Speaking From Truth and Reason

Following is an exchange that started from the letter Curtis (of Organisation Internationale des Intersexués) wrote to Australian legislators regarding the proposed ban on dispensing sex hormones to a minor who is diagnosed with gender identity disorder.

Forum: Intersexe-Androgynous list
Date: 04/29/2004

Curtis wrote:

Is it really true that "certain legal judgments in Australia have classed transsexuality as an intersexed condition"? And why is it relevant to whether or not young transpeople should have their identity respected?

On the first point: Australian AIS Support Group has published its position/understanding on the topic, with extensive evidence:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aissg/transgender_and_intersex.htm

Shouldn't OII, as an international advocacy organization, respect and support the work of Australian intersex activists on matters that affect Australian intersex people most?

Also, I read the ruling of Re Kevin (2001; 2003), which some Australian trans activists cite as the evidence that the Court recognizes transsexuality as an intersex condition. As a matter of fact, it is simply *not true* that the Court determined such a thing; what they say is that for the purpose of determining the validity of marriages (and hence legal sex of the person), the distinction between intersex people who happen to change gender and transsexual people is meaningless. It is as reasonable (that is, simply unreasonable) to say that the ruling classified intersex as part of transsexual as to say that the ruling classified transsexual as part of intersex.

On the second point: Can't we voice our support for this young trans person's right to define his own gender simply because it's the right thing to do? Why is our support for him dependant on transsexuality being an intersex condition?

By stating that transsexuality being classified as an intersex condition as a reason for OII making a public statement on the issue, you would be not just recognizing legal precedence (which, by the way, doesn't exist), but endorsing such view. And I believe that this view has been and will be harmful to the intersex movement because it is based on the ignorant perception that intersex is somehow treated much better than transsexual in the society--which of course is not true. It really upsets me that some trans people seem to think that being classified as intersex in this society is positive or even desirable; I view such sentiment as a blatant disregard of the actual experiences of people born with intersex conditions.

Emi Koyama
Intersex Initiative
http://www.intersexinitiative.org/

Date: 05/02/2004

Curtis wrote:

But it's NOT TRUE that the ruling of Re Kevin classified transsexuality as an intersex condition. Any legislator who actually reads the ruling would know that. I just don't think that relying on deception is a good strategy (and even if it was, I would find it despicable).

I support the person's right to seek medical and legal gender transformation because it's his right to do so; it has nothing to do with whether or not gender identity disorder is an intersex condition or a biological event.

Similarly, I despise the faux alarmist argument that the federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. (that would limit marriage to those between a man and a woman) would create a new legal definition of "man" and "woman" based on biology that would hurt intersex people. Even in Littleton v. Prange case (which voided a transsexual woman's marriage to a non-transsexual man based on the genetic definition of sex), the judge stated that the genetic definition of sex does not necessarily apply to intersex individuals, and that this ruling should only be interpreted to apply to those born with the chromosomes, gonads, and external genitalia that are consistent with each other. I sincerely doubt that intersex people's marriages would be voided simply because of the genetic definition of sex. It would, of course affect intersex people who are LGBT because they are LGBT, and not because they are intersex.

Using intersex as an argument against the Marriage Amendment is a sneaky, deceptive tactic. We should be fighting it on the basis that same-sex couples deserve same rights as heterosexual couples, and not because of any "side effects" it may have to poor little hermaphrodites. The right wing doesn't have any good arguments to support discrimination, so they lie and deceive all over; we progressives have truth and reason on our side, and we should be fighting on the basis of that.

Michelle wrote:

I agree with this view. Intersex people who choose gender transitioning deserve no more rights than non-intersex people who do the same: all of them should have access to legal and medical assistance.

Patty wrote:

Folks, body and mind are not two entirely separate things. They interact both ways. To say that something is psychological does not negate that it may have biological causes or factors impacting the psychological reality. I don't understand why some people think whether or not gender identity is biological is even relevant when it comes to 1) whether or not GID is intersex, and 2) what rights people with GID deserve. It's irrelevant.

There is a perfectly good word to describe someone with "a male body-sex and female psychological sex"; it's "transsexual." Or perhaps "transgender" depending on the definition. To redefine the word "intersex" to account for psychological sex variation would basically solidify intersex as a biomedical reality, rather than socially regulated anatomical variation.

In my view, intersex is nothing but social. Nature does not inform us where to draw the line between "normal" and "abnormal"; it is the social determination. In our societies, this determination is done by the biomedical authority, which arbitrates what's normal and abnormal. If the society did not perceive my body to be abnormal, my body would not have been intersex. In a way, the word "intersexed" is perfectly accurate: it was not that I was born "intersexed" no more than female bodied people were born "women"; rather, I was "intersexed" in the gaze of biomedical authority.

