Taking a Stand Against Sex Selection
Date Published:
January 4, 2007
US feminists are only now confronting an issue that has long been a part of women's movements in other countries, particularly in South and East Asia. Since the 1970s, the most commonly practiced method of sex selection around the world has been prena¬tal genetic diagnosis (most often by ultrasound tests or amniocentesis) followed by sex-selective abortion. Indian feminists, for example, strug¬gled against this practice, leading to the 1994 passage of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act to regulate and prevent its misuse, which took the form of widespread abortion of female fetuses, an expression of blatant dis¬crimination against girls and women child. Today, with the expansion of sex selection marketing in western so¬cieties and the emergence of new technologies, which avoid the contro¬versy of abortion through techniques used prior to pregnancy, the issue has become even seemingly more complex. The Committee on Women, Population and the Environment (CWPE) firmly believes that sex selection for non-medical reasons in any form (whether pre-pregnancy or pre-birth) and in any society is inherently discriminato¬ry and therefore must be opposed.
One of the experimental methods of pre-conception sex selection, sperm sorting, is an experimental form of pre-conception sex selection that involves separation of sperm carrying female chromosomes from those carrying mate chromosomes, followed by artificial insemination or IVF (in-vitro fer¬tilization). Although compared to other methods, sperm sorting has not obtained a high degree of accuracy, the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine considers this tech¬nique the least ethically and socially problematic of current sex selection tech¬nologies. This is because sperm sorting is less invasive and costly than other sex selec¬tion methods and does not involve an abortion or the discarding of embryos.
Another method, Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), is a procedure that has been in use for a decade almost exclusively by infertile couples undergoing IVF who are at risk of having babies with certain genetic diseases, including sex-linked genetic disorders. However, this method can be used as a form of sex selection for non-med¬ical reasons by infertile and fertile couples alike.
Recently, it has become clear in the U.S. that some fertility clinics are eager to exploit potential markets for sex selection by offer¬ing PGD/IVF to anyone who desires it and is willing to pay for the services. It is also not surprising that sex selection profiteering strategies have led clinics to target South Asian American communities in the U.S. In her New York Times article on 8/15/01 in “Clinics' Pitch to Indian Emigres: It's a Boy—Indians Abroad Get Pitch on Gender Choice,” (8/15/01), Susan Sachs exposed sex selection ads appearing in the North American editions of Indian Express and in India Abroad,. two newspapers with a large circulation among Indians living in the U.S. Members of these communities have spoken out against such ads and India Abroad has announced that it will no longer print them in the future. (iii)
Further evidence of the creeping norm of sex selection in the U.S. appeared in the article “Fertility Ethics Authority Approves Sex Selection” (New York Times, 9/28/01) by Gina Kolata. She reported that Mr. John Robertson, acting head of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, stated in his letter to Dr. Norbert Gleicher, who runs nine fertility clinics in New York City and Chicago that it is sometimes acceptable to choose the sex of a child. Based on Robertson's opinion, Gleicher Immediately began offering PGD solely for the purposes of sex identification and selection at his clinics.(iv) Significantly, Robertson also supports human cloning and believes that parents should be able to engage in the positive selection of genetic characteristics of their offspring as an exten¬sion of their right to procreate. For him, choosing sex may be only the first of a set of choices among non-essential traits like hair and skin color that should be made available to future parents. (v)
CWPE is very extremely concerned about the normalization of sex selection in the U.S. In addition to the inherent potential for abuse, which amplifies gender oppres¬sion, we believe that choosing a child's sex may legitimize the use of PGD for the selection of other non-essential traits, thus mak¬ing a new form of eugenics acceptable. Furthermore, CWPE's long-standing opposition to population control is another reason why we resist sex selection. Some advocates of population control have endorsed sex selection because they feel it indirectly leads to family limitation by reducing the desire to reproduce until a male child is born. Alternatively, some believe that it is the pres¬sure to have smaller families that has led to an intensification of sex selection practices.
