Manager's Report

by Elizabeth Riley

(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 couple of issues I have changed the format of my report in order to address community issues that have surfaced over that time. I would like to continue in that vain for at least this issue of Polare since there is another area that I think should be addressed and which has the capacity to impact negatively on our community. That issue, put simply, is divisiveness.

I was impressed at the positive coverage that was afforded the transgender community in the gay press during April and May. In the April edition of Lesbians On The Loose (LOTL), the cover story featured an interview with a transgender lesbian which was further complemented by an article on gender and a supportive letter in the Letters to the Editor. The May edition of L.O.T.L. carried a number of letters to the editor in response to the pieces in the previous edition and these too were strongly supportive.

In the Sydney Star Observer's first edition for May the front page was dedicated to a story on discussions being held between the N.S.W. Attorney General's Department and representatives of Sex and Gender Education S.A.G.E.). This too gave highly positive coverage to the efforts of S.A.G.E. in promoting the rights of sex and gender diverse people and the Attorney General's commitment to the establishment of uniform laws across all states of Australia to protect those rights. Though not mentioned in the article I would also like to acknowledge the tireless work of the N.S.W. Anti-Discrimination Board, and its president Chris Puplick, for their efforts in seeking to bring about this change.

I would also like to commend S.A.G.E. and its members for the visible activist presence they have generated in such a short time span since their inception. I cannot stress too highly The Gender Centre's commitment to supporting the aims and objectives of S.A.G.E..

So what has all this got to do with divisiveness?

Sadly there are still individuals and groups within the community that choose to distance themselves in one form or another from other individuals and groups, and this distancing seems to occur for a variety of reasons. First there is the old, and obviously not yet worn out, view that if you are post-operative you are somehow more valid and therefore entitled to better treatment. I discuss this from a human rights perspective and not an academic treaty into what makes someone a man or a woman. The validity view seems to me to be an elitist view that disregards the importance of gender identity or worse still links it to a surgical procedure. Is there any post-operative transsexual who can honestly say that surgery was the key factor in establishing their identity? Indeed the real truth lies in the reverse equation. It is gender identity that justifies surgery not surgery that justifies gender identity. Nobody can access surgery without first living for a substantial period of time in their new sex role.

The elitist argument not only penalises those in the community who choose to be non-operative, but also those who do not have the means to pay the high costs associated with surgery or for medical reasons cannot undergo such procedures. It equally disregards the vast majority of female-to-males who for these, and more complex reasons, do not proceed with lower half surgery.

It further adopts the risky argument that gender identity is based on a physical criterion. What if an oppressive bureaucracy decided to change the goal posts and nominate a physical criterion we are unable to achieve such as chromosomal make up? That would leave us all out in the cold. The only persuasive criteria is self determination based on our own conviction of our gender identity and in respect of human rights we should all be advocating for that position.

The other area where there seems to be an alarming degree of divisiveness is in the politicking, (and bickering), of various groups within the community. It seems to occur between groups operating intrastate, groups operating interstate and groups operating nationally. It occurs between groups purporting to represent only certain sections of the community, women only, men only, intersex only and so on. And, more often than not, it occurs for silly reasons such as an irrational fear that if a group works in conjunction with other groups it will somehow lose its identity or compromise its area of expertise, or simply because members of different groups don't like each other. In the first of these cases the reverse is true. By working in collaboration and establishing strong interconnected networks a group's identity is strengthened and its expertise valued. In the case of the latter, not liking someone is a good reason not to invite them to your next dinner party, it is a pathetically poor reason for refusing to work with them when failure to do so works to the detriment of the community.

None of the gains that have been achieved over the years were achieved by any one group in isolation. They were achieved in a collaborative approach that involved not only members of the community, transgender or intersex, men or women, pre-operative or post-operative, but also a wide range of allies outside the community, politicians, bureaucrats, medicos and many others who saw the discrepancies in the human rights afforded transpeople and joined in a commitment to bring about change. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to all those other people who have embraced our cause, to work together in the spirit of community to ensure that transpeople achieve a level playing field in the pursuit of human rights.

Earlier in this report I acknowledged a few of the individuals and groups outside the transgender community who have rallied in support of our cause. These are just a few of many and I included them specifically to illustrate the importance, indeed the necessity, of working with dedication and collaboration if we have any hope of achieving desired outcomes. If we have differences, and we inevitably will, be they philosophical, political or personal we should put them aside in pursuit of our common goals and the common good.

There is enduring truth in the maxim, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

Footnote: The second edition in May of Sydney Star Observer featured a comprehensive article from Chris Puplick, President of the A.D.B., outlining their stance on changes to N.S.W. and National laws relating to the transgender community.

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.