Christine Overall

A serious moral weakness of reproductive ‘surrogacy’ is that it can be harmful to the children who are created. This article presents a proposal for mitigating this weakness. Currently, the practice of commercial ‘surrogacy’ operates only in the interests of the adults involved , not in the interests of the child who is created. Whether ‘surrogacy’ is seen as the purchase of a baby, the purchase of parental rights, or the purchase of reproductive labor, all three views share the same significant flaws. They endorse the transfer, for a fee, of the infant from the woman who gestated it to those who commissioned it, but without justifying such a transfer; they fail to demonstrate that the commissioners have any entitlement to the infant, or, for that matter, suitability to be the infant's parents; and they fail to take any notice of the infant's needs, interests, and wellbeing. A mere genetic connection is not enough to establish that the commissioners are entitled to receive the baby or that they are competent to raise it. Their good intentions, however caring, are not enough. Therefore, just as in the practice of adoption, there should be a formal institutionalized system for screening and licensing the prospective social parents, which would make the infant's needs, interests, and wellbeing paramount. I reply to several potential objections to this proposal, including the objection that genetic parents who raise their own child are not screened and licensed

Our universities are the locus of ongoing debates over the politics of gender, of class, of disadvantage and disability—and over the issue of “political correctness.” In _A Feminist I_ Christine Overall offers wide-ranging reflections from a first-person point of view on these issues, and on the politics of the modern university itself. In doing so she continually returns to underlying epistemological concerns. What are our assumptions about the ways in which knowledge is constructed? To what degree are our perceptions shaped by our social roles and identities? In the past generation feminists have led the way in recognising the importance of such questions, and recognising too the ways in which personal experience may be an invaluable reference point in academic theory and practice. But reliance on personal experience is fraught with problems; how is one to deal with tensions between the autobiographical and the analytic? This book points the way to resolving some of those tensions, and to fruitfully sustaining others. It is a book of considerable insight, warm humanity, and genuine importance.

This paper explores, from a feminist perspective, the justification of major surgical reshaping of the body. I define “transracialism” as the use of surgery to assist individuals to “cross” from being a member of one race to being a member of another. If transsexualism, involving the use of surgery to assist individuals to “cross” from female to male or from male to female, is morally acceptable, and if providing the medical and social resources to enable sex crossing is not morally problematic, then transracialism should be morally acceptable, and providing medical and social resources to facilitate race crossing is not necessarily morallyproblematic. To explore this idea, I present and evaluate eight possible arguments that might be given against accepting transracialism, and I show that each of them is unsuccessful.

Reproductive technology has become virtually synonymous with new reproductive choices for women. We are led to believe these technological practices will primarily enable women to conceive and bear the children they previously could not. The presentation of this as fact urges us to support the advancement of reproductive technology so that future techniques may be perfected. The Future of Human Reproduction critically assesses the social, moral, legal, and political impact of reproductive technology on women's lives. Through a feminist analysis, writers explore how the implications of technology are much more complex and far reaching than we think. The writers uncover a number of issues that need to be addressed and challenged rather than assume reproductive technology is being pursued safely and in the best interests of all women.

: Public toilets are a key part of the urban environment. This paper examines and evaluates the pervasive sex segregation, throughout North America, of public toilets. The issue is situated within a larger context—the design and management of the urban environment; larger assumptions about sexuality, reproduction, and privacy that govern that environment; and continuing compulsory sex identification and segregation which still define key areas of "public" space. I examine seven groups of arguments in favor of sex segregation, arguing that all of them are inadequate. I then present reasons showing why ending the sex segregation of public toilets is justified

Heterosexuality, which I define as a romantic and sexual orientation toward persons not of one's own sex, is apparently a very general, though not entirely universal, characteristic of the human condition. In fact, it is so ubiquitous a part of human interactions and relations as to be almost invisible, and so natural-seeming as to appear unquestionable. Indeed, the 1970 edition of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘heterosexual’ as ‘pertaining to or characterized by the normal relation of the sexes.’

Because of the two crucial problems just described, it is concluded that Stace's theory of the nature of mystical experience is inadequate. An alternative approach is outlined, which obviates the weaknesses in Stace's theory by combining C. J. Ducasse's distinction between connate and alien accusatives, with the suggestion by Gilbert Ryle and David Hamlyn that experiencing is like the exercise of a skill. Mystical experience, it is then proposed, is the exercise of the difficult yet rewarding acquired skill of experiencing unitively. ;The second problem concerns the relation between the mystical experience and the interpretation made of it by the mystic. On this topic Stace is found to support two distinct positions: first, that experience or the given in general is independent of mental activity, and that mystical experience is pure, that is, uninterpreted; second, that pure experience is "psychologically impossible," and that no uninterpreted mystical experiences occur. Without passing judgment upon the issue of "psychological impossibility," an argument is here advanced to show that all mystical experiences reflect the specific context in which they occur, and hence that, in Stace's sense, all such experiences are "impure." ;In the evaluation of Stace's views about the nature of mystical experience, two main problems emerge. The first of these concerns the relation between the mystical experience and its object. Stace contends that mystical experience is identical with its object, the "Universal Self." However, his arguments for this belief, founded upon his general theory of experience and upon his examination of reports of mystical experiences, are demonstrated to be unsuccessful. ;The philosophical context of Stace's views on mystical experience includes, it is shown, Stace's many studies of mysticism in addition to his major survey of the field, Mysticism and Philosophy. It also embraces his more general writings about the concept of the given, the structure of human knowledge, and what Stace calls "phenomenalist metaphysics." ;A foundational element of Walter Terence Stace's pioneer work in the philosophy of mysticism is his theory of the nature of mystical experience. Accordingly, this thesis has two purposes: to outline the context of Stace's views on mystical experience; and to evaluate Stace's views on the nature of mystical experience