CWPE has initiated a collective response to this trend of sex selection by reaching out to old partners and new allies: the Center for Genetics and Society; Manavi, Inc., a New Jersey-based organization for South Asian women survivors of violence; Andolan, an organization of South Asian, low-wage workers in New York City; and the Boston Women's Health Book Collective. The organizations have jointly written to Dr. J. Benjamin Younger, Executive Director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, stating their vigorous opposition to sex selection technologies. The letter has received broad-based support from 94 women's. reproductive rights, public health, disability rights, and South Asian organizations and individuals.
i "Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons," Ferti1ity and Sterility (Vol. 75, No. 5, May 2001)
ii The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, "Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis," Fertility and Sterility (Vol. 72, No.4. October 1999)
iii Sachs, Susan. “Clinics' Pitch to Indian Emigres: It's a Boy-lndians Abroad Get Pitch on Gender Choice: New York Times, 8/15/01)
iv Kolata, Gina. “Fertility Ethics Authority Approves Sex Selection” (New York Times, 9/28/01
v Robertson, John. “Liberty, Identity, and Human Cloning,” Texas Law Review 76: 1371 (1998)
One of the experimental methods of pre-conception sex selection, sperm sorting, is an experimental form of pre-conception sex selection that involves separation of sperm carrying female chromosomes from those carrying mate chromosomes, followed by artificial insemination or IVF (in-vitro fer¬tilization). Although compared to other methods, sperm sorting has not obtained a high degree of accuracy, the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine considers this tech¬nique the least ethically and socially problematic of current sex selection tech¬nologies. This is because sperm sorting is less invasive and costly than other sex selec¬tion methods and does not involve an abortion or the discarding of embryos.
Another method, Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), is a procedure that has been in use for a decade almost exclusively by infertile couples undergoing IVF who are at risk of having babies with certain genetic diseases, including sex-linked genetic disorders. However, this method can be used as a form of sex selection for non-med¬ical reasons by infertile and fertile couples alike.
Recently, it has become clear in the U.S. that some fertility clinics are eager to exploit potential markets for sex selection by offer¬ing PGD/IVF to anyone who desires it and is willing to pay for the services. It is also not surprising that sex selection profiteering strategies have led clinics to target South Asian American communities in the U.S. In her New York Times article on 8/15/01 in “Clinics' Pitch to Indian Emigres: It's a Boy—Indians Abroad Get Pitch on Gender Choice,” (8/15/01), Susan Sachs exposed sex selection ads appearing in the North American editions of Indian Express and in India Abroad,. two newspapers with a large circulation among Indians living in the U.S. Members of these communities have spoken out against such ads and India Abroad has announced that it will no longer print them in the future. (iii)
Further evidence of the creeping norm of sex selection in the U.S. appeared in the article “Fertility Ethics Authority Approves Sex Selection” (New York Times, 9/28/01) by Gina Kolata. She reported that Mr. John Robertson, acting head of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, stated in his letter to Dr. Norbert Gleicher, who runs nine fertility clinics in New York City and Chicago that it is sometimes acceptable to choose the sex of a child. Based on Robertson's opinion, Gleicher Immediately began offering PGD solely for the purposes of sex identification and selection at his clinics.(iv) Significantly, Robertson also supports human cloning and believes that parents should be able to engage in the positive selection of genetic characteristics of their offspring as an exten¬sion of their right to procreate. For him, choosing sex may be only the first of a set of choices among non-essential traits like hair and skin color that should be made available to future parents. (v)
CWPE is very extremely concerned about the normalization of sex selection in the U.S. In addition to the inherent potential for abuse, which amplifies gender oppres¬sion, we believe that choosing a child's sex may legitimize the use of PGD for the selection of other non-essential traits, thus mak¬ing a new form of eugenics acceptable. Furthermore, CWPE's long-standing opposition to population control is another reason why we resist sex selection. Some advocates of population control have endorsed sex selection because they feel it indirectly leads to family limitation by reducing the desire to reproduce until a male child is born. Alternatively, some believe that it is the pres¬sure to have smaller families that has led to an intensification of sex selection practices.
CWPE has initiated a collective response to this trend of sex selection by reaching out to old partners and new allies: the Center for Genetics and Society; Manavi, Inc., a New Jersey-based organization for South Asian women survivors of violence; Andolan, an organization of South Asian, low-wage workers in New York City; and the Boston Women's Health Book Collective. The organizations have jointly written to Dr. J. Benjamin Younger, Executive Director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, stating their vigorous opposition to sex selection technologies. The letter has received broad-based support from 94 women's. reproductive rights, public health, disability rights, and South Asian organizations and individuals.
i "Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons," Ferti1ity and Sterility (Vol. 75, No. 5, May 2001)
ii The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, "Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis," Fertility and Sterility (Vol. 72, No.4. October 1999)
iii Sachs, Susan. “Clinics' Pitch to Indian Emigres: It's a Boy-lndians Abroad Get Pitch on Gender Choice: New York Times, 8/15/01)
iv Kolata, Gina. “Fertility Ethics Authority Approves Sex Selection” (New York Times, 9/28/01
v Robertson, John. “Liberty, Identity, and Human Cloning,” Texas Law Review 76: 1371 (1998)