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.)

By and large, the deliberate killing of one person by another is morally wrong. And that includes judicial killing. I am prepared to make a few idiosyncratic exceptions to the rule. Killing in defence of the life of another, and killing in self-defence, are okay by me. But killing another for personal gain, or because you disapprove of that person's religion, sexual orientation or lifestyle are reprehensible and should be prevented where possible and punished where appropriate. But the punishment should not invoke the lex talionis, the primitive demand for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a death for a death. This is not justice but revenge. Punishment should fit the crime but not duplicate it.

This issue of Polare celebrates the observance of the Transgender Day of Remembrance. It comes to you six weeks or so after the event, due to our quarterly publishing schedule, but I hope you will pause and think about the situation to which it draws attention.

Every year, in most parts of the world, people are physically, verbally, socially and even judicially attacked because of their sexuality or their gender identity, because there continue to be in most societies those who feel they have a right to demonstrate their own innate rightness and their nobility of character, by trashing those who believe in different standards from their own or have a biological condition which results in non-standard social behaviour.

True civilisation is built in response to beliefs which may not reflect majority thinking but rather that of the most advanced social philosophers in the community. The fine preamble to the American Declaration of Independence says that We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal ... then goes into an unfortunate spiel about the Creator before affirming the basic rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, three basic rights all too often denied to the transgendered.

Note that I do not suggest for an instant that basic rights involve the infringement of the rights of others. As Justice Lerned Hand said "Your right to swing your arm stops just short of my nose."

The first Transgender Day of Remembrance was initiated in 1999 by Gwendolyn Ann Smith, in memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman murdered on a Boston street a year earlier, a murder which, like many murders of transgenders, has never been solved. 20 November 2006 was the eighth commemoration of the Transgender Day of Remembrance and every year the observance gathers strength and is observed in more parts of the world. Organisations such as the National Organisation of Women (NOW), in the United States join in the recognition that transgenders suffer violence out of all proportion to their numbers despite the fact that many feminists in the past have been less than supportive of the transgender movement.

Observance in Sydney has been low-key in the past but, thanks to the energy and initiative of one of our own, Eleanor Lister, a gathering took place in the Waratah Room of the New South Wales Parliament on the Day of Remembrance. An account of the proceedings by norrie mAy welby appears on page 12 and Ian Gould of the Sydney Star Observer has kindly allowed us to reproduce photographs he took for the S.S.O.. One of Ian's photographs also appears on the cover. I would like to thank Eleanor for bringing us together in such a prestigious public place, and norrie and Ian for their efforts in providing a record.

It was particularly gratifying to have two members of the Upper House of the New South Wales Parliament in attendance ... Penny Sharpe (A.L.P.) and Lee Rhiannon (Greens).

The only way in which significant change will be achieved will be to have laws altered to provide more protection for the transgendered and to see those laws supported by regulations which are unequivocal and enforceable and, in the long term, by ensuring formal and informal education at all levels; pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary as well as for the general public.

The right wing pundits and shock jocks will continue to react in their ignorant and bigoted ways, making light of the problems of the transgendered, deriding them for "choosing" such a lifestyle and seeking to place the blame on us for any ills which befall us, just as women for generations, since the Old Testament in fact (see Deuteronomy 22.23), have been blamed for provoking men into raping them.

These pundits are sure they are in the right, because the rules of morality have been handed down to us by Divine Will or at the very least, through the supernaturally inspired wisdom of our forebears and ancestors ... (you know, those fine folks who gave us slavery, acquisition of territory by violent conquest, the feudal system, hereditary aristocracy and, of course, religion which in turn brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition and countless wars based on conflicting versions of mythomania. It really is time for people to think for themselves, to agree on certain principles concerning equal rights for all and to ensure that those rights do not directly infringe the rights (as opposed to the beliefs) of others.

Four years ago I was commissioned by the Attorney General of New South Wales to prepare a report on violence against the transgendered and to suggest possible strategies to ameliorate that violence. Two years ago I submitted the report. It has not seen the light of day. A fax from the A.G's office was passed to me which included a series of criticisms of the report, criticisms which I answered point by point.

I received no acknowledgment of my reply, nor any further suggestions for improvement of the report.

Earlier I had submitted a version of the report which covered five kinds of violence commonly encountered by the transgendered (unpremeditated (one-off), planned and ongoing, institutional, domestic and self-harm).

Two of these were excised from the report because I was said to have exceeded my brief, i.e. I had given them more than they had asked for. Why is that a bad thing? The two sections excised covered domestic violence and self-harm. How can these not be seen as two of the most prevalent forms of violence suffered by transgenders? Many of us have experienced the trauma which results when a person who is in a relationship transitions to the other gender, and this trauma often results in violence, whether it is of a physical or social nature. Quite often it results in an assault on the transgender's legal and social rights, including the right to access the family home and children.

As for self-harm ... a questionnaire issued as part of my research asked whether respondents had had close friends who committed suicide. Every respondent had at least one friend who had suicided as a result of gender issues. Some had as many as ten.

An example of the baseless criticisms levelled at my report by the A.G's office was the statement that I had not used an acceptable definition of violence but had invented my own. In fact, as I stated in my report, the definition adopted was that of the World Health Organisation, which defines violence as:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

[World Report on Health and Violence, WHO, 2002.]

I modified this definition by removing the word physical, since many forms of violence against transgenders are social, legislative or psychological. Surely the W.H.O. must be considered authoritative in matters of health?

I have now written to the A.G's Department three times, asking for clarification of the criticisms made of my report and offering to carry out further work on it, either alone or in co-operation with Departmental officers, but have received neither acknowledgement nor reply.

What was the point of asking for a report on violence if there was no intent to complete it, publish it and act on its recommendations? There can be few sectors of the public more in need of protective strategies than ours.

If the report were to be revived now it would need extensive updating, as legislation in various parts of the world has changed, and the local scene has also been modified in some ways, particularly in other States, although there is still a deplorable lack of uniformity in the ways the States and Territories operate in this area, and the Federal Government's attitudes remain as confused and, in some areas implacable, as ever. How can we believe there is a real intention to improve the position of the transgendered in society if such a basic factor as eliminating violence and reforming society's view of the transgendered through education can be ignored in such a cavalier fashion?

Other segments of the population, formerly considered transgressive in law and in society, have emerged from the shadows, notably gays and lesbians, but legislation for the transgendered has come about in piecemeal and inconsistent fits and starts, so that legislation passed in one State is not accepted in another (for example the creation of revised birth documentation) and legislation passed in other countries is ignored by our Federal Government (same sex marriage laws passed in a number of countries, including Canada and Spain, will not be recognised here). We need more than remembrance, we need serious, radical reform. You can help by informing your parliamentary representatives and recruiting their active assistance in the pursuit of equal justice for all. Remember, we are in an electoral year, both State and Federal, and that may make our views marginally more persuasive

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.