From Christine Jorgensen To Jan Morris

It's been a while since I wrote about the Lost Generation of Transgenders.  In this post, I'm going to talk about something related:  Specifically, two of the world's best-known male-to-female transsexuals. One of them was at the vanguard of the first generation of transsexuals, while the other was its rearguard or, perhaps, on the front line of the following generation.

I am speaking of Christine Jorgensen and Jan Morris.  In reading an article about the latter, I found out that she's 87 years old and, interestingly, was born only five months after Ms. Jorgensen.  

The reason why those facts are interesting (at least to me) is that Jorgensen, being one of the first trans women to become publicly known, conformed completely (perhaps even more so than most cisgender women) to the gender norms of her time, while Jan Morris was able to define her own womanhood and femaleness to a much greater degree than Jorgensen could or would have.

Although they were born in the same year, they underwent their surgeries two decades apart.  The fact that gender roles had changed between 1952 and 1972 cannot be overstated.  What's even more important, though, is the way the generational difference affected Jorgensen's and Morris' paths to living as women.

Jorgensen began her transition just after World War II, in which she served as a soldier. She had even fewer precedents than Morris had, let alone than I or transsexuals of my generation had.  And, because the Internet was decades away, accessing information about hormones and surgery, and accounts of transgender people, was even more laborious than it would later be. 

That may be a reason why she modeled herself after the ideals of femaleness--or, more precisely, femininity--that prevailed in the immediate postwar years.  She studied to be a nurse because that was one of the few career options available to women of that time. Her mannerisms, dress and lifestyle were in line with what was considered "ladylike."  While she may have had the natural physical features to become the Marilyn Monroe-like blonde bombshell she would become, it's hard not to think she also did everything she could to enhance and maintain that image, especially after she found herself working as an entertainer.  Finally, she married a man and followed him in moves to suburban Long Island and southern California.

Morris, on the other hand, did not begin her transition until 1964.  By then, treatments--and, some would argue, societal notions about womanhood--were more advanced. Perhaps even more important, she had already established herself as an historian and travel writer, and had been married fifteen years, when she began her transition.  In fact, she went to Morocco for her surgery, which Dr. George Bourou performed, because in her native England she would not be allowed to have her surgery unless she divorced her wife, something she wasn't prepared to do at the time.  They eventually did divorce, but remained in contact and reunited in a civil union in 2008.

Christine Jorgensen died nearly two decades before that union was consummated. She was just three weeks short of 63 years old.  Somehow I have the feeling that the lurid jokes and other ridicule and ostracism directed at her shortened her life.  That's not to say Morris had an easy time, but even she has admitted that she didn't have to endure what Jorgensen and other early transsexuals experienced.

I don't know how much longer Morris has in this world.  Whatever the amount of time, I hope young trans people learn more about her, and the way she was a bridge between two generations of trans people who made their lives and mine possible.

Surgery Not Required In Ontario

In the Canadian province of Ontario, it is now possible for a person to change the gender as well as the name on his or her birth certificate, even if he or she hasn't had gender reassignment surgery.

This change in policy stems from an April ruling from the province's Human Rights Tribunal in the case of a born-male woman known as "XY" .  The Tribunal declared the surgery requirement to be discriminatory. Furthermore, the Tribunal's ruling said that the requirement added to the stigma felt by members of the transgender community, and reinforced stereotypes about how they experience gender.

I am of two minds about this ruling.  On one hand, I am glad that the requirement for surgery has been eliminated, and would like to see American states similarly change their policies.  The surgical requirement discriminates against those who can't afford surgery or can't have it for medical reasons. It also, as the Ontario tribunal's ruling notes, reinforces the gender binary.  We are now learning that gender identity is not merely "performative," genital or chromosomal; it is far more complex, and complicated than almost anyone realizes.  That means, of course, that there are far more than two ways to experience, much less express, gender.

Dropping the surgical requirement will also make it easier for many people, especially young trans folk, to gain admissions to schools, jobs, housing and many other actual and de facto necessities of life.  Someone who does not have those things, and can find no other option but a homeless shelter and other public assistance, will be assigned to a shelter and given benefits according to whether the "male" or "female" is indicated on the birth certificate.

On the other hand, as a friend of mine says, a birth certificate is part of an accurate record of a person's history. This friend, who is transitioning, does not want to change the gender, or even the name, on the birth certificate. The birth certificate records the gender of the body into which a person is born and the name given at the time of birth.  My friend believes that these are a vital part of a life history.

I can sympathise with this friend's feelings, and feel that if anyone who doesn't want to change his or her birth certificate, even after surgery, should have that right.   At the same time, I realize this friend is unlikely to change jobs and probably won't move until retirement from said job.  My friend will not therefore have to face the dilemma of having to start life with documents that don't match gender identity or presentation.

