Australia’s government last week officially recognized the category of “not-specified” as an alternative to either female or male in legal documents. The act which marked a shift in the binary gender system was the issuing of a ‘Sex Not Specified’ Recognized Details Certificate, in place of a birth certificate to an individual named Norrie. Norrie, now 48, was born an officially designated a male. After going through gender-reassignment hormone therapy and surgery, Zorrie was issued a gender recognition certificate and officially legally recognized as a female. However, the transition to female still left Zorrie unsatisfied with zir gender identity. Ze began to view sex and gender through the Eastern idea of yin and yang, that the two halves make up a greater whole. Working with a group called Sex and Gender Education, Zorrie began to be politically active in fighting against the idea that the two genders are mutually exclusive. If this stereotype was ended, Zorrie hypothezied that “in Western culture [we] would have more options for happiness if we too had permission not simply to be of one gender or the other, but also to be of both genders, if such was our nature." Zorrie’s new legal status in Australia appropriately represents zir identity and allows for correct legal representation.
This development reflects the harsh reality that in most countries, including the United States, every single person is cataloged as either male or female. In addition to falsely representing individuals’ identities who do not consider themselves either male or female, there can be severe legal implications as well. Zorrie blogs about this issue, saying that having to choose one gender on a document like a passport “makes the statement false, which is not acceptable for legal identity documentation, and puts me in danger of detention and assault.” It seems only logical that the legal code would embrace intersex to give them basic rights, considering intersex individuals have naturally existed for a long as humans have. Our society’s rigid binary of male-female reflects how much gender is socially constructed. Basic rights are denied to non-heterosexual groups in general, with the most glaring example being the lack of legal recognition for gay marriage.
The rigid binary system does not reflect medical reality, where there is much more of a continuum between the two genders than a harsh polarization between the masculine and the feminine. Although a fictional character, Cal from Jeffrey Eugenides’ novel Middlesex represents this well, as s/he does not completely identify with either gender. Cal did not feel particularly out of place growing up as a female, and not completely “at home” in the body of a man. The doctors involved in the treatment were ignorantly of the possibility of both genders co-existing in a single body. Initially, the presence of another set of genitalia was simply ignored and Calliope was considered 100% female. The next doctor wanted to remove all vestiges of masculine genitals present in Cal’s body and give hormone therapy to “fix the problem”. For Cal, having the identity of “not-specified gender” would have had the potential to make her life much better. Giving it a name is the first step in making intersex more accepted and embraced by society.
An interesting part of this article was that it uses the gender neutral pronoun “zie” to refer to Norrie. (Conjugated: Ze laughed, I called hir, hir eyes gleam, that is hirs, ze likes hirself, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun). Both the decision made by the Australian government and the rhetoric of the article reflect expansion from the binary system of gender as polarized between male or female. They allow for a third category, which is a prerequisite for further social progress. A change in legal code and a change in language are both necessary in our society.
The shift in legal classification reflects the growing need to expand from the binary system of only including the two polarized options of male and female. It represents an opportunity for doctors presented with an intersex baby at birth to not have to follow rigid scientific protocol or make an arbitrary decision to assign a gender which could have potentially huge repercussions for the individual later in life. Instead of using inch measurements of the penis or chromosomal analysis, the child can be registered as “Sex not specified”. It reduces the urgency of the situation, which would ideally allow for more time to arrive at the appropriate decision, if a decision need be made. Parents, therapists, doctors, and the child can all discuss the matter without a pressing need to check the box either male or female, an issue that Anne-Fausto Sterling raises in Sexing the Body. Sterling aptly criticizes the system in which the deciding factor of a baby’s gender is the doctor’s subjective opinion.
What change does this truly bring about or represent? While this development is a huge
marker of progress for the intersex community, one way to view it is that it indicates only legal advancement and not radical social change. It can be analogized to the American Psychological Association removing homosexuality from its classification as a mental disorder. This was a huge step forward for the gay community, but did not end the discrimination and prejudices that plague those of non-heterosexual orientation to this day. However, in this case, small legal change can signify momentous progress for the individuals who are intersex. It may be a small change for those who have already had to choose between the two sexes, but for future births it can mean a promise of a more true identity. It will not alleviate prejudice, stereotypes, or discrimination, but it can help families and babies who are born intersex to have a more nuanced approach instead of jumping to give the child a “normal” life as either a male or female. Tracie O’Keefe describes this radical step forward as “an enormous legal breakthrough for the rights of intersex children whose doctors and parents are confused about their sex at births and that they could be registered as ‘Sex Not Specified’ until they decide what sex would be right for them”, which would avoid intersex children being “forced into male and female identities, when not medically necessary, which they later felt were incorrect, including unnecessary brutal surgery to give them stereotypical looking genitalia, often leaving them without sensation or function.”
The change in legal code to adopt a more progressive approach to gender reflects Kenji Yoshino’s conception of current discrimination taking the form of forced covering. While it may be legally acceptable for someone to have “non-specified” gender, the reality of society, especially regarding employment, is that while legal terms and abstract notions might indicate equality, the actual treatment of intersex individuals is far from equal. Society maintains the categorization of its people as male or female because it such a convention makes things easier. It is hard for people to wrap their heads around intersex people being comfortable being neither solely male nor solely female. “Covering” for intersex involves outwardly choosing one sex as their public or outward identity. Zorrie writes that ze received a lot of discrimination for being androgynous, which was one of the reasons for the initial surgical transition to becoming a woman.
In a rather depressing sequence events since I began writing this, the document that granted Zorrie gender-neutral status was revoked. Attorney-General John Hatzistergos issued a statement that the registrar acted wrongly and it “may only issue a recognised detail certificate or a new birth certificate following a change of sex in either male or female gender”. Zorrie reported that the registry had responded to her by saying they were unable to enter gender unspecified into their computers, but would work with computer programmers, adding “It is the job of the system to fit the people it serves, not the job of the people to fit the system”. This issue reflects the difficulty and potential ineffectiveness of working within the system to effect change. Adding a third category for gender can still make the third category be just “the other” in relation to retained heteronormativity. Working outside of the system and creating entirely new ideas of what is male, female, neither, or both, could be the only effective way for the intersex community to be represented legally and given civil rights and recognition by mainstream society.
Regardless of the status of this legal situation, Zorrie is an individual who is neither male nor female. Eventually, the law must catch up with the status of individuals. Unfortunately, by requiring classification as either male or female, it remains representative of an antiquated system of binary gender polarization.
Sources:
http://www.awid.org/eng/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News/Australia-is-first-to-recognise-non-specified-gender
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1217232/Sex-'non-specified'-certificate-invalid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment