Surgically Acquired Legal Privileges

by norrie mAy-welby

(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.)

We at Polare thought that it may be a good time to begin some discussion around the proposed anti-discrimination and birth certificate legislation for transgender people. norrie mAy-welby offered her opinion piece on proposed birth certificate legislation, we knew we were in for something controversial. We're looking forward to your responses.

The case against, by a "post-op¹" trany

It has been reported in the press that State Cabinet is considering two proposals for tranys, anti-discrimination and birth certificate changes. While the move to include transgenders in anti-discrimination law is overdue and very welcome, the latter proposal has been criticised since it is for post-operative tranys only. Legislation that grants rights on the basis of surgery is not only not enough for tranys, it is a negative step.

It is not enough for many tranys, while choosing to adopt a single gendered identity, may not have genital reassignment surgery. There are many valid reasons for this, some of which I will address shortly.

It is a negative step, for it puts more pressure on non-operative tranys, and creates a division between them and genetically aligned tranys. It is a negative step, for it will result in many more tranys being pressured into "the op" to gain legal recognition of their chosen gender, and ending up like Carol Abrahams, who suicided three months after her surgery (claiming in her suicide note that the op was a mistake).

Better than nothing?

Some may claim that it's better than nothing, and may be amended to include non-ops, then I would have no objection to it, but as long as it is surgically based, it must be vigorously opposed.

If I may make an analogy, when gays in W.A. were offered decriminalisation in 1984, they opposed it because it would entrench a discriminatory age of consent. Never the less, law reform eventually happened along those lines, and politicians claimed "Anything's better than nothing, it's a step in the right direction, this law can be amended". As the law now stands, males over the age of 21 who only had sex with other males over 21 are free from fearing prosecution under the old Victorian law rarely enforced and now repealed, but gay males under 21 and their gay partners were declared criminal and are prosecuted with renewed vigour.

It's about five years later, no amendment to the law has been made, and with the political climate in Perth governed by reactionary conservative nepotism, young gays are a lot worse off than before partial law reform, with no relief in sight. In this case, as I believe is the case of surgically defined legislation for tranys, the granting of partial law reform was more damaging than no law reform.

Surgically acquiring rights may please some self-interested post-ops, but will legitimise non acceptance of the self identities of genetically intact tranys. Either the proposal is amended to allow everybody regardless of surgical status to have a birth certificate showing their gender of self identity, or, if the proposal remains surgically based, it must be opposed as long as it seeks surgical privileges that demean all non and pre-op tranys. Surgically based legislation is not part of granting rights to tranys, it is an insulting and harmful action.

Proving Identity

Some genitally realigned tranys say they should have legal recognition of their gender because of the fact that they "proved" themselves by having the op. It's tempting to agree with this, but the fact is this disenfranchises non-operative tranys. We all deserve to have our chosen identities recognised. Changing one's legal sex should be as simple as changing one's legal name. It is not necessary to have facial reconstruction surgery to change from "Bruce" to "Barry", nor is it necessary to have genital surgery to change from "Bruce" to "Brenda". Why should one's sex be more important than one's name?

It is argued that allowing sex-change without surgery will open the door for criminal fraud. This is a poorly, if at all, thought out argument. Criminals will always find ways to be criminal. Fraud is no more possible with changing legal sex than with changing legal name.

Other post-op tranys still tell me they deserve birth certificate changes as a special reward for having done what non-ops haven't. I believe the surgery is it's own reward, If you want more than that, a special privilege like legal recognition denied to your non-op peers, then I suspect you are seeking compensation, and admitting at some level that the op alone did not give you what you wanted from it. I am not saying post-ops don't deserve to have their chosen sex recognised, I am saying that asking for this right to be given exclusively to them and denied their non-op peers is either a discriminatory delusion of superiority, or a claim for compensation for damages or both.

Either we all get the right to have our chosen identity recognised, or none of us. I am not merely advocating this for reasons of solidarity, although that's a novel idea isn't it; tranys banding together to fight for human rights for all, rather than just being out for what they can get for themselves. I am advocating also because of the harm it will cause tranys to be pressured into surgery, and the outrageous discrimination against non-ops, particularly our trany brothers.

Equality for F.T.M.s

Surgery isn't as cut and dried (so to speak) for F.T.M.s (that's female to male tranys, so often left out of mainstream thinking about tranys). According to one trany boy I know, surgery is a six operation procedure. At what stage does the legally female become the legally male? When is a dick a dick? Is it a dick if it looks like a dick? Is it a dick if you can pee out of it? Is it a dick if it can become erect and flaccid, or if it's just erect or flaccid? Is it a dick only if you can fuck with it? Do you have to have balls installed too?

