Sex selection and global gender justice

A core motivation of this paper is to recast sex selection as both a symptom of, and a contributing factor to global gender injustice, where the practice and its motivation are expressions of the broader structural inequalities and oppression faced by women and girls worldwide, be it in terms of status, relationships, or access to goods and opportunities (Jagger 2014, 23). While it may appear evident that the practice of sex selection is strongly embedded in gender injustice, various discourses have, at times, lost sight of this. This is in part due to disciplinary focus, and in part due to a lack of engagement with broader aspects of discrimination and oppression. I examine three particular ways of framing sex selection in the Indian—and South Asian diasporic—contexts and suggest that without an understanding of historical and current particularities, and more significantly, without a systematic engagement with considerations of justice, each of these approaches fails to fully capture the morally significant aspects of sex selection. The term (in)justice is used here as a broad concept, to capture considerations related to inequality, discrimination, oppression, and subjugation. The term also offers a strong normative and theoretical anchor, especially in its relationship to questions of responsibility. I do not suggest that there needs to be a single conception of justice toward which to strive, but would argue that any approach embedded in consideration of gender justice will aim, in some form or other, at diminishing gender-based inequality, discrimination, oppression, or subjugation. Rajani Bhatia documents how in the mid-1990s, discussions around sex selection evolved in different directions, in interesting and telling ways. Sex selection through abortion was presented as “as act of violence against women,” in the context of rising global movements focused on issues of reproductive and sexual health, even as techniques for sex selection for “family balancing” were being marketed in the West (Bhatia 2018, 3–4), and celebrated as a “revolution in the way people have children” (Bhatia 2010, 267). Such problematic dichotomy (and moral double standard) has also, in part, motivated this paper. This is not to say, of course that all means of sex selection should be considered morally equivalent. However, focusing on the means of selection, or the decisions specifically associated with reproductive technology obfuscates an important moral aspect, which is the motivation behind the practice. In advancing a gender justice lens to addressing sex selection, I suggest that it is possible to propose a global framing based on justice, that does not fall prey to either moral imperialism or moral relativism, but one that is based on transnational feminist solidarity and scholarship. Having discussed some of the problematic ways in which sex selection is often framed, I explore a means of addressing this specific expression of gender injustice through philosopher Iris Marion Young's social connection model of responsibility (Young 2006). Addressing global gender injustice in relation to sex selection requires focusing our moral lens on actors who are in specific positions of privilege, and therefore, have some capacity to change the norms, structures, and practices which contribute to injustice. In this particular debate, I position myself as a feminist member of the Indian Diaspora, with the privilege and responsibility this might entail for disrupting cultural hegemony and academic discourse on sex selection. As a researcher living away from India, however, I have limited lived experience of the complex factors that govern the lives of girls and women in the region, and while I propose an universalist approach to sex selection, I am equally aware of my own epistemic limitations in the area. The paper focuses on sex selection wholly motivated by social reasons. I do not address medically motivated selection, although this can also be subject to ethical scrutiny. First, the distinction between medical and nonmedical or social motivation is not as clear as one might initially suppose, and so-called medical sex selection might in fact reflect deeply held discriminatory social attitudes, for example, toward people with disability (de Wert and Dondrop 2010). Sex selection is, to a great extent, a misnomer. What parents are doing when “selecting for sex” in the social context, is attempting to select for gender, based on a specific view of how gender operates (or should operate) in the world. As Anna Mudde writes: “The predominant assumption at work in the desire to select for sex is that such a selection will produce not only a child with the appropriate genitals and biochemistry, but more importantly a child of the desired gender with all the social significations this implies” (Mudde 2010, 556). In other words, along with selecting for gender through a biological indicator, parents are selecting for a specific kind of gender conformation (Browne 2017, 195). An implication of this perspective, and one that I endorse in the paper is that any form of “gender essentialism” (Hendl 2017, 431), based on the perceived differences between genders, gender roles and gender expectations, is inherently sexist and heteronormative, regardless of particular expressions and cultural contexts. Beyond self-reported sex selection by parents, the only other global data reflecting systematic sex selection are distorted sex ratios at birth, or unusually high levels of infant mortality for one sex. Over the years, considerable evidence has arisen from several countries, especially in South Asia, South East Asia, and the South Caucasus, showing both distorted sex ratios at birth (some areas with up to 25% more male births) and a prominent decline in the survival rates of girls, with a higher risk for second or third births within a family. There appears to be a distinct, and systematic preference for the male child at play. is one of the in the where the mortality is higher for it is for male 2014, While some evidence of sex selection has