status of being withinalso this abnormal of subjected the Both for intersex thestate. aswell bodies productive bodies the areaccorded disabled as classification in terms of which fit the termspeople (Preves,2002). of being normal intersex to damage cause irreversible to areknown surgeries many although these of p.169) and able and therefore 2008, (Holmes, proceeds” practice clinical from which truth taken-for-granted remains the more characteristics intersex that presupposition medical Through Through processthe of by governmentality, asespoused Foucault, bodies are biopoliticalWithin of a process bodiestherefore, the undergo environment 60 are inherently disabling to social viability social to disabling inherently are CEU eTD Collection accomplishment however raised suspicions for her competitors. Although she was not shewas Although her competitors. for suspicions raised however accomplishment Her 2009). (BBC News, a world record and set by seconds approximately record eight World Junior Championships theprevious year aswell, hadimprovedher she own running medal in 800metres 2009Worldrun the at the Although she Championships. had won the thegold Africa won South from anathlete Semenya, Caster athletes. women other the over advantage unfair an have to considered been have Soundarajan Santhi and Semenya Caster (Mullins, 2009). athletes athreattoother pose to considered suddenly body are ‘normal’ a of stereotypes beconsidered to atan unfair to advantage becauseothers of whichtheir bodies fitnot do the been general in have who People ability. one’s with do to have perseverance human and technology does much how and ability, constitutes what as such questions raise instantly suchasthoseofandPistorius Mullins with Accomplishments competed able-bodied people. she in University herwhen during years college Georgetown athletic accomplishments model athleteandfashion for issimilarly an actress, her adoubleamputee known and also is unfair his players limbs.AimeeMullinsadvantage who over the becauseof other artificial for in debateshim sports able-bodiedparticipation havingabout peoplehowever generated an limbs. first Forthe events time in heparticipated for able-bodiedsports persons in2007.His whouses artificial athlete Cheetah the bladeamputee isadouble known runner’ ‘the as also Pistorius Oscar Mullins. Aimee and Pistorius Oscar sprinter South-African the as such sportspeople when considering turn adifferent vs.disability takes ability juxtaposition of the However, a disadvantage. former at put the to considered was people asable-bodied well set of forparameters beingjudged. Usingsimilar parameters for people with as disabilities considereddisabilities atparwith are not separate require therefore able-bodied people and a Similar debates are raised forintersex people within the sports arena. Athletes such as Separate sports events for people with disabilities suggests thatpeople with suggests eventsdisabilities for people with sports Separate 61 CEU eTD Collection of one’s ability or on one’s sex. In the itis in bynature’ terms whether as ‘normal fieldbodies deem bodiescertain which around regime of sports, bodies are compartmentalisedand aroundof people who do not conformfluid andblurred. to being strictly more have become gender of verification for parameters when the years overthe changing male or female has for thus tests been examination The of nature these taken Sunday (The 2009). Times, is the normalisationGender2009). changed tests in a smearfrom 1968 when cheeksthe of participantsthe was (The Sunday from games withdrawthe Times, six wereknown to in players cleared tests, the had toparadenakedinfrontfemale competitors where got of all a panel; whereas participants yearin 2008). suicide attempt that (Saner, September tohave Soundarajan reported madeafailed amale2008). (Saner,was includes chromosome female butmake-upwith of a a genetic that characteristics (AIS) with general physical Syndrome Insensitivity Androgen the called condition intersex an having her about speculate inpassAsian inmedal Reports shefailed 2006 gamesafter gendertests. mediato the the finally allowed tocompete in July female2010 againstother athletes(Kessel, 2010). biological condition. Semenya wasbanned the games from for almost 11months and was becauseher of competitors women theother over have advantage anunfair to was suspected Semenyareports, test of the nature of the revealed. Irrespective gendertests the unclear what genitalia butmale” chromosomesof it the of a a woman is (TheSunday 2009), Times, discussnews reports ‘raremedicalSemenya’s condition’ as“having grown up with the some Although 2009). Times, Sunday (The biological condition’ becausea ‘rare playersof overtheother ‘unfairpossess advantage’ an to wassupposed she suspected of cheating, The intersection between these two sets of cases, that between people with disabilities Athletics in Championships introduced European 1966atthe Gender werefirst tests In asimilar wasstrippedan herIndian athlete case,Santhi Soundarajan silver off 62 CEU eTD Collection than others? It is interesting to note here that intersex bodies which are in general construed in general which are intersex here bodies note that is interesting to It than others? on the basis of sex or ability?areas including Why sports. itdoes importantseem so haveto these finelines of distinction Is it because certain indifferent makingneatboundaries for necessitate these that procedures administrative the sexes or certain bodies binaryability. people of inneat sex or compartmentalise categories for analysing Ialso argue seem more able instead which normalisation the forquestioning‘females’. Iargue procedures intersexbeof argue that the category people includedwithin to with or able-bodied the societal and cultural factors influence notions of sex. results wouldnatural, the indicates havebeenmore perhaps Thisblurrinesshow conclusive. also involve a series based becomeless on farare not distinctions external conclusive.genitalia They the but alone of gender tests in sportspersons, the contemporary times genitaliawere drawn of the external around that are conducted between males onandfemales are notso clear. Unlike earlierthe times when linesthe of distinction participants.Similarly, If sex sexwas continues so differ. not laws would these soneatly,perhaps be drawn could peopledisabilities with to be considered in binarydefining peoplewith If disabilities. distinction linesthe between of able-bodiedandthe terms although the inpointsparameters have different world the across countries in different laws andpolicies uniform, of distinction not are of