Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 27

= January 27 =

Is it illegal anywhere to surgically assign sex at birth?
Surgery is often performed on intersex infants to conform them to one particular sex. However, intersex adults almost unanimously agree that this is a bad practice, and that's becoming the expert consensus as well. Are there any laws anywhere in the world regulating, limiting, or banning such procedures? Neither the intersex article nor Legal aspects of transsexualism seemed to answer this. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Our Intersex surgery and History of intersex surgery mention a Colombian constitutional court decision limited the parents ability to consent to such surgeries. The (which is being a paywall) also mentions that case as the only country where a Constitutional court has ruled against parents' ability to consent to such surgery for their children. Although that doesn't specifically rule out other countries having laws against such surgeries, the only other country it mentions is Germany and the suggestion by some there that it should be banned which hasn't happened (but they do allow an X sex marker on the birth certificate). This makes me think the authors weren't aware of any other countries with a legal ban. There is a case before the courts in South Carolina in the US mentioned in the third source. And I can also find example of other stuff such as the United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture suggesting it be banned when performed on children. BTW, it's nominally possibly that such surgeries will become rarely if ever be performed, even if not illegal. There's obviously general community and medical staff views that will affect rates but I'm not edit:actually thinking of more quasi-legal reasons. The earlier sources and plenty of others note that some organisations of doctors have come out against such surgeries when performed on children without their explicit consent (or similar). While it doesn't sound like it's happened, should they be enough against it that they will actively seek out and deregister anyone performing such surgeries (and considering in many countries such registration is required for them to legally be allowed to perform such surgeries), this will likely make such surgeries very rare. To give an example,  this (see Participation of medical professionals in American executions and Michael Morales) and other things (like the EU ban on their companies selling drugs for the purpose and the reluctance of non EU companies to get involved) has caused problems implementing the death penalty in the US. And something mentioned in the third source is a court case in Germany where a person won €100000 damages due to such a surgery  . If a clear risk of frequent future damages becomes evident, it may be unlikely such surgeries will be performed even though nominally not illegal. (Perhaps only among a small minority of parents who can afford to pay very very high fees due to insurance. And if the risk is high enough even insurance may not be willing to offer cover, so it may require parents with sufficient wealth such that medical staff are confident in parents legally indemnifying them.)  Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Edit at 11:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC) as I used the wrong word.
 * P.S. I should clarify I'm not trying to demean or underestimate the horrific discrimination intersex people suffer, nor oppose laws banning reassignment surgery when there's no clear cut medical necessities or explicit informed individual consent. Simply pointing out if you're looking at how such surgery may be limited or basically abandoned, there may be other ways that end up having a significant effect when legislators do not directly intervene. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, this is quite thorough and covers everything I wanted to know. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Illegal (i.e., felonious) is criminal law and negligence is (generally) civil law. Be aware of the difference. Just because something isn't a crime, it doesn't mean you can't sue for damages. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the difference, but I admit it hadn't occurred to me. Thanks ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What Happens Next ?
I recently went to see American Sniper, which I did like, and noticed at the funerals, the U.S. Navy SEALs, including Chris Kyle, thumping their Trident badges onto the coffins of Michael A. Monsoor, and then later Kyle's own coffin. I had also seen this in the movie Act of Valor, and I would just like to know whether the Tridents stay and are buried with the coffin, or they are taken back later, and if not, whether the SEALS get new ones to replace those they put on the coffin, since surely many of the guys who went to Monsoor's funeral must also later have attended Kyle's. Thanks. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  08:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC).


 * I don't know if this is what they actually do, but getting an imitation trident ahead of time for leaving at the burial would be the obvious choice. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Reddit people, SEALs (or anyone) can buy new badges for $10-15 at the uniform shop. They keep their original on their own uniform or in a box. Apparently every SEAL gets the casket treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but maybe not.... :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After the only funeral ever held for a Golden Seal captain, what happened next was drinks at the golf course. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You all - that makes a lot of sense, considering some SEALS, as I mentioned, may end up attending more than one Funeral. The main thing is that that appropriate Symbolism is observed. Thanks Again. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  11:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)