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.)

It would be an understatement to say that transgender issues have featured prominently in the news in recent months. There is the ongoing controversy surrounding the Monash Medical Clinic, and its programs, which have been under attack from a variety of sources for some time, followed more recently by the decision of the Family Court to allow a thirteen year-old F.T.M. known as 'Alex' to access puberty-delaying hormone treatments. I do not propose to comment on either of these matters directly since I am not privy to the necessary information that would enable me to give an informed response. What does merit examination, however, is the manner in which both these matters have been dealt with in the public arena.

The role of the media in this process is clearly significant. The media has extraordinary power in determining not only how we view events but indeed what we have access to in the first place. The decision as to whether an item is newsworthy is inextricably linked to the question of whether it will sell papers/magazines or attract viewers/listeners. In the case of stories about transsexuals it is the controversial that whets the appetite while the routine passes by unnoticed.

This is not to say that all media coverage is bad. On the contrary there are many fine examples of quality television, radio and print media journalism that have dealt with the subject of transsexualism in a fair and balanced manner. What characterises all these examples is the presentation of factual, informed and non-­judgmental reporting. Such reporting leaves it to the viewers/listeners/readers to draw their own conclusions about the issues at hand. Unfortunately some sections of the media, in reporting on the above cases, have adopted a 'Jerry Springer' style of reporting which prides itself on being judgmental and inflammatory.

When the case of 'Alex' first emerged a poll was conducted by one media group that asked the question 'Is thirteen too young to undergo a sex-change?' Firstly, 'Alex' isn't undergoing a sex-change, but why let the facts to get in the way? Secondly, it's a loaded question designed to elicit a predictable response. Thirdly, the decision ultimately handed down by the Family Court was based on a consideration of all available evidence and was certainly not taken lightly so what is to be gained from soliciting a response from ill-informed armchair 'experts'? An e-mail sent to one television morning show on the same subject responded negatively by suggesting that' ... we are perfect as God made us'. If this writer's view were held consistently then presumably any medical intervention of any kind would represent interference with God's Work. What absolute nonsense.

The real danger of the media, for whom it is true to say that today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip wrapper, is that they act as a catalyst in drawing the vindictive, vexatious and biased elements of society out of the woodwork. Whenever a story emerges about transsexualism, the Gender Centre is inundated with calls from various media outlets for comment. (The media frenzy is not unlike the shark feeding frenzy and often the wisest course of action is to stay out of the water). Unfortunately the less reputable media will talk to anyone so long as they can get a story out before deadline and this provides a mouth watering opportunity for anti-transsexual bigots to publicly air their views. And it is the airing of these individuals' views to a generally uninformed public that constitutes the greatest threat to the rights of everyone in the transgender community.

It will come as no surprise to the readers of this magazine that there are elements within the wider community who advocate the abolition of medical interventions in the treatment of transsexualism at every opportunity. They may portray themselves as being experts in the field. They love to portray themselves as caring individuals whose sole motivation is to look after the well-being of these poor unfortunate, misguided, confused and sick people. They will advocate already disproved treatments such as medication, psychotherapy or aversion therapy as viable and preferred alternatives to other medical interventions which have proved successful. They will rarely seek the opinions of transsexual people who have happily undergone a change of sex, and even when they do they will discard those opinions if they do not reflect their own prejudicial stance. By contrast, they will recruit the support of, or actively prey on, the small percentage of 'unsuccessful cases', (estimated at two to three percent of the community), to support their agenda. Their true motivation may stem from religious beliefs, ingrained prejudices or the promise of financial gain but these cards will never be laid on the table. More likely they will be disguised under the banner of 'ethical considerations'.

I recently emailed the Victorian Health Minister, the Hon..Hon Bronwyn Pike M.L.A., in relation the issues facing the Monash Medical Clinic. My email was a simple request that the minister take advice from a broad range of people, both experts and community members, and not just advice from the antagonists mentioned above in any review she may conduct of the practices of the clinic. The minister has a strong history in human rights and I am optimistic that she will take a common sense approach to this matter. I also cc' d that email to Senator Lyn Allison of the Australian Democrats and the response I received from Sarah Benson of Senator Allison's Office was alarming in the extreme.

The following is an abbreviation of some key points in her response along with my comments:

Dear Elisabeth

Thank you for your email ... which Senator Allison has asked me to respond to.

You raise many issues in your email that are currently subject to debate amongst the medical and psychiatric community worldwide. However as I am not an expert in this field I cannot comment further on these issues at the current time.

[Elizabeth: Note that she acknowledges that she is "not an expert"]

What I can do though is to clarify the aims of the Gender Menders Group and the Gender Identity Awareness Association, which you mention in your email.

[Elizabeth: Actually I did not mention them. Indeed I had never heard of Gender Menders until receiving Ms. Benson's email though her familiarity reveals a great deal about the source influencing her response. Indeed, on checking the internet I was dismayed to find their site, which discloses no information about the identity of any members of this group, but which includes a quote from me that is taken out of context and is printed without my authorisation. This falls far below my understanding of ethics. Their website repeatedly refers to transsexualism as an 'illness'.]

This group wishes to offer support, resources and a voice to those who have either been through the surgery and regretted it, or are currently on the program but unsure as to whether or not to continue.

[Elizabeth: What are their credentials for undertaking this task and why don't they identify themselves?]

Individuals from around the country are contacting us with stories of grief and shame that, personally, I find very sad and rather shocking.

[Elizabeth: The language is emotive and the bias of the writer is emerging.]

High profile tennis player and transgendered person Renee Richards has written a book in which she recommends to anyone who approaches her for advice not to have this surgery. Many stories on the web describe similar sentiments.

[Elizabeth: Being a high profile tennis player is irrelevant. If Renee is unhappy with her surgery then I am sorry for her but her experience belongs to her and not to all of us. As to 'many stories', how many? and who? Sweeping statements are meaningless.]

These individuals are in a psychological state so vulnerable and fragile that they hardly dare to speak about their plight. One man thinks his life is in danger from people such as yourself.

[Elizabeth: This is an outrageous comment and a clear reflection of Ms Benson's ignorance of this subject.]

Our view is that these people could have avoided going through this medical procedure if they had been required to undergo long-term counselling or psychotherapy, or at least encouraged to do so, before being put on the hormone/surgery program.

[Elizabeth: A strong and specific view from someone who has already conceded she is not an expert.]

I hope this clarifies our position on this very serious issue.

[Elizabeth: It certainly does.]

Regards, Sarah Benson

While I have enormous sympathy for individuals who later come to regret their decision to undergo gender reassignment, I have no patience at all with those who assume that this affords them the right to interfere with, and intrude into, the lives and choices of others in this community. Regret is an unavoidable part of life. Mature people use it to build strength of character. Puerile people look for someone to blame. Something like forty per cent of marriages end in divorce. Why don't we ban marriage? It's obviously not working.

The small percentage of individuals in the community who go on to regret undergoing a sex-change are deserving of support and counselling to help rebuild their lives. This is a role that, morally and ethically, must be filled by people who are qualified to undertake the task and who can be held accountable for their actions. Ad hoc groups with hidden agendas have immense potential to do harm to those whom they purport to support. Perhaps the Victorian Health Minister could be encouraged to conduct an investigation of groups like Gender Menders and the Gender Identity Awareness Association, which appear to be the same, to ascertain their legitimacy. I will forward a copy of this article to the Minister. In the meantime if you feel equally concerned I would encourage you to Bronwyn Pike and address your mail to Dear Minister,.

I urge you all to act. These people are trying to undermine the human rights of all Australian transsexuals.

All for one and one for all,

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.