disability experience the and the occurrence Because ability. gender or across divisions neat be not may there that consideration into taking not disabled-abled female, happen inmale- often befair. binaries competition of the compartmentalisations to These others. Similarly, people can compete only with others who have similar abilities the over an advantage inpose unfair notto or a disadvantage be at order to as not so sex same of the for itis around those of sex or those of ability. People are required to compete only with people whether boundaries neat creating work towards compartmentalisations These norms. different My inaim sectionthis is nottoargue for people with bedisabilities to mainstreamed 63 CEU eTD Collection as weak, unproductive andnot worthy of the function of reproduction as well. However, construed Theyget surgeries. as corrective such medical interventions to subjected therefore bodiesnormal and to seen not as equivalent are still they of ways, inavariety be productive may body they and any function as other may bodies While their aretreated. intersex people and disabilities with such as people abnormals the how influences therefore abnormal the of category the to others the allocating while normal as bodies renders certain that as biopoliticalterms ability ‘abnormals’sex construed of within theor theirget framework their realities and experiences.According tothis process, the bodies that donotfit whether in grid does not work. As an administrative process therefore it does not do justice to people and should work for most people, itis not geared to take care of people and situations where this isAlthoughapply productive. thenormality whole meantto this gridof which population,to on the process of governmentality which considers some bodies as more ‘able’ and more to have awinning edgeover themales in sportingthe events? begin they if only matter it Would males. as enough strong not considered are they females, men than Although bemay they considered to stronger athreat considered and their abilities. not they because are is partly This males. with compete can intersex people whether on debate equivalent an been not has there Similarly, limbs. artificial and technology of use beindividualsbodiesbodiesincapable weak, and,suddenlythe disabledceaseto tothe due able-bodied edgeover andhave awinning when they compete morebecome of a threat they events, sports own havetheir can with disabilities Whereas etc. people looks size, abilities, functions, categorisedbasis of certain onthe get therefore Bodies as thatof reproduction. such so as‘notable’ inmatters construed bodies are intersex example, these For parameters. different to according differ however normalisation ideas The about sports. in thefieldof least at ‘females’ as categorised tothose more atanadvantage are considered as ‘abnormal’ These categorisations and compartmentalisations of andcompartmentalisations These couldbodies be categorisations adjudgedperhaps 64 CEU eTD Collection caregivers to assist them assistmenstruation. caregivers them to during spasms, contractions, tremors. They may therefore need help from their parents orother womenp.67), with disabilities often need assistance with menstrual management because of casethe menstrual managementforof women.According Anita to Ghai 2010, (TARSHI, specialised attention issues when dealing of sexuality with healthand sexual for examplein They need 2010, p.67). require Theymay therefore also tousetheseamenities. assistance lackthe friendly of disabled which toilets can beused by independently them (TARSHI, shower etc. In countries such as India, they may also complain about basic amenities such as eating, administration of medicines, moving from one place to another as well as taking a of andabuse makes discrimination. easier subjects them and abnormality dynamics age of power varying duetothe vulnerability Theirdouble realities. their specific well as intersex childrenunder theambit law.the of While allchildrenface vulnerability, children with disabilities as are additionallyabusevulnerable including to sexual consent,Although abuse. they cannot are protected exposed to abuse andbetween adults balanceand children most in often of favour formerthe andmake marginalizationchildren relationship becauseThe power citizens. as full considered not andconsent aretherefore cannot of distinguish citizens from partial citizens or non-citizens. Children as such because of their age 5.3 Consentand Bodily integrity normal and therefore do not enjoy similar rights as them. the considered not arestill normalcy of boundaries surpass the bodies that circumstances, boundariesbodied acceptable normalcy. thusassigning fresh on limits of these In exceptional intersex people are shown excelto with the use of technology start posing a threat to the able- situations such as sports as exemplified above where some people with disabilities and People with disabilities often need assistance in their day-to-day functions such as such functions day-to-day their in assistance need often disabilities with People factors that bodily integrity Miller and as significant consent (2007)considers 65 CEU eTD Collection normal and the ones who adhere to normalization processes Therefore, this framework finds favouringhetero-normativeis of whichfollow tilted the theframework order towards the framework of biopolitics, and thestructure pattern sexuality of ineducation most states also of the adult-child Within adding children.an to vulnerability therefore relationship all theof dynamics by beitpower providedor byparents because school of nature authorities very the and being aware of theirnotions of their rightright to bodily integrity, making distinctionsnot between tosafe and unsafebe touch abused. However, sexuality for sexual satisfaction. haveself-pleasuring beon dependent to therefore education is rife mobility limited or social spaces for interaction withwith possible sexual andmay partners because issues limited infinding face may such of as partners sexual difficulties often disabilities have limited spaces for information on sexuality and sexual health issues. They also taken by them in cases menstrual management butalsohow to affirm sexuality their and sexual Decisions are rights. of abortions on women and girls with disabilities.preventing pregnancies in casesPeople of rape of women with disabilities (TARSHI, 2010, p.75). with disabilities. is Hysterectomy menstrual considered often to asasolution management andfor and make onhysterectomy ongirls often andwomen caregivers decisions surgeries with with from disabilities inthe