Australia: Gender Reassignment Board’s decision to be appealed
By way of an update on my previous post about two trans men in Western Australia who won the right to change the sex marker on their birth certificates without having had hysterectomies, a decision which was then overturned by the state Attorney-General, ABC News today reports that the men will now appeal against the Attorney-General’s decision in the High Court:
The state’s Attorney General appealed against the decision, arguing it could mean a person could be legally male but still bear children.
The Court of Appeal said fertility would not prevent them being considered men but they were precluded because they did not have male genitals.
One of the appellants, who can be identified only as AH, says he’s not happy with the court’s decision.
“It seems to be this cosmetic assessment, how do people physically present in the world.”
“The two judges who’ve upheld the State’s appeal have decided that your external, physical presentation (including your genitals) is incredibly important to whether you’re male or female.”
AH says the decision means the only way for transgenders to be considered male is genital surgery which can cost up to $100,000.
“It’s surgery that has a pretty poor surgical result for a huge amount of money and a big chunk of your life missing,” he said.
[...]
“Very expensive, very dangerous and not actually available in Australia so they’ve come up with a decision that sets the bar so high that I’m not sure that any trans-men in Australia are actually able to achieve it.”
“The reality is that it’s just not feasible.”
Meanwhile, the Attorney General, Christian Porter, continues to hold to an astonishingly unenlightened essentialist justification for his decision: he says that a person cannot be considered male if they have functioning internal and external female reproductive organs.
For AH, though, it’s an administrative nightmare – “I end up with this really mixed-bag of documentation.“:
“Some of my documents, such as my passport, say that I’m male. My birth certificate currently says I’m female. I suspect that if myself and another man turned up to get married, the response would be “no, no, no, you can’t do that.”
“It just creates all of these bizarre inconsistencies and you end up spending half your life in court or in conciliation meetings or mediation meetings trying to decide whether for the purposes of this particular activity or this particular document, am I male or female?”
AH goes on to point out another crucial aspect of this confusion: he says that without legal recognition, transgender people are not protected by anti-discrimination laws.
“If, for example, my employer found out that I had a trans-history, and my employer decided that they didn’t like the fact of my trans-history and they wanted to fire me, they could and that would be legal, I don’t have any protection.”
AH and his fellow appellant are confident that the appeal will succeed because of the inconsistencies of the state’s arguments:
“We’ve now had two rulings, from the State Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court saying that the issues of hysterectomies and fertility shouldn’t be an issue, so that, I think, has been pretty conclusively put to bed.”
“Now there’s this issue of whether trans-men should have to have surgery on their genitals.”
[...]
“It seems to me a bit farcical to have a law that is supposedly able to help people to amend their documentation, but that actually is impossible for anyone to meet.”
“a pretty poor surgical result”
well, that was unnecessary.
I hope he succeeds in court. and I also hope he learns to respect other trans people & their surgical needs, being that he’s an anonymous public figure.
MHS
6 Sep 10 at 7:55 am
Good point MHS it could have been better put as say “To me an unacceptable surgical result”
genderqueer2genderqueer
6 Sep 10 at 7:43 pm
I think that whole paragraph was probably unnecessary:
““It’s surgery that has a pretty poor surgical result for a huge amount of money and a big chunk of your life missing,” he said.
“Very expensive, very dangerous and not actually available in Australia so they’ve come up with a decision that sets the bar so high that I’m not sure that any trans-men in Australia are actually able to achieve it. The reality is that it’s just not feasible.””
Hey, I don’t really want to nitpick this to death but a lot of that seems pretty exaggerated. The cost and availability is as far as I know true. The other parts are just not true.
I’m trying to think if this were me what I would do/say. I mean, in some ways it *is* me just not in Australia because my identification is also a mixed bag and I can’t change my birth cert without phallo with sterilization (I’d love to hear if anyone knows if a meta could change an IL b.cert.) Like a lot of us, I just have to make do.
