Skip to content or view screen version

GenderRecognitionAct 2004 - Holes & Poles and all things to all men

Pandora | 06.01.2006 12:59 | Analysis | Gender | Social Struggles

Commentary on the Gender Recognition Act …and why it fails us.

GRA 2004 - Holes & Poles and all things to all men (Pandora)
Commentary on the Gender Recognition Act …and why it fails us.


The long awaited UK Gender Recognition Act has been in existence for over a year now and we are beginning to see how this legislation affects transsexual men and women. It’s time to ask: Does it provide the much needed reforms in equality for those it was intended for? It's also an opportunity to take a look at what has changed, good or bad.
First off, writing as a woman born transsexual, is the Gender Recognition Act legislation going to make much difference to transsexual people like me in practical everyday terms? No it's not, and the fact that a certificate recognising your gender exists in the first place, and you may have to show it at some point defeats the whole purpose, does it not? Neither my mother nor my sister has a gender recognition certificate! So, we as transsexual women are immediately singled out as different. The basic premise of the legislation has gender apartheid at its core. It spells out there are men, women and transsexuals. We have become a third rate third gender category unequal to the others in terms of privacy, marriage, religion, sport and other areas, inc. equality in the provision of goods & services.
This is surely not what the European Court of Human Rights intended when they instructed the UK government to provide us with recognition of our gender and equality with other women. But there is a reason behind this insidious creation of a third gender, some of us 'gender recognised women' will indeed be different. Some of us will have not actually have undergone surgery and will be physically male. This is the glaring fundamental flaw in the whole Act; there is no surgery requirement. But more of that later.


The passport and/or driving licence we could obtain already were just as useful as what the GRA gives us. But, the GRA also has the frightening drawback of requiring transsexual people to be *registered* on the transsexual register. That's scary! Why this third gender category? Do we have official forms that give you the option of ticking the male, female or TS box? I know that this register is at present not going to be available to public viewing. But, what of the future? Who's to say what box you will be required to tick ten years from now, depending on which flavour of government is in charge? The registered transsexual box maybe. ... Alongside the registered paedophile box and the registered drug addict box? We know all too well how Governments tend to try to erode the citizen’s privacy in the name of security, efficiency, etc. This legislation could unfortunately be used to make us a more easily identifiable target group for extremists. Now we are all supposed to be registered we are much easier to find as a group. And what of those who dislike the idea of being registered, will they in future be denied medical treatment, passports and even protection of the law?


This legislation was supposed to be in response to transsexual peoples right to privacy among other things. But, what privacy have we gained from this legislation? None, from the Government offices, armed forces, churches, police, prison service, education establishments, etc. These are just some of the bodies that will have access to our status. And let’s be blunt; thanks to the clause that states surgical correction of genitals is not a requirement for gender recognition, we are to be registered as the women who can possibly have a penis and the men who can perhaps have babies! What on earth will the public think of that one when they fully understand it?
There are also employment issues to be considered. Employers in the future are going to become very much aware of the kind of people who are possibly in possession of a GRC. To avoid any unpleasantness they may find it easier to disregard all GRC holders when they apply for a job. After all, who needs the hassle of employing some gender-recognised woman who may have a functioning penis? That could be a source of hassle and unrest from other employees, especially in child sensitive employment areas. Would it not have been more practical for the government to simply change the existing records on completion of surgery and not have any special certificates or registers? I mean, to most ordinary folk transsexuals are exotic enough, but to add to the confusion and misunderstanding about us we are going to ask them to accept us in our legally recognised gender, but still give no guarantees about what’s lurking in our pants!