example,participating For processes.decision-making parents heart; even keepspeople interests at still so this bestof keepingwith person the the disability makemay and decisions caregivers tomakesuch forprerogative them. Parents decisions ittheir consider andcaregivers often infantilised and parents are often they own decisions, their can take with disabilities evenin wherepeople cases However, challenged. intellectually sexuality and sexual health for people with disabilities, especially if they are severely Sexuality education for children is considered important for children to be awareof forchildrento important is considered for children Sexuality education Parents and caregivers may also take time to teach their children not just about Parents and caregivers of people with disabilities may have to take decisionson may have totake with of disabilities andpeople caregivers Parents 66 CEU eTD Collection bodies. Colligan (2004) discusses how both intersex people and people with disabilities are intersex disabilities both peoplehow with and people (2004) discusses Colligan bodies. caregivers. of andpeople onthese with economicdisabilities trust etc) social, dependence(physical, not. of This onabuse isissues enhancedbecauseof does blurriness further borders what and affirming theirsexuality become blurred.Itbecomes difficult distinguish to between what satisfaction, the lines sexuality people introduce tohelpthemin with disabilities sexual education or achieving between sexual abuse and those of helping people situationswith present ethical dilemmas and provide no easydisabilities answers. in whowants tomasturbatecannot butdo it on their (TARSHI, 2010,p.78). own These helpa person asacommunity people can in sexuality whether activist questions India, rights menstrual disabilities2010, p.76), about management Pramada (TARSHI, Menon, a intellectual including disabilities with women and girls teach to need the discusses in India, sexualityabout and sexual health issues. While Shampaa disability Sengupta, activistrights far gototeach and how with disabilities their children continuecaregivers can parents on anddiscussions Debates self-pleasure. and sexuality learn about to disabilities people with for people with disabilities. This givesrise to themore needfor spaces and avenuesfor such not initis includedas India, often regular including school within education education inforcountry contexts all different However, important children. iseducation considered within but framework this arealso subjected tomarginalization. being not face theacknowledged danger of notonly with peopledisabilities, andpeople and can add to the nation’s worth. The ones who do not fit within this order, such as intersex possibly reproductivebeings so)butalso (or are not with favour onlyproductive people who In a intersexfashion,similar people often notdo gettomake decisions ontheir own either responsibility to upthe take andcareproviders whereparents Situations Despite the unequalpower relationship between and children,adults sexuality 67 CEU eTD Collection experts butalso tovarious others.Experiences ofhaving expose and to talk abouttheirbodies just medical a battery notof to expose abnormal their genitalia forced to children are often Inaddition,routine medical purposes for the manyprocedures. medical of intersex treatment these conduct to ones the are often caregivers and Parents time. of period considerable vaginal opening. toexpandthe a such dilator of procedures theinsertion undergoas have children the to These justnot include likevaginoplasty surgeriesbut surgeries reconstructive in the several cases dilators These vagina. a of construction the include interventions medical certain example, For have to be insertedinvasive. These interventions differ according to the specific intersex conditions of child. the often are interventions Medical adulthood. through even every and years adolescent childhood, day on a routine basisthemselves. for a mostentail of However, decisions these by intersex donot participation people active context. and time particular that at health and medicine about have may they knowledge best the to according operate also may They society. mainstream within well beassimilated work with the best interests of the child at heart so that the child may be able to grow up and intentions.place of Most times,good parentsand caregivers other includingmedical doctors This is not to say that on sexualthe and decisions health reproductive of childthe interests of in‘thethe best child’.the prerogative of thein it care givers withmedical often decidedoctors consider consultations to their prerogative caregivers and parentsSome of doesthem notremain come ignorant frominvolved inorinformed surgical aboutthe and medical other interventions on theirbodies. a about not their are them of some older, are they when own Even decisions. bodies these to consent to capacity the and specifichave not do and infants are conditions. they when taken often are health reproductive and sexual their on Parents and many intersex For decisions with people, suspectoften regard totheir considered sexuality. Some of these children have to undergo multiple corrective surgeries through multiple theircorrective through Some undergo have children surgeries of these to 68 CEU eTD Collection including their rights to consent, bodilyincluding to integrity their rights and freedom. Like the refugees reproductive wouldpar with protect made be citizens,were consideredother efforts their to at rights are deprived of these rights possibly people intersex as aswell with inferdisabilities thatpeople bebecause to could extended argument they are not considered as full arguescitizens. If thatthey the rightsjeopardised to thusconsent relegating them to the statusfurther get of partial integrity andbodily and citizensconsent to rights or tonon-citizens.their body, bodilynormative the of While standards the Miller integrity get conferredBecause bodies onlyof intersex to citizens,people as well of status with of citizens. only attainment the meaningful become freedom reproductive as people her with disabilities do not fitimportant easily within markersabuse including sexual abuse get blurred and indistinct. of being as whatcouldbetween beconstrued inquestion, lines interests the of ‘bestwith child’ the citizens.are often deprived of any information regarding their own bodies. Though they are often done they and consent their without done often are interventions These adulthood. and childhood She their of part major a for and born are mentions they when from right surgeries multiple unnecessary