I would hope that I would focus on cost/insurance availability and just the varying desires various trans people have i/r/t their fertility and genitalia. Certainly some “i/me” statements are important.
jayinchicago
7 Sep 10 at 12:39 am
Ummm… I’m not trans masculine spectrum, so what i say should be evaluated.
But in this part of the world (I’m kiwi, aussie is pretty close) things like insurance are not the same thing as in the US – here we have universal cover, and thus private medical insurance is bloody expensive – and mostly entirely excludes anything transitional.
I do know that in this part of the world that the surgeries don’t have a great rep – it’s not relevant to me, but it’s not just one isolated person saying it – and it does come out of ones pocket in reality (in this part of the world) – it’s an opinion, and thus should be considered even if it’s not what you want to hear.
[As an aside I have a choice of either pay $30+ if I want lower surgery or wait many years for the government to get to me - trans guys only have half that deal (guess which half) and have to pay 3-4 times as much - as a working artist 30 grand is a huge amount of money, and I'm not sure I agree with the logic of transition must happen before life]
On top of that the government (or elements) have issues with treating us like humans. It would be nice if people from far larger countries didn’t make it an issue of who has enough money to pass.
I’m not saying this as a means of picking a fight, but really I truly believe that changing ones documents shouldn’t be beholden to having multiple surgical procedures or to financial security. I’ve personally had enough surgery to get that stuff done, but I wouldn’t think of forcing people after me through that till it gets less traumatic to deal with.
Em
7 Sep 10 at 2:10 am
It is extremely rare in the US to have a private insurer who covers any trans health care. Many in fact explicitly deny coverage for “gender transformation” (as my insurance so …delicately…puts it.)
To attempt to cut off at the pass any sort of reaction to what I *didn’t* say, let me quote myself:
“The cost and availability is as far as I know true.”
meaning, what the Australian trans man was saying about *his* cost and availability was, as far as I am privy to, true. I’m sorry that that was somewhat garbled and unclear.
There is absolutely no reason for someone to say declaratively “It’s surgery that has a pretty poor surgical result” — that is straight up damaging to many trans men and has been an awful thing to deal with among trans men who *want/need* lower surgery for their dysphoria but are constantly told by ‘greater community wisdom’ that the available surgeries are crap. it’s a very common trans male myth, awful in its longevity.
again, i could have been clearer, and for that I am sorry. i do see the point about putting one’s life on hold while waiting for either personal, private insurer, or public insurer monies to fund necessary surgeries.
jayinchicago
7 Sep 10 at 2:49 am
All surgery is crap – it’s surgery – even if the outcome is good, it still sucks to have surgery (I’ve had more than my fair share). That is does a great deal of good for many people is not something I’ll argue, again, I’m trans feminine spectrum.
I do think that the context (being told that you need full noise surgical everything) is enough to forgive a little bit of overstatement – I’m not 100% comfortable with the rhetoric myself (and yes, I’m unaffected), but compared to making all trans guys go through full lower surgery it seems the lesser evil somehow.
Anyhow, this really isn’t my argument, so I’m gonna back out now.
Peace, Em.
Em
7 Sep 10 at 3:03 am
No one can judge what makes an outcome “good” but the person who had the surgery. And I certainly don’t agree that all surgery is crap. I understand that his statements were made under duress, but it’s a duress I’m familiar with because my birth certificate can’t be changed without operating room reports, so I dunno…I guess I just saw this as a way to discuss what the quoted man said without having to necessarily skewer the quoted man directly. I suppose perhaps my words could have been softer, but I read this directly after the pain/dysphoria post and I was very jaggedly.
jayinchicago
7 Sep 10 at 3:15 am
Sorry – to clarify – when i said “All surgery is crap” I wasn’t talking about outcomes or anything like that – I was saying that ‘having to have surgery is crap’
I’ve had a bunch of surgery in my life, some of which has had fantastic outcomes, but if I were to be told I was having surgery tomorrow my first instinct would be to groan – not a trans specific thing.
