See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://ww

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223593427 From Reproductive Health to Sexual Rights: Achievements and Future Challenges Article in Reproductive Health Matters · November 1997 DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(97)90091-4 CITATIONS 71 READS 432 1 author: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Gender&Politic in Latin America View project Sonia Corrêa Associação Brasileira Interdisciplinar de AIDS 43 PUBLICATIONS 825 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Sonia Corrêa on 16 October 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Sonia Corr&a This paper aims to map recent changes in discourse on sexuality and reproduction and identify new conceptual perspectives on gender and sexuality. First, it examines the etymology ofrecently legitimised concepts -reproductive rights, sexual health, and sexual rights - which are related to, but separate from, the concept of reproductive health. Second, it considers the status and meaning of these terms vis-&W’S an agenda for social transformation. Lastly, it focuses on new conceptualisations of gender and sexuality and analyses whether it is possible to distinguish between these two concepts. A way of life is ageing. This change can be as radical, but also as gradual, as the tran- sition from medieval to modern society. This state of transition makes certain ways of thinking both possible and necessary, while excluding others.‘l First words Two premises have inspired this article. The first is that the language of reproductive health, gender and sexuality - language that until rec- ently was used almost exclusively in the academic milieu and within social movements - has under- gone a process of legitimisation. One illustration of this is the fact that this language has been included in the programmes of action of the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo 1994), the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing 1995) and the World Summit for Social Development (Cop- enhagen 1995). This process has been uneven, however. While the words themselves have become common in international texts and analyses, the extent of assimilation of their mean- ings by national political bodies and in people’ s minds varies widely across countries. Thus, it continues to be necessary for fem- inists to disseminate information about these concepts as broadly as possible among policy- makers, legislators, and society itself. Clarification of the meanings of these terms continues to be required, since the process of legitimisation may lead to simplifications and distortions in the course of policy development and application. The second premise emerges from the aware- ness that the theoretical links between repro- ductive health, gender and sexuality constitute a complex and unstable fabric. It remains a matter of discussion whether ‘ reproductive health’ is a concept, a field, or simply a research approach - or all three of these and more. ‘ Gender’ has definitely been established as a category of social analysis, yet in practice it inspires differentiated, even contradictory usages. The status of ‘ sexuality’ is even more complex, as its application ranges from the ontological concept of sexuality used in psychoanalysis to conventional applications in sexology. Given the present stage of legitimisation of this language, it is tempting to try to protect these terms, neutralising any questions that may arise with regard to them. In my view, however, it is necessary to maintain -a conceptual openness, because their legitimisation creates the risk that certain of their meanings, which should be kept alive from a feminist point of view, might other- wise be lost. 107 From reproductive health to sexual rights: undoing the web The Cairo and Beijing conferences and docu- ments legitimised more than just reproductive health; notions of reproductive rights and sexual health, as well as issues related to sexual rights, are also well-established, at least at an inter- national level. Until recently, these complex and, why not say it, radical concepts appear to have been kept hidden under the large umbrella of reproductive health. However, for the sake of popularisation and simplification the terms are currently being used interchangeably.* Hence, it is urgent to make explicit their etymologies and meanings, and the differences between them, as feminists understand these. Between the 1980s and the mid-1990s, efforts to legitimise ‘ reproductive health’ led to its use in ways that responded to the needs of different interest groups and actors. The concept was developed by institutions, including those in the international family planning network, but also and especially the World Health Organization. Similar efforts were taking place within inter- national women’ s health movement groups. The ongoing dialogue between these two ‘ worlds’ was at the root of the Cairo consensus. The bridge connecting them was made possible by a critique of biomedical approaches to women’ s health, which dominate research on human reproduction, and by challenges to linear arguments that justified population policies and top-down (and inefficient) family planning programmes. These critiques were developed, although in different terms, on both sides of the fence. Building a consensus was no simple task and tensions linger on. The etymology of the term ‘ reproductive rights’ is mostly to be found among women’ s groups and in a non-institutional framework. Its conceptualisation was directly linked to the struggle for the right to safe, legal abortion and contraception in industrialised countries in the 1970s and 1980s. Its first stage of legitimation did not take place at the institutional level but instead was achieved through a political consensus made possible in a relatively marginalised, inter- national feminist gathering: the 4th International Women and Health Meeting in Amsterdam in 1984.“s4 On that occasion, Northern and South- ern feminists reached an agreement - although temporary -that this terminology was adequate to the movement’ s political goals in relation to the betterment of women’ s reproductive lives across the world. Between 1984 and the mainstreaming of this language in Cairo (1994), the concept was refined in collaboration with activists and researchers in the human rights field. A fundamental con- tribution was made by Isaacs and Freedman in 19925 in unearthing pre-existing United Nations definitions related to ‘ reproductive rights’ . Along the same lines, Cook developed a line of think- ing which places women’ s reproductive needs within a human rights and health rights frame- work.‘ j Throughout that decade, women’ s move- ments in several continents have continued to discuss problems arising from these concepts and the conceptual associations between repro- ductive rights and reproductive health. Since the mid-80s, the critique of western notions of individualism that are often associated with notions of (reproductive) rights has given rise to debate within the feminist community. In some developing countries activists preferred until recently to talk about reproductive health, as they considered that this notion better expressed women’ s basic needs.7 The link between reproductive health and rights, through a perspective that encompasses the premise of equitable development and human rights, led to an agreement8 among women’ s health activists in January 1994, at a meeting in Rio de Janeiro, to achieve a consensus on how to approach the ICPD in Cairo. This meeting was the grounding for the efforts at ICPD to revise the neo-Malthusian paradigm which for 30 years had prevailed in the population field. Two conceptual elements were crucial to this effort: the premise of the indivisibility of human rights and&he notion of an ‘ enabling environment’ for exercising those rights (economic, social and political conditions). The inclusion by feminist activists of refer- ences to the political significance of ‘ sexual matters’ in this process, however, appeared in references to health and reproductive rights at quite a late stage in this process, practically on the eve of Cairo. In this sense, as Petchesky suggests,g sexual rights are the ‘ youngest kid in international debates on the meaning and practice of human rights, particularly women’ s human rights’ . During the ICPD prgparatory process, some 108 Reproductive Health Matters, No 10, Novembel- 1997 official delegations (for example, Norway and Sweden) introduced the term ‘ sexual health’ into certain paragraphs of the Programme of Action. In Cairo, feminists lobbied official delegations for the inclusion of ‘ sexual rights’ in Paragraph 7.3, which contains the definition of ‘ reproductive rights’ . By suggesting a further radicalisation of the language, we were aiming for the retention of ‘ reproductive rights’ in the final text, which was hard enough to ensure. Consequently, the failure of ICPD to adopt the term ‘ sexual rights’ was not exactly considered a defeat. However, one year later in Beijing, language was approved in Paragraph 96 of the Platform of Action which, although it does not explicitly mention ‘ sexual rights’ does spell out what its elements would be: ‘The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. Equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the integrity of the person, require mutual respect, consent uploads/Philosophie/ reproductive-health-to-sexual-rights.pdf

Tags
Philosophiesexual reproductive health sexuality rights
Documents similaires
  • 33
  • 0
  • 0
Afficher les détails des licences
Licence et utilisation
Gratuit pour un usage personnel Attribution requise
Partager