andgothatthrough have to are treated Many of them intersex face. people integrity that consent, andbodily consent both of have theviolations as such discussed Organisations ISNA bodilyclitoral surgeries have reported the loss of sexual responsiveness as a result of these surgeries. integritymanydiscussed two, intersex have inchapter who cosmetic undergone people or surgeries being askedabout preservation the of erotic in sensation vaginas the 2011, p.243).As(Feder, and few very questions with intersex for intheUSAasastandard practice people are normalized keepinginmind of sexual the person.Forexample, desires intersex surgical the procedures not maybeundertaken many many.forprocedures of these Further, be can also traumatic freakishnessto othersnot only make of buttheir the aware of abnormality them the bodies or Miller (2007) talks about the right to consent and the right to bodily integrity as integrity bodily to right the and consent to right the about talks (2007) Miller 69 CEU eTD Collection abortion was denied in this case, the medical termination of Mehta’s pregnancy on the basis the on pregnancy Mehta’s of termination medical the case, in this denied was abortion becauseCourt her 20 weeks(Madhiwala,had While pregnancy beyond advanced 2008). the defecther by foetus which withaserious High heart wasrejected was diagnosed Mumbai the of for abortion Mumbai plea Niketa’s where in case in 2008 NiketaMehta the highlighted can defects bediagnosed by week (Madhiwala, Thiswas only twentieth the 2008). congenital these of some pregnancy, the of weeks twenty till only be allowed can abortions While these beendetected. have defects congenital in pre-natal where cases weeks twenty to up is allowed pregnancies of termination medical in India, example, For pregnancies. on disability are often automatically builtinto the laws and policies of medical termination of medicalexample the through of Abortionspregnancies basedon based disability.termination engineering continues ineven itstoday forms.subdued and This subtler visiblebecomes for eugenics worldwar, genetic Although the population.towards wasreducedafter thrustthe Roma the or disabled the homosexuals, the Jews, the of be they living, worth not considered were which lives the of extermination the and concentration the with war world second muchevident before World War IIand appeared in itsone of barbaric most forms the during andEugenics Engineering Genetic 5.4 enough notas or full citizens. considered citizens isindicativenot that they peopledisabilities andpeople with as are intersex of rights of deprivation This active as well.deprive rights them these to of colludes rights by the society in general, but the state in the form of the medical institutions often Thus, medical just with decisionsthese in they deprived of experts. are not these consultation These decisions are bodies. their about make to decisions right allowed the are not lives who thusbare as considered made by their primarywithinbiopolitical people the disabilities framework, with aswell intersexbeas people could caregivers such as parents who also make Efforts to mark the ‘perfect body’ through lenses of sexuality, ability, race etc were etc race ability, of sexuality, lenses through body’ mark ‘perfect to the Efforts 70 CEU eTD Collection and mercy killing, selective abortion, institutionization, abortion, selective andmercy killing, disabilities through such asforcedpractices sterilization, so-called physician-assisted suicide eliminate people with isto often enactedasaprogram too all eradicating disability time, practices of although these happen elimination too often disabledon bodies. of any period society at inisnormal contemporary considered notion on the rather what of babies. Thus, notions of coupleabnormality so they could continue to reproduce healthy,heterosexual andare by that logic ‘normal’not restricted reproducing heterosexual perfect the rearing aim to towards continues thus gay the gene to discourses of disabilitymarking bodies that do not conform to the heterosexual order asalone ‘abnormal’. This search for but disposition (Connor, 1995). These discourses perpetuate the notion of normal bodies thus followedprocesses of pre-natal tests of by abortion foetuses which may have agay such casesthrough of eradication of possibility also the suchbut investigation agene of in a number genetic offound within is support people Dr. Hamer’s research gaygene on the due to factors? people including(Connor, 1995).However, why isimportant it tofind if out occurrencethe ofhomosexuality a religiousto some studies, the onset of homosexuality within people could be traced to their genes leaderAccording on ‘gay the discovery fullgene’. of the media isalsoreports of infoetuses, defects who were Apartfrom of congenital nation for the state. diagnosis productively participate cannot interestedof the family and the state. Inherent in this logic is the notionin that people with disabilitiesnot any so effectively babies in‘normal’ they may without (re)productivity defects the participate just the of 20 weeks. of disability would havebeen legal had she approached thehospital within thestipulated time the one hand, she talks about the abortion of foetuses based on disability as a form of According to Garland-ThomsonAccordingp.15), (2002, to “socio-medical the of project ensureof is birth the ideathe to defects, foetuses congenital with of With elimination 71 (sic), and segregation policies”. On CEU eTD Collection being conducted on beingchildren conducted on birthafter convertto them from females tomales (Kadam, of surgeries reports genital in are there India, developmentin example, a recent For forms. other takes technology and in science advancement this birth, before child the of condition intersex the diagnose to easy as not is it where people intersex of case the In birth. before predict level chromosomal atthe and genetic anomalies possible to become increasingly before the birth (Fradernon-citizens. or partial as position their reaffirming et al., thus situations inthese integrity bodily and 2004).consent to disability with person the of right the However, needsis ispriority andcaregivers, tothe little attention accorded of parents the paidto very with where initiative the in this that notice to significant still is it advancement However, difficult. and taxing it offind little from in support communitythe or state the of process the makingcare-giving thus science it limitationsthey older heavierbecause wherecaregivers thus of andalsostructural grow and has as care for people with disabilities to findmay it difficult thecaregivers