in specific South in several countries, the and and and the is which the of such data There is however, significant evidence that sex selection does with a systematic preference for the male child and and and The Indian context in a of on the and as as of and also considerable from the academic and feminist The feminist and the of global gender justice in this is however, focused on sex is moral limited to the practice it being a of and gender oppression. A gender justice approach to the broader structural to the sexist norms, and that in systematic of sex selection. An of in the form of a of or male to the of a and of I the that not all the women in these it is in the of this that appropriate and the that the lives of women in these The to often a of and other cultural This in and motivated or academic discourse and may that particular of injustice, and structures, both and an at of the normative at the other is the position that people the have different and and that these and should be This may be by the that from the who to from and positions of privilege, are not to and on However, the to women of the South as to different ethical and can be as problematic as of an injustice different from the inequalities women in the global are of and both the and the of and from the South Such positions also the of women who might not as and but might of the and oppression in lives Such positions might also who have by own and for against social times, the discourse on sex selection prey to several of these and this has significant for and I to some of these in the in an to the moral In doing I suggest that not between moral relativism, or moral its this paper is also an to the normative of gender justice as As writes: and of and cultural even as in specific important differences of an understanding of a of historical and and from for or global normative I here in that will the view that some that to people of gender are and as on to say, the a is are to also that and feminist from the South have normative in transnational feminist and discourse from the South important and which should be and in feminist the world. In who has at as for a more writes: not as a to the of and I and in such ways that there would be of solidarity between and A between the work of and for example, is the of the particular the A that I from these is that while moral and be global or transnational feminist and movements are equally This particular on sex selection within specific and cultural and the South Asian with the view of it within a global approach to gender justice is the and its global important and related to sex selection will in the context of or South for example, and these might a normative approach in particular ways. I would however, that the normative of a global feminist lens would As the is to to more and that this for women from different to and would transnational be by The and to feminist is a motivation for a global on sex selection. injustice when social systematic of or of the means to and at the that these to or to have a of opportunities for and to injustice is injustice is a kind of moral from the of an or the of a (Young discrimination also to this form of injustice, and sex selection is a particular expression of gender-based In other words, and a preference for the male child (and practice sex there is a systematic social in living as a or a moral therefore, should to a great away from specific practices of discrimination, and on to of inequality, social norms, and that problematic of gender-based discrimination can in where there is significant social in living as a or where people do not within a gender As several have and as I on to explore in the sex selection for “family balancing” also to morally problematic gender and (Browne As important for a of view on a and positions in a structural is to broad structural inequalities that are in for and that often (Young A global gender justice lens to sex selection within and global structures, even where the at might not to or contribute to and Such an approach also requires to the and of moral responsibility in this context as one from and more as a to address such injustice. that women the to be and in other in of (Jagger 2014, to this some of which have by other gender injustice, which to the to gender issues in the global justice gender as gender as and such injustice on and as decisions by In this I argue that some approaches to sex selection from sex selection on and addressing gender-based and oppression as to and sex selection away as by or as by The are not and there are significant between each is not to suggest that to any important of sex selection, but that these of a to the and to responsibility for sex selection as a morally problematic practice from and is at an As a it fails to the historical cultural and that have and to the of the practice the also to view as and and the that have against gender and oppression within for the male child has cultural and historical in (and South and its associated and practices are and however, deeply the and its data from that the is especially in not associated with sex selection 2018, However, preference for the male child and the relationship with are a more complex a approach to sex selection might suggest A strong for the gender that will one the of the in a while who and will one to the of and should be as a although are not 2010, the social against women and girls are and deeply in practices that might appear in have on of both and to on male for in and in 2018, are and often 2018, not in an to and away from through to on girls or women for is considered and lack of in the within the and and social is often or the birth of a The of between and the of various that was in times, and that in was a was in the and that the and was an important part of to and to the of of risk of and to male within a The and of women as a of violence and has in other of where can be a at which and are 2010, Such social are often within by the perceived of on and the of girls and women and and the consideration of and in these contexts. however, of these