Should transsexuals be legally recognised as the sex they have transitioned to?

[Adam]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45748

What do you guys think about this? At what point should a transgendered person be able to legally change their sex? What about the pregnant transsexual guys mentioned?

In early September, two transsexual men lost an appeal in Western Australia’s Supreme Court to be legally recognised as men. The negative ruling has consequences for other transsexual and transgender cases. The men are considering appealing to a higher body.

Gina Wilson, spokesperson for Organisation Intersex Internationale (OIS), told Green Left Weekly: “The two appellants underwent top surgery [mastectomies] and were on hormone replacement therapy — testosterone. They were living as men and accepted as men by society and friends.

“They wanted cardinal [primary] documents such as birth certificates to reflect their lived gender. They had not undertaken bottom surgery [hysterectomies]. All three judges agreed the two appellants’ lived sex roles were men. However, they decided they didn't have the anatomical requirements to qualify for the male role. The judges decided where the line between a man and woman lies.”

Evidence suggests that hysterectomies to reduce the female body’s sexual characteristics are dangerous.

In a September 9 Gay News Network article, appellant AH said: “As part of our case, we bought forth a large body of evidence regarding the risks associated with hysterectomy surgery including bleeding, incontinence, reduced sexual function and increased risk of other medical conditions including osteoporosis and heart disease.”

Wilson noted: “The judges said they were concerned at the case of transsexual men who came off hormones and had a baby — of which there were two cases in the United States, with transgender female to male Thomas Beattie being the most famous.

“This judgement means there is no longer gender recognition about gender roles.

“It is now about sex bits and parts. AH and HF were capable of having bottom surgery, but they did not want to. They hung onto too many female parts, said the judges.

“For intersex people, our bodies challenge the rigid gender binaries: if intersex people go to court over qualifying as a woman, for the pension at 63 (not 65 as when men are eligible), then this judgement will work against us. It legally qualifies what bits and parts make up a ‘real’ woman.

“We should be outraged at this judgement: it is policing of the human body. This WA judgement is sexist essentialism. But it is our body, our lives — we know if we are woman, man, or neither. If judges, or anyone, are curious, they should just ask.”

[Adam]

this my only thread that doesn't have a reply

[The_Chosen_One]

Hadn't heard of that one. Really does open up a can of worms there.

[Adam]

You mean the pregnant guys ?

['andersom']

I don't get why it should be on documents anyway what gender you are. Pictures and fingerprints are enough to identify a person, if it is legally necessary.

[Adam]

Exactly! I completely agree. I don't see why anyone should care what sex/gender someone is anyway. Unless you're my doctor or you wanna fuck me, why does it matter to you? (not you as in you btw )

[Osensitive1]

That is a tough one. This is a case of someone who hasn't completed the transition asking for changes in legal documents. Their case may very well may be a detriment to transexuals as a whole.

[The_Chosen_One]

You mean the pregnant guys ?

The whole issue of when to recognise trans people. Hysterectomy alone can't decide the outcome, as lots of females have them and are still females. Same with mastectomies and hormones. It's really hard to put a line in the sand where the call would be made.

I understand the concern about the pension viewpoint, mainly because of the ruling that men have to retire at a later age than women (although that may be looked at sometime). Imagine a man getting a sex change in their mid fifties to try to qualify for early retirement or early pension. Or in the case mentioned, where a woman gets a sex change at pension age, does that person have to pay back the pension because of a false claim?

Hmmm..... You do raise some interesting topics Soph.

['andersom']

There is a difference in retirement age for men and women in Australia?

[Adam]

There shouldn't be imo.

Anyway, I think it's about whther you live your life as [whichever sex you are transitioning to].
I mean just because someone doesn't have a penis, if he lives his life as a man and is male in every way but biology, he should be registered as male if anything. But like hyke said, it shouldn't even be documented anyway. it is no one else's business. Unfortunately, society doesn't agree.

[The_Chosen_One]

There is a difference in retirement age for men and women in Australia?

Yeah, if you go on a Centrelink old-age pension, women can get it earlier than men. It used to be women aged 60 and men aged 65, but they've shifted the goalposts a bit and are encouraging men atleast to work to 70 and women to 65 before becoming eligible. It comes down to DOB at certain times and when the new Act was passed.

Government superannuation is payable at 55 for both sexes, but that's even being looked into as well.

Thank Christ there aren't these guidelines for DSP.

[Adam]

can't imagine wanting to do this

http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2010/11/04/15972521-wenn-story.html

Thomas Beatie, the world's first transgender man to give birth, is hoping to make history again - by becoming the world's first transgender surrogate.

The 36-year-old and his wife Nancy welcomed their third son in July and now Beatie has plans to get pregnant again - to help couples who can't conceive.

He tells Life & Style magazine, "When I was first approached with the idea, I thought it was crazy. Then I thought about what it means and what having a family means to us. I thought, 'This is a huge deal and I’m capable of it, why not?'

"If I can do this and help make another family fulfill their dream of having a child, then that’s what I want to do."

And if that plan doesn't work out, Beatie, who was a subject of an Oprah Winfrey TV expose, is hoping to have one more kid of his own: "If we don’t find the right family for surrogacy, I think I have one more person inside of me."

[Frolic_Fun]

I disagree when it comes to the ugly eejits that don't even look like the sex they've transistioned to. If they can be very convincing, then I don't see why not.

However, I see it as being a bit deceptive too. If they can be legally whatever sex they want, some transexuals may not tell their partners at all about their original sex, especially if said partner wants to reproduce and/or does not like the idea that the person was originally the opposite sex they're not attracted to. You can't force people to change their sexual preferences, after all.

[Adam]

I think people should be honest with their partners

But you're not really changing their sexual preferences - theyre obviously attracted to you as you are, or they wouldnt be with you. so it's not about their sexual preferences changing - it's about them not being comfortable with their sexual preferences (imo)... which is their problem really.
ie I could say I wouldn't be comfortable being with someone whose past life was x, y or z, but they're not legally required to inform me of everything in their past. I think people SHOULD be honest with each other, but don't see why a sex change should be subject to some kind of legal requirements where other aspects of someone's past aren;t. Dunno if I've explained myself well

Also people who are infertile can choose to hide that from potential partners too

So I agree you should tell your gf/bf. But it's not really a transsexual issue, more an issue of honesty/trust itself

[Frolic_Fun]

But you're not really changing their sexual preferences - theyre obviously attracted to you as you are, or they wouldnt be with you.

That only works if the person was okay with being a transexual.

so it's not about their sexual preferences changing - it's about them not being comfortable with their sexual preferences (imo)... which is their problem really.

People should be allowed to be straight though. No problems with people who like trannies, but if you don't find them attracted then I don't see why they need to me. I know you are not explicity saying that, but I do see more and more people being grilled simply because they're not attracted to the same sex and such.

ie I could say I wouldn't be comfortable being with someone whose past life was x, y or z, but they're not legally required to inform me of everything in their past.

If my partner was originally male, she should tell me since as you said yourself: couples need to be honest with each other. Personally I'd accept that and move on, but some people won't. I don't see it as insecurity unless the person reacted really badly to it.

Also people who are infertile can choose to hide that from potential partners too

I also find that deceptive. Same with STDs, I'd rather would know if my partner had something that could harm me.

So I agree you should tell your gf/bf. But it's not really a transsexual issue, more an issue of honesty/trust itself

My point was more honesty/trust too.