The GRA is too complicated, and too many opt outs are allowed. Take the penal system, the Prison Service have a right to exercise exemption to the GRA when it comes to what prison a transsexual person may be sent to in future. As it stands the GRA means nothing to them. This is entirely due to the ‘no surgical requirement’ clause prior to official recognition. If you allow a transwoman who has a penis to gain a GRC's (and we know some have already) then of what use are the certificates in practical terms, and what signal does this they send out about all of us?
It’s a mess even when it comes to the area of marriage, another of the supposed reasons for the legislation in the first place. Churches have been allowed to opt out when it comes to our right to privacy and in providing church weddings to transsexual people. Is that equality? What uproar there would be if churches took it upon themselves to discriminate against another section of the population born with a medical condition, like…blind people for example? Again we see the gender apartheid, we are to be treated differently, and it's enshrined in law that it's ok to do that.


It could have been so much better. The UK Government was under a legal obligation to provide a solution to a long-standing problem. But instead of getting a simple surgery based solution everyone would have understood and vast majority of the public and transsexual people would have accepted, PFC and the Government cobbled together an unwieldy piece of legislation that is unsatisfactory to most and will no doubt have to be revisited again and revised. I think it was a wasted opportunity after all these years of campaigning.


But, why have we ended up with such an Act that is unworkable and unfavourable to transwomen in particular? There was an opportunity to literally have a simple 'cut off' point where you qualified for recognition as female, post genital reconstruction surgery. Well, it seems likely the Government chose to appease the non-op transmen by not having any surgical requirement. There are relatively few transmen in the transsexual population as a whole, but they are disproportionately more vocal in their demands. But, sadly I believe the Act will eventually prove unsatisfactory to transmen too. The F to M’s will eventually pay a price for insisting on the non-op clause because they missed a trick here. It is a fact their surgery is more complicated and expensive than M to F’s surgery, and I think one of the reasons the Gov agreed with the transmen and took this non op option was because they were worried about the financial implications of treating those pre op transmen on the very slow NHS waiting lists. What if they were denied recognition because of non-op status and sued or went back to the European courts? The GRA could have been a very powerful encouragement to force the Government to provide proper funding and treatment for all transsexual people on the NHS if it had been based on a surgical requirement to qualify for recognition, another opportunity wasted. This has devalued the whole Act for everyone.


Another important point. Here in the UK, because we won't have the simple binary definition in the Act of: man = penis, woman = no penis. All transsexual people, whether pre or post op, with or without a certificate, will be treated as 'transsexuals' rather than men or women. This could affect not only our social status here, but also our legal status abroad. What if a UK transwoman were to marry a male United States citizen for example? Will our marriages be recognised by the U.S authorities that in recent years have been very homophobic? It's a valid question, especially if a gender-recognised woman from the UK may still have a penis! The U.S conditions of legal recognition like most other countries demand a surgical commitment. We are out of step with other countries that have recognised transsexual’s gender.


It was said during the formation of the GR Act, that to define gender by surgery would be unfair on some individuals (non ops, cant have ops, can't afford ops). But for the benefit of the majority you have to have a workable solution that satisfies most of us and makes sense to the public. Sadly in an effort to make it seem equal the Government have actually created a new gender category - Transgender. This, in my view, makes it unfair to everyone. And is the least satisfactory solution. Much as some of us may hate it we have to be realistic, society in general defines people by their sexual organs. In fact we as transsexuals do as well to some extent otherwise none of us would feel the need for surgery at all.
But getting back to ‘the public’ and after all it is the public as well as the law we want to recognise our gender. If you asked most non-trans folk whether they agree that transsexual people should be allowed to legally change their gender on all paperwork and in law, the overwhelming majority would say yes. If you then ask them if that should still apply whether they have had surgery or not? It's a different story! I know this because I've asked.
The fact is most non-trans folk who are aware of the legislation in the UK; assume it only applies to post ops. When people become generally aware in the coming years that this isn't the case, it may well bring down on all of us a brand new wave of discrimination. I know there is no perfect solution but this one we got with the GRA is the least favourable to most of us. I think it was a wasted opportunity.