And yeah – Public duress was the point I was after, not anything to do with the pro’s and con’s of a specific surgery that will likely never affect me at all. I’ve made some public statements in the past that could have been better thought through, but the barrier that’s proposed in that article seems uncomfortably high to me.
Em
7 Sep 10 at 3:25 am
we are definitely agreed on that.
jayinchicago
7 Sep 10 at 3:41 am
please note that I said I hope he wins his case. medical procedures should be more available to those who need or want them, and should not be required for document change. clear? good.
“enough to forgive a little bit of overstatement”
no.
when one speaks of “surgeries” or “surgical results” they are 1) speaking of real human beings in real bodies and 2) superimposing their own judgments of “success” and “good results” on those human beings without their imput.
let’s say someone who’s had whatever surgery is standing naked before you. if you wouldn’t say to their face “you are a poor surgical result”, then you shouldn’t say the same to the media, EOS.
“There is absolutely no reason for someone to say declaratively “It’s surgery that has a pretty poor surgical result” — that is straight up damaging to many trans men and has been an awful thing to deal with among trans men who *want/need* lower surgery for their dysphoria but are constantly told by ‘greater community wisdom’ that the available surgeries are crap. it’s a very common trans male myth, awful in its longevity.”
thank you.
MHS
7 Sep 10 at 7:59 am
To be clear – I did not state that the surgery is the person, nor that surgery makes ‘a person’ “a poor result”! Sheesh.
What I have said has clearly made people angry and I don’t think I’m the person to be speaking here, maybe what I’ve said should be deleted.
Em
7 Sep 10 at 3:39 pm
you appear to believe that talking generally and abstractly and distantly about “surgery” has no connection whatsoever to real human beings who’ve had surgery. thus, if you (or anyone) say something incredibly busted, that’s harmful to real humans who’ve had surgery, and real humans who plan to have surgery, you (or anyone) bear no responsibility because you weren’t talking about *them* you were just talking about “surgery”. the concept “surgery”, out there in the ethos.
if I’m correct about your position then I feel it is deeply problematic and hurtful, and I’d ask you to reconsider. if I’m incorrect then I apologize for misunderstanding.
here are a couple different constructions of my point.
golden-rule-esque… don’t say things about other trans people’s bodies that you wouldn’t want others to say about your own. that includes general statements about surgical results, because you are still describing bodies of real human beings when you bring up the issue.
or, if you’re going to talk about trans people’s bodies, specifically those that have received surgical treatment, then assume there is at least one reader/audience member/etc who had that surgery. imagine what it might feel like to have someone in the news or on TV or in your classroom telling everyone what a “poor surgical result” you have.
or, if you find yourself under duress and are struggling against the state for your basic human rights, then do all you can to achieve them without stomping on others. don’t bad-mouth groups of trans people unlike yourself, don’t spout homophobic or heterosexist, and of course, don’t speak ill of other trans people’s bodies (including general statements about surgical results).
I don’t see how that’s so much to ask.
MHS
7 Sep 10 at 5:23 pm
*homophobic or heterosexist claptrap
MHS
7 Sep 10 at 5:25 pm
FYI – I am a queer transsexual woman who has had a bunch of surgery in her life, both compulsory and elective.
How much, and which surgeries, is none of your fucking business whatsoever, but I’m not anti surgery where people do want it, nor pro where people don’t want it. It’s a choice for the individual and should not be forced on everyone nor barred from everyone.
I was commenting on the movement in this part of the world to make almost impossible barriers for trans people – I commented that the guys rhetoric made me uncomfortable.
Homophobic Heterosexist claptrap?
What the fuck ever.
Em
7 Sep 10 at 6:26 pm
I commented earlier that I’ve heard that rhetoric before and that I’m not 100% comfortable with it.
I also said that I am not immediately affected by the surgical proceedure in question.
