Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
J Bioeth Inq. 2012 Sep;9(3):249-59. doi: 10.1007/s11673-012-9377-8. Epub 2012 Jul 6.
Some 14 years ago, I published an article in which I identified a prime site for bioethicists to ply their trade: medical responses to requests for hormonal and surgical interventions aimed at facilitating transgendered people's transition to their desired genders. Deep issues about the impact of biotechnologies and health care practices on central aspects of our conceptual system, I argued, were raised by how doctors understood and responded to people seeking medical assistance in changing their gender, and there were obviously significant issues of regulation involved as well. Yet mainstream bioethics was conspicuous by its relative absence from the discussion. Here, I return to the matter and find that, while the conceptual issues are just as profound and their connection to health care practice and policy just as intimate, even as transgender issues have become much more socially visible, bioethical engagement with gender reassignment has increased only slightly. I set the little movement that has occurred against the backdrop of the situation as I saw it in 1998 and conclude, once again, by trying to make the bait for bioethicists inviting.
大约 14 年前，我发表了一篇文章，指出了一个非常适合生物伦理学家施展才华的领域：医学对那些寻求激素和手术干预以帮助他们实现性别转变的跨性别者的回应。我认为，医生对寻求医学帮助以改变性别的人们的理解和回应，凸显出生物技术和医疗实践对我们概念系统核心方面的深刻影响，其中显然涉及到重要的监管问题。然而，主流的生物伦理学却明显缺席了这一讨论。在这里，我重新回到这个问题上，发现尽管概念问题同样深刻，它们与医疗实践和政策的联系也同样密切，但即使跨性别问题在社会上变得更加可见，生物伦理学对性别重置的参与也只是略有增加。我将已经发生的微小变化放在我在 1998 年看到的情况的背景下，并再次试图为吸引生物伦理学家提出建议。
