4th Global Conference
Monday 19th November - Thursday
22nd November 2007
Salzburg, Austria
Session 8: Sexual Citizenship
Chair: Lilian M. Romero
Deficit Subject or Sexual Citizen? Lesbian Conception, Pregnancy and Birth Experiences 1980 – 2000, Victoria, Australia
Sue J. Dyson
The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Australia
This paper discusses the ways in which, over the period 1980 – 2000, five lesbians in an Australian PhD study negotiated the moral, legal, and political minefield of conception, pregnancy and birth, as they attempted to create de novo families (that is, where a child or children are conceived, born and raised within a lesbian relationship) (McNair, et al., 2005). I discuss the lesbian/feminist literature of the 1970s that envisioned a future in which heterosexual relations would not be necessary to bear a child, and the development of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) that indeed made this possible. In the 1970s and 80s, lesbians formed self-help groups, and some of these groups continue to connect lesbians and sperm donors to achieve conception, without resorting to using clinical services. However, access to donor sperm is limited and many lesbians still need (or choose) to access state controlled services to become pregnant. In the early 1980s a moral panic emerged when it became known that lesbians were availing themselves of services previously thought to be the domain of infertile heterosexual couples, and legislation was passed to deny access for lesbians (and single women) to ART. There followed public and political debate and legal action, in which lesbians were produced as unfit mothers who denied children their birth right to a father. This debate, and the hetrosexualisation of clinical spaces attempted to diminish the sexual citizenship of lesbians, who were produced as essentially unhealthy subjects. Through the stories of five women I will illustrate the ways in which the interaction between discourses and the field of the de novo family impacted on individuals, and the ways in which their actions impacted on the field. Through their stories, it is possible to see that negative discourses can be productive, and provide conditions in which sexual citizenship and its commensurate rights and responsibilities can be asserted by those whose rights are often marginalised.
Who is Asian?: Representing a Pan-ethnic Continent in LGBTIQ Community Activism
Alan Wong
Concordia University, Canada
This paper addresses the issue of queer Asian identification and representation in relation to political and social activism and community building. The essentialization of ethnicity, race and sexuality is shown to be counterproductive to collective organizing. Intersectionality, along with its interlocking tendencies, is recommended as a framework with which to analyze oppression and devise strategies of resistance on a holistic level. However, it is pointed out that for queer Asians, organizing within such a framework is complicated by the meaning of the term “Asian.” Asian identity is shown to be a construct that has been shaped by and imagined through discursive forces with roots in European colonialism and imperialism. The author suggests that an analysis of Asian identity grounded in a theory of panethnicity can be instructive in developing a framework that considers both local and global ethnic affiliations for the purposes of political mobilization, particularly in the form of coalition-building. Such a framework may be applicable to many different situations, including those present in the queer Asian community. To illustrate this, the author offers a case study of Gay and Lesbian Asians of Montreal (GLAM).
South African Women's Constitutional Rights v Sanctity of Life
Lindiwe Gura
University of North west, New Zealand
The Abortion and Sterilization Act 2 of 1975 allowed abortion in very limited and narowly defined circumstances only.The position changed radically when the Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 came into operation on 1 February 1997.This was neccesitated by the new Constitutional dispensation of the new South Africa,post 1994 Nelson Mandela South Africa.The Act permits termination of pregnancy on demand,prior to the 13th week of the gestation period,and on several grounds( including socio-economic considerations after that).Regrettably s.4 of the Act merely obliges the state to promote the provision of non-mandatory and non-directive counselling before and after the termination of pregnancy. In the case of Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v The Minister of Health 1998 11 BCLR 1434 (T).The Act was constitutionally tested by the applicant who argued that human life starts at conception and not at birth.As termination of pregnancy terminates human life,it violates section 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996,which accords everyone the right to life.The respondents argued that a womens right to choose to have a pregancy terminated the circumstances and manner contemplated by the Act is protected by section 9: the right to equality section 10: right to hunam dignity, section 11: the right to life, section 12: the right to freedom and security of the person, section 14: thje right to privacy, section 15(1): the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, and opinion and section 27(1)(a): the right to access to health care services, including reproductive health care. These rights have been extended to lesbian partners as in the case of J v Director General, Department of Home Affairs 2003 5 BCLR 1006 (CC) wherein lesbian mothers had twins as a result of assisted reproduction. The twins were conceived via in vitro fertilization of the ovum of one of the women with donor sperm.The couple wanted to have the twins registered as their legitimate children. When the respondent refused they challenged the constitutionality of section 5. The Durban High Court declared the section unconstitutional on the ground that it discriminates unfairly against same sex life partners on the ground of marital status, sexual orientation, entrenched in section 9. The unconstitutionality had to be declared by the Constitutional Court which concurred with the court a quo. In this paper we shall investigate the arguments advanced by Christian Movements and churches, the islamic religion, Hindu, Bhuduism and Rastafarism-with a medical research as to when does life begin. These will further be weighed against the Constitution, advancement of rights of women(socio economic rights) affirmative action,gender mainstreaming, the conditions in South African Maintenance Courts, the ever increasing households run by women single parents. At the end of the day, whose decision is it? A woman's,a constitution's, religion, a supernatural being's, jurisprudence of a particular country?