I’m not sure how my supposed homophobia, heterosexism, etc. came into this?
I do not agree with the original guys statement that all f2m surgery gives a poor result – I’ve heard the comment before a lot, but if it were so bad then nobody would want it – it’s clearly not as bad as he made out. (Assuming that the reporter has quoted accurately).
Further I think that reference to results is a red herring – the cost and inaccessibility alone should be a sufficient argument against the proposed tightening of the law. The barrier has been set lower till now – it is being raised.
I am a trans woman, so I am unaffected by any specific surgical questions that trans guys face, however I am perfectly aware that transguys from this part of the world have to travel overseas and pay huge amounts of money if they wish to access these surgeries.
On the other hand trans women here do not universally have to do this – there is an (admittedly extremely limited) access that trans women have to onshore surgery and thus funding. further there are more minor (sterilising) surgeries availiable to trans women which can fulfill this requirement for surgery – This disparity is patently unfair.
The move to make human rights for trans guys contingent on having a large amount of funds to access compulsory surgery which is not furnished onshore is extremely problematic in my view.
I agree that he should not have made that statement – apart from alienating people (who have a right to feel legitimately aggrieved) I personally think it’s also a bit silly to try to explain surgical requirements/necessities to people who know nothing about trans issues whatsoever (most cis people).
I hope this explanation goes some way to explaining what I was trying to say when I was composing my supposedly homophobic essentialist diatribe.
If not then whatever.
Em
7 Sep 10 at 7:32 pm
Okay, I read the thread and as far as I saw, Em didn’t say anything about surgical outcomes (except that they can be good or bad but not whether they are one or the other) and simply said that needing to have surgery is crap. I can understand this point of view – you have to be cut open, you have to heal, risk complications, may require further care, may require other follow-ups. I don’t exactly look fondly on the idea of surgery myself, although I appreciate the outcomes. I don’t read her as critiquing the idea of people having surgery or critiquing bodies that have had surgery.
I don’t see where any homophobic or heterosexist comments were made. Am I missing something?
Lisa Harney
7 Sep 10 at 7:57 pm
I understand that Em is not herself saying that mens’ bodies that have undergone the surgery under discussion are sub-par. at several points she seems to have defended such thinking as acceptable though, for instance by claiming that “it’s not just one isolated person” saying those “surgeries don’t have a great rep”, that it’s an opinion that should be considered “even if it’s not what [I] want to hear”, that I should forgive “a little overstatement” on the part of the guy in the article, and that the issue of trans folks spouting nastiness about specific surgeries is a “lesser evil” (i.e. not important or harmful at all).
So I understand she’s not saying it, but I believe she is defending it, and if so, I very strongly believe that’s not OK. insulting others’ bodies is not an “opinion” I should be called to respect, it’s just insulting and unnecessary.
as to the other point, when I said this:
“do all you can to achieve them without stomping on others. don’t bad-mouth groups of trans people unlike yourself, don’t spout homophobic or heterosexist, and of course, don’t speak ill of other trans people’s bodies”
I was not saying that anyone in this thread was being homophobic or heterosexist. I was using examples and comparisons. if a trans person goes on TV and willingly perpetuates the myth that all trans people are or should be straight [post-transition], that’s busted, right? Similarly, if a binary-ID’d trans person is accurately quoted in a news article claiming all genderqueer folks are [insert negative myth], also busted, right? So I don’t understand why such comments about “poor surgical results” aren’t viewed in the same light. It’s something you shouldn’t say because you (guy in article) are stomping on other trans people to make the argument for your own rights & respect.
I don’t get where it seemed I was asking you what surgeries you had, Em. As to the other issues of cost, etc, I repeat:
“please note that I said I hope he wins his case. medical procedures should be more available to those who need or want them, and should not be required for document change. clear? good.”
