Psychology’s Historical Role
Historically, the role psychology has played in the battle for bodily and reproductive inequality hasn’t been the most uplifting journey, particularly for nonbinary individuals. According to Turban (2020), early research focused on answering questions such as “what determines someone’s gender identity,” a question that is subjective and assumes that one can or needs to be fixed. In 1993, psychologists were pathologizing transgendered individuals, diagnosing them with “gender identity disorder.” More recently, studies have asked if parents and caregivers could be blamed for their children’s struggle with gender identity. These snafus resulted in a handful of conversion-type “therapies” attempting to make the transgendered cisgender.
Discrimination
Following a similar theme that I have written about over the past six weeks, the issue of bodily and reproductive autonomy is something that I have grown rather passionate about. Expanding my knowledge on the subject matter has led me to a new and broadened awareness of the populations affected outside of “cis” women. As it turns out, transgendered men and those individuals who identify as nonbinary or gender-nonconforming are also affected by the reemergent fight for bodily and reproductive autonomy rights, perhaps even to a greater extent than cis women. The “Preconception Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network on Infant Mortality” health initiative of 2019 describes how even “pre-pregnancy health” has been framed with cis women in mind and discriminates against “the needs of individuals with the capacity for pregnancy whose gender identity is not as a woman” (Dehlendorf et al., 2021).
Solution
One solution that Psychologists have to address the growing problem of inequality for bodily autonomy is the adoption and promotion of the “Reproductive and Sexual Health Equity” framework, which seeks to meet “people's reproductive and sexual health needs, with explicit attention to structural influences on health and health care and grounded in a desire to achieve the highest level of health for all people and to address health inequities” (Dehlendorf et al., 2021). Within this framework, Dehlendorf et al. (2021) explain six assumptions that cross-disciplinaries can use to aid in their understanding of how the framework lends itself to informed interventions. These assumptions are as follows: “center the needs of and redistribute power to marginalized individuals and communities; acknowledge historical and ongoing harms, including those perpetuated by health care and public health institutions; address the root causes of reproductive and sexual health inequities, including racism, patriarchy, and economic inequality; honor bodily autonomy for all people; affirm and create conditions for healing - don't shame or (re)traumatize; create systems that meet people's needs inside and outside the formal health care system.”
References
Dehlendorf, C., Akers, A. Y., Borrero, S., Callegari, L. S., Cadena, D., Gomez, A. M., Hart, J., Jimenez, L., Kuppermann, M., Levy, B., Lu, M. C., Malin, K., Simpson, M., Verbiest, S., Yeung, M., & Crear-Perry, J. (2021). Evolving the preconception health framework. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 137(2), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004255
Turban, J. (2020). The disturbing history of research into transgender identity. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-disturbing-history-of-research-into-transgender-identity/
Comments
Post a Comment