Firstly, one of the benefit of prohibiting intersex surgeries through legislation is codified

recognition, which could lead to a change in social perception of gender. This fluidity in
terms of sex binaries can then allow intersex individuals to just be comfortable in their own
skin, as it recognizes intersex as a sex of its own instead of having to fit them into the narrow
binary system. This codification preventing surgery would reflect that there is no particular
biology that fits with a gender. It sends a strong message to the public and medical
profession to recognize gender on a spectrum instead of a binary. This is a step to change
societal expectation of what a normal binary-sexed body looks like, and does not reinforce
our fears of difference, simultaneously not erasing trans and intersex people from society.

An example of such legislation in place is shown in Malta, where the 2015 Act was passed
to prohibit surgery and treatment on the sex characteristics of children without informed
consent. According to the study by Garland and Travis, Malta’s policy makers had actually
interacted with the community and adopted a holistic approach, in which this was the issue
that needed to be rectified. This legislation is the forefront of change, and the law does pivot
from viewing gender identity as a pathology in need of a diagnosis. However, a problem with
the wording of the legislation is that the surgery will be banned 'until the child is old
enough to consent'.

This implies that these procedures will occur at some point. Banning the surgery entirely
thus refutes prejudice perspectives against intersex traits and intersex people that their
bodies need changing. And also by simply holding off surgery in our gender-obsessed
culture, the child is likely to feel confusion and face further prejudice.

There is also this false belief that surgeries would stop this discrimination which occurs
because they cross both sex and gender spectrum. This does not rectify the social root of
the issue. Davis argues that recognizing intersex as a valid sex reconstructs the definitions
of gender as a whole, and goes against the essentialist understanding of sex, gender and
sexuality as biologically prescribed.

This ingrained expectation of surgery, reinforces the temporal norms that our society puts
forth. As Emily Grabham asserts in her 2012 paper, based on the concept of time and
embodied perception by Bourdieu, that if surgeries were to exist within the field (which is
our social space) – within society’s technological possibilities – then those possibilities are
incorporated into the habitus and into the body’s potential forthcomings. To quickly explain
this concept, habitus is orientated when an individual anticipates that something is about to
happen, and they then orient themselves towards it and performs based on what they know
is about to come. Habitus is affected by temporal norms. In essence, this means that the
intersex community is impacted by these norms to conduct surgery to fit into the gender
norm. As such, allowing these surgeries would not present an active choice for intersex
individuals because of the ‘anticipation’ of what should be delivered – which is the right
biology to match the right gender identity.

To sum it up, prohibiting surgery through legislation propels a force of change towards
accepting bodies as they are without an expectation for change, and recognizes intersex
people on the gender spectrum.

However with such fixed and rigid legislation, the extent to which the bodily integrity of
intersex individuals will be protected is debatable as it does seem like banning something
completely takes away the right of intersex individuals to choose, which will be discussed by
Fola.