factors can be to either sex ratios at birth or high infant even within all where is for example, sex and in where is privilege does not with gender In privilege in this context can have a on as women of higher are often subject to more social and limited the 2010, What is to as is in fact a more between as as various of and and within of social status, in and infant and the of broader and A global gender justice approach should any to or the of or be it in the context of the South or within living in the Such has roles in to practices as to as This was by in the to specifically practice which to be associated with South Asian in the and While such against some it can at the to for that of sex selection for “family balancing” in the often along or This distinction to the risk of to and the for with sex selection in (Hendl 2017, the in the social that to sex selection in different of the world. A of cultural oppression in relation to sex selection, fails to gender as in different and women and girls as of a of and also in the of and in this area. the within are of of and of who to be at the of feminist and important the of a and that is with a global approach to gender The of and has also its way the in ways that have often the by and global and actors in problematic such as sex selection (and have by the Indian as of by the and and which to and that “The both and has it a to practices it as both and deeply not to through its and In the the Indian has to address the to which its own of and 2018, have practices of sex selection The Indian the to a in the of reproductive as a of with the on gender discrimination only to the with the work of, and feminist In an form of medical to also from from the and the and from the to the South at to for considerations of reproductive and in Asian to be of was on social of gender which the of sex and was in in the and in between the of and several and in with the of such as of gender discrimination by Indian sex selection was by Indian and as an important of and therefore, a of In this gender justice was to be for the of in but in in and 2014, as an important of was and the 2014, In the global and even in the of any particular gender and discrimination have as of to be by This has not to a as but to the of gender justice by the on the of and a global on the has that does not for girls and women the various factors which the relationship between gender and the relationship might the one there is evidence that the of a lack of act against the and survival of girls and the at a status, and a within a which in might the social of own the other in India, where a great of women living are part of the for example, such work and gender strongly and while data that has the survival of the girls in and West and this has not the for India, where and as of against the survival and of Indian practice sex selection (Bhatia 2010, 2018, and also in survival for girls in in and in the more as part of a of within an of and of is not factor in sex selection has also from data from the South Asian have for sex selection related to preference for of and discriminatory of and other and the lens of justice that gender is not a of and that approaches that it as such will to address the of the to that to address gender justice as an important aim, in and The and other have for women and girls by to within the and in and by to of This or model to and has approaches sex selection in ways. example, sex selection is discussed in terms of its in the social of a of This is often by that such it might to the in the of women are to such of current evidence is from A of has also to and within and the of women reproductive has 2018, In other words, the lack of to gender-based discrimination as a of justice to norms, and also to problematic that are to address preference and toward the male This is in the of against sex selection. A of in in with at the of a child through within the 2018, While the specific to the all to in and The of these has and the have on various that are that do not who would from that are or that that do not the areas with high of 2018, from the of gender justice, such to the that are a 2018, in some of India, these are considered the in of the of and are to as 2014, a gender justice lens also the of addressing sex selection as related to a or as only a of reproductive and to between reproductive the for on such and As a there is a that such (and of gender-based oppression and have that the by and by social norms, to in the way people of in as as to various of (Bhatia 2010, considerations of gender justice, as as should be to the of and In the global discourse on sex selection, however, questions of justice and questions of often This is in the in which is discussed in “family balancing” in the in the practice of sex selection in the I would argue that there are at related positions on First, that sex selection based on a systematic preference for a specific gender is a sexist sex selection for “family balancing” is the second position is that our the is not the might What is desired by these techniques is not a child with different genitals but a child who to the gender to the The fact that are to of for sex selection and the and a strong that important differences to a child of one sex the and such motivation deeply problematic a (Mudde 2010, problematic expressions of also contribute to global of sexist oppression, and an does not the that such contribute to various of (de The behind the second position on the that either of operates in other or that in are in a way that are should not as a writes: “The understanding of as an to a extent, the social context in which sex selection is as as factors in (Hendl 2017, This is I would of all in which such decisions are such are more to or more by social and The of “family balancing” and its motivation is a of a on cultural on in where and appear In discussions around reproductive that for sex and suggest that an on reproductive or which of the discourse not reflect the lived of in cultural 2017, While I with these that are not by but in relation to 2017, I would this is of any