Individuals’ understanding of gender has shifted significantly over the years with more people conforming to the fact that the term should not be limited to referring to men and women. People born with unisex genitalia and transgender individuals are not uncommon in society but the voices of these individuals are often subdued by strongly held cultures of what gender should constitute. The documentary Gender Revolution: A Journey with Katie Couric, shares the touching stories of individuals with unique gender differences and identities. Although some of these individuals exist in supportive environments, most of them live a life they do not resonate with because of being pre-assigned to a particular gender at birth and being taken through life-changing surgeries without their consent. Therefore, the following essay describes the adverse implications of corrective surgical practices and why they are ethically unacceptable.
Activism and the struggle for self-determination when discussing sex and gender issues are often biased toward lesbian and gay individuals. However, transgender and unisex people experience worse atrocities, often swept under the rug because of limited support to fight for their case (Mackay 15). Many transgender individuals have gone through gender assignment surgeries, often performed a few months after birth without their consent, only to find out later after experiencing severe gender identity issues. These procedures are inappropriate and not medically necessary, meaning that they infringe on individuals’ autonomy and self-determination by limiting their decision-making (Bizic et al. 2). Thus, these operations are unethical and should be abolished to ensure that all individuals enjoy equal rights regardless of their gender attributes or identity.
Several ethical questions are raised about the autonomy of children in making decisions about their gender at birth. Although there are minimal risks associated with being born with two sexual organs, most medical practitioners give parents a limited timeframe to decide whether to carry out gender assignment surgeries on newborns. Nevertheless, the process of gender assignment does not end with the surgical process as a patient requires occasional hormonal treatments and gender reaffirmation techniques to enable them to develop the traits of their assigned gender. However, the results of these procedures are not always in the best interest of victims as they are exposed to gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a situation that describes the discomfort individuals experience due to a mismatch of their gender identity and biological sex (Bizic et al. 2). On most occasions, the heightened sense of dissatisfaction with life results in extreme adversities. These individuals suffer from aggravated stress, anxiety, and depression, which have destructive implications on their lives.
Gender assignment surgery (GAS) is also against the ethical principles that medical practitioners and caregivers are obligated to respect for the highest possible quality of care and the best outcomes. For example, GAS is against the standards of non-maleficence, and beneficence as it does not accord these surgeries the sensitivity they deserve (Levine 22). Gender dystopia arises when an individual is not comfortable with their reality due to unaligned hopes, dreams, and expectations. As a result, GAS is contrary to the expectations of non-maleficence as it does not promise the best outcomes. In addition, medical practitioners are advised to carry out invasive procedures only when necessary and avoid harming individuals mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally by always doing what is good (Levine 36). Nevertheless, GAS does not conform to the tenets of this principle as it exposes individuals to irreversible health risks because the procedure is done on healthy organs that do not require any treatments. Thus, the high risks associated with the operation and its potential outcomes disqualify it as a moral action (Bizic et al. 5). Hence, it is critical to establish strict practice guidelines against such surgeries as they do not constitute improving the health and well-being of individuals.
The issue of gender identity and sexual preference are often addressed interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing. This essay focused on the ethical questions raised by Katie Couric in her documentary on the gender revolution and the most recent developments in the gender and sexuality debate. A principal point of concern is the limited choice accorded to unisex individuals at birth due to their visible sexual traits. Gender assignment surgery is a prioritized solution in cases where children are born with both organs and deformed genitalia. However, the operation is against the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and informed consent because it does not consider the individual’s interests, the best outcomes, safety, and the complications a patient might experience throughout their lives due to the surgery. Gender dystopia is one of the associated reparations, often resulting in stress, depression, and poor life quality. Thus, it is crucial to pay more attention to the cases of unisex children and ensure that parents and caregivers are not coerced into making the decision about gender and sex for their children. In a broader sense, no one should be given this responsibility except for the individuals themselves because of the potential harm, its ethical aspects, and the irreversible nature of the surgery.
Works Cited
Bizic, Marta R., et al. “Gender dysphoria: bioethical aspects of medical treatment.”Biomed research international, vol. 2018, pp. 1-6.
Levine, Stephen B. “Ethical concerns about emerging treatment paradigms for gender dysphoria.”Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, vol. 44, no.1, 2018. p. 29-44.
Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, ed. The Routledge handbook of the ethics of discrimination. Routledge, 2018.
Mackay, Finn. Female masculinities and the gender wars: The politics of sex. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.