who of perspective could 2007).These instances(Pilkington, from beexplainedincertain procedures the restrict herphysical including growth herweightand heighttoachild ofnine years normallylike person,shehas any a number been subjected to other wouldthat of procedures acceptablethe limits ofmedical intervention Although (Koyama, 2009). liveshe can such question mastectomy attenuation,hysterectomy andthat double procedures as growth medical of number a undergone has who USA in the state Washington from Ashley of case controversial example, inthe For for caregivers. manageable more small therefore and keep them processesattenuation to of mayalsobeexposedto growth peopledisabilities with from based foetuses p.15). Apart disability processes,these (Garland-Thomson, 2002, on of abortions behind ethics the questions time same the at but pregnancy her retain to whether genocide against the disabled. On the other, she discusses the right of the woman to choose For intersex people, parents and physicians are rarely able to predictcondition their are rarely able to andphysicians intersex parents For people, 72 CEU eTD Collection molecular level such as genes, chromosomes, cells and tissues also comes with benefits not benefits with comes also and tissues cells chromosomes, as genes, such level molecular 15). This focus in looking beyond the molarlevel of limbs organs, etc lookingto atthe enter newto interpersonal, circuitsfinancial” – and geographical,organic, (Rose,2007, p. them oflife,enabling elements on the new mobility a is conferring “molecularization Thus, level in biopolitics, asinstantiated by Rose (2007) has also become inevitable in certain ways. peoplerelieve pain in to bodies.and distressThefrom shiftlevel molar themolecular the to healthhumanhelped beingslonger, livebetter but standards achievehelpedto hasalso just not has advancement Medical living. of conditions better achieve helped also has health medicine and in of technologies Advancement aimbehindthesestrategies. the evaluate people with disabilities. of that to fate a similar to besubjected may then people Intersex intersex. is if thefoetus itmay tobe not predict belong able this science makes juncture, to sufficient before progress at speculative be Although taking newersex’ to dimensions. seems thus ‘perfect the towards Forms of howgovernmentality, it administers populations itandmakes the preferences particularly as the male sex (at least in the context of India) seems beto gaining more ground. sex and aligned for perfectly preference The a penis. a vagina than rather construct malesto convertconducted females, is it into although surgically easierto considered possibly be infertile not impotent although (Kadam, Hardly any are 2011). surgeries however done in consultation with parents even when they are aware that as an adult the person would being into males. Thisis re-converting females surgeries gearedtowards arenow reportedly females,these males or as perfectly aligned are not that with genitals are born who children ‘correct’ to available initially were surgeries these While males. into females biological converting of promises with also but sly, the on abortions selective sex of promises with just proliferating medical arenot agencies sonpreference, obsessedIn a with 2011). country My inaim this thesisnotargue against is to processes of geneticbutto engineering 73 CEU eTD Collection without major family medical problems and to have a combined SAT score of 1400 or above”. The couple The or above”. offered apayment1400 of of $50,000 to suchscore egg donor.SAT combined a have to and problems medical family major without 7 intelligence and weight height, of characteristics particular with donor egg an seek to couple for aninfertile examine whyitneedmay beokay weto example, considered For entails. it what and procedures these for aim the question and examine to need a is think there I However, including engineering. andmolecular genetic technology procedures society. within disabilities in inparticipating reproductive processesandbe therefore more assimilable methods could help be infertileof to including couples some intersex and people people with example,maybe these For circuits. these not consideredpeople within power who generally in of being also signifysole could of possessor power theattainment womb, the the this bodies”other lose 2007,p.14).Although this maymean in(Rose, stand women not that to and laboratories, clinics, circuits of mobilized around body, from any particular separable babies etc.“The elementsof reproduction – eggs,sperm,later embryos and –alsobecome technologies, the womb is however separable from the body of woman, e.g., through test-tube bodied hierarchy. children the are higherupon With of reproductive advancementthe citizens anddoes not. who Those who possess wombs normal, thatproduce healthy and able- fits as normal who role indetermining a vital play therefore Reproductive technologies ascitizens. of rights attainment inthe major role a play politics (re)productive therefore study. my in on just for people in general but also for intersex people and people with disabilities, who I focus for lesbianfor couple whowerehearingimpaired seek a who to hadsperm donor ahistory of Sandel (2007, p.2) discusses acase where an infertile couple sought an eggdonor “who was 5’10tall, athletic, Therefore, there are clear advantages to these kinds of medical and scientific and medical of kinds these to advantages clear are there Therefore, for thewomb biopolitics, for space As Milleras aparadigmatic argues (2007) 74 7 but not but okay CEU eTD Collection discusses how this story published in the Washington Post received extensive condemnation from the public.have adeaf child by seeking a sperm donor “with five generations of deafness infamily”.Sandel (2007) also 8 deafness within the family so that they may have a deaf child level, [...] life itself has become open life hasto politics”. become open itself level, [...] standardization, regulation andtherefore (2007,p.15) asRose and ethics “at molecular this stand bewith andinstead must alone cannot combined therefore lives. Molecularization impact they how biopolitics people’s ideasand explore normality within examine these of we that Itis important others. whilemarginalizing adhere supremely norms these therefore to with all their be have diversities to standards assimilated within narrow ofnormality? important thatpeople so become Why it whatbasis. does on decides and normality,of who to prevent birththe of children with needs different altogether? Whatdetermines boundaries than rather people