skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In Australia, a child who wishes to undergo the second stage of gender transition--which involves, among other things, taking hormones--has to apply to the Family Court for permission. There, cases are decided according to the standards of Gillick Competence, which are used to deem whether or not a child 16 years of age or younger is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without parental interference or involvement.
Now Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant wants to see her court's jurisdiction tested in cases involving medical treatment for transgender issues. From my understanding (I know nothing about the Australian legal system), it would mean that a test case would have to go before the full bench of the Family Court, then the High Court.
Judge Bryant was responding, in part, to a recent episode of a television program which tells the stories of transgender children as they struggle, legally and socially, to live their lives as the people they are. That program, as well as her own research, has convinced her that transgenderism is "completely innate". She also notes that "society is changing about these issues" and, as a result, "the system needs to respond".
According to her, and published reports, many doctors and parents aren't happy that transgender kids in their care have to go to court to prove their competence to judges, some of whom are not as knowledgable and perceptive as Judge Bryant. As Jamie, a 14-year-old transgender said, " I don't think it's necessary that we have to back to the court so they can decide if I'm Gillick competent, 'cause that's just up to the doctors and parents, I think".
I hope that more judges--and others who have the power to make decisions for kids like Jamie--listen to her, to Judge Bryant and everyone else (including ourselves) who know what we, in our minds and spirits, are. Then, perhaps, not so many of us would be consigned to lives clouded by depression, stalled by substance abuse and other self-destructive behavior and punctuated--or, worse, ended--by suicide attempts.
If you've been following this (or my other) blog for a while, you've probably noticed that I like to tell stories about myself. You've also probably noticed that I like to tell stories about other people, and times and places other than my own, especially if those stories have been untold or forgotten.
That is one reason why I've written posts about (or in which I mention) Beryl Berton, Nancy Burghart, Sue Novara, Rebecca Twigg, Jeannie Longo, Paola Pezzo and other prominent female cyclists.
And, yes, this post will be about another. But it will also touch upon a topic--a nation and culture, really--I've never mentioned: Australia. This omission does not come from any sort of bias; it has mainly to do with the fact that I've never been anywhere near the world's smallest continent or sixth-largest country, depending on how you look at it.
Nearly everything I know about it comes from reading and chance encounters with Australians in other parts of the world, including my own home town. One of the few things I know is that the Aussie population--about a tenth of that of the US, even though the two countries are roughly the same size--includes a disproportionate number of long-distance cyclists. That's not so surprising when you consider Australians' affinity for sports and outdoor activities and the fact that so much of the country is undeveloped.
One of those riders was someone named Billie Samuels. I have been trying to find some information on her, to no avail. I guess I have to look in actual book (I think I can still do that) of Australian cycling history.
I learned of her only through stumbling over the photos I've included here. Whoever she is, I want to know more because, hey, how could you not want to learn about someone who starts a ride from Sydney to Melbourne with a koala mascot on her handlebars?
(The photos in this post come from Vintage Everyday.
Yesterday I wrote about someone who defended the rights of transgender prisoners in New Zealand. Today, I'm going to remain in the same part of the world, if you will--and show another example of an enlightened attitude toward transgender people.
Lieutenant Colonel Cate McGregor of the Australian Defense Force wrote a stirring speech for her supervisor, Lietenant General David Morrison. That, in itself, may not seem remarkable: After all, who can feel more righteous indignation over sexism in the military than someone who's experienced it. Also, Lt. Col. McGregor is a world-renowned cricket writer.
What makes this story so--well, moving--is, aside from Lt. Gen. Morrison's delivery of the speech, the incidents that prompted it, and courageous actions he took in response to them.
Apparently, an army e-mail ring distributed degrading images of women--both in and out of the military--who, they believed, could be exploited for sex. Morrison said, in no uncertain terms, that there is "simply no place" for such sexism, or bigotry of any kind. "Those who think it's OK to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleague have no place in this army," Morrison warned his troops by video. Then, he advised, "Show moral courage and take a stand against it."
Before making that speech, he actually did what he expected the people under his command to do. You see, Cate McGregor was actually given the name Malcolm at birth and joined the Army under that name. When she "came out" to Morrison, she tendered her resignation because she didn't want to "cause embarrasment" to his office.
What was Morrison's response? "I want you to know that I'm privileged that you could tell me about the crisis you're facing and I will be with you every step of the way."
