6. Do you have any other comments you want to make?

[spiritedreamer]

When the human brain/mind holds all our memories, sense of self, spirit and intellect, it seems an archaic principle to continue to base one’s sex on the physical appearance alone. The same could be said about the current requirement for those who are gender affirmed to have surgery to satisfy the Governments bureaucratic desires before cardinal documents can be changed.

Nor should it be required for a gender affirmed person to divorce the person they love to have cardinal documents changed. Love, after all goes, far beyond a mere physical relationship and those who feel this way should not be punished by being made to separate or even worse divorce. What God has joined, let no man bring asunder!

Furthermore, Centrelink should not be able to take a partners/wife’s pension off them if a spouse affirms their gender and they are staying together as a married couple or in a defacto relationship.

I pray the current Gender Reform Proposal will be passed and adhered to by all relevant departments and Governments.

[ash]

Hi there

Just wanted to bring up the situation where I am at in regards to getting 'permission' to change my gender marker. I am a masculine identifed trans person who does not intend on taking testosterone but does intend on having chest reconstructive surgery. This situation puts me in a strange position in regards to "sex affirmation procedures". My research into chest surgery options in Australia without being on t appear to make this a difficult process. I would still require a letter from a psychiatrist but I do not know of any who would approve me for surgery without being on t in the first place.

Basically I think that medical procedures should not be seen as a sequence (of hormones and then surgery) - some procedures are suitable for one person but might not be suitable for another. This is certainly the case in the States where my research into chest surgery options is vastly different - I have had consultations with a couple of surgeons who are work on an informed consent model - they have said "a letter from a therapist is preferred" but not a requirement and certainly not necessary to be from a psychiatrist, on top of that taking testosterone is not a requirement at all, and many trans people choose to either not take hormones or to take them after surgery rather than before.

So I feel like it would be difficult to be approved to change my gender marker here in Australia for these reasons. I would like to hear more discussion around these issues affecting trans people who may not (for whatever reasons) be taking a more common route of 'transition' = hormones + surgery.

It seems to me that there are still way too many hoops for trans* people to jump through, I dont think that either hormones or surgery should be a requirement for changing ones gender marker. Personally, I would prefer to have gender markers removed from all documents such as drivers license, for everyone regardless of them being trans* or not. Eg. It would not make it any easier for someone else to use my passport whether it had 'male' or 'female' on it!

[spiritedreamer]

When the human brain/mind holds all our memories, sense of self, spirit and intellect, it seems an archaic principle to continue to base one’s sex on the physical appearance alone. The same could be said about the current requirement for those who are gender affirmed to have surgery to satisfy the Governments bureaucratic desires before cardinal documents can be changed.

I would like to expand on the above statement, which I posted earlier:

Affirmation surgery needs to be a personal choice, not driven by bureaucratic requirements. It wouldn’t be right for a person with medical, financial or personal reasons to be declined their affirmation and ability to live as their affirmed gender. I, personally, long to have the gender affirmation surgery but have little hope of raising the large sum of money required to have it done. Furthermore, I have medical problems which could impact on my ability to live in affirmed gender in the operation was carried out.

Nobody should be made to wait to live in their affirmed gender nor should they be bullied into surgery if it is not medically advisable, in their hearts or financially possible.

I would also like to add that surely what matters in a relationship is that the couple are committed and in love, even if they are same sexed. The opportunity to marry should be open to them otherwise they are very much discriminated against.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the antiquated requirement for courtesy titles on documents. As it is not a legal requirement and only a courtesy used to help the person be addressed with the title why is it necessary at all. Many women I have spoken to find it quite sexist as it favours the male of the species. For example, it identifies a wife is married to a man but not if a male is married.

[Guest]

Thanks to Ash for his comments re variations on affirmation of identity, for example in his case living an affirmed life without taking hormones.

I think its really important that the proposed law reform medical procedures not be viewed in a linear treatment model to cover situations like his.
Apparently in the United States , Chest Surgery is performed prior to/or without hormones and is based on an informed consent model of care rather than the WPATH Standards of Care Version 6, (which on my understanding would allow for chest reconstruction on the basis of a letter from a psychologist).

Perhaps if it could be made clear when drafting the proposed law that there is a list of optional sex affirmation procedures rather than a specific path of treatment it would also be more flexible for those who affirm an intersex identity and dont wish to undertake inappropriate hormone or some but not all medical treatments for their health care. Placing the focus on living an affirmed life including change of name and gender role

[dbscobie]

[quote="GInnes"]I realise that these questions may not cover all the things that you want to say. This section of the blog is an opportunity for you to let me know other comments you may have about our sex and gender diversity project.

At the moment we are focusing on the legal recognition of sex and gender in official documents and government records. I may not be able to assist you with other matters at this time.

[i]Graeme[/i][/quote]
Thank you for creating the blog to permit gender diverse citizens who are experiencing extreme difficulties with State and Federal Legislation.
I am a 69year old Married Transgender person who underwent SRS in August 2007 after the pressures of trying to conform
all my life with the unrealistic expectations of Family,Church, Employers and Federal Legislators for me to maintain the gender registered on my N S W Birth Certificate from age 5 became unbearable .
I married a wonderful woman with four beautiful young daughters by a previous marriage some 39 years ago after seeking
Psychiatric Evaluation which at that time was very basic regarding Transexualism. Yes I was advised I would grow out of it once married and so entered marriage in all good faith! It was not until five years ago that I was officially diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disphoria and after intense psychological,neurological and Endocrological Tests and treatment it was decided that the only way I could survive was to undergo SRS. My whole life I had attempted to maintain my male gender and submitted to Electroconvulsive Therapy, Testostorone Hormone Therapy all of which failed to correct my underlying condition! Now I wish to change my gender on my N S W Birth Certificate by Law I must divorce my wonderful wife aged 73 and she then becomes a single woman through no fault of her own and looses all her married rights and entitlements because
of my Transexual Condition. and final Surgical Treatment in order for me to remain alive!
WE refuse to divorce on many grounds as we would have to purger ouselves to comply with the law on irreconcilable differences! We are still compatable and rely heavily on one another as married couples do.The four children (now all married) accept me still as a woman as do all our friends and aquaintances as they understand mine is a medical/psychological condition whic is now corrected.
Why are the State and Federal Legislation so entreanched on the male-female marriage when many Australian Couples are faced with the same condition and dialema when it comes to legal documentation for transgenders single and marriied as we are all taxpayers in many responsible occupations from University Professors to Drs .Teachers,Clerical,Writers, Publishers
and blue colour workers. We are valuable members of the Australian Community yet have been discriminated against because of our condition! Please address this situation as it has dragged on too long and cost many marriages and lives by prolonged inaction.
Thankyou
Deanne

[Gina]

Flight Simulator said

"Does anyone know the official view of the Australian Society of Paediatricians (or whatever it is called) on genital reconstruction in infant cases of physical intersexuality? I tried to get a survey going on this topic back in 2006 but I had problems getting the research approved. When I did notice an ad for a paediatric surgeon at one of Australia's leading hospitals I did seek reassurance from the Head of Paediatrics that such a person would not indulge in such so-called "corrective" surgeries without the patient's consent (impossible until they are much older of course!). My concerns were ameliorated somewhat by the reply, but still I have no knowledge of the incidence of such practices nor of their long-term sequelae"

The position varies from Hospital to Hospital. As far as I know most go by the standards of care that came out of the Chicago Conference along with DSD terminology. That standard of care still allows for Non-Consensual surgeries on newborn babies. (non-Consensual meaning the infant had no part in the discission) There are other categories where this is allowed in the standards of care and I expect the list is growing as parents hysteria overcomes a concerned doctor.

