Why Transgender Liberation & Care Succeeded

by Aidy Griffen

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

In the last issue of Polare, I outlined what the trany law reform would consist of, and what I felt it's importance would be. In this piece, I would like to analyse why we succeeded in getting the Government to act on our agenda. In particular, I want to look at why T.L.C., with it's "radical" approach was so successful, whereas other attempts to achieve trany law reform over the past twenty or so years, both here and overseas, had failed.

When T.L.C. set out on it's campaign, we adopted a number of strategies that were thought by many in the community to be "extreme". We did this because we had analysed why other campaigns had failed, and were determined to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Among the more controversial aspects of this new approach were:

• Insisting that old, medically based divisions (e.g. pre-op versus post-op) in our community be abolished. Anything T.L.C. asked for would apply to all tranys regardless of their medical/surgical status. We chose a policy of inclusion of all tranys, and adopted a new language - that of transgender - to reinforce this shift. We put Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination legislation at the top of our political agenda, whereas previous lobbying attempts had centered around birth certificate reforms. This was criticised by some (usually very conservative post-ops, who seemed to feel that granting human rights to non-ops would somehow demean them) and who insisted on birth certificates for post-ops only as the primary aim. As it turned out, by focusing on Human Rights issues, we were able to get both parts of trany law reform up;
• We adopted a strategy of forming alliances with gays, lesbians and other queers, and others marginalised by their gender status (e.g. the women's movement). This was a radical departure from the past; and was criticised for associating tranys "with sexual deviants like homosexuals".
• We said that the thing that tranys had in common was not a particular identity (or identity crisis), nor the sick, pathetic concept of gender dysphoria, but a variety of behaviours that all fell outside "normal" gender behaviours. Put simply, we said that being a trany meant living like a trany, and being treated like a trany by society. We chose behaviour over identity as the defining element of our community. Some tranys found this shift challenging - it ran against the medical model which painted tranys as having an "incurable psychiatric disorder". Some feared a loss of this medicalised status would make access to medical interventions more difficult. As is now obvious, this has not turned out to be the case. Many of those who voiced these concerns now accept that if you see yourself as "sick", then the remedy is medical - not political - and T.L.C.s insistence that tranys were not sick or even more offensively "suffering from incurable psychiatric disorders" was central to the success of the political agenda.
• We recognised and celebrated the amazing diversity of tranys, and pioneered the idea of Trany Pride. We were out and proud, not invisible and sick. Some expressed fears about what being "out" might do to the image of tranys, while others said it was plain impossible. I have to report that I have not experienced a single negative reaction about being "out and proud about it". Indeed, it has been one of the more positive and affirming choices I've made. And no-one ever gave human rights to people who were not prepared to stand and fight for them in public.

Being out and proud was critical in another area. The campaign was won and lost in the media. To win in the media, it is not enough to have a good case. You have to be prepared to go public and to advance your cause under the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny and criticism. T.L.C. was prepared to do this, and the innumerable media appearances of tranys insisting of their human rights was essential in creating a climate where change was possible.

There were those in the community who either failed to understand the new approach, or found it too challenging. It is my view that all these changes were critical in ensuring success of the project. Indeed, without them, it is unlikely that T.L.C. would have succeeded at all. It is ironic that those who were foremost in criticising, such as T.A.G. (who actually attempted to block Anti-Discrimination legislation at one point in late '94) are now trying to claim credit for the success T.L.C.s new approach delivered. The N.S.W. Attorney General, Jeff Shaw has publicly acknowledged T.L.C.s leading role in securing the trany law reform package.

By changing the language, we effectively changed the terms, and took control of the debate. It was no longer a matter of forcing our supporters to approve of surgery etc., matters that were only relevant to tranys. Everyone has an interest in human rights. At the end of the day, most people could not care less whether tranys have operations or not. However they do care if the human rights of Australian citizens are being systematically abused. And, more importantly, they're prepared to do something about it. By posing the issues as human rights issues, we tapped into a solid vein of support. We expanded our issues in terms that others could readily understand. The only place this approach encountered any resistance was from a tiny number of conservative tranys.

Outside the trany community, this approach was universally effective and I cannot recall anyone of substance (or for that matter, any non-trany at all, including several medicos well known to tranys) being put off by it. My impression was virtually everyone we met welcomed the new language and approach. It certainly made a lot of sense to them. It certainly gained us a lot of friends, particularly among women and civil liberties people. Virtually all the women in high places who played roles in the campaign did so because they approached the issue from feminist/human rights perspectives. Without exception, they would have taken a very different and far less supportive role if we had stuck to the old medical model. In fact, in many instances, their support would not have been forthcoming if we had pushed the old tired medicalised language. Just one example, Clover Moore refused to meet T.A.G., after a spokesperson for the group detailed her agenda to her over the phone to Clover's office. The feeling in Clover's office was that while the spokesperson was certainly entitled to her views, such views were narrow minded, with more than a touch of misogyny (hatred of women) and homophobia, and therefore untouchable.

Personally, I've lost count of the number of influential people who asked me questions along the lines of "is this anything to do with operations?". My response was always to say that we were concerned with social issues and we regarded any individual's medical status as a private matter. Our agenda was a human rights agenda. This response allowed those people to immediately offer their support. Among the people who asked me this were Meredith Bergmann M.L.C., Sandra Nori (M.P. for Glebe, The National Council for Civil Liberties and innumerable people in the queer community. All of these people became committed supporters, and many were central to the success of the project.

This more than justified our approach.

A critical factor in the success of the project was the "Transgender Lifestyles and H.I.V. / AIDS Risks" report produced by Roberta Perkins and others in 1994. While everyone in our community is aware of the levels of discrimination and abuse practices against tranys, prior to Roberta's report, no one had even documented them. This left us in the unfortunate position of being unable to actually prove the systematic abuse of our human rights and was as widespread as we all know it is. Roberta's report gave us an unanswerable case and the facts and figures to support all our arguments, and to prove all our points.

Jeff Shaw, the N.S.W. Attorney General was one key player who was spurred into action by this report. I first met Shaw in November 1994 and gave him a copy of the report. I met him again about 3-4 months later, just before the March '95 election. At the second meeting, he told me how "deeply he had been impressed" by the "horrifying" findings of Roberta's report. He was able to recall the specific levels of "sexual assault" against tranys, which he describes as "shocking". It was then that I knew that here was a person who, if given the chance, would legislate on our behalf. In the end, it was Shaw, supported by Andrew Refshauge (Deputy Premier and M.P. for the Gender Centre's electorate), Sandra Nori and Meredith Bergmann who persuaded the N.S.W. Cabinet to approve trany law reform, and secured A.L.P. caucus approval for trany law reform - key developments that will ultimately guarantee it's success.

While a few tranys expressed reservations about the findings "sending the wrong signals" to society and "generating the impression that all tranys were (shock! horror! gasp!) sex workers, the media interest this report produced was sympathetic and ultimately very useful. Just one example of how this worked out was the "Lateline" program about the report's findings which dubbed tranys "the most discriminated against group in Australia". Two years later, I met with John Watkins, the M.P. for Gladesville, to try to secure his support for trany law reform. He told me he had seen the Lateline program and been "appalled" by the treatment meted out to tranys. There was no need to convince him - he was already a supporter, due entirely to the Lateline program and Roberta's report.

If a group such as tranys is trying to win reform and recognition, it seems to me that two of the first things to do that such a group should do is speak on it's own behalf - as opposed to hiding behind doctors white coats - and document it's treatment professionally and persuasively. Roberta's report gave us the chance to show what tranys are capable of if we are supported in running our own affairs.

Clover Moore was yet another who played a key role in securing the trany law reform agenda. From 1991 on, Clover regularly consulted with, and took counsel from T.L.C. on trany issues. Clover played a critical role in the success of our project by (1) introducing a Private Member's Bill to outlaw discrimination against tranys in the last Parliament and (2) committing herself to re-introduce the "trany amendment" into this Parliament. Clover "broke the ice" by taking trany issues from a community/street level issue and putting them on the Parliamentary agenda. This was a step of crucial importance. And Clover guaranteed that our issues would stay on the Parliamentary agenda until properly dealt with by committing herself to re-introducing the amendment in the new (current) Parliament. during her election campaign. Without Clover's actions, trany law reform may never happened.

The alliance we forged with others in the queer community also attracted some criticism from tranys who seemed pre-occupied with establishing that they were not "homosexual and sexual deviants" rather than claiming their human rights. Though not without it's problems, this alliance proved very useful strategically. Contacts in high places were provided by other queers. The publicity campaign was carried out primarily in the queer media. T.L.C. succeeded in putting trany rights on the agenda of the very powerful "gay lobby", to the extent that it is now accepted any changes designed to benefit gays and lesbians must have a component to "similarly advantage" tranys. Clover Moore, Andrew Refshauge, Paul Whelan (current Minister for Police), John Hannaford (then Attorney General) are just a few of the friends we made from contacts in the queer community.

Some people thought that we were trying to "force" membership of the queer community on tranys. Nothing could be further from the truth. T.L.C. is about opening up options for tranys, not forcing inappropriate policies on them. We sought to obtain tangible political advantages to tranys by "piggy-backing" a far more numerous, influential and experienced group with parallel interests and in this we succeeded. We also sought to improve the position of tranys within the queer communities. Nowadays, tranys are accorded a degree of respect in the queer community that is simply unavailable in straight society. For those tranys who wish to avail themselves of it, there's a welcome and position of respect for tranys in the queer communities.

In short, T.L.C.s radical new approach has delivered results - tangible, positive results - where the old medicalised approach failed to deliver an iota of political reform for as long as that sad, selfish agenda has been advanced.

This is a complete vindication of the new approach, and ought to settle the merits of transgender over transsexual for once and for all. So much so that it would be disastrous to even think of changing it now. As the adage goes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it!". Comparing the old and new ways in terms of results for tranys, even a blind person could see which one ain't broke and which one requires fixing, or dare I suggest radical surgery.

Now that the campaign is nearing completion, I have resigned as spokesperson of T.L.C. - I need a rest. It is time for fresh faces. T.L.C. has found a new energetic and effective spokesperson in Nadine Stransen, and a new management team in Ilea, Dianne, Kelby, Norrie and Nadine. I urge you to give them all the same support which I enjoyed from tranys.

When I became the spokesperson some years ago, T.L.C.s agenda was (1) improving tranys level of self-respect and self-esteem, (2) Cementing a political and social alliance with the queer community and (3) trany law reform. It is with great satisfaction that I can report all these goals have been met. I owe heartfelt thanks to all those hundreds of tranys and non-tranys who helped bring this about. Thank you for letting me contribute and allowing me the privilege of representing you.

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.