When an American military commander can say something like that to a service member under his or her command, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will finally be complete. Until then, we will have to look to countries like Australia to find commanders like Morrison who realize that they need every good soldier, sailor, airman/woman or other service member they can get, and that the military can't survive as a "demographic ghetto" or "a smokestack industry in a changing world."
In a way, none of this is surprising. After all, in the Gallipoli Campaign of World War I, both the British and the Ottomans realized that the Australians knew what it took to train good soldiers and build a good fighting force. Both sides respected their prowess. Now the whole world can respect the judgment of folks like Lieutenant General Morrison.
A little less than two years ago, same-sex marriage was legalized here in New York. Since then, Maryland, Maine, Washington State, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota have followed suit, bringing the total number of US states that permit such unions to twelve. And, of course, other countries--including, most recently, France--have passed such legislation.
Outside of those US states and Canada, all except one of the nations that have legalized same-sex marriage are in Europe or, interestingly enough, South America. On the other hand, the fight for same-sex marriage has been more difficult in the Asia-Pacific region, where only New Zealanders have that right. In Thailand, where more gender-reassignment surgeries are performed than in any other nation, same-sex civil unions, let alone marriages, still aren't legal. In fact, gay Thai people aren't even allowed to donate blood!
In this region, it seems, it's a victory simply for trans people to be recognized in their "new" gender, even after having had surgery. Now, for the first time, Hong Kong is allowing a trans woman who underwent surgery five years ago to marry her boyfriend. Although the British returned control of Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997, the island still maintains a separate legal system from that of mainland China, where transgender people have been allowed to marry in their "new" gender--but only to members of the "opposite" sex--since 2003.
In Australia, there is pressure to legalize same-sex marriage. I think it will happen soon: After all, New Zealand did it. Also, while there are vocal conservatives and religious people--and, as some gay Australians have told me, more than enough homophobia to go around--religion probably plays less of a role in politics than it does here in the US.
If and when Australia legalizes gay marriage, will that be a "tipping point" for the rest of the region, as some have suggested? Will Hong Kong, China, Thailand and the other countries of that region allow people to be married as the people they are to the people they love?
Note: At the beginning of this post, I am going to use a male pronouns and a male name in reference to someone who identifies as female. As a transsexual woman,I am not doing this out of disrespect to her. Rather, as a former journalist, I am following the practice of using what is in official records. Also, to my knowledge the person of whom I'm about to write has not changed her name or gender.
However, I will take the liberty of referring to the subject of this post by a female name and feminine pronouns later in the post.
This story came my way today.
Derek Sinden, who identifies as Thalia, has been incarcerated in the Wolston Correctional Center in Queensland, Australia since 1999. After becoming involved with the transgender community in Sydney, Sinden used drugs, drinking and sexual activities with men to cope with gender identity issues.
Queensland Correctional Department's policies allow prisoners to receive hormone treatments while in custody if they had been receiving treatment before they were incarcerated. Thus, the authorities will not allow Sinden such treatments. However, the prison is providing a testosterone blocker.
On one hand, I know--from my own experiences and those of other transgender people--that, for us, hormones are not merely a means for feminizing (or masculinizing, in the case of female-to-males) our bodies. To us, they are what Prozac, Zoloft and other psychotropic medications are for clinically depressed (which many of us are before our transitions, by the way) patients. True, they--in conjunction with antiandrogens (for male-to-females)--soften our skin, hasten the growth of the hair on our heads, slow or stop hair growth on our bodies and grow our breasts. But, I felt that the most important effect, at least for me, was psychological: Depression that, for me, seemed like a normal state of being lifted. Perhaps I shouldn't say this in a public forum, but I'll say it anyway: Had I not started taking hormones, I might be dead by now, and it probably wouldn't be from natural causes.
If I could experience the sort of depression I felt--in my body as well as my mind--for so long, I should not be surprised that others, in such a state, would resort to crimes of one sort or another. Some might commit them to cope with their issues, while others might break the law under the influence of the drugs or alcohol they use in their attempts to ease their pain. For those reasons, I think that if prisons can dispense pyschotropic medications to depressed inmates or prisoners with other disorders, they should also give transgender patients hormones treatments.
On the other hand, I understand what Custodial Operations Deputy Commissioner Marlene Morrison said about Sinden's case. Even if someone has know since age four or five (as I did) that he or she is not the "right" sex, prison is not the best place to embark upon such a transition. No matter how certain you are about your need for a gender transition, you need to see a doctor and therapist. Seeing, in addition, a counselor or social worker who understands the issues involved with gender transition is a very good idea. (For the first two and a half years of my transition, I saw both a therapist and clinical social worker every week.) Plus, you need other kinds of supportive people, whether they're friends, family members, co-workers, members of support groups or other people in the communities of which you're a part.
