Celebrating 10 years of the Yogyakarta Principles: What have we learnt and where to now? • There is no clarity on how ‘age of consent’ or maturity is defined, especially in the context of intersex people • Clarity is needed on the issue of non-consensual medical interventions, especially involving children with intersex variations. Such interventions constitute human rights violations at the time of the procedure, but also continues as a violation throughout life • There is a disconnect between the SOGIE framework and sex characteristics. SOGIE’s focus is not on bodies, while the intersex movement focuses on the body. T needs to be further recognition of the parallel dimensions with the disability movement • There are concerns about the use of medical ‘evidence’ • Clarity is needed to identify the impact of third categories on birth certificates – including both positive and negative consequences, especially for intersex people. Relationship between gender identity and intersex • There is confusion about the relationship between gender identity and intersex and the Principles don’t offer clarity to the ‘movement’ in relation to intersex • Confusions in the use of SOGIE or SOGIESC (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics) – there is a need to embrace SOGIESC. Advocacy • The issues related to female genital mutilation (FGM) and approaches taken by human rights advocates provide some important lessons for intersex advocacy – note that some States’ laws against FGM have express exemptions regarding intersex interventions • Lack of education in the community about definitions and differences between gender identity and intersex variation – there is the need to educate everyone at all levels • There was a lack of adequate consultation with regard to intersex awareness when ‘I’ (intersex) was inserted into the LGBT schema. Intersex and children (ref CRC) • There are gaps in conceptions of age and maturity – there are concerns about forms and assumptions about medical interventions, which are regarded as more of a gap regarding bodily autonomy • The current definition of age of maturity (Principle 18) is drafted to be in compliance with the definitions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is contentious • There is also the absence of the language of ‘unnecessary’ in the context of medical procedures • There are strong concerns from intersex people regarding Principle18 especially in relation to contentions with the CRC – there is a need to uncouple the Principles’ definitions from those of the CRC • There is a desire to talk about the ‘best interest of the child’ – in the context of age and maturity and the preferences for alternative, developmental states and emphasis on autonomy – alternatively, instead of removing ‘best interest’, it could be useful to be more explicit about what these interests are • It is time to use other normative language – e.g. ‘harmful practices’ instead of torture framings • Some caveats around the current wording of Principle 18 – the need for a child rights perspective including around the evolving ‘capacity’ of the child • Potential problems when the child is not old enough and decisions about the best interest of the child are determined is made by others e.g. – courts/doctors/child advocates 24