MHS
8 Sep 10 at 6:18 am
“I agree that he should not have made that statement – apart from alienating people (who have a right to feel legitimately aggrieved) I personally think it’s also a bit silly to try to explain surgical requirements/necessities to people who know nothing about trans issues whatsoever (most cis people).”
“Further I think that reference to results is a red herring – the cost and inaccessibility alone should be a sufficient argument against the proposed tightening of the law.”
this is what I did not hear you saying, and I agree.
MHS
8 Sep 10 at 6:28 am
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, let’s not get into how trans men’s surgeries have a bad reputation. It’s much more complex than that and I think hard to step into it if you’re not a trans man – plus as jayinchicago pointed out upthread, this causes problems because of received community wisdom about how they’re supposed to be bad.
Aside from comments about hyperbole and surgical result reputation, it seems like a lot of what y’all are saying is pretty compatible.
Lisa Harney
8 Sep 10 at 7:52 am
Also, Queen Emily just reminded me that AH – the guy who made the comment about “a pretty poor surgical result” – is probably not medically able to have this kind of surgery. It’s a shitty, unfair requirement that he can’t achieve if he wanted to. It’s pretty easy to say it sucks when you don’t have the option at all.
So yeah, disability plays a role here, and I’m not sure that it’s really been accounted for.
Lisa Harney
8 Sep 10 at 8:04 am
I can’t be bothered engaging with this topic any more – people can believe all busted and bigoted and shit then they can. fuck it.
Em
8 Sep 10 at 2:18 pm
I can’t be bothered engaging with this topic any more – if people want to believe that I’m all busted and bigoted and shit then they can. fuck it.
Em
8 Sep 10 at 2:19 pm
Lisa, I’m not sure if “AH” wants (or is allowed? I have no idea about these legal things!) to be identified by his legal name.
I agree with others that saying results are universally “surgically poor” is not helpful or true.
However, in context, the quote is, “It’s surgery that has a pretty poor surgical result for a huge amount of money and a big chunk of your life missing“, which seems to me to be more of an indictment of the situation than of the surgery. I know that if I am (because I also live in Australia) forced to take however many months out of my life and pay however many thousands of dollars to psychiatrists, surgeons, hospitals, airlines, accommodation services, nurses, insurance companies to get a surgery that I didn’t want to have, or that was extremely medically unwise to undergo, then I want something pretty special, like a sparkly gold dick with different plug-in attachments and a built-in music player. Ordinary, run-of-the-mill phalloplasty would be a disappointing result for me no matter how good it was.
nix
8 Sep 10 at 3:46 pm
I think AH’s name was used in the press earlier this year but I’ve edited Lisa’s comment since I’m not sure if it was with his permission.
Queen Emily
8 Sep 10 at 4:47 pm
Em, I don’t believe you were being busted or bigoted at all. I said so upthread. I did agree that it’s best not to go into comments about trans male bottom surgery, but I mean a lot of trans men and trans male people do exactly the same thing.
Lisa Harney
8 Sep 10 at 5:28 pm
And okay, I really hate seeing this kind of thing happen – it’s the kind of thing that chases people away. I don’t completely know the answer to preventing it beyond turning on full comment moderation or just turning off comments entirely, although I am completely open to suggestions.
I am not saying that MHS was wrong in saying that what Em said was hurtful, but I am also unhappy that Em felt she was being attacked in this thread (and I apologize if I contributed to that – I did not want to contribute, and tried not to, but that does not always succeed). She made the point that a lot of trans men do say these things, and this is very true. I believed it for a long time myself until trans men set me straight on that.
So, yeah, I’d really appreciate finding a way to deal with something like this without leaving commenters feeling unwelcome for saying something unfortunate.
Lisa Harney
8 Sep 10 at 5:45 pm
yes, most of where we’re at is compatible. it’s just the excuse-making regarding when it’s OK to disrespect bodies different from your own where the differences seem to be rising up.