The difficulty with knowing if these surgeries happen or not is that being born Intersex is not a notifiable incident. The discissions are made by the attending physicians and parents without the possibility of intervention from outside parties. Some hospitals have ethics committees where these things are raised, again those committees do not have a resident Intersex activists :-)) to argue for the right of the child to choose.

Gina

[MAP from MAN]

HI I thought it appropriate to mention that an Australian Law Reform Commissoin Media Release arrived in my in box today notifying me of the release of a report on Childrens RIghts. http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2008/mr0110.html



Below is an extract regarding the views of the authors of the DRP that preceded the report, i thought it might be relevant to the issue of childhood sterilization and medical procedures being performed on infants with intersex conditions-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/draftrecs/3/08childr.html


8.25 The Family Court has power to authorise special medical procedures for children pursuant to its statutory welfare power.[30] This includes the ability to authorise sterilisation of young women.[31] Children with intellectual disabilities should not be sterilised without court approval but evidence indicates that many unauthorised operations are performed.[32]

8.26 Concerns have been raised about the child's right to participate and be heard in sterilisation application proceedings and the standard of advocacy provided to them.[33] The child may, and generally would, be appointed a next friend or child's representative for the hearing.[34]

8.27 States also retain the right to determine such matters. A comparison of the approaches of the Family Court and the Guardianship Board of NSW indicated that since January 1994 the NSW Board approved only 1 out of 7 such applications brought before it while the Family Court approved the procedure or refused to exercise jurisdiction in 7 of the 8 reported cases it has dealt with.[35]

8.28 The Family Court has developed co-operative arrangements with other relevant agencies in Victoria and Queensland in regard to sterilisation applications[36] and the Family Law Council has recommended that appropriate guidelines be developed in this area.[37] Family Law Rules require affidavits to be filed indicating that the procedure is necessary and there is no appropriate alternative.[38]

8.29 The degree of participation of children who are the subject of the application should depend on individual capacity — clearly a sixteen year old with a mental age of seven is still capable of expressing an opinion. The child's representative should ensure that this view comes before the court. This raises a training issue for representatives.[39]

[MAP from MAN]

continutation

Draft recommendation 8.21. An awareness campaign should be conducted to provide medical practitioners with information about the legal requirements for approval for the conduct of sterilisation operations on young people with an intellectual disability.

Implementation. The Attorney-General should co-ordinate and conduct this campaign.

Draft recommendation 8.22. Research should be conducted to establish whether the discrepancy between the levels of approval of sterilisation applications between the Family Court and the Guardianship Board of NSW is reflected in the number of approvals in other jurisdictions. This research should investigate the reasons for the discrepancy to ensure that Family Court procedures allow for appropriate exploration of alternatives to the sterilisation application.

Implementation. The Family Court should conduct such research in co-operation with State and Territory agencies.

Draft recommendation 8.23. Guidelines should be developed to regulate the pre-hearing processes for sterilisation applications in the Family Court welfare jurisdiction. These guidelines should ensure that the procedures are used only where strictly necessary in the best interests of the child. The guidelines should include the requirement that parties be provided with information about all alternatives to sterilisation, that all such options have been explored prior to the hearing, that suitable counselling has been undertaken and that the child has been consulted as appropriate.

Implementation. The Family Court should consider developing such guidelines for inclusion in O 23B of the Family Law Rules or in case management guidelines as appropriate.

[battybattybats]

"These guidelines should ensure that the procedures are used only where strictly necessary in the best interests of the child. "

How are 'best interests' defined in law?

Philosophically it can mean a variety of things based on which school of philosophy is being used. The primciples of enlightenment philosophies that led to the formation of Human Rights suggest 'good' and 'best' being defined by maximising the free choice of the individual however others may define it as maximising a persons ease of conforming to social norms. While that is a morally acceptable argument depending as it does on accepted moral precepts of much of the community it is an unethical one because it puts the status quo and the community ahead of the freedom and choice of the individual, that invariably leads to oppression and injustice.