Comments on this article are invited and will be posted (if requested) on a linked page. Permission to reproduce this article or any part of it can be had by emailing  TranssexualCured@aol.com Please ask first and make sure the link to the original source is maintained, thank you, (Pandora)

Pandora
- e-mail: transsexualcured@aol.com
- Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/transsexualcured/index.html

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

A welcome voice for Indymedia

07.01.2006 17:27

I thought this article was very interesting. It is great to see trans voices using Indymedia, as hiterhto, the activist movement has been unaccommodating and dismissive of trans people. There's a long way to go before long lasting alliances can be forged across the barriers of both straight left machismo and the anti-trans legacy of (some) separatist feminism. I look forward to a time when we can all work more closely together.

To access the main trans campaigning portal in the UK, go to www.pfc.org.uk

Caz


Stuck in the binary

01.03.2006 09:17

I am a transsexual woman and I agree that the Gender Recognition Act has flaws. I find the concept of a register of transsexual persons disturbing - there is no need for such a thing. However, the author seems to be more upset that there is no requirement for surgery, and spends the majority of her time attacking the Act because of this.

Irrespective of how the Act should have been written, it is correct when it states that there should NOT be a requirement for surgery. Many of us cannot afford surgery, do not want the procedure (for a variety of reasons that aren't anyone's damn business) or cannot undergo surgery because of other medical conditions. (For example, I know a trans woman who has haemophilia - she would bleed to death if surgery were attempted). It is outrageous to suggest that those of us for whom surgery is not an option should be afforded no legal recognition and can be legally discriminated against.

Personally, I would like surgery and will have it some day, but right now I cannot afford it and am unlikely to be able to for some time. Got a spare $25,000 I can borrow?

I feel for trans men that want surgery. It is a very difficult procedure and the results often leave much to be desired. It's also extremely expensive. Some of the top US surgeons have a price tag in excess of $80,000.

To exclude people like myself is unjustifiable classism, plain and simple.

Worse still, the author doesn't seem want to accept those people that fall outside of the binary. The following statement is particularly telling:

"And let’s be blunt; thanks to the clause that states surgical correction of genitals is not a requirement for gender recognition, we are to be registered as the women who can possibly have a penis and the men who can perhaps have babies! What on earth will the public think of that one when they fully understand it?"

Already, close to 2% of the population have an intersex condition. The author might want to believe that all men have penises and all women have vaginas, but there already exists a huge sexual and anatomical variation in the population. Many people have genitals that are ambiguous, and some of these people do not consider themselves male or female. Life would sure be a hell of a lot easier for people with intersex conditions if the general public were aware of this. Maybe doctors wouldn't be subjecting intersexed children to surgical procedures that many find traumatic and leave them with damaged sexual functioning.

Sure, there are flaws with the Act. Let's have some criticism - but not at the expense of non-op and pre-op trans people, genderqueers and intersex people.

Fuck the binary.

Zoe


NHS scrap care for Transsexual people

09.02.2007 20:39

Oxfordshire PCT scraps gender reassignment surgical (GRS) procedures

Below is the text from a PDF document outlining Oxfordshire Commissioning Board's decision on provision of local NHS treatment for Gender Dysphoria.

This is sadly the logical outcome of 'Trans' campaigning group, Press for Change's support for non op 'trans' people to be given legal gender recognition and PfC's enthusiasm for transsexual people becoming part of the LGB movement.
PfC have offered no criticism to legally recognised men (transmen) retaining the ability become pregnant and actually giving birth. Among the groups PfC actively support and equate with transsexual people are gay men and drag queens. This makes a mockery of transsexual people who have a genuine medical need for gender Reassignment Surgery.

NHS Commissioning Boards are increasingly attempting to justify the removal of surgical intervention in treatment of transsexual clients because:

a) They argue: If 'trans' people are legally recognised as their 'chosen' gender without surgery, why should they need to be physically (and expensively) recognised, too?

b) And: If 'trans' people are part of the LGBT movement, why do they need surgery when LGB people don't for their 'sexual orientation'?

c) By PfC aligning themselves so closely to psychiatric medicine they have persuaded the Gov. and the rest of the UK NHS medical profession that transsexuality is indeed a mental disorder rather than a physical problem that can be cured through surgery.