such is from and or social This does not the of an As Rajani Bhatia has as that in may in an to that sex in the may be to and cultural (Bhatia 2010, are by and to or are by to a of and or are motivated to the and sex of it is that women do these the are an of social against sex. the of it is for to women as of for against discrimination in other be This does not that not that a is often or that may be in There is evidence of women by and in with and who to from such are such women 2018, However, an approach focused on gender justice might suggest that an on might and sex selection is as an the responsibility for it also on the of As has the to address and sex selection is to the as 2018, an equally problematic the structural factors to such A gender justice approach needs a more approach to the both in for but also in for the morally by and Such a approach is also in and how should be and have on the in addressing sex selection and that is the only way to when such a is in the social such are an appropriate to the in sex selection and While access to reproductive for all be morally it is more problematic to that might in this to abortion has a of feminist and a of between and the 2018, the of gender justice, it can be any to should be with strong and often with As in this to a in the that by of the South Asian were in the an was to the which would have abortion a specific selection is in the the and 2018, The from the in the as as some Asian but was by with this a to the and 2018, The not as part of the The relationship between to abortion and the has also its in the where have sex selection and 2018, and of course in India, where against have to to in the 2018, both and approaches to to around sex selection as of or as expressions of a sexist and or more in some of the a global gender justice approach requires a that within such global responsibility for sexist and and and therefore, a responsibility to such of injustice. requires that the each in limitations on the lives of women and girls, and that the that responsibility for change is on who are in positions of privilege, and therefore, to contribute to In approach to structural injustice, who contribute by to the structural that produce injustice have responsibility to (Young the various attitudes, and to sex selection are aspects of systematic and structural injustice, all have a responsibility to the structures, norms, and that and such practices and that addressing structural injustice requires a in a social connection model of responsibility. I suggest that such a model can also be in our approach to in the context of sex selection. The social connection model does however, responsibility to all for that have different opportunities and can on different and of or different levels of with to that contribute to structural (Young The of responsibility here on important aspects related to social and to privilege, in injustice, and to do (Young In the context of India, actors who should such responsibility are and which from sex selection, and In responsibility to change and my own I would to on of my own the Indian and the feminist based in the these do not in relation to the practice of sex selection, I would suggest that in particular positions of privilege in terms of to the relationship between responsibility and responsibility and privilege, and the for and I would argue that the Indian which I myself a a of the responsibility for change it is to a that often in on to its through and are equally of problematic practices and attitudes, and of normative times, do without the ways in which these to structural gender injustice within our and in our are to the to of the social connection model it is not to that are not of discrimination sex selection does not in our in our particular or cultural or even in the particular of our on and and practices that gender is in morally Such and practices and of the and of and and often on the an to the and and up our and our to to and these and practices in the of on to our without consideration for to of oppression moral and how might the of of the global I Young's social connection model of a feminist solidarity based on and a global feminist is possible and a in how sex selection is an to First, be in all where it appears for example, in the context of all to sex selection also, as has be through a feminist that sexist the and of girls, or that gender to questions of are of a gender justice approach to sex selection. or other the gender justice a to own for example, the on abortion or the of as has it is important that any of feminist lens all of (Bhatia and to from the and that have various expressions gender injustice in that have a of sex selection and to the of women who have and against not sex selection, but various structural and aspects of gender injustice and also to the of are and who to or to the as a of as can the of social that are This would for particular and from the South to and be a global approach to gender the of on sex selection, it is to do justice to the of approaches to the and the of motivation in this paper has to the ways in which some and to the of sex selection in ways that are and that to problematic The second has to argue that a global feminist approach is possible and that has a normative address sex selection as a form of structural gender but that is to particularities, and of the and of the global I have considered the of responsibility for addressing sex selection through Iris Marion Young's social connection and approach to structural injustice. This has to explore the moral and of I the Indian and the feminist academic I have that the way to address sex selection is to recast it as a of gender justice regardless of context, and that the discourse around and should also the and considerations of a global gender justice I would to the and of the and the of Iris Marion the who have by and to the of for and is and in and and of the of is also a member of the for and where on the Beyond and Beyond is in with a in global epistemic and gender has on ethical issues related to social in global and the of and in