So, as I said, I am glad for the Ontario ruling and hope other Canadian provinces and American states--as well as other nations--follow suit.  But I also hope that no one is forced to alter his or her records after a transition and surgery.

Michelle Kosilek: A Dilemma Of The Eighth Amendment

On one hand, we have the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."  This is interpreted to mean, among other things, that prisoners cannot be denied necessary medical care.

On the other hand, we have someone who brutally murdered a spouse nearly two decades ago.  This person has a condition that was not diagnosed until after the murder conviction, and is listed as a psychiatric disorder in DSM-V.

It just happens that treatment for this person's condition is very expensive.  Only two insurance plans in the United States cover the cost of it.  It's one of the reasons why the vast majority of people with the condition don't get, or get very minimal, treatment.

Since you're reading this blog, you've probably guessed where this is going:  What if the prisoner is transgendered, and the condition was diagnosed after the murder?  

The prisoner in question is Michelle (nee Robert) Kosilek.  As a Boston Phoenix editorial points out, she's "an unsympathetic poster child for prisoner or transgender rights.   And those two issues are central to this case."

Kosilek has been receiving hormone treatments since she was diagnosed nine years ago.  Recently, Chief US District Court Judge Mark Wolf ruled that the State of Massachusetts has to provide Kosilek with gender-reassignment surgery.  Wolf, who has the reputation of being a tough "law and order" judge, recognizes that GRS isn't cosmetic surgery and that under the law, he really couldn't make any other ruling.  Still, he noted--perhaps with irony or sarcasm--that, "It may seem strange that in the United States, citizens do not have a constitutional right to adequate medical care, but the Eighth Amendment promises prisoners such care."  

On one hand, I can see how some people would think it unfair that Kosilek is getting a surgery most people can't afford and almost no insurance plan covers.  The ire of some such people is no doubt fueled by their misconceptions or hatred of trans people.  Others may simply object to so much money being spent on someone who committed a brutal murder. On the other hand, I understand that Judge Wolf--who, I suspect, has a pretty high level of integrity--knew that he was bound by the Constitution of this country.  He would have made the same ruling if Kosilek were still living as Robert and, instead of gender dysphoria, he was suffering from some form of cancer or some rare disease.  Yes, it's unfair that many people die because they can't afford, or their insurance doesn't cover, the treatments.  However, denying care to someone else for whom it is available doesn't right the situation of someone who does not have access to the necessary care.  


Judge Wolf made, I think, the correct decision, given the circumstances.  Now, if we really think it's unfair that prisoners have access to medical care that perhaps one out of every four Americans don't (and most prisoners wouldn't, were they not in prison), we have to figure out a way to make access to health care more equitable.  Denying care to someone, or some group of people, is not the way to do it.

Transgender In Iran

In a previous post, I mentioned that Argentina--which had one of the most repressive military regimes, supported by the Catholic Church, less than a generation ago--now has some of the most liberal laws about gender identity and expression in the world.  In essence, it allows all people over the age of 18 to live in the gender of their choice.  It also legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.  The only American states to have done so before Argentina were Massachusetts and California, where the law was later repealed.

For decades, South Africa was ruled by apartheid, which rigidly enforced separation of the races in employment, habitation and other areas.  Not only have those laws been repealed, but that nation also has same-sex marriage, which it legalized the year after Argentina did so.

And, interestingly, one of the European countries in which same-sex marriage is legal is Spain.  Of course, there is still much opposition to it.  That is not surprising when one considers that it was long one of the most conservative Catholic countries and bore the weight of Generalissimo Franco's dictatorship for more than four decades, until his death in 1975.

Perhaps the most seemingly incongruous situation--at first glance, anyway--is found in Iran.  As in many other Muslim countries, same-sex relationships are punishable by death.  And it's hardly considered a bellwether when it comes to equality of the sexes.

Yet more gender-reassignment surgeries are performed there than in any other country except Thailand.  People come from other Middle Eastern countries, and even from Eastern Europe, for the procedures.  Furthermore, Iranian law says that employers must pay for the cost of the surgery, which runs about $3000--a fraction of what it costs in the US.

According to at least one cleric, crimes are acts forbidden by the Qu'ran.  Homosexuality, according to such authorities, is one of them.  However, since there is no mention of transgenderism or gender-reassignment, they cannot be considered as transgressions, according to that line of reasoning.

But there is one downside of this situation:  Gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, undergo the procedure, often under pressure.  As gay men and lesbians, they are considered criminals, but as transgenders, they are not.