Because of the wide variety of personal morality and values people may hold where a person or comittee or group must determine what is in the 'best interests' on the behalf of a person currently unable to give consent (whether a child, cognitively impaired in some fashion like being drunk, influenced by drugs or mental illness or even comatose) there is substantial possibility of decisions being made that would not correspond to the decisions the individual would make were they able to make the decision.

So is there some form of legal framework or principles involved to guide such a decision to protect such dependant people from suffering from the personal biases or morality of those given power over them no matter how well meaning the intentions involved?

If not then it will be absolutely essential that some are developed based on consistent Human Rights principles because no matter what systems and mechanisms and processes of law are developed there will be a time where individuals must excercise judgement in a position of power and authority over dependant individuals.

One obvious intersection is of an individuals Religious Rights and their Duty Of Care. For example a person whose religion holds rules on such matters might consider that their religious right and obligation to insist on their childs genital normalisation surgery or circumcision or insist on the denial of hormone blockers etc all truly believing these decisions to be in the best interest of the child from their own perspective however the possibility that the child may grow up to resent this decision that has permanant ramifications and to hold to different values would render that decision as wrong.

Once again it is clear that all Human Rights issues involve and connect many different groups because the same issues of who decides for dependants and how much they may impose their own views and ideals and biases in those decisions involves not just Intersex children and genital surgery and transgender children and hormone blockers but all children S&GD and S&GT, the disabled, people suffering a host of mental and physical illnesses, those in prison and detention and more.

[MAP from MAN]

hi I am just wondering why we havent heard the voices of people like Chris Sommers XXY or Alexan Mc Farlane in this forum,

http://www.intersexualite.org/Intergender-Index.html

given the discussion on Intersex as a sex has been raised, neither of these people who have caimpagned for their rights publically in the passed seem to be taking part in the consulation.


article about alex follows

From the Western Australian newspaper, Perth 11 January 2003:
X Marks the Spot for Intersex Alex
By Julie Butler
A QUIET trailblazer from Perth's Hills has become the first in Australia and
probably the world to hold a passport aknowledging that not everyone is male or
female. Alex MacFarlane, 48, is intersex and wanted a passport recognising it.
Women have a 46XX chromosome mix and men 46XY. Alex is 47XXY, a form of
androgyny shared by about one in every 1500 to 2000 babies.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade initially baulked, saying its computers
could deal only with an F or M in the sex field of passports. For Alex, choosing M or F
would have been lying. “I should not have to commit fraud because of a
department's production inadequacies,” Alex said.
Late last year, after months of correspondence from Alex, and an inquiry from The West
Australian, the department had a rethink, deciding to change its passport processing
system to allow an X in the sex field. The X signifies unspecified sex or intersex and is
the only other sex category allowed under International Civil Aviation Organisation
guidelines for machine-readable passports.
A spokeswoman told The West Australian that, after reviewing the issue, the department
had decided to accommodate people whose birth certificates recorded their sex as
indeterminate. Alex has since received the passport, with an X in the sex field. After
making inquiries with intersex people overseas, Alex believes the move set a global
precedent.
“It means a great deal," Alex said. “I've been battling with 30-odd years of
misrepresentation. It means I can now participate in more of the community.” Alex is
also believed to be the first Australian issued with a birth certificate acknowledging a
gender other than male of female. Alex's says “indeterminate - also known as
interse”. It was issued in Alex's birth State of Victoria, which unlike WA, changed its
policy to allow the category.
Despite all this ground-breaking, Alex shuns the limelight, quietly chipping away at
bureaucratic discrimination. “Finding a niche to crawl into has been impossible, so I've
made my own,” Alex said. “I do not want to change the world, but just the way some of it
thinks. Intersex individuals should not have to break the law, by pretending to be male or
female, in order to vote, marry, hold a licence, or own property.”
Not all 47XXY people identify as androgynous. Some perceive themselves as male or
female, and many, like Alex, were surgically altered at birth to appear male or female.