I remain convinced there’s no excuse for perpetuating damaging language. if it hurts trans people, if it hurts any subset of trans people, it’s a problem, regardless of who’s saying it. seems like an issue of basic compassion and respect.
with that, I’m absolutely done. may he win his case.
MHS
8 Sep 10 at 5:57 pm
ok. one point before “absolutely done”. I posted my comment before reload, and didn’t see what you wrote Lisa. feel free to delete both of these comments if you wish.
MHS
8 Sep 10 at 5:58 pm
Nix,
I’m compelled to respond once more on this post. Let me point a few things out from my point of view. I do not think it’s particularly harmful to discuss this here–I think things like this *need* to be talked about. It’s unfortunate the situation worldwide for most of us who absolutely can’t afford surgeries some of us don’t even want to be able to deal with a “legal gender” system that absolutely doesn’t need to exist.
Yeah, I do think:
“However, in context, the quote is, “It’s surgery that has a pretty poor surgical result for a huge amount of money and a big chunk of your life missing“
is still a generalization. And it’s highly falsifiable. Some trans men do pay tens of thousands of dollars (or happen to have insurance to cover some/most of it) and miss months and years over time of work, school, life to have these surgeries. It’s worth it for many of them. I have talked to men whose lives absolutely changed after surgery.
All anyone who wants to avoid this situation is to say “for me”. If you think it’s always implied, well, I don’t think it is always implied. Certainly I’ve heard enough trans men absolutely trash bottom surgery (often after having not even *researched* it) to know something’s going on there.
I’m sorry. This is an emotional topic for me, not even because I necessarily want or need surgery. I just know trans men who have been absolutely terrified by this kind of talk.
Also I really don’t think other trans people’s genitals as “results”. I think if instead of talking about “surgery results” as if they are the attached genitals of our fellow trans people, we would frame the issue much differently.
jayinchicago
8 Sep 10 at 9:39 pm
well that was clear as mud.
something’s really badly phrased in that last sentence. hopefully it manages to make some sense.
respectfully, jay.
jayinchicago
8 Sep 10 at 9:42 pm
jay, yes it makes sense! i agree that adding ‘for me’ is a really good way of not generalising about it, and i also agree that the implied assessment of other people’s bodies as not good enough is really troubling/dehumanising. i also frequently run into this “phalloplasty always has a bad result, everyone knows this” attitude from trans guys – those who should know better, and those who just take this as accepted wisdom. in fact, this is something that i’d like to see addressed in a post of its own – i wonder if you would be interested in writing/posting something about this? i’d be keen for it to be talked about.
i am also emotionally on edge about this, and i apologise if i’ve been rude. the outcome of these cases directly impacts on me as an australian trans guy. i guess i’m disappointed/frustrated that the entire comments section here has focussed on one remark which, although definitely problematic, might have been misquoted or might have been more obviously self-referential in voice than in print (i mean, i just had a misunderstanding with lisa yesterday when she used a general(isable) “you” when she meant “me”). it’s just… in the context of what these guys are doing, and how difficult it must be to sit through government lawyers making cissexist/transphobic arguments against them as though these arguments are totally legitimate? in the context of people trying to influence the law so that their options are having unwanted, unsafe* surgery or never, ever getting their birth certificates changed? i can absolutely understand why he would say something like this – even though i don’t agree.
* and that’s a really significant difference. for trans guys who want and are medically and financially able to have phalloplasty, it’s a different ball game.
nix
8 Sep 10 at 10:08 pm
Thank you for pointing that out, nix.
I do agree this thread has focused a lot on that one comment when the basic point about it was made early on, but somehow became the entire discussion. Probably should have stepped in earlier, but I don’t get e-mail notices about posts I don’t make.
Lisa Harney
10 Sep 10 at 12:42 pm
Lisa, not to worry – it’s not really your responsibility to cat-herd all the commenters all the time! And it is a discussion that definitely needs to be had, as I said to Jay in my previous comment.
nix
10 Sep 10 at 4:33 pm