This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]

On: 13 October 2014, At: 16:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The American Journal of Bioethics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uajb20

Preconception Sex Selection: The Perspective of a

Person of the Undesired Gender
a
Jenny Dai
a
University of Chicago
Published online: 30 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Jenny Dai (2001) Preconception Sex Selection: The Perspective of a Person of the Undesired
Gender, The American Journal of Bioethics, 1:1, 37-38

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/152651601750079032

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

tural groups may reinforce what amounts to sexism, inter-
action with the wider culture may change these views.
Pluralism also saves us from eliminating diversity—for ex-
ample in people’s choices after prenatal diagnosis for ge-
netic conditions.
However, if everybody were to make the same deci-
sion, the consequences of PSS could be really alarming.
This possibility—touched on only lightly in Robertson’s
article—is very real in those societies in Asia that prefer
sons. Mahowald’s Western-oriented argument (described
by Robertson) that not all sex selection is sexist—an argu-
ment with which I agree—does not generally apply in
these societies. The $1,500 needed to ensure a son is not
much for the increasing middle class in China, where some
urban dwellers willingly pay $400 for a dog license and
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 16:18 13 October 2014
Preconception Sex Selection: The Perspective of
a Person of the Undesired Gender
Jenny Dai, University of Chicago
“You have two daughters but not a son?” One of my fa-
ther’s friends was very surprised. Then he saw me staring
at him angrily. He apologetically smiled and said,
“Daughters are good. Daughters are good.” Growing up in
Taiwan, where boys were heavily favored over girls, I was
angry and ashamed of my gender every time my parents
introduced me to someone. My sister was the beautiful
Žrstborn child and was cherished. I, on the other hand, was
simply not a boy. My mother cried for three days after I
was born, because she was hoping to have a boy to fulŽll
her duty as a “good” Chinese wife. In a sense, her physi-
cian saved my life. He refused to do an ultrasound to assess
my gender. Instead, he told my mother that my heartbeats
were strong and rhythmic, and, therefore, I must be a boy.
Although my mother now denies that she would have con-
sidered an abortion if she had known I was female early in
the pregnancy, I often see regret in her eyes when she
meets her friends’ sons and stresses to me the importance
of bearing a son. When I told her about preconception sex
selection (PSS) a month ago, she deŽnitely was delighted
for other women.
The question of whether PSS should be available to
women or couples is complex because it involves different,
sometimes competing, interests: a person’s right to choose,
a society’s right to regulate, and a child’s physical and psy-
chological well-being. On the one hand, as a child of the
undesired gender, I resent arguments for gender selection.
It is difŽcult for me to accept John Robertson’s argument
Winter 2001, Volume 1, Number 1
Open Peer Commentaries
villagers are willing to utilize the yearly earnings of an en-
tire extended family to pay a Žne of approximately the
same amount for having a second child. In such societies,
legal control of PSS is probably in order, even if it is im-
perfectly enforced and at most a partial answer.
In the United States, if large-scale sex selection doesn’t
happen, it won’t be because of law or bioethics. Cultural
values about nature, parenthood, children, religion, and
gender roles will prevent most people from choosing their
children’s sex. Robertson, like many lawyers, attributes
too much to the role of law. What is more important is
promoting the same values and social interventions that
prevent sexism in the Žrst place: education of women, fair-
ness in access to work, equal pay, and media emphasis on
diversity, including diversity of family structure. n
that couples who would not otherwise reproduce would do
so if they had procreative liberty to choose their offspring’s
gender (Robertson 2001). Because I might not have been
born if my parents had this choice, it evokes in me the
question of whether I am less valuable because I am not
male.
Although Robertson argues that nonsexist reasons for
PSS exist when a woman exercises her procreative auton-
omy, gender selection has historically reŽected and rein-
forced societal and cultural discrimination against the fe-
male sex. As seen in cultures where male is clearly the
favored gender, practices of gender selection often mean
rejection of the female fetus or child. From this perspective
PSS is unjust (unless medically indicated) because it may
help perpetuate social and cultural gender discrimination,
resulting in societal sex ratio imbalance, possible social
problems, and further deterioration of woman’s status in
various cultures (for more detail, see Benagiano and
Bianchi 1999). Jonathan Berkowitz (1999) formulates
these concerns more forcefully: “Preconceptive sex selec-
tion represents sexism in its purest and most blatant
form,” because gender determines the parent’s evaluation
