Letters to the Editor
-
The Legal View
In 2003, the Full Bench of the Australian Family Court reviewed all the scientific evidence about transsexuality, calling multiple expert witness from around the world. The decision has been mentioned in evidence before the SCOTUS.
This is from the Deakin Law Review:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLRev/2004/22.html#Heading437
At paragraph [248]: ‘In my view the evidence is, in essence, that the experts believe that the brain development view is likely to be true, and they explain the basis for their beliefs. In the circumstances, I see no reason why I should not accept the proposition, on the balance of probabilities, for the purpose of this case.’
At paragraph [252]: ‘The traditional analysis that they are "psychologically" transsexual does not explain how this state came about. For example, there seems to be no suggestion in the evidence that their psychological state can be explained by reference to circumstances of their upbringing. In that sense, the brain sex theory does not seem to be competing with other explanations, but rather is providing a possible explanation of what is otherwise inexplicable’.
At paragraph [253]: ‘In other words (as I understand it) the brain of an individual may in some sense be male, for example, though the rest of the person’s body is female’.
At paragraph [265]: ‘In my view the argument in favour of the “brain sex" view is also based on evidence about the development and experience of transsexuals and others with atypical sex-related characteristics. There is a vast literature on this, some of which is in evidence, and I can do no more than mention briefly some of the main points’.
At paragraph [268]: ‘It seems quite wrong to think of these people as merely wishing or preferring to be of the opposite sex, or having the opinion that they are’.
At paragraph [270]: ‘But I am satisfied that the evidence now is inconsistent with the distinction formerly drawn between biological factors, meaning genitals, chromosomes and gonads, and merely "psychological factors", and on this basis distinguishing between cases of inter-sex (incongruities among biological factors) and transsexualism (incongruities between biology and psychology)’.
At paragraph [272]: ‘In my view the evidence demonstrates (at least on the balance of probabilities) that the characteristics of transsexuals are as much “biological” as those of people thought of as inter-sex’.
Some will continue to ignore the autopsy results. They will continue to ignore the fMRT imaging data. They will continue to ignore the experts on neurology, the surgical success rate, and any other data makes their comfy, simplistic world-view untenable.
All we can do is to continue gathering evidence (some of which is bound to contradict our own cherished beliefs, but that's Science), and to present it.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no-one is entitled to their own facts.
-
Transexuality is Heroic
And very American. This is the New World. The land of reinvention and self-definition. Think about it, someone from the first question (boy or girl?) has to please parents and playmates who take it for granted. Later, with puberty, social expectation just increases. Religion, Society, Genetics even the Mirror says one thing and the individual within, says "No!". Facing scorn shock horror this person decides to defy religion, family, society and follow whatever crazy path fate has destined. When that heroic being comes, not with chip on shoulder, but with a plea for acceptance, what is the answer? Refusal??? The only apposite word for this is, unmanly.
But, along with barney, we have to consider, what is given up in return? The possible passage in this particular cycle of a favored bill? that's a very traditional disappointment. And if it doesn't pass, unjust firings will occur? but who *hasn't* been unjustly fired? and yes, it hurts. makes us not want to get out of bed. but we get over it. and that is mild compared to far greater personal failings - the novel never written, the broken relationships never patched. and at the end, when we are finally gaining some equanimity, we sicken and die, leaving holes in the hearts of the only world that matters, those that love us. and what is asked? a gesture of love? what will be important on Judgement Day? -
What would the Reverend Dr. King say?
I believe he would say
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
Obviously, this applies to segregation, but I believe it applies here. This is not the first time that we trans people have been told to wait, or dumped off the civil rights bus. We were part of the gay rights movement when it began, and we've dedicated our money, our sweat, and our time to civil rights for GLBT people. But when it comes time to make a stand, you thank us for our work and kick us off the bus. You treat us as allies as long as you want something from us, but tell us to sit down and shut up when we want something from you.
We're in the movement because we have contributed (and still contribute) to the movement. I am sorry that this simple historical fact continues to escape your notice, but it remains, simply, the truth.
I do not support a trans-exclusive ENDA for the following reasons:
* I do not believe that any form of ENDA will pass. Bush will veto it. I do believe that if we can pass the bill through the house and senate now, even when Bush vetoes it, we'll know that we can pass it with a democratic president in two years.
* I do not believe that maintaining a trans-inclusive ENDA will hold up anyone's right for 20 years. That's pure emotive hyperbole that you're using to create the fear that us trannies will sabotage the whole thing, and further justify removing us from the bill so you can get your half a loaf. It's easy to settle for half a loaf when you lose nothing by doing so.
* I do not believe that once a crippled ENDA passes that we will see quite as much effort from, say, HRC and other gay and lesbian-oriented groups to support Barney Frank's desired GENDA. As you said, you'd settle for half a loaf... why should I - or any other trans person - believe that you really intend to support us on a second bill that you believe will take 20 years to pass anyway?
I find your "I don't see why I should be associated with a man who has his penis cut off" hyperbole to be offensive. Why would I - a lesbian trans woman - find any common cause with a gay man who... can I find an offensive enough stereotype here? Something as offensive as characterising trans women as "men who cut off their penises and get a surgically constructed vagina?" What the hell? Do you talk about everybody's genitalia in such frank terms, or is it only reserved for us uppity trannies?