SRS: Necessary?

[Shana A]

SRS: Necessary?

By JillPage Tue, Jan 11 2011 Patent Pending

http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/patentpending/archive/2011/01/11/srs-necessary.aspx

Something a little more serious to discuss . . .

We've probably talked about this here before, but I know there are many new readers here, so I'll introduce the subject again.

Some trans people feel that having sexual reassignment surgery should not be a prerequisite to changing official gender status. They feel that it is enough to identify -- and live in -- the opposite gender to which they were born. Some even feel that surgery is "unnecessary mutilation." If they had their way, transitioned females could keep their male bits but still be legally classified as "females."

[rejennyrated]

In essence it partly depends on whether you are talking about sex or gender. The two are not the same. I am on record as arguing for the requirement of reassignment surgery for legal recognition in the UK at the time of the gender recognition act. I have to say I did so because I felt at the time that theres was a good chance that the wider public would not accept the broader definition of gender and therefore I felt the legislation should concentrate on addressing the problems of those of us whose physical sexual characteristics had been unambiguously modified.

I was worried that a law founded on the wider and more inclusive principle might easily fall into disrepute and drag those of us who had undergone SRS into the living nightmare that existed in the UK before the act.

I admit it was a selfish position which essentially amounted to ditching a large part of the community in order to safe guard the protections for a smaller cross section to which I belong, and in retrospect I am not proud of that fact.

For the record I would like to apologise to anyone who recalls my comments at the time, made to the team drafting the bill. I have to admit that subsequent events seem to have proved me wrong. The bill has stood and the public do not seem to have rejected it.

Thus I now have a different position. I think that  those who choose, for whatever reason, to live and present in a gender which does not fully accord with the body that they occupy should indeed enjoy legal recognition and protection.

We are all human. We all deserve to be recognised for what we are. In 2003 I was wrong and I apologise unreservedly.

[Janet_Girl]

After I had my Orchidectomy, the Social Security Office changed my gender to "female".  My driver license is also marked "female".  The only thing that is not altered is the birth certificate.  That will take $140 and a court order.

So rather than spend that money on a possible 'No', I am going to wait till I have SRS.

And for me, SRS is a necessary need.  It will complete me, for me.

[spacial]

  The only thing that is not altered is the birth certificate.  That will take $140 and a court order.

So rather than spend that money on a possible 'No', I am going to wait till I have SRS.

Janet.

Is changing your birth certificate a matter of subjective legal judgement?

I would have thought that it would be based upon set criteria.

I don't mean to pry into your local laws, but just curious.

[Janet_Girl]

In Oregon, where I live, you have to file a Gender-change with the courts.  And that is the $140.   Once it is granted, you then quest the change with vital statistics.  That is another $46- 60.  It is all a money getting scheme.

[Vicky]

In Oregon, where I live, you have to file a Gender-change with the courts.  And that is the $140.   Once it is granted, you then quest the change with vital statistics.  That is another $46- 60.  It is all a money getting scheme.

Janet:
A few miles south of you in California, there is a way to get the fees waived. Its by proving that you are too broke to pay for the legal filing.  The phrase is "In Forma Pauperis", and you do have to swear under penalty of perjury that you live on minimal income, and that paying the fees will be an economic hardship.

Spacial;
The judge's position in this thing is pretty cut and dried, and as long as it is not being done to defraud any person or to avoid legal obligations, the order will be given based on very modest proof.  Name change and gender change issues will be given if it is shown by a "preponderance of the evidence" (same as in a civil law trial) that third parties will not be harmed by your actions or the court's. 

[Naari]

Some trans people feel that having sexual reassignment surgery should not be a prerequisite to changing official gender status. They feel that it is enough to identify -- and live in -- the opposite gender to which they were born. Some even feel that surgery is "unnecessary mutilation." If they had their way, transitioned females could keep their male bits but still be legally classified as "females."

IMO, no, SRS should not be a requirement for a legal change of gender status.

I think that  those who choose, for whatever reason, to live and present in a gender which does not fully accord with the body that they occupy should indeed enjoy legal recognition and protection.

I agree with this, however, I can see a situation arising from it immediately if other related issues aren't dealt with at the same time. Hypothetically, let's say there is a person that wishes to present as either both male and female, or neither. An individual that feels they fall within the spectrum between male and female. This person does not fully identify with either. What legal protections can we offer to this individual under a binary, male/female system of recognition?

In my opinion, to extend legal protections and recognitions to everyone based on gender, there must be at the least, a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth selection. Ideally there would need to be as many selections as there are points between male and female. To add that many selections is not practical and probably impossible. What, then, to do at that point? Would it be possible to get rid of the legal protections extended to one labeled as man and one labeled as woman? If we were able to do that, instead of adding additional terms, or changing requirements, would it make the selection of gender obsolete in the legal sense? This would have to be researched to see what protections are extended to one that is male and one that is female, if they do exist, and how they differ. I do not know what these are, if they exist, and if they are different. I do not know if it is a viable option or if it is preferential to adding additional selections. I am just presenting my thoughts but could there be a way to extend recognition and protection to all human beings regardless of sex or gender? Is that possible and is it enough?

[CaitJ]

IMO, no, SRS should not be a requirement for a legal change of gender status.

Especially considering that a large percentage of trans men won't have SRS, for various reasons.