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.)

Mission Australia

Many of you will now be aware that Mission Australia sought an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act to allow it to exclude non-recognised transgender women from three of its key services, A Woman's Place, Lou's Place and Women in Supported Housing. Unfortunately for our community their application was approved by the N.S.W. Attorney General.

Those of you who attended the Gender Centre's 2003 A.G.M. and heard Roberta Perkins speak of the early days of the Gender Centre and the great support members of our community enjoyed from A Woman's Place in the early 1980's will be particularly dismayed by the direction in which Mission Australia is now heading. On learning that Mission Australia had been granted the exemption I held a meeting with two of their representatives which left me hopeful that we might arrive at a fair compromise over this issue. Unfortunately, following that meeting, Mission Australia received submissions which were apparently supportive of their exemption and these would appear to have influenced their policy decision. At a subsequent meeting Mission's representative informed me that it was now their policy to exclude pre-operative transgender women from the affected accommodation services and this position was non-negotiable. My request to be furnished with a copy of their policy was also refused. Letters were also received, though not published, by Sydney Star Observer from Rachael Wallbank, and Karen Gurney and Kate Clark from the Woman Network in Victoria, all of whom elected to support Mission Australia's position.

The Gender Centre opposes the exemption, and will continue its opposition through all available channels, on the grounds that it exposes the most vulnerable members of the community to an increased risk of homelessness and the myriad of risks associated with this. This is a simple welfare argument based on the proposition that the needy in our society deserve assistance and this should be provided without regard to gender politics, or indeed any other kind of politics, be they racial, sexuality, religious or socio-economic. There is increasingly widespread acceptance of the medical viewpoint, regardless of preferred terminology, that transsexualism is a condition we are born with, and some are even prepared to argue that it is therefore an intersex condition. Yet there remains a seemingly impenetrable resistance among many to accept the legitimacy of the transsexual/transgender condition at any level prior to the completion of sex reassignment surgery. This is surely devoid of logic. To be born transsexual is to be born with the physical characteristics of one sex and the gender identity of the other, and it is the domination of the latter that defines the transsexual/transgender condition. We must be diagnosed as transsexual long before approval for surgery is granted and even then access is dependent on at least one factor which is of enormous significance to our community; affordability.

All of us, therefore, face an indeterminable period of time, effectively beginning at birth and lasting until our last vision of the anaesthetist in the operating theatre, where we are consigned to a life as a pre-op transsexual/transgender. And it is all of us, therefore, who are affected by practices of exclusion such as those being enforced by Mission Australia.

As for S.R.S., this is simply one of a range of medical interventions including hormone therapy, psychiatric assessments, living in role and other medical processes that far from being the affirmation of a transsexual/transgender condition are actually the avenue by which the condition is cured. We do not undergo these procedures to become transsexuals/transgenders. We undergo them in response to our transsexual/transgender condition in order to become men and women.

So why has Mission Australia suddenly elected to behave in this fashion? If A Woman's Place has been providing crisis accommodation to the transgender community for more than twenty years what could possibly have changed to justify this response? I was informed by their representatives that there had been a couple of incidents with transgender women that had caused them concern. If a crisis accommodation service has only had a couple of incidents with a particular client group in over twenty years then I am surprised we haven't been granted model client status. However, as is the case with any agency, if you have concerns about the behaviour of an individual client then it is perfectly legitimate to exclude that particular client. It is not a justification, however, for excluding all clients from a similar social grouping. The following is a service description of A Woman's Place as listed on the Mission Australia website:

A Woman's Place (A.W.P.) provides a safe, affordable and supportive environment for women aged 18 and over, who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, ex-prisoners or refugees.

The women have high and complex needs, including escaping domestic violence, relationship breakdown, eviction, unemployment, mental illness/other disability, drug addiction and gambling, often without family or cultural supports.

Given the high and complex needs of clients for whom A Woman's Place provides services there is no question that they would have had issues with any number of clients, from all of the identified groupings, over the years. So again I ask the question. Why are non-recognised transgender women being targeted? In the absence of any credible response from Mission Australia, and given the strong twenty plus year history of co-operation this community has enjoyed with A Woman's Place, I can only draw one conclusion. Someone, or some few, in Mission Australia are exercising their prejudice against the transgender population. If this is the case then it is a deplorable situation and, no matter what the legal justification via which it is enacted, it smacks of discrimination at its most blatant and it must be challenged.

This leads me to again enter the debate around terminology though I continue to do so with great reluctance. My interpretation of the letters written by the aforementioned to the Sydney Star Observer is that they are pursuing an argument that there is a fundamental difference between transsexual and transgender people with the former experiencing a medical condition and the latter engaged in a process of lifestyle choice.

There is certainly emerging evidence that people who identify as a gender contrary to their physical development do so in response to a medical condition to which they are exposed pre-birth. However, the terms transsexual and transgender are simply words in the language, and individuals experiencing the same circumstances may identify as one or the other or both or neither as a matter of choice. I have seen nothing in the medical literature to support a view that a person who undergoes sex reassignment surgery and lives in their acquired gender role and who identifies as transgender has any less claim to a medical determinant than the same person who identifies as transsexual. If anyone can provide me with proof to the contrary, other than by way of personal conviction, I will be more than happy to amend my view.

This is not to suggest that the Gender Centre makes no distinction between those in the community who may be described as transgender or transsexual, according to the definitions laid down in the N.S.W. Anti-Discrimination Act, and others in the gender diverse community who do not meet that criterion. All people who seek the services provided by the Gender Centre are treated equally and with respect. Equal treatment, however, does not mean same treatment. We are more than capable of recognising the differing needs of people according to their presenting issues and providing appropriate services accordingly. Put simply, and by way of example, this means that at no stage would we refer someone who identified as a cross-dresser to an accommodation service for women since this would clearly be inappropriate. On the other hand, for someone who identifies as a woman, whether that be a transgender woman or a transsexual woman, such a referral would, or should, be totally appropriate.

It is with the conviction shared by most in this community, that our gender identity is determined by our self perception (brain sex) and not by our genitalia (physiological sex), that we advocate for inclusion for all transgenders pre-op. and post-op. in every area of society. In the area of welfare and crisis accommodation, where the need is at its greatest, the imperative to achieve this is at its most profound. If we fail here then those who are our most vulnerable are doomed to the wretchedness and despair of homelessness as well as the very real risk of violence and death. These are the potentially tragic consequences of exclusionary practices and it was in response to the sheer horror of this situation that I described Mission Australia's actions as un-Christian in an interview with the Sydney Star Observer.

I would not have expected that this would elicit a vitriolic response, and I certainly would not have expected that response to come from within our community but sadly it did. I was subject to a scathing attack over the telephone, which sought to chastise me for daring to suggest that Mission Australia's actions were un-Christian, and in my view was a clear attempt to intimidate me and my right to hold that opinion. I confess to a continued bewilderment over the lack of unity within our community but I offer my reassurance that the Gender Centre will always advocate for the human rights and fair treatment of all sex and gender diverse people. And for the record I maintained both my composure, and my conviction that such an action is un-Christian.

"Christianity is about unconditional love" "Completely unconditional"

Exemptions impose a condition.

Exemptions are un-Christian.

With thanks to the Baroness, I rest my case. But not my resolve!

I acknowledge the many individuals, agencies and peak bodies who have offered their support and encouragement over this issue.

In Solidarity.

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.