of a child’s worth.
On the other hand, I have witnessed the suffering of
many Asian women, including my own mother, who could
not produce male offspring. From fortune-telling calen-
dars to herbal medicine, my mother tried many different
methods, hoping to produce a male child. She was ob-
ajob 37
 The American Journal of Bioethics
sessed with having a boy for many years; unfortunately, her
health did not permit her to be pregnant again after my
birth. Without a male heir, marriage is in jeopardy in
many Asian cultures. If a woman is fortunate, her husband
simply seeks a mistress to bear him a son while she re-
mains the legal wife. Those who are less fortunate may be
divorced by their husbands or rejected by their husbands’
families for failing to bear a male heir. In these cases PSS
may be useful for minimizing tension and fragmentation
within the family and may prevent possible abuse of
women. Since PSS is less harmful to the woman’s health
than abortion, and more humane than female infanticide,
PSS is preferable over other methods of sex selection.
Another advantage of PSS is that it may forestall po-
tential psychological suffering of unwanted children.
With people around me openly expressing their disap-
pointment about me being female, I grew up with low
self-conŽdence, constantly unsure of my place in this
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 16:18 13 October 2014
world. At the age of twenty-eight I still feel like an out-
sider and an inadequate child whenever I return to Asia to
spend time with my parents and extended family. Al-
though my mother openly fought for my sister’s and my
rights to education and Žnancial security, we still Žnd it
impossible, no matter how successful we become, to im-
press my father and others—simply because we are not
male. If there is a choice, I really do not want to subject
another child to my childhood experiences, even though I
am fortunate to have had many opportunities in compari-
son with most Asian women. From the standpoint of a
child of the undesirable gender, PSS appears to be a rather
appealing option if gender discrimination toward women
persists.
Finally, while I disagree with Robertson on the value
of PSS, I agree with him that society should not prohibit
Reasons, Motivation, and Sexism
John Oberdiek, University of Pennsylvania
Everyone can agree with John Robertson that if precon-
ception sex selection (PSS) is inherently sexist, then it is
morally objectionable. I am concerned, however, that Rob-
ertson moves too quickly from that unassailable claim to
the further claim that if persons are motivated to use PSS
out of sexism, then the use of PSS may be justiŽably
banned or substantially restricted. I contend that the mo-
tivation of persons seeking to use PSS is irrelevant to pol-
icy questions about the regulation of PSS.
First things Žrst: according to Robertson, a practice is
not sexist if it is not motivated by judgments or evalua-
38 ajob
this technology. To combat the complicated issues of gen-
der discrimination, simple regulation of sex selection
technology is neither enough nor effective. With existing
discrimination against women, sex selection practices will
continue in various forms throughout the world. For ex-
ample, although antenatal sex selection and female infan-
ticide are illegal in China and India, these practices are
common (Mudur 1999; and Benagiano and Bianchi 1999).
While it may be easy to regulate PSS, sex selection favor-
ing boys will be more difŽcult to prevent. Furthermore,
without correcting the underlying sexism in society, pro-
hibition of PSS may lead to increased resentment of both
mothers and daughters, thus increasing sexism as the de-
sire to select for the sex of offspring grows. If PSS is not
available, people will utilize other methods of sex selec-
tion. The alternative I recommend is to promote gender
equality at various levels, including, for example, access by
all women to educational opportunities and Žnancial inde-
pendence, abolishment of laws that discriminate against
women, and early education and socialization of children
of both sexes to respect women as fully as they respect
men. n
References
Berkowitz, J. M. 1999. Sexism and racism in preconceptive trait se-
lection. Fertility and Sterility 71(3): 415± 417.
Benagiano, G., and P. Bianchi. 1999. Sex preselection: An aid to
couples or a threat to humanity? Human Reproduction 14(4): 868±
870.
Mudur, G. 1999. Indian medical authorities act on antenatal sex se-
lection. British Medical Journal 319(7207): 401.
Robertson, J. 2001. Preconception gender selection. The American
Journal of Bioethics, 1(1):2± 9.
tions that one sex is superior to the other, or does not lead
to discrimination against one sex, or, following Mary
Mahowald, if the consequences of the practice do not dis-
advantage or advantage one sex in relation to the other
(Robertson 2001, citing Mahowald 2000, 121). Of course,
it doesn’t strictly follow from this deŽnition that a practice
that is motivated by judgments or evaluations that one sex
is superior to the other, is sexist, but I doubt that Robert-
son would object to this loose inference, and so I shall at-
tribute it to him. So, according to Robertson, PSS would
be a sexist practice if the persons using it were motivated
Winter 2001, Volume 1, Number 1