beconsidered normal, may not who to andresources widerinhibit access that structures and systems these on work to important more not it is However, society. morepeople have disabilities within difficult adjusting and theira time caregivers with opting may from for adeaf child whereatasystemic come a place level, structural and Sandel (2007, p.1) also discusses case the of SharonDuchesneau and Candy McCulloughwho preferred to Standards of normalization have therefore been used to benefit some people who people some benefit to used been therefore have normalization of Standards 75 8 . Public condemnation . Publictowards condemnation CEU eTD Collection normalcy are however relegated tomarginalization. periphery Examining to the normalcy are howeverrelegated and subjected of fit modes not these do that However, those processes of (re)production. through state the to contribute fit to and worthy considered are therefore of normalcy fit parameters who the People state. nation the for also but families their for or themselves for just not value more of areconsidered healthy and able-bodied are people who framework, Within nation.this hierarchizingthe valueandsystem towards towards interms of their people worth works (re)productive/ non-(re) productive. Classifying and arrangingpeople around norm, the this male/ disabled, able/ female, such as categories intohierarchizing binary and people influencesframework intersex people as well peopleas with disabilities. how thebiopoliticalwho makethis not.Through meaningI attempt to are thesis, of normal categorise thatand peoplethose as andprocedures techniques through collectives) disciplinary aswellpower as regulatory works power peopleon (individuals aswell as more. Developing anunderstanding ofbiopolitics has enhanced my knowledge ofhow influences on individual bodies as well as populations that riveted me towards exploring disabilities not was therefore new.Itwasonly learningbiopoliticsbegan when about I and its with andpeople intersex people between ofintersections points were there decades. That few past through the movementbuilding feminist processes from to the andlearnt contributed have movement andhistory advocacy building.colour of the People of groups throughout havecommunities from learned constantly discriminated victories of the and failings other and groups Marginalised a new revelation. was not That disabilities. people with and ofintersectionsbetweenintersex people Icould intersex issues, working on seepoints WhenIbegan anddiscrimination. marginalisation spaces of identitiesbreedextreme these Conclusion Withinnormalising work biopolitical the through framework, procedures classifying Some of another. into one collide They They overlap. hardly constant. are Identities 76 CEU eTD Collection influences how they are treated. They are both subjected to constant and routine medical and constant routine to subjected are both They they how are treated. influences and this society within astheabnormals relegated both Theyare share afewcommonalities. within society. work marginalisation understanding larger of is our how normalisation practices crucial of processes to understandings of healthy/unhealthyable/disable, ornormal/abnormal. Understanding these work classifying binary within relegating and people normalisation procedures towards intersexas it of issignificant with how within people the disabilities questions group people indicativemeaningsidentity inhave these of groups the the of publicimaginary. Collision are intersections These of disability. that as discourses usessimilar often people intersex broad enough often language includeforSimilarly, intersex defining people. to used the is on laws disability languageof The other. each intersect with collideand often there needs, force. is that of their abnormality and therefore their inability in society the general conception the not be to(re)produce, may actually able they Whether or to be part of the (re)productive work reproducebeing power. normal, to strengthen able able and healthy children state the to contribute to tothe nation’s eitherthrough of being productivethe worth or part work-force worthy considered not andfreaks monsters andthe aretherefore the are therefore body. They treated as the abnormal as they do notfit within the conceptions of a normal, able and healthy female.judged of areoften parameters maleor the being with disabilities Similarly people as andquestion sex absolute notions of beliein They between. a space occupy and male/female varied between interconnections forms of (Hall,oppression 2002). the understanding to crucial is therefore work normalization of processes these how Within this frameworkalong Within intersex therefore, people people with this with disabilities Although intersex people and people are with withdisabilities differentgroups varied notin asthey fitdo asincomplete of binary the considered areoften people Intersex 77 CEU eTD Collection engineeringindividuals be mechanisms,measuresforfit opting could still them that within peoplefor opting certain led ofbodies. themselves In kinds state absenceof the genetic with well as ways in non-coercive manifest may processes normalisation These not. Perhaps, betterbe it Would norm. the if beyond reach to trying and changes these making actively through nature proceduresto reconstitute hyperagency andanattempt isit aprocess of argues that actually (2007) were initiatedSandel make-up. bodily chromosomal theiror genetic/ (Sandel,capacities dueto 2007) not by only level at the of individualsautonomy of inherentlyas people are varyingdifferent with the state but problem including normalization notexistwith these genetic does procedures engineering, by the people consent of eugenics. The processes people aswell involvedgeneticas butalso of engineering themselves?normalcy are considered unworthy. Thismanifestsin justnot corrective procedures without system. However, they it similarcoulddisabled, they that besubjectto bespeculated could procedures. lead to processes withinlaws incorporated ofintersex people the Because some nations. areoften as considered in isoften disabilities with foetuses whichof termination Medical eugenics. aswell as engineering people genetic of processes through generations future the on bornbutalso whoare already who do not ‘the abnormals’ just on correcting focussed not are fit interventions toabuse.Medical vulnerable the codesare considered less citizens,than other bodies, lack equalrights and maybe be also additionally own their ofabout decisions make to worthy less considered are disabilities ‘normals’. the of category the within