In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Yes!

Courtesy of Zuzu, who is with us in spirit, an article from the New York Times:

Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.

There are exceptions, but most transpeople take hormones for at least several months prior to surgery. In some places, the transsexual patient must be on hormones for a certain amount of time prior to surgery. Sometimes, that interval lasts years. Sometimes, and increasingly, transpeople are opting out of surgery or genital surgery altogether. Surgery, the when and the whether, is also dependent on class. It’s generally out of pocket. While not expensive in terms of the “That’s Outrageous!” articles that crop up whenever the media wants to frame transition as abusive, socially irrational, and at the extreme of indulgence, it’s not cheap. There are other factors that can complicate and delay or nullify, like HIV status, other health issues, substance abuse, incarceration, and other unstable circumstances.

Passing is an individual thing. Surgery usually correlates with later-transition (and therefore somewhat with the likelihood of passing), but IME does not either determine social transition or coincide with the boundary to the extent that there is a clear one. Many of us pass without any medical measures; many of us pass with hormones but not surgery; some of us don’t pass consistently with surgery. Like the man says, it’s not a good standard:

“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

I wouldn’t call it arbitrary, exactly. It’s based on beliefs about the tenacity of birth sex. Surgery is seen in magical terms, as the only act of sufficient potency to alter “natural” sex. Hormones, with their gradual changes over time, are not seen as drastic enough to wrench nature out of course. (There are exceptions to that, of course–testosterone rage, for example.) Surgery is also the site of the illegitimacy of transpeople, the place where we have to prove ourselves in order to deserve acknowledgement from the straight world. If we’re not willing to undergo surgery, we’re not real transsexuals.

For balance:

Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.

“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”

The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)

An asterisk? What would the footnote look like? Zitrin’s take on it is a pretty facile one. Were transsexual status not fraught, were it not grounds for instant ejection from post-transition gender, transpeople probably would not be so concerned about revealing their history. Since, however, we face discrimination in most cases where our birth sex is known, we should have the benefit of privacy. And it’s worth pointing out that “more than the sum of one’s physical parts” would apply to a sexed body at birth as well. In one sense, an infant that later transitions was not exactly a boy or a girl; the change is retroactive based on new knowledge of the person.

All of those questions make for interesting discussion, but the only important question to answer is this: Is the surgery standard the most sensible way to delineate those borders? Would the refusal to alter a birth certificate under pre/non-op or any circumstances make the answers clearer, or obscure them on even more elementary levels?

But some psychiatrists said that eliminating identification difficulties for some transgender people also opened the door to unwelcome advances from imposters.

“I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there,” Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President’s Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. “He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them.”

So we can’t introduce legal categories that correspond to social reality–and, as the article takes pains to point out, are controlled even as applied to transpeople–because some people will arrogate that validity in ways that are transparently disingenuous and really easy to differentiate from the honest kind? And in instances whose prohibition may be justified and enforced along separate public-safety lines? What does this have to do with the right of a transsexual to obtain identification he or she may use? This petitioner sees himself and transsexuals as virtually identical; I don’t think Dr. Paul McHugh does.


16 thoughts on Yes!

  1. Oh, I’m so glad you blogged about this. Someone mentioned it in the comments to one of my other posts, and I was about to send it along when I saw you’d posted.

    Thanks for being far more cogent than I would have been. =)

  2. That sounds a lot like the Gender Recognition Act that recently became law in the UK.

    …Not a lot else to say really, because you already said it better.

  3. Piny, is this an issue of a change in identification, or a change in legal status? It’s a little ambiguous whether authorised changes to birth certificates means that the city legally recognises the trans person as their post-transition gender or whether they’re essentially giving them the document but not the legal status.

    With the GRA for example, your birth certificate is re-issued, but more importantly, from then on you’re considered to be the post-transition gender for all purposes in UK law (and this is legislation, so not overturnable by a judge.)

  4. I don’t completely understand that issue myself, I admit. I don’t think it works that way here. You change your legal gender; the extent to which people can discriminate against you when they figure out that you’re a transsexual (which might, and usually does, involve refusing to acknowledge your post-transition gender) depends both on the existence of anti-discrimination laws and the way they’ve been interpreted.

  5. Did that make sense? It’s thorny. You can use your legal status and social status to argue that you deserve to be treated as that gender, but it won’t necessarily remove that question, as the article said.

  6. Surgery is also the site of the illegitimacy of transpeople, the place where we have to prove ourselves in order to deserve acknowledgement from the straight world.

    Unfortunately, I’ve seen this attitude from other transexual women also. Those who have had surgury (sometimes) tell those like me who have not had surgury that “you’re just wannabes”. Witness the New Woman Conference – they allow only post-op trans women.

    Witness also Gwendolyn Ann Smith’s statement (back in 2000, I think) that only post-op transexual women should be admitted to women’s music festivals (such as Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival). When I read about that (six years later), I took Ms Smith off of my bookmarks.

  7. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this attitude from other transexual women also. Those who have had surgury (sometimes) tell those like me who have not had surgury that “you’re just wannabes”. Witness the New Woman Conference – they allow only post-op trans women.

    …Don’t tell me: panty checks? I’ve encountered this attitude, as well. It’s obnoxious–and it tends to be pretty marginalizing towards transmen, since it usually assumes a set of surgical options that simply do not correspond to ours.

    Witness also Gwendolyn Ann Smith’s statement (back in 2000, I think) that only post-op transexual women should be admitted to women’s music festivals (such as Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival). When I read about that (six years later), I took Ms Smith off of my bookmarks.

    Yup. Whatever self-serving bio/socio-essentialist inconsistencies abound, at least Michfest didn’t pass this one.

  8. having been born in new york city, i am glad to see that they may start issuing birth certificates with ones post-transition sex. i have an “amended” birth certificate with no sex marker right now. at least it has my then legal, post-transition name on it (i’ve since been married, and have taken my husband’s last name).

    i’ll add that i’ve never needed my birth certificate for anything since it’s been amended. when i moved to arizona, the dmv here simply gave me an az diver’s license that mirrored my new jersey license. i managed to get my nj dl sex marker changed, soon after 9/11, without any documentation, by simply walking up to the counter, and suggesting that “they” might have made an error when they “mistakenly” put the “m” under the sex field. the woman behind the counter gave me a form to fill out, i paid my $5, they took a new picture, and i walked out the door with the elusive “f” in the sex field. she didn’t even want to see my passport which also had the “f” marker.

    i doubt that could happen these days.

    regarding “legal gender” vs. identification, as i see it, it’s all about sex. my license doesn’t say “gender”, it says “sex”. my passport doesn’t say “gender, it says “sex”. and the state laws with which i am familiar, it’s not about “same gender” marriage, it’s about “same sex” marriage. i was legally able to marry my husband because my *sex* has been changed legally, according to the documentation i’ve been able to secure. my legal sex is female. my identification reflects my legal sex. whether or not this would hold up in the eyes of a court of law has yet to be determined, i hope not in my life time.

Comments are currently closed.