This latest decision by Oxfordshire comes hot on the heels of Hounslow PCT and Camden PCT who are also trying to remove GRS from their core treatment service provision.
For decades the NHS have been trying to include TS people in the sexual orientation or the mentally ill categories, thereby justifying offering no treatment for the former and relatively inexpensive treatment for the later. They do not want to spend money on expensive surgery because it's politically unpopular. Press for Change have, at last, handed the NHS the excuses they needed.
PfC, who are an undemocratic small group of friends who have no mandate to speak for transsexual people, in their search for personal glory and gongs from the discredited honours system, have actually set back the case for transsexual people by 30 years at least.

****************************************************************************************

 http://www.oxfordshire.nhs.uk/documents/18bGenderDysphoria.pdf

NOTES:
1. Potentially exceptional circumstances may be considered by the patient’s PCT where there is evidence of significant health
status impairment (e.g. inability to perform activities of daily living.)
2. This policy will be reviewed in the light of new evidence or guidance from NICE.
3. The Oxfordshire Priorities Forum lavender papers can be viewed at www.oxfordshire.nhs.uk/prioritysetting.asp
Thames Valley Priorities Committees
(Oxfordshire PCT)
Policy Statement 18b: Gender Dysphoria
Ref TV63
Oxfordshire Commissioning Board decision: Approved, December 2006
Date of Issue: December 2006
Gender Dysphoria is a psychological state whereby a person demonstrates dissatisfaction with their biological sex, and requests sex reassignment. Management can be lengthy and expensive and comprises assessment, psychotherapy, real life experience, hormonal therapy and surgery.
• There is a consensus that equitable access to services for initial diagnostic assessment and hormone therapy is needed for those patients fulfilling the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association criteria.
• There is no professional consensus on the classification of core and non-core procedures for gender reassignment.
• There is limited evidence to suggest that gender reassignment surgery is effective. Much of the evidence in favour of or against gender reassignment surgery is of poor quality due to lack of standardised criteria for assessment and management.
• For most gender reassignment surgical (GRS) procedures, several techniques have been described with varying degrees of complications and patient satisfaction reported. In view of the heterogeneity of surgical techniques, outcomes, complications and patient choice, it is not appropriate to recommend any particular technique or procedure. There is particular concern about the clinical effectiveness of some procedures especially phalloplasty.
• There is no published evidence on cost-effectiveness of gender reassignment surgery.
GRS core surgical procedures for male to female patients (MtF) may include Penectomy, Orchidectomy, Vaginoplasty (including hair removal essential for vaginoplasty), Clitoroplasty, Labiaplasty. Core surgical procedures for female to male (FtM) patients are Mastectomy, Hysterectomy, Salpingo-oophorectomy, Metoidioplasty, Phalloplasty, Urethroplasty, Scrotoplasty and placement of testicular prostheses.
The Oxfordshire Priorities Forum recommends that:
1. Patients should be referred initially to a local NHS Consultant Psychiatrist.
2. Access to a specialist tertiary NHS commissioned Gender Identity Clinic for assessment should be via tertiary referral from the local NHS Consultant Psychiatrist.
3. Specialist psychological support and hormonal therapy will be funded provided the above criteria have been fulfilled.
4. GRS core surgical procedures are a Low Priority treatment due to the limited evidence of clinical effectiveness and are not routinely funded.
5. Cosmetic surgery and other non-core procedures such as breast augmentation, larynx reshaping, rhinoplasty, hair removal, jaw reduction and waist liposuction should not be considered as a core part of GRS. Patients who wish to be considered for these treatments should be considered in accordance with the existing policies on Cosmetic Breast Surgery and Cosmetic Procedures.
References
1. Paranthaman K . Cheong-Leen C. Report for TVPSU: Management of Gender Dysphoria. May 2006.
2. Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders. 6th version. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Inc. (HBIGDA); 2001  http://www.hbigda.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf (accessed 7th February 2006)

Pandora
mail e-mail: transsexualcured@aol.com
- Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/transsexualcured/index.html