News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Amelia Pond on August 10, 2013, 11:06:14 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Transgender issues: Sexual reassignment surgery as ‘forced sterilization’
Post by: Amelia Pond on August 10, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
Post by: Amelia Pond on August 10, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
Transgender issues: Sexual reassignment surgery as 'forced sterilization'
Jillian, August 10, 2013, 8:50 am
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2013/08/10/transgender-issues-sexual-reassignment-surgery-as-forced-sterilization/
I wonder how many transitioning people feel that sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) is "forced sterilization"? How many would not have undergone SRS if they had been able to change their gender marker without the surgery? It's a controversial subject for some: most countries require people to have SRS to change genders.
Personally speaking, I know several people who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery, and everyone of them wanted the surgery. They wanted it badly, and might have ended their lives if they didn't have it. They identified as women... and wanted their bodies to be every bit as female as possible. Not one of them felt they were "forced" into it...
Jillian, August 10, 2013, 8:50 am
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2013/08/10/transgender-issues-sexual-reassignment-surgery-as-forced-sterilization/
I wonder how many transitioning people feel that sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) is "forced sterilization"? How many would not have undergone SRS if they had been able to change their gender marker without the surgery? It's a controversial subject for some: most countries require people to have SRS to change genders.
Personally speaking, I know several people who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery, and everyone of them wanted the surgery. They wanted it badly, and might have ended their lives if they didn't have it. They identified as women... and wanted their bodies to be every bit as female as possible. Not one of them felt they were "forced" into it...
Title: Re: Transgender issues: Sexual reassignment surgery as ‘forced sterilization’
Post by: suzifrommd on August 10, 2013, 03:39:43 PM
Post by: suzifrommd on August 10, 2013, 03:39:43 PM
I honestly think the surgical requirements for a gender marker change is a pernicious result of the media's obsession with surgery as a culmination of the transition process rather than an accompaniment that might or might not be right for each individual person.
Voters and politicians read/watch a few stories and assume they're experts so they don't see any problem with requiring surgery for gender marker change.
And yes, we, the TG community, are partly to blame. Too many of us have a "who cares what people think about us" or a "It's not worth trying to educate people" attitude so we allow the media to define us.
Voters and politicians read/watch a few stories and assume they're experts so they don't see any problem with requiring surgery for gender marker change.
And yes, we, the TG community, are partly to blame. Too many of us have a "who cares what people think about us" or a "It's not worth trying to educate people" attitude so we allow the media to define us.
Title: My Thoughts on the SRS Question/Sexual Reassignment Surgery: “Inhumane”Treatment
Post by: Jenna Marie on August 10, 2013, 04:07:25 PM
Post by: Jenna Marie on August 10, 2013, 04:07:25 PM
My Thoughts on the SRS Question
Jillian, April 21, 2012. 8:31 am
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/04/21/my-thoughts-on-the-srs-question/
I've been thinking about the SRS issue and re-reading all the comments from readers about the "mandatory SRS" question.
First, one doesn't need a crystal ball to see that governments are going to have to make some changes to the current gender marker system. Indeed, some have already done so, in limited ways, such as allowing people in transition to change the marker on their driver's licences.
The bigger issue is whether people who are not planning to have sexual reassignment surgery, particularly MtF folks, should be allowed to obtain a Female gender designation on birth certificates. I'm glad I'm not the person who has to make a sweeping decision on this issue. But I strongly suspect that governments will maintain their current regulations on this, with exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------
Sexual Reassignment Surgery: "Inhumane" Treatment?
Jillian, July 9, 2012. 9:05 am
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/07/09/sexual-reassignment-surgery-inhumane-treatment/
Reports out of Australia are applauding efforts there to abolish the law that requires people to have sexual reassignment surgery to legally change gender. This is an issue that has been popping up in countries around the world, with such terms as "inhumane" treatment and "human rights violations."
I can only speak for myself on this, and would never try to dictate how it should be for other people.
Thus, I, for one, wanted sexual reassignment surgery. Nobody forced me to do it. In fact, I couldn't wait to get it done — go back and read the blog posts here leading up to my surgery in October 2009. My biggest fear was that something would delay my surgery. If Quebec laws had been amended to let people change genders without having SRS, I would have had it anyway.
---------------------
For me, it was sterilization, but it wasn't forced. I was delighted. I don't, however, think everyone should have to feel like me - or get major, expensive surgery - to legally change their gender.
That said, Jillian's column has previously gone on before about how everyone should be required to prove they're serious by getting GRS, and she has opposed allowing gender marker changes without it.
Jillian, April 21, 2012. 8:31 am
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/04/21/my-thoughts-on-the-srs-question/
I've been thinking about the SRS issue and re-reading all the comments from readers about the "mandatory SRS" question.
First, one doesn't need a crystal ball to see that governments are going to have to make some changes to the current gender marker system. Indeed, some have already done so, in limited ways, such as allowing people in transition to change the marker on their driver's licences.
The bigger issue is whether people who are not planning to have sexual reassignment surgery, particularly MtF folks, should be allowed to obtain a Female gender designation on birth certificates. I'm glad I'm not the person who has to make a sweeping decision on this issue. But I strongly suspect that governments will maintain their current regulations on this, with exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------
Sexual Reassignment Surgery: "Inhumane" Treatment?
Jillian, July 9, 2012. 9:05 am
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/07/09/sexual-reassignment-surgery-inhumane-treatment/
Reports out of Australia are applauding efforts there to abolish the law that requires people to have sexual reassignment surgery to legally change gender. This is an issue that has been popping up in countries around the world, with such terms as "inhumane" treatment and "human rights violations."
I can only speak for myself on this, and would never try to dictate how it should be for other people.
Thus, I, for one, wanted sexual reassignment surgery. Nobody forced me to do it. In fact, I couldn't wait to get it done — go back and read the blog posts here leading up to my surgery in October 2009. My biggest fear was that something would delay my surgery. If Quebec laws had been amended to let people change genders without having SRS, I would have had it anyway.
---------------------
For me, it was sterilization, but it wasn't forced. I was delighted. I don't, however, think everyone should have to feel like me - or get major, expensive surgery - to legally change their gender.
That said, Jillian's column has previously gone on before about how everyone should be required to prove they're serious by getting GRS, and she has opposed allowing gender marker changes without it.