Saturday, August 28, 2010
submission to Administrative Decision Tribunal 18 August 2010, Norrie V Registrar Births Deaths and Marriages
- How I come to be here is a little confusing, as the Respondent has already complied with my wishes, and extensively documented how they made those changes, and I am left with no real understanding of why they have been persuaded to insist their every move before the case went public was not just a mistake but indeed a series of consecutive failures to properly administer the law by not one but at least three senior people working in the department of law and justice (ie the Births Deaths and Marriages Registrar, the Manager of Amendments Section of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and the Policy Advisor from the Attorney General's department.) I thank the Respondent for making the right decision in the first place, and for the evidence they have provided for my case in their submissions.
- The Respondent's first submission dated 29 April, tab 16, shows the proper steps taken to issue my certificate. STEP THRU THE PROCESS DOCUMENTED BY THE RESPONDENT
- As the Respondent points out, sex according to the Oxford English Dictionary is not just male or female but may also be a third option, or third sex, consisting of (a) eunuchs and transsexuals, to quote the pertinent clause. There is an attempt in the submission made on behalf of the Respondent (2 July 2010, paragraph 40) to present this as a straw man argument, in claiming that the source is a historical dictionary, however, "transsexual" is a current term, coined in 1947, hardly Shakespearean but modern times, and indeed in modern use, as is the concept of "third sex", or a third alternative to the more common two categories of sexes, still part of modern language and understanding, as it was when the Transgender laws of 1996 were passed.
- The Act talks about intersex people, directly and unambiguously implying an understanding that people can be, and can be legally recognised to be, other than strictly male or female.
- Further, the Act talks about "correcting or eliminating ambiguities", directly and unambiguously implying that there is a space between correcting and eliminating ambiguities, allowing for a person to be other than 100% male or 100% female. And indeed, this is the part of the Act that applies to me, for I had surgery to correct or eliminate any ambiguity about my sex being, in the framework of male or female, non specific, that is, in the terms agreed to by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and by the Respondent, prior to the change of opinion generated by the Crown Solicitor's Office now representing them, sex not specified.
- The legislation in section 32A confirms that a sex affirmation procedure includes not only changing a persons sex from one gender to another, but importantly also correcting or eliminating ambiguities relating to the sex of the person. This second element of the definition of sex affirmation procedure is relevant to my case in that the statutory declarations of Doctors Kearley and Schultheiss evidence that as a result of my sex affirmation procedure I am unambiguously not male or female, but rather have a sex status that has been affirmatively described as "non specific."
- The form issued by the Respondent for medical certification in this matter has the phrase "male" stroke "female" in brackets as a guide for completing doctors, but of course this is not proscriptive, in giving the usual options, and the form does not ask the doctor to cross out or circle one of only two possible options, but gives open space for the doctor to certify what sex the subject is, perhaps with reference to the normal sex categories, and in accordance with the form and the Act and the regulations, my doctors certified the truth of my sex in this part of the form as "Non-Specific", which is, in terms of male or female, what I am. It is absurd to insist, as the Respondent does in their submission, that because a form gives a suggestion, this suggestion is proscriptive. The Respondent took a much more reasonable view of this in the time before the Crown Solicitor's Office suddenly decided it had all been a horrible mistake after it hit the front page.
- It is a plain and straightforward matter: I have been neutered, I am neuter. This is not Spanish, this is not a new post-modern language or some ancient historical curiosity, this is the plain English reality of my sex. Neuter, not one or the other, to use the root meaning of the word, in Middle German, "ne itter" that is, Not Other, or Not Either. Non-Specific, to use the phrase used by the doctors in certifying the sex I am as a result of the surgery that, in neutering me, eliminated any ambiguity about my sex being neuter. "Not Specified", to use the phrase agreed to by the Respondent before they arranged to change their entire computer system to accommodate the acknowledged reality of a third sex option. The Respondent's entire case at this point seems to be the insistence by repetition that the only acceptable answers to the question of what sex a person can be are "male", or "female", and no other answers are permissible, although they sang an entirely different song before they issued the certification. Against this is the simple fact of my sex being non-specific, as you may plainly see, and as certified by the doctors, and indeed, after much consideration and consultation, by the Respondent, prior to their change of heart after what the Attorney General described to parliament as "media ventilation".
- Three sex categories have been recognised by the International Civil Aviation Organization since 1947, M for Male, F for Female, and < for Unspecified
- It is an accepted principle of law, as i understand it, that that which is not prohibited is permissible. There is no prohibition against ambiguity of sex in the Act, and indeed it explicitly recognises the possibilities of there being ambiguities, and of having those ambiguities corrected or eliminated. That the form produced under the regulations of the act has a suggested framework of firstly indicating that a person has had surgery to correct or eliminate ambiguity, and then separately stating what the new sex is, allows for a variety of results. In my case, I had surgery to correct or eliminate any ambiguity about me being androgynous, and as a result, my actual sex is not specific, that is, in the framework of male or female, it is not specifically either. Before the surgery the reality was that I was intersex, but perceived as biologically male, and to correct this, I had my testes removed, and I am now, therefor, by definition, and by self identification, and by how I am seen in my community, a eunuch. Neuter, androgynous, eunuch, third sex, non specific sex, there are indeed, contrary to the Respondent's submission, many ways in modern current English to conceive of people who are not strictly male or female. The phrase recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission in the Sex Files Report (previously tendered in evidence) is “Sex not specified”, and the Respondent initially dealt with my request in line with the recommendations of this report. I note the Respondent was represented at the launch of the Sex Files Report, as noted in the Australian Human Rights Commission Annual Report previously tendered in evidence. They clearly took the recommendations made in that report as to how to accommodate people like me that are "sex not specified" in accepting my request, correcting their computer system, and issuing my certification.
- The case was dealt with in a plain and straightforward manner to start with, and proceeded in a plain accountable way through the verification of my details with the doctors, the consultation with the Policy Advisor verifying that my application complied with the Act, the approval of my application by both the Manager of Amendments and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registrar, and the department wide change to the computer system to accommodate this third sex status. There is no lawful cause preventing the recognition of my sex as "Not Specified", and every reason to uphold the original decisions to issue my certification as requested, and to reject the Respondent's post-publicity assertion that, in a Act that deals with changes of sex and with intersex people and with "correcting or eliminating ambiguities", my sex cannot possibly be other than male or female. Well it is, doctors have certified such, the Respondent has recognised such, and, it is the reality.
- By not acknowledging my status as ‘Sex Not Specified’, as attested by the doctors, the Respondent is soliciting me to act in a fraudulent manner in my everyday dealings by encouraging me to mislead people about my sex status. The Respondent cannot reject the medical evidence. They say they do not know what sex I am but they have the medical evidence which they accepted. To paraphrase the judgment handed down in the case of In Re Kevin ( documented at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2003/94.htmls) , a federal case that illustrates how legal identification of sex is done where one's adult sex may be at variance with what's documented at birth,