On a personal note, I had sex with a F.T.M. on my birthday. Yeah, hooray, big deal, okay quiet down in front, my point is ... Well frankly I gave him a blow job, and it gave me all the satisfaction of sucking a guy to orgasm that I get from "normal" guys. Yet he was non-operative. I think that one of the reasons so few F.T.M.s (proportionately) don't opt for surgery is because male hormone treatment will give them a perfect miniature penis anyway.

Come to think of it, that's why I haven't felt motivated to have my tits packed. Hormones have given tits that for me are as sensitive as a "normal" woman's. Who cares what size they are? My body is primarily for my pleasure, and altering it to please partners shows a low regard for my own happiness.

Back to F.T.M.s. If you wanted a Great Dane all your life, and you had the chance to have either a real living unpedigreed miniature Dachshund or a wooden Great Dane replica, which would you choose?

There's also the fact that the results of currently available surgery are not as pleasing for F.T.M.s as for F.T.M.s. The Great Dane replica in this analogy is poorly painted, obviously fake, with no feeling, no movement, and possibly splintered and subject to termites. But if you keep the real dog, you won't get into the Dog Owners Club (they only let owners of pedigreed dogs in), and if you take the shoddy replica, even if it only lasts a couple of months, you're in for life. Sounds like a good, fair and sensible system to me ... Not! (and if I were a dog lover, even used to pedigree Danes, I'd rather pat a mongrel mini Dachshund than a poor wooden replica Dane with a pedigree).

Changing Legal Sex

People have tried to tell me that change of legal sex should only be recognised for post-ops because the change of gender is only truly irreversible after surgery. These are obviously people who think trany means F.T.M., and are blithely ignorant of our trany brothers. Think about it. If you can change surgically from male to female, and female to male, then obviously even surgically redefined sex can be reversed, theoretically indefinitely.

Many tranys do in fact change sex surgically back and forth. There is only one point at which your identity is irreversible. When you're a corpse. And even then people can make up fibs or forget you.

Ideally, legal sex would be meaningless in a society that didn't discriminate on grounds of sex. I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that this is what we should be working towards, (and I believe that the last hundred years of western history alone show we are moving faster and faster in this direction), but I acknowledge that most of us are keen to find a way to live life easier now, right now, with the way things are, in a society that insists we have a legal sex identity, and which it would be easier to live with a legal sex identity the same as our personal sex identity.

I support tranys having their personal identity legally recognised. If this has to be more formal than a deed poll procedure, to qualm the fears of those worried about illegitimate claims or attempts to fraud, this could be done by creating more formal procedures, such as a panel of persons I'll even venture to say that post-ops don't need legal recognition of their gender as much as pre- or non-ops do. Suitably qualified and/or a requirement to have lived in the claimed gender for a set period indicating legitimate desire. Personally, I don't see why it should be more complicated than the procedure required to have "Ms" on a British passport for someone assigned as male at birth. All I needed for this presumably important document of identification to show my desired gender was a letter from my G.P. stating that I was living in the female gender and would do so forever and ever amen.

Legal Rights Must Be For All

Legal identity should be a matter of who you legitimately think you are. Determining this by the state of your genitals is problematic at best, and determining it on the basis of surgery is not only divisive for all tranys, but has a particularly negative impact on genitally intact tranys. Especially tranys who may be considered to be in states of transition, which is surely the most vulnerable state for tranys.

I'll even venture to say that post-ops don't need legal recognition of their gender as much as pre- or non-ops do. (I remember how shitty I felt preoperatively, struggling to assert my female identity. No one should be made to feel shittier than that, just so post-ops get the "magic prize" pre- and non-ops). Once you're got the cunt or willy, what more do you need to prove to the world? That you can successfully deny the truth of your history? That you're as good as other women or men?

Start by insisting that you're as good as your fellow )if you'll pardon a possibly gendered word) tranys.

I for one refuse to claim a privilege denied to my brother and sister and other sibling (there, that's definitely gender non-specific) tranys, and what's more, I oppose the granting of privileges on any basis but merit. Having had surgery, or even not having surgery makes me no better or worse than anyone else, and a law that decrees otherwise is unjust, and in this case particularly so for genitally intact tranys.

I would primarily serve self-righteous self-serving sanctimonious genitally realigned tranys who want to reinforce the myth of gender polarity and prove that they are better and more legitimate members of their chosen gender than their non-operative trany peers.

I don't deny that it may also give some genitally realigned tranys much needed peace of mind and equality with non-transgendered people, but the cost to the vast majority of tranys (who choose to stay genitally intact) is unacceptable. Unacceptable, that is, if we are to consider the well being of all tranys, rather than just the genitally realigned tranys' personal chance for gain.

The radical ratbag in me wants to shout that surgically based legislation is a license for plastic surgeons to print money, but they gave me a nice cunt, thank you very much, and so I like to think that they may well be as opposed to putting pre and non-op tranys down by legally elevating post-ops as I am.

Notes:

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.