Now, I don't have exact statistics, but I know that many male-to-female transgenders are attracted only to women.  Some, including a few of my acquaintance, even remain married after their surgeries--which, of course, do not change their orientations.  I wonder whether Iranian authorities have ever considered that, or how such hetero men who become, in essence, lesbians cope or are treated.  Do they go into the same closet in which many lesbians live in that country, and others?  

And I can't help but to wonder what will happen after Ahmoud Ahmadinejad's term as President ends in 2013.  As he has already served two terms, he cannot run for re-election.  Although he has backed religious conservatives, and even extremists, he has taken a more moderate tone (at least in terms of religion) in the past year or two.  What will happen if a more hard-core fundamentalist is elected to office?  Would such a person appoint a cleric to help him or her decree that gender-reassignment surgery is a crime?  Would Iran lose one the few ways in which the nation can claim leadership in any area of human rights?

Legal Lone Star Rape

Three weeks ago, the State of Texas made rape legal.

Actually, the Lone Star State went even further than that.  It made rape mandatory in certain situations.

Now, some people would accuse me of exaggerating, being alarmist or making an incendiary statement.  (Folks in the academic world like to use that last phrase when someone says something they don't agree with, or that simply has some passion to it.)  However, with strong support from Governor Rick Perry, some women in Texas must submit to what many of them--and I--would see as rape.

Under the new law, a woman who wants an abortion in that state must endure having an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina.  Never mind that the woman who wants the abortion may have become pregnant as a result of a rape or incest.  She has to submit to that invasion of her private self all over again if she doesn't want to bear a forced progeny.

Then she has to listen to the audio thumping of the foetal heartbeat and watch the foetus on an ultrasound screen.  After that, she has to listen as a doctor explain the body parts and internal organs of the foetus as they're shown on the monitor.  She has to sign a document, which will be placed in her medical files,  saying that she understands all of this.  

After all of that, she has to wait 24 hours before returning to get the abortion.

If it isn't bad enough that Texas now has such legislation, Alabama, Kentucky,Mississippi and Rhode Island are also considering similar legislation.  
Now, you might be wondering why I or any other  trans person should care about this, as we won't get preganant.

Well, for one thing, I am a woman and am therefore concerned with any state violation of our selves.  If someone disrespects women enough to impose such regulations, I should be as concerned as any other woman.  Plus, if they actually think that women can be treated in such a way, I can only imagine how they'd see trans women. 

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how,under Swedish law, if you want to undergo gender reassignment surgery, you have to be sterilized first.  (That is only one of the draconian requirements Sweden has for people who are "changing" sexes.) If such policies can exist in a country like Sweden, it's not a stretch to imagine something like it, or worse, in Texas or any of the states that are considering Texas-style state-sanctioned rape.

Moreover, I wouldn't have a difficult time imagining those states, or others, making it more difficult for even post-op transsexuals to get the care we need without submitting to invasive procedures.  In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if, in the near future, those who want the surgery are subjected to even more invasions of their privacy and personhood than they now face.

Although I may have become more "liberal" about some issues, I still don't trust any government with my body or mind.  If anything, that distrust has intensified, now that I understand--at least better than I did before--how much more governments can invade our persons.

Sterilization In Sweden

One day, one decade, one century, you're ahead of the curve.  Then the curve catches up with you.  If you're not careful, it becomes a tidal wave.

I know; I mixed metaphors a bit.  But you get the idea.  

When I was young, Sweden was seen as a progressive country in, among other areas, human rights, particularly for LGBT people.  It was one of those countries (along with Denmark) to which men went for their "sex change" operations.  (At that time, one rarely--if ever heard of FTMs.)  And Sweden was one of the first countries to include language in its laws specifically to protect gay men and lesbians.

Fast-forward to today, when the country's law regarding gender-reassignment surgery are being assailed as "barbaric" by human rights activists.

The law, enacted in 1972, says that any Swedish resident who wants to undergo gender reassignment surgery must be over 18 and unmarried--and be sterilized before the surgery.  

I used to think that no one under the age of 25 or so should undergo the surgery until I met the teenager who underwent the same surgery, on the same day, as I did.  Some might say she is unusual, but from what she and her mother told me, it was clear from an early age that she simply could not grow up to be a man.  

As for marital status:  Many people--like Joyce, my roommate at San Rafael Hospital in Trinidad--are married when they have the surgery.  Some manage to remain so.  If a marriage stays together through and after the transition and surgery, it's hard to beat for support!

But sterilization is what really has human rights activists upset.  At the time the law was enacted, that stipulation may have made sense, given what the medical establishment knew--and much of the public believed--about transgender people.  

Most of the Swedish Parliament, and public, wants to change the law.  However, there is a conservative party (sound familiar?)  that's blocking the change.  That party is said to be small; I hope its influence will be even smaller in proportion to its size.  And I hope Sweden returns to its longtime role as the small country with a big role in the state of human rights.