considered not still are they others, the over excel they where Becausenormals’ to andviewed asthreats population.the Even in these exceptional circumstances of theirsituations such as in the field of sports where both these groups are considered ‘more than the abnormality,in Thesituation reverses however surgeries. includingparticular interventions corrective both intersex people as well as people with Normalisation procedures in maynotbeNormalisation procedures themselves more than a classificatory 78 CEU eTD Collection therefore between being normal and abnormal and therefore there is no single destination. single isno there andtherefore andabnormal being normal between therefore and disability and between ability the terrain traversing is each us constantly of that recognize singular conceptionis no there is that It inaccepting becountered. can body normative idea of the a singular that one multi-dimensional of a fluid and of acceptance body of the and the conceptualization the body or a singular of a fixedcan subject be questioned” (Inahara,2009,p.54) [italics in original]. conceptionfluidity and change. If one is positioned in a fluid system of of embodied subjectivity, the notion abilitymoment ofrecognition in the process of beingembodied either. butbody, of as kinds acategory “not certain of be It reconfigured can physical disability is also in makes humans thatnormalcy. anysingularunderstanding complex of uni-dimensional Thus, about through an understanding of andmultiplicity diversity the ismanifestedthat among come make Thiscould expendable. that normal make and ideaof the the dowith therefore the ‘norm’ as long as the idea of one ‘normal’ exists within society. The idea would be to To conclude, itisTo conclude, in a single, the idea and rejecting of sexed able-bodied 79 , a recognition of vulnerability, of as a CEU eTD Collection Fausto-Sterling, A., 2000. The Five Sexes Revisited, Sciences, [Online]. Available at: Fausto-Sterling, A., 1993. The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough, Sciences, Fausto-Sterling, A., 2000. Sexing The Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), [n.d]. Disability Discrimination Act Disability India Network, [n.d]. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Cook, J.W., 1996. Of Men, Missing Links, and Nondescripts: The Strange Career of Connor, S., 1995. The ‘gay gene’ is back on the scene. The Independent, [Online] 1 Colligan, S., 2004. Why the Intersexed Shouldn’t Be Fixed: Insights from Queer Theory and Butler, 1993.Imitation J., and Gender Insubordination - DeckingPerforming Out: Identities. BBC News, 2009. Birth Certificate Backs SA Gender [Online] Available at: Agamben, G.,1995. Homo Sacer, Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford Accord Alliance, 2011. Glossary of Terms. [Online] Available at: References Fiedler, In: L.A.,1996.Foreword. R. Garland-Thomson, ed.1996.Freakery: Cultural Feder, E. K., 2011. Bioethics and the Disciplines: Recent work on the medical management ADA,Americans 2009. with Disabilities Actof 1990, As Amended. [Online]Available at: on-the-scene-1536770.html 33/ [ [Accessed 2June 2011]. [ at: Available [Online]. Sexuality. New York: Basic Books. 2011]. [ 1992. [Online] Available at: [ protection Of AndRights Full ACT,Participation) 1995.[Online] Available at: University Press. pp.139-157. Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. New York and London: New York P.T.Barnum’s ‘What is it?” Exhibition. In: R. Garland-Thomson, ed. 1996. Freakery: November. Available at: [ Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers U. Press. pp.45-60. Disability Studies. In: B. Smith & B.Hutchinson, eds. Gendering Disability. New pp.13-31. In: D. Fuss, ed. Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York: Routledge. [ Press. University [ Press. pp.xiii-xvi. Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. New York and London: New York University Approaches toBioethics, 4(1/Spring),pp. 241-249 (Review). Feminist Journal of Reis. International Karkazis Elizabeth and Katrina of Intersex. [ http://abouthomosexuality.com/five-sexes.pdf http://www.dredf.org/international/Ausdda.html#_Toc463338525 http://www.disabilityindia.org/pwdacts.cfm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8215112.stm http://www.accordalliance.org/component/glossary/Glossary-of-Terms-1/I/intersex- http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf ] [Accessed 2June 2011]. http://www.uta.edu/english/timothyr/Fausto-Sterling.pdf http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-gay-gene-is-back- ]. 80 ] [Accessed 2June 2011]. ] [Accessed 2June 2011]. ] [Accessed3June 2011]. ] [Accessed 30May 2011]. ] [Accessed 1 June 1 ] [Accessed ] CEU eTD Collection Kessel, A., 2010. Caster Semenya May Return to Track This Month After IAAF Clearance. After This IAAF Month toTrack Semenya Return May Caster 2010. A., Kessel, Karna, G. N., 2010. The Rights of Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusion of Persons Karkazis,K.,2008. Fixing Sex: Intersex, Medical Authority, Lived and Experience. Duke Kadam, A. U.,2011. Docs turn baby girls intoboys. The Hindustan Times, [Online] 26 June. Kafer, A.,2004.Inseparable: Gender and Disability in the Amputee-Devotee Community. In: ISNA, 2011. How common is Intersex? [Online] Available at: ISNA, 2011.What is Intersex? Available[Online] at: Irving, D., 2008. Normalized Transgressions: Legitimizing the Transsexual Body as Inahara, M., 2009. This Body Which is Not One: The Body, Femininity and Disability. Body Hall, K.Q., 2002. Feminism, Disability and Embodiment. NWSA Journal, 14(3), pp. vii-xiii. Grosz, E., 1996.Intolerable Ambiguity:Freaks as/at theLimit. In: R.Garland-Thomson, ed. Gordon, C., 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Garland-Thomson, R., 2002. Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. NWSA Garland-Thomson, R., 1996. Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. New Frader, J. et al., 2004. Health Care Professionals and Intersex Conditions.Archives of Foucault, M., 2003. From the power of sovereignty powerto over life. Lecture (17 March Foucault, M., 1997. The Abnormals. In: P.Rainbow, ed. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Foucault, M., 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Volume I. New York: doctors-turn-scores-of-baby-girls-into-boys/Article1-713863.aspx [Accessed 1June 2011). [ The Guardian, [Online] 6 July.Available at: [Accessed 10June 2011]. [ with Disabilities Act, 2010. [Online]Available at: London. and Durham Press, University Available at: [ U. Press. pp.107-118. B. Smith & B. Hutchinson, eds. Gendering Disability. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers [ [ Productive. Radical History Review, 100(Winter), pp.38-60. & pp.Society, 47-62. 15(1), New York University Press. pp. 55-66. 1996. Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of Extraordinarythe Body. NewYorkand London: Press. Chicago Journal, pp.1-32. 14(3), Press. University York New London: and York Pediatrics &AdolescentMedicine, 158(May),pp. 426-429. 264. 1975-1976, MauroBertani AlessandroFontana,and eds,NewYork: Picador, pp.239- 1976). In M. Foucault, Society must be Defended. Lectures at the College de France London, Allen Lane: The Penguin pp.51-58.Press, Random House, Inc. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/06/caster-semenya-iaaf-clearance http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/Preamble_Definitions_Act_2010.php http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/madhyapradesh/Indore- ] [Accessed 7May 2011]. 81 ] [Accessed 10May 2011]. ]. ] ] CEU eTD Collection Saner, E., 2008. The Gender Trap. The Guardian, [Online] 30 July. Available at: Sandel, M.J., 2007. The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Rose, N., 2007. The Politics of Life Itself : Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Rapp, R.,2000.TestingWomen, TestingFetus:The the Social Amniocentesis in of Impact Preves, S.E., 2002. Sexing the Intersexed: An Analysis of Sociocultural Responses to a child remain will who girl nine-year-old disabled the in time: Frozen 2007. E., Pilkington, 2010. Whatis (OII-Australia), International Australia Limited Organisation Intersex Mullins,A., 2009. Racing on Carbon Fiber Legs: How Abled Should We Be? Gizmodo, Who Have Intersex Conditions with Ambiguous Genitalia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Minto, C. The L. et al., 2003. The Effect of Clitoral Surgery on Sexual Outcome in Individuals Miller, R.,2007. The Limits of Bodily Integrity. Ashgate. Merish, L., 1996. Cuteness and Commodity Aesthetics: Tom Thumb and Shirley Temple. In: Madhiwala, N., 2008. The Niketa Mehta case: does the right toabortion threaten disability Lee, P.A., Honk, C.P., Ahmed, S.F., & Hughes, I.A., 2006. Consensus Statement on Koyama, 2009. E., One in 1,000 children may become subjected togrowth attenuation.What Kessler, S., 1998. Lessons from the Intersexed, New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Schulze, M., 2009. Understanding The UN Convention On The Rights Of Persons With fiber-legs-how-abled-should-we-be become-subjected-to-growth-attenuation/ U5K_fch9bOTP6y24dTEaJeudbdROGeWHpTeYW9ZPjw56V60avhMEi2HKwSB0c7 downloads/HI_CRPD_Manual_sept2009_final.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coikcANLyMs sites.googlegroups.com/a/nileshsingit.org/uncrpd-and-new-disability-act/uncrpd- [ Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Twenty-first Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Routledge. NewYork: America. Intersexuality. pp.523-556. 27(2), Signs, 2011]. [ at: Available [Online] Guardian. The life. her all [Accessed 10May 2011]. Available at:[ Intersex? [Online] [Online] 12November. Available[ at: Lancet, 361,pp.1252-1257. Body. New York and London: New York University Press. pp. 185-203. R. Garland-Thomson, ed.1996.Freakery: Spectacles Cultural of Extraordinarythe http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/164ed152.html rights? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, [Online] Available at: Management Pediatrics, of pp.e488-e500.Disorders. Intersex 4118(2), [ at: Sorts Available of People, [Online] Press. University Rutgers [ Disabilities [Online] Handicap International.Available at: May 2011]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/04/health.topstories3 http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/one-in-1000-children-may- https://8953499920627000589-a-nileshsingit-org-s- http://oiiaustralia.com/information/intersex/ ] [Accessed 30May 2011]. http://gizmodo.com/5403322/racing-on-carbon- 82 ] [Accessed 5August] [Accessed 2011]. ] [Accessed 26June] [Accessed 2011]. ] [Accessed 5August ] [Accessed 7 ] [Accessed ] CEU eTD Collection World Health Organisation 2011.Disabilities.(WHO), [Online] Available at: World Health Organisation 2011. Gender(WHO), and [Online] Genetics. Available at: World Health & Organization (WHO) Worldthe Bank,2011. World Reporton Disability Warne, G. & Bhatia, B., 2006. Intersex, Eastand West. In S. E. Systsma ed. Ethics and United Nations, [n.d]. Article 1 – Purpose. [Online] Available at: United Nations, [n.d]. Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Convention on the Rights of The Sunday Times, 2009. Caster Semenya Faces Sex Test Before She Can Claim Victory. 2006. Silverberg, C., Sexuality and Disability Myths andfacts. About.com, [Online] 15 Shildrick,Embodying 2002. Encounters Monster: the with Vulnerablethe Self. London: Sage The International Paralympic Committee (IPC), [n.d]. Paralympic Games. [Online] Available [Online] Games. Paralympic [n.d]. (IPC), Committee Paralympic International The TARSHI, 2010. Sexuality and Disability in the Indian Context. [Online] New Delhi, India. Tarnai,2006. Review B., of Effective for Interventions Socially MasturbationInappropriate Thomas, C., 2004. How is Disability Understood? An Examination of Sociological [ at: Available [Online] [ at: Available December. Publications. Approaches. Disability & pp. Society, 19(6), 569-583. at: [ [Accessed 3June 2011]. [ [ Geneva:2011. WHO Press. Intersex. Springer. Netherlands: pp.183-205. [ 2011]. [ Persons with Disabilities. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 1June 2011]. [Accessed 10June 2011]. [ at: Available in with Persons Cognitive Disabilities. Sex and Disability,pp.151-168. 24, NlwCuF4Yt0sbP7BJX2AX3BCpvtR0Ulbi1K7c1og%3D%3D&attredirects=2 Ydmjcqif6kBVJXYu8JmhB0P6yZPSVA3wcNVCb92mePXDU4fqjahkz VPvQOzsgQTL04vuCuSLfr81zya3sgABkOWfgBueC7NFddz_Cg7eWUEOjtgsG_7- -loetmGD5A_1qPwD581_9OCg5SZyjIHbxg6LM1 Jy_PDSwAgte2H2Io5lg [Accessed 1June 2011]. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article6802314.ece http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/ http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=261 http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=24&pid=151#bp4 http://tarshi.net/downloads/Sexuality_and_Disability_in_the_Indian_Context.pdf http://www.paralympic.org/Paralympic_Games/ http://sexuality.about.com/od/disability/p/disability_sex1.htm 83 ] [Accessed 2June 2011]. ] [Accessed 8May 2011]. ] [Accessed 10June 2011]. ] [Accessed 2June] [Accessed 2011]. ] [Accessed 8 May 8 [Accessed ] ] ] ] ]