Criminology · Economic Justice · Political science · Selection (genetic algorithm) · Sociology · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences · Global Maternal and Child Health · Law · Psychology · Reproductive Health and Technologies · Social Psychology

• Unveiling the taboos

  Moshabbir Alam, Md Moshabbir Alam et al.•British Journal of Religious…•2025

  Add to list

• Between reproductive rights and sex selection in New Zealand’s abortion reforms

  Open Access•Rachel Simon-Kumar, Vartika Sharma et al.•Global Public Health•2023

  Add to list

• But It's Not That They Don't Love Their Girls

  Open Access•M Unnithan, B Kasstan•Medical Anthropology•2022

  Add to list

• Missing women.

  Open Access•Amartya Sen•BMJ•1992

  Add to list

• Missing women—revisited

  Open Access•Sen Amartya•BMJ•2003

  Add to list

• Responsibility and Global Justice

  Open Access•Iris Marion Young•Social Philosophy and Policy•2006

  Add to list

• The Feminist Case Against Relational Autonomy

  Open Access•Serene J Khader•Journal of Moral Philosophy•2020

  Add to list

• Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context

  Open Access•Jessica Mozersky, Vardit Ravitsky et al.•The Hastings Center Report•2017

  Add to list

• The Scandal of the State

  Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, Inderpal Grewal et al.•The Scandal of the State•2003

  Add to list

• Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory

  Patrick Williams, Laura Chrisman•Colonial Discourse and…•2015

  Add to list

• Feminism without Borders

  Chandra Talpade Mohanty•Feminism without Borders•2003

  Add to list

• Development as Freedom

  Open Access•Alan M Rugman, Amartya Sen•Rugman reviews international…•2009

  Add to list

• Reclaiming the Voice of the ‘Third World Woman’

  Kiran Grewal•Interventions•2012

  Add to list

• Re-visioning evidence

  Open Access•M Unnithan, Sylvie Dubuc•Global Public Health•2017

  Add to list

• Gender and Global Justice

  Open Access•Mar Joanpere•Multidisciplinary Journal of…•2015

  Add to list

• Before You Formed in the Womb I Knew You”

  Open Access•Anna Mudde•Hypatia•2010

  Add to list

• From population control to 'reproductive rights

  Seamus Grime, Seamus Grimes•Third World Quarterly•1998

  Add to list

• Dis/locating Cultures/Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminism

  Azfar Hussain, Uma Narayan•Rocky Mountain Review of Language…•2000

  Add to list

• "Cultural versus Biological Factors in Explaining Asia's "Missing Women

  Open Access•M Das Gupta•Population and Development Review•2006

  Add to list

• Do Muslim Women Need Saving

  Open Access•Lila Abu‐lughod, Lila Abu-Lughod•Ethnicities•2015

  Add to list

• Women and Human Development

  Open Access•Martha C Nussbaum, Martha Nussbaum•Women and Human Development•2000

  Add to list

• There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons

  Open Access•Sunita Puri, Vincanne Adams et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2011

  Add to list

• Explaining Daughter Devaluation and the Issue of Missing Women in South Asia and the UK

  Open Access•Aisha K Gill, Aisha Gill et al.•Current Sociology•2009

  Add to list

• Population Control is History

  Matthew Connelly•Comparative Studies in Society…•2003

  Add to list