The society is wrong. And I'm doing everything I can to get the society to change that attitude or else, but it doesn't help that bunch of transsexual people are rushing to them saying "accept us because our gender problem is biological!"

I do support your individual right to get by in any way you can, including relying on biology or claiming to have the "brain sex." But I expect more from the trans movement as a movement. It's understandable that individual trans people might have to invoke "brain sex" argument in order to avoid being battered or discriminated; but the trans movement should be confronting transphobia and working toward ending the hatred and bigotry toward gender-different people, rather than just presenting transsexual people as intersex.

Emi K.

Date: 05/02/2004

Curtis wrote:

I support Alex's right to receive medical assistance on the basis of compassion and human rights. But how would it affect "all access for intersex children"? Are you suggesting that if they were to ammend the law to prohibit dispensing hormones to a transsexual minor, it might somehow prevent children without functional gonads from receiving hormones also? That's absurd!

Look, most countries don't systemically 13-year old transsexual kids access to synthetic hormones, but they already do provide hormones to children born without functional gonads or those whose gonads have been removed. Even if Australian politicians were to pass any law to keep Alex from accessing hormones, there's no possibility whatsoever that they will prohibit use of hormones in cases where it is medically necessary.

I believe that intersex people should support trans people's right to receive medical and legal assistance just because it's the right thing to do. It's not because intersex children might lose medically necessary hormone treatment. The danger you are pointing to is ridiculously unrealistic and provides the "weakest link" for opponents of our movement to attack.

As I said before, I hate this sort of unnecessary alarmism designed to trick unsuspecting people into supporting the agenda that doesn't need any tricks to support. That trans people are our friends and they need our support in order to secure their right to the health care they deserve is enough to make me want to support the rights of Alex and people like him. You don't have to make up an "ulterior motive" for me to support the agenda; in fact, it offends me to be told that something is my own issue when it doesn't make any sense.

And it's from Karen Gurney, who is an officer from the Australian W.O.M.A.N. Network--the same trans rights organization that has been irresponsibly promoting the theory that transsexuality is an intersex condition and misrepresenting what Re Kevin ruling actually states. I am questioning the accuracy of the statements made by the Australian W.O.M.A.N. Network (particuarly, its interpretation of Re Kevin that transsexuality is part of intersex), and quoting the same source does not add anything to the discussion here.

This reminds me of people who tell me that the Bible is the word of God because it says so. It's fine if that's what you believe, but the argument is circular and lacks any resemblance to reason. I would think that it's acceptable for a religious text to expect readers to have faith in it, but how am I supposed to trust Australian W.O.M.A.N. Network's statement just because they say so?

Folks, I'm not saying that you should just take my word. Go to the Australian W.O.M.A.N. Network website and read the actual ruling to see what it actually says. It's simply NOT TRUE that the ruling classified transsexuality as an intersex condition, despite what some trans activists and advocates have been promoting.

Emi K.

Date: 05/03/2004

Curtis wrote:

I actually *read* the ruling; you only read the self-serving deception some trans activists are repeating and their selective quoting of the ruling, not the actual ruling.

What the ruling states is that when it comes to whether or not one can change her or his legal "sex," intersex people who change their sex as an adult and transsexual people should not be treated differently.

And as I've said, I AGREE with this ruling 100%, because I believe that everyone should be able to choose their gender and access legal and medical assistance regardless of their intersex status. HOWEVER, the ruling does NOT say that transsexuality is a form of intersex. That's a deception, not a difference of opinion. If the Court said that whites and Blacks deserve the same legal right, does that mean whites are part of Blacks or vice versa? No. It's as simple as that.

EXACTLY--that's what I have been saying all along. But when I pointed out that the assertion by the WOMAN Network regarding the ruling is inaccurate, you responded with a quote from a "legal expert" who is also an officer of this very organization. Quoting an "expert" who is an officer of WOMAN Network is NOT useful if we were to evaluate the truthfulness of WOMAN Network's claim. Again, it's deceptive.

No, YOU ARE quoting the organization, not me. The "expert" you refer to is an officer of this group. And it is NOT a general "women's issues" group; it's a transsexual women's issues group. The first line of its mission statement says that the purpose of this organization is to "lobby for the rights of Australian women with transsexualism."

Thankfully, despite the misinterpretation the organization makes available many legal documents relating to the status of transsexual people. Don't take my word for it: all you need to do is download the ruling of Re Kevin and see for yourself if the WOMAN Network's claim about transsexuality being an intersex condition is accurate.

Emi K.