In France, those last days, took place protests against medically assisted procreation, with main revendication the maintainment of the father-mother tradictional structure of parenthood. Beyond the question of medical technics was an ideological one : there are men, there are women, and the ‘natural order of things’ is that a pair of two of those would become the complete parental structure. Other dispositions would necessarily present a lack that would be a prejudice to the child.
The main problem here is the association of the body, the sex/genital organ, with gender qualification. It starts with the words we use : male or female genital organs to mean the penis or the vulva. Therefore are fused together in the description of the bodies’ singularity, the social integration of gender and the mark then left, on the person, by this identification.
By saying that a penis is a male organ, we imply a gender program that should determine what function the person is likely to take in society. To be fair, we should divide gender from the first description of the body and for instance say : that would be a body that is alpha-typed for a body bearing a vulva, beta-typed for a body bearing a penis, and gamma-typed for a body that presents other dispositions, such as the intersex bodies.
This may seems far-fetched, but then after having only described the unalienable particularity of the sole body, we don’t necessarily have to imply a psychological, social and symbolic program out of it. That also means that society should be grounded on other terms than the political division of gender.
From that, we may be able to start a discussion that would offer the liberty to redefine rights.