| Intersex rights in Colombia | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Protection of physical integrity and bodily autonomy | No |
| Protection from discrimination | No |
| Changing M/F sex classifications | Yes |
| Marriage | Yes |
| Intersex topics |
|---|
 |
In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Colombia became the first court to consider the human rights implications of medical interventions to alter the sex characteristics of intersex children. The Court restricted the age at which intersex children could be the subjects of surgical interventions. [1]
The Constitutional Court of Colombia was the first court to consider the human rights implications of intersex medical interventions, in a case that restricted the age at which intersex children could be the subjects of surgical interventions. [1]
In April 2018, Latin American and Caribbean intersex activists published the San José de Costa Rica statement, defining local demands. [2]
Colombia does not prohibit harmful practices on children, but they are regulated through a series of decisions made by the Constitutional Court of Colombia relating to the bodily autonomy of infants and children, including those with intersex conditions. [3]
In Sentencia T-477/95, the Court considered the case of YY, a non-intersex teenage boy who had been raised a girl after an accidental castration and subsequent feminizing genital surgeries. He took the case after learning of his medical history. The Court ruled that the teenager's right to identity had been violated, and that the sex of a child could not be altered without the child's informed consent. [3] [4]
In Sentencia SU-337/99, of May 12, 1999, the Court varied the earlier decision on informed consent for genital surgeries in children. The Court ruled in the case of XX, an 8-year old with ambiguous genitalia, androgen insensitivity and XY chromosomes, raised as a girl. Doctors recommended feminizing surgeries, including a gonadectomy, vaginoplasty and clitoroplasty before puberty, but the hospital would not proceed without the consent of the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare and the Office of the Public Advocate (Defensor del Pueblo de la Seccional del Departamento XX). The mother brought a case against Institute and Office of the Public Advocate, seeking to provide substitute consent. The mother argued that “the capacity to decide, it would be too late and would prevent normal psychological, physical, and social development”. [5]
The Court refused the mother's claim. It questioned the urgency of the case, argued by medical teams. Civil rights advocates and a minority of doctors favored deferring treatment due to lack of evidence and the irreversible nature of the proposed interventions. The Court observed that advocates of surgery were more numerous than opponents, alternatives to surgery were not entirely feasible, and surgeries had improved, “making it less likely that sexual sensitivity would be destroyed; and the medical community was improving communication with parents”. [5] However, some doctors refused to respond to criticisms of surgery, while some others questioned their surgical approach.
The Court determined that a constitutional protection of a right to free development of personality meant that a child's autonomy increases with age, including the development of a gender identity and bodily awareness. [6] The Court determined that genital surgeries should not be conducted on children over the age of five. It determined that multidisciplinary teams should assess children's needs on a case-by-case basis. [3] [5] [7]
The (now defunct) Intersex Society of North America stated that the Court decisions "significantly restrict the ability of parents and doctors to resort to the scalpel when children are born with atypical genitals", in a case that was "the first time that a high court anywhere has considered whether [Intersex Genital Mutilation] is a violation of human rights." [1] Morgan Holmes states that, while children who reach the same age and circumstances will be in the same position, then they will "be permitted access to the conditions that protect their autonomies". Other intersex children will not benefit, in particular at the point they are born: "In its worst potential implications and uses, the court's decision may simply amplify the need to expedite procedures". [6]
In Sentencia T-551/99, later in 1999, the Court ruled in the case of NN, a two-year-old intersex child unable to consent to genital surgeries. Basing a decision on the case of XX, the Court determined that parents could give permission for the normalization of their child's genitals as long as the informed consent was "qualified and persistent." However, this did not exist in the case of NN, because the "parents were led to believe that genital-normalizing surgery was the only option for their daughter. The parents did not examine alternative options to surgery; therefore, their decision did not consider the best interests of the child". [4]
In Sentencia T-912/08, the Court ruled in the case of a five-year-old child, ruling that parents and child could give joint consent. In cases where the child and parents had different opinions, no surgery could take place until adulthood. [3]
On June 4, 2015, the Government issued a decree, signed by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior enabling simple administrative changes to legal gender by signing a document before a notary. [8] [9]
Intersex medical interventions (IMI), sometimes known as intersex genital mutilations (IGM), are surgical, hormonal and other medical interventions performed to modify atypical or ambiguous genitalia and other sex characteristics, primarily for the purposes of making a person's appearance more typical and to reduce the likelihood of future problems. The history of intersex surgery has been characterized by controversy due to reports that surgery can compromise sexual function and sensation, and create lifelong health issues. The medical interventions can be for a variety of reasons, due to the enormous variety of the disorders of sex development. Some disorders, such as salt-wasting disorder, can be life-threatening if left untreated.