Medical or psychiatric professionals are not merely "gatekeepers." What people--especially young people who are eager to transition--often forget is that the hormones and medical procedures are risky. Also, anyone who embarks on a transition needs to have mental, emotional and spiritual resources to cope with the transition. You might think you'll deal with one aspect or another in a certain way, but you are changing and things feel different from how they did before you started your transition.
Also, as Ms. Morrison pointed out, fellow prisoners may not be the most supportive people, to put it mildly, for someone undergoing a transition. Most medical and psychiatric professionals--including the ones employed by correctional facilities and systems--cannot offer advice or anything else that can help someone in a gender transition deal with hostile, and possibly violent, inmates.
So, even with all of my sympathy for anyone who faces gender identity issues, I'm torn. On one hand, I'd like to see Sinden get the hormone treatments, which would probably alleviate some of the emotional and psychiatric problems associated with gender identity issues. On the other, Sinden would really have to face the transition alone in ways that most of us who've had the help of competent professionals, friends and (in some cases) family members and co-workers, simply cannot imagine.
Lately I've read a couple of interesting gender-related stories. One comes from Nepal, the other from Australia.
In the conservative Himalayan nation, which was a monarchy less than three years ago, this year's census will include a "third gender" category. This action came as a result of an order from that country's Supreme Court mandating that the government encact laws to protect transgender people.
I think it's interesting that such things should happen in such a conservative country. Then again, Spain, which was considered one of the most conservative and staunchly Catholic countries in Europe, if not the world, legalized gay marriage a few years ago. So, a couple of years ago, did Iowa, which--depending on whose definition you accept--is at least partially in the Bible Belt.
So why would jurisdictions not known for being avant garde do something that sanctions what many of its citizens oppose, at least in theory?
I think that answer can be found at least in part in something a Nepalese official said about being able to count and locate transgender people. Governments everywhere like to keep tabs on people. And conservatives like order, or at least the appearance of it. I am reminded of something that a Dutch minister once said about his country: Its "liberal" policies, like the legality of marijuana, are actually rooted in the deeply bourgeois Calvinism that defined the country for centuries. Nobody, he explained, likes order more than a Calvinist, or someone who's been influenced by Calvinism. So, he said, by legalizing marijuana and prostitution, providers and customers are no longer criminals and are instead citizens who are bound by the responsibilities of, and entitled to the protections of, Dutch civil law. In other words, the government can keep some kind of control over them.
That, by the way, one reason (along with having a gay daughter) why Dick Cheney has voiced his support for gay marriage, while Barack has not.
Speaking of control: How much of it can anyone have over someone who's gender is "not specified?" That's the case of Norrie, a 49-year-old Australian who was born male and had gender reassignment surgery twenty years ago. Norrie, who goes by only one name, was "ecstatic" about surgery but frustrated over having to take hormones and over dating men who, when they "found out I was a trannie, told me I wasn't female." Some of them threatened violence.
Finally, Norrie decided "Nobody can define me as male, and nobody can define me as female." Two doctors agreed and, as a result, Norrie now has papers that say "Sex Not Specified."
In one sense, I'm happy to see this. I have long felt that there are more than two genders. While I am female in my mind and spirit, I know that some things about me are, and will always be, male. Some have to do with my experiences, but I think that others have to do with innate characteristics. I am content, and in many ways comfortable, in living as what most people would see as a straight woman (even if I am, in fact, bisexual). I claim my right to so live; at the same time, I support the right of people to be more androgynous or to live by whatever else their gender identity and sexuality might be.
On the other hand, the ruling puts Norrie in a bind: Her gender identity, while unbound from the gender binary, is still defined by the government, which could (at least in theory) change Norrie's status as it sees fit. Keeping Norrie and other people dependent on a government to define who they are can't be anything but limiting. Under those circumstances, how does one travel, particulary to a place that rigidly enforces the gender binary and still outlaws all forms of sex that don't involve a man getting on top of a woman.
Still, I think that the Australian Government's issuing documents in your name without the gender distinction is one the better things that could have happened for a lot of people.Some day, perhaps (though probably not in my lifetime) people will have the liberty as well as the means to live by whatever they think is right for them.
Posts
