Department of Law, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK
J Med Ethics. 2020 Nov;46(11):787-788. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106156. Epub 2020 May 4.
In this short response, I agree with Cavaliere's recent invitation to consider ectogenesis, the process of gestation occurring outside the body, as a political perspective and provocation to building a world in which reproductive and care labour are more justly distributed. But I argue that much of the literature Cavaliere addresses in which scholars argue that artificial wombs may produce greater gender equality has the limitation of taking a fixed, binary and biological approach to sex and gender. I argue that in taking steps toward the possibility of more just practices of caregiving and family making, we must look first not to artificial womb technologies but to addressing the ways that contemporary legal and social practices that enforce essentialising, binary ways of thinking about reproductive bodies inhibit this goal.
在这个简短的回复中,我同意卡瓦列雷最近的邀请,将体外生殖(ectogenesis),即发生在体外的妊娠过程,视为一种政治视角和挑战,以建立一个生殖和护理劳动更公平分配的世界。但我认为,卡瓦列雷所讨论的许多文献中,学者们认为人工子宫可能会带来更大的性别平等,但这些文献都局限于采用固定的、二元的和生物性的方法来理解性别。我认为,在朝着更公正的护理和家庭制作实践的可能性迈进时,我们首先必须关注的不是人工子宫技术,而是解决当代法律和社会实践中那些强化生殖身体的本质主义、二元思维方式的方式,这些方式阻碍了这一目标的实现。