The history of intersex surgery is intertwined with the development of the specialities of pediatric surgery, pediatric urology, and pediatric endocrinology, with our increasingly refined understanding of sexual differentiation, with the development of political advocacy groups united by a human qualified analysis, and in the last decade by doubts as to efficacy, and controversy over when and even whether some procedures should be performed.
Bo Laurent, better known by her pseudonym Cheryl Chase, is an American intersex activist and the founder of the Intersex Society of North America. She began using the names Bo Laurent and Cheryl Chase simultaneously in the 1990s and changed her name legally from Bonnie Sullivan to Bo Laurent in 1995.
Morgan Holmes is a Canadian sociologist, author, and a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario. She is also an intersex activist and writer, and former member of Intersex Society of North America. Holmes participated in the first public demonstration by intersex people, now marked by Intersex Awareness Day.
Zwischengeschlecht is a human rights advocacy group campaigning on intersex bodily autonomy issues. The group demonstrates outside medical events where surgical interventions are discussed or performed, engages with the media, and participates in consultations with human rights institutions.
Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, or genitals, that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies."
The following is a timeline of intersex history.
Intersex rights in New Zealand are protections and rights afforded to intersex people. Protection from discrimination is implied by the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act, but remains untested. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states that there has seemingly been a "lack of political will to address issues involved in current practices of genital normalisation on intersex children".
Intersex people in the United States have some of the same rights as other people, but with significant gaps, particularly in protection from non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions and violence, and protection from discrimination. Actions by intersex civil society organizations aim to eliminate harmful practices, promote social acceptance, and equality. In recent years, intersex activists have also secured some forms of legal recognition. Since April 11, 2022 US Passports give the sex/gender options of male, female and X by self determination.
Intersex people in Germany have legal recognition of their rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, with exceptions, but no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics. In response to an inquiry by the German Ethics Council in 2012, the government passed legislation in 2013 designed to classify some intersex infants as a de facto third category. The legislation has been criticized by civil society and human rights organizations as misguided.
Intersex people in the United Kingdom face significant gaps in legal protections, particularly in protection from non-consensual medical interventions, and protection from discrimination. Actions by intersex civil society organisations aim to eliminate unnecessary medical interventions and harmful practices, promote social acceptance, and equality in line with Council of Europe and United Nations demands. Intersex civil society organisations campaign for greater social acceptance, understanding of issues of bodily autonomy, and recognition of the human rights of intersex people.
Since November 7, 2023, Chile bans unnecessary and non-consensual surgeries, procedures or medical treatments on intersex newborns, boys, girls and adolescents. Since March 15, 2022, Chile bans discrimination based on "sex characteristics" under Law 21,430 on Guarantees and Integral Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents. The country has the most advanced legal protection framework in Latin America.
Intersex people in Uganda face a dangerous environment, with significant gaps in protection from mutilation and non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions and protection from discrimination.
Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.
Brújula Intersexual is a voluntary organisation for intersex people that promotes the human rights and bodily autonomy of intersex people in Mexico, and across Latin America. Founded in 2013, Brújula Intersexual provides peer support, education and information.
In Mexico there are no explicit rights reserved to intersex persons, no protections from non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions on intersex children and no legislative protection from discrimination. Intersex persons may have difficulties in obtaining necessary health care.
Intersex people in Argentina have no recognition of their rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, and no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics. Cases also exist of children being denied access to birth certificates without their parents consenting to medical interventions. The National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism and civil society organizations such as Justicia Intersex have called for the prohibition of unnecessary medical interventions and access to redress.
Intersex people in Switzerland have no recognition of rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, and no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics. In 2012, the Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics published a report on the medical management of differences of sex development or intersex variations.
Intersex people in Canada have no recognition of their rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, and no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics. Academic advocates including Janik Bastien-Charlebois and Morgan Holmes, and organizations including Egale Canada and the Canadian Bar Association have called for reform.
Arun Kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration&Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.
| Human rights and legal issues |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and biology | ||
| Society and culture | ||
| History and events | ||
| Rights by country | ||
| See also | ||
