Editorial

by Katherine Cummings

(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 nineteenth century children in European culture were considered to be property and often treated like animals, to be trained by punishment and reward. In the twentieth century matters improved but the age of responsibility, or majority, was usually taken to be twenty-one, and minors were deemed to be without legal capacity, which rested with their parents, their guardians or the State. Following two world wars within a generation it was generally accepted that a person old enough to fight for his or her country was old enough to cast a vote for or against the people making life and death decisions. The age of majority came down to eighteen for most purposes and even younger for certain specific responsibilities such as marriage.

In matters of child abuse, too, children were beginning to be heard in their own defence, allowed to give evidence against abusing adults.

In some areas, however, children's wishes were, and are, still over-ridden by the wishes and opinions of adults who exercise legal responsibility. One of the most vital of these areas was that of innate gender identification. A child wishing to be recognised in a gender role than that assigned at birth was usually ignored or even punished, depending on the degree of transphobia or simple ignorance being exercised by the adult mentor.

In this century we have seen some softening on the part of mentors and gatekeepers. The landmark case of the thirteen-year-old ward of the State (code-named Alex) permitted by the Family Court to delay puberty through hormonal therapy, was a tremendous breakthrough for those who are aware of their transgendered status long before they have the legal right to assert it. Alex will have the opportunity to live as a male until he reaches the age of majority and will then have the right to say whether or not he wishes to continue down the path to full gender affirmation.

If human beings matured sexually after the age of majority the problem would still exist but would be less important. It is the fact that we couple intellectual maturation with puberty that causes many of a developing transgender's problems. As long as puberty precedes legal independence young transgenders will go through the agony of seeing their bodies develop at puberty in ways abhorrent to them. F.T.M.s will commence menstruation, become more feminine in shape, develop breasts etc. M.T.F.s will grow facial and body hair, have their voices break and see their somatic form become more masculine. With more acceptance of the phenomenon of transgender and a greater willingness to believe in a child's right to gender self-determination there could be more cases like Alex, where puberty is delayed by hormonal therapy until the individual is legally entitled to make a long-term decision on his / her gender. On page 13 of this issue you will find a column by Jennifer Vanasco, dealing with the case of Nicole in the United States, a transgendered child whose right to self-determination is respected by her parents. They have allowed her to live in her innate gender role up to the age of five. Now she is the centre of controversy over whether she should be allowed to continue asserting her female gender role in the wider society of pre-school.

Of course she should! The arguments against this procedure are that Nicole will be subject to bullying, abuse and misunderstanding from her peers, from parents of other children in the school and even her teachers. But it is not Nicole, nor her parents, who would be culpable. It is the perpetrators of abuse and discrimination who should be subject to education (and social sanctions if necessary) to create the social process of acceptance.

It may well prove to be a difficult experience for Nicole and maybe she will break under the pressure, but until rights are asserted and defended they do not exist. Rights de jure must become rights de facto or they are not rights but empty words. I hope Nicole's supporters prove to be strong, steadfast and effective.

Few of us, in Australian society at least, die for our right to be recognised in our innate genders but many of us suffer, both physically and socially. Some of us live peacefully in our innate gender role and that is a blessing. But many of our brothers and sisters do not have that blessing, for a variety of reasons, ranging from the malice of families to physical, financial and legal constraints. These are the ones in our community who are deserving of our mental, moral and practical support.

Let us, then, honour the Alexes and Nicoles (and Jacks and Josephs) in our midst. They are the pioneers, the heroes and the martyrs, and ours is a community in dire need of heroes.

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.