Law, policy, biology, and sex: Critical issues for researchers.

Researchers should be aware of how sex-difference science is (mis)applied in legal and policy contexts.

'A woman and now a man': The legitimation of sex-assignment surgery in the United States (1849-1886).

Throughout much of recorded history, societies that assigned rights and duties based on sex were confounded by people with unclear sex. For the sake of maintaining social and legal order in those contexts, legal systems assigned these people to what they figured was the 'most dominant' sex. Then, in mid-19th century United States, a new classification mechanism emerged: sex-assignment surgery, which was imagined by some surgeons to 'fix' one's physical and legal sex status permanently. Other surgeons, however, fiercely opposed the new practice. This article traces the controversy around sex-assignment surgery through three high-profile cases published in US medical journals from 1849 to 1886. Its central argument is that the more general effort to transform surgery into a scientific field helped legitimate the practice of sex-assignment surgery. Although such surgery was subject to intense moral criticism because it was thought to breach the laws of men and nature, over time, these concerns were abandoned or transformed into technical or professional disagreements. In a secondary argument, which helps explain that transformation, this article shows that surgeons gradually became comfortable occupying the epistemic role of sex-classifiers and even sex-makers. That is, whereas sex classification was traditionally a legal task, the new ability to surgically construct one's genitals engendered the notion that sex could be determined and fixed in the clinic in a legally binding manner. Accordingly, I suggest that surgery became an epistemic act of fact-making. This evolution of the consensus around sex-assignment surgery also provides an early origin story for the idea of sex as plastic and malleable by surgeons, thus offering another aspect to the history of plastic sex.

Not Dying Alone: the Need to Democratize Hospital Visitation Policies During Covid-19.

Of the many adverse outcomes that may result from the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, known as COVID-19, one stands out as particularly vile: the experience of dying alone. Many healthcare facilities in the US and elsewhere adopted 'No-Visitor Rules' in an effort to contain the virus, but these rules mean that the countless people in nursing homes and hospital wards were isolated during their final hours of life. There is no epidemiological or US federal or state requirement to prohibit visitation to (and thereby isolate) dying patients-even those with COVID-19. Instead, constructing pandemic-specific visitation policies is usually left to the discretion of hospitals and healthcare providers. Such policies aim to limit the risk of exposure but fail to account for the individual and social costs associated with dying alone for patients, families, and frontline healthcare workers. As a result, the policies may be overly restrictive and actively cause harm. This article argues that US hospital visitation policies need to be democratised to include the perspectives of community members and patients. By drawing on existing patient rights frameworks, this article outlines several legal strategies to reconceptualise hospital visitation policies as a civil rights issue.