Sex And Gender Education

(SAGE)

Australia

SAGE has prepared an Equality Policy Guidance Document for the federal government, outlining areas in legislation that need attention to ensure that all sex and gender diverse people are accorded full equal, human rights.

View the document as a PDF file HERE (you will need ADOBE ACROBAT READER to view the file - download the free program at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)

From the newsletter of the World Association for Sexual Health (WAS) newsletter, November 2007

The Sexual Health for the Millennium Declaration

The promotion of sexual health is central to the attainment of wellness and well-being and the achievement of sustainable
development and more specifically to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Individuals
and communities who experience well-being are better positioned to contribute to the eradication of individual
and societal poverty. By nurturing individual and social responsibility and equitable social interactions, promotion
of sexual health fosters quality of life and the realization of peace. Therefore we urge all governments, international
agencies, private sector, academic institutions and society at large, and particularly, all member organizations of the
World Association for Sexual Health to:
1. Recognize, promote, ensure and protect sexual rights for all
Sexual rights are an integral component of basic human rights and therefore are inalienable and universal. Sexual health is an integral component
of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Sexual health cannot be obtained or maintained without
sexual rights for all.
2. Advance toward gender equality and equity
Sexual health requires gender equality, equity and respect. Gender-related inequities and imbalances of power deter constructive and
harmonic human interactions and therefore the attainment of sexual health.
3. Condemn, combat and reduce all forms of sexuality related violence
Sexual health cannot be attained until people are free of stigma, discrimination, sexual abuse, coercion and violence.
4. Provide universal access to comprehensive sexuality education and information
To achieve sexual health, all individuals, including youth, must have access to comprehensive sexuality education and sexual health information
and services throughout the life cycle.
5. Ensure that reproductive health programs recognize the centrality of sexual health
Reproduction is one of the critical dimensions of human sexuality and may contribute to strengthening relationships and personal fulfillment
when desired and planned. Sexual health encompasses reproductive health. Current reproductive health programs must be broadened
to address the various dimensions of sexuality and sexual health in a comprehensive manner.
6. Halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STI)
Universal access to effective prevention, voluntary counseling and testing, comprehensive care and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STI
are equally essential to sexual health. Programs that assure universal access must be scaled up immediately.
7. Identify, address and treat sexual concerns, dysfunctions and disorders
Since sexual concerns, dysfunctions and disorders impact quality of life, it is critical to recognize, prevent and treat sexual concerns, dysfunctions
and disorders.
8. Achieve recognition of sexual pleasure as a component of holistic health and well-being
Sexual health is more than the absence of disease. The right to sexual pleasure should be universally recognized and promoted.
It is essential that international, regional, national and local plans of action for sustainable development prioritize
sexual health interventions, allocate sufficient resources, address systemic, structural and community barriers and
monitor progress.

In 2006, in response to well-documented patterns of abuse, a distinguished group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The result was the Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.

Visit http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en.htm to read the document.

This year the Transgender Day Of Remembrance (TDOR) will be commemorated on Sunday the 18th of November.

The event will be held at Bar Me, 154 Brougham Street (cnr William Street) Kings Cross, Sydney.

The most recent details will always be found at http://webspinning.org/tdor2007/

The current state is:

1:00pm Welcome and Announcements
1:05pm "Surviving Life and Death on the Edge" - norrie mAy-welby
1:30pm Light refreshments, with Jade Starr playing appropriate songs.
2:05pm Panel Discussion
3:05pm Pit Stop
3:10pm Movie: "different for Girls", with food and drink available.
5:00pm Thank you and goodbye.

The TDOR committee would like to invite you, or your nominee, to join the Panel for the Discussion. RSVP.

This is a public event. All welcome.

Tribunal passport ruling creates a same-sex marriage

By Katrina Fox

Two lesbians became the first legal same-sex married couple in Australia this week when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) handed down a judgement in relation to a trans woman’s right to a female passport.

Grace Abrams has a male birth certificate. Between 2001 and October 2005, she began her transition to female, marrying her partner Fiona Power in September 2005 prior to the completion of her transition. In April 2006 Abrams applied for an Australian passport denoting her as female.

The Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer refused to issue Abrams with a female passport because she had been unable to supply an amended birth certificate stating her gender as female. She was unable to do this on account of being married (the Manual of Australian Passport Issue states that married trans people wishing to change their birth certificate must first divorce their partner). Downer admitted that his decision not to grant Abrams a female passport was “informed by the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) which does not recognise marriage between two people of the same gender”.

Abrams lodged a complaint with the AAT, arguing that a birth certificate was required only to establish that a person is an Australian citizen and therefore eligible for a passport, and that she could prove her female identity through a raft of other documents.

In the judgement handed down this week, Justice Rodney Purvis agreed. “The policy guidance contained in … the Manual, in this respect, is not able to be complied with by Ms Abrams through no fault of her own”. He went on to state: “There are markers of identity which can change over one’s life … It is not so much the identity of the person as she or he was in the past, but the identity of the person as at the time of the application, that is of prime importance.”

Justice Purvis said he was “satisfied as to the citizenship and identity” of Abrams and directed the Foreign Affairs Minister to issue her with a female passport, effectively making her and Power the first legally-recognised same-sex couple in the country.

Abrams urged other married trans people to apply for a passport in their current gender before the government appealed the decision.

“Forcing someone to divorce their spouse so they can get a passport denoting their rightful sex is illegal because the couple would have to commit perjury and lie, saying that the relationship had broken down irretrievably,” she told SX.

Downer responds to passport Question on Notice

Meanwhile, Downer responded to a Question on Notice from Greens Senator Kerry Nettle regarding the safety of trans people who wish to travel overseas. As reported by SX (#341), an amendment was made to passport legislation earlier this year denying pre-operative trans people an interim passport stating their intended sex. Those wishing to travel would have to do so either on a passport denoting their birth sex or a Document of Identity (DOI). Lobby groups condemned the decision, arguing that it would put trans people’s safety at risk.

Downer denied that travelling on either document increased trans people’s risk of harassment; however his response is in contradiction to a letter handed to trans people by his department when applying for a passport, which acknowledges that “some countries do not regard a Document of Identity as a valid travel document”; and that a DOI may lead to customs officers in some countries to “harass the bearer at entry points”.

Trans woman Stefanie Imbruglia, who was denied an interim female passport recently in order to travel to Thailand for gender realignment surgery, told SX: “The original law outlining interim passports was put in place after a trans woman was arrested in Singapore for having a male passport. Today, due to the change in legislation, that is a possibility I face.”

To read the AAT judgement in PDF format between Abrams and Foreign Minister, click HERE.

To read two version of the Australian Passport Offices guidelines, check Zoe Brain's blogspot:

2005 guidelines can be read at: http://members.webone.com.au/~aebrain/MAPI2005.pdf

2007 guidelines can be read at: http://members.webone.com.au/~aebrain/MAPI2007.pdf

SAGE has sent a questionnaire to the major political parties asking them to set out their stance on rights for sex and gender diverse people.
SAGE spokesperson Norrie May-Welby has written to the Australian Greens, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Liberal Party, the National Party, Socialist Alliance and Family First Party in order to establish their policies with regard to sex and gender diverse people and their partners, children and families, so that voters can be better informed.
The parties have been asked to return the completed questionnaire by September 1 so that SAGE can publicise the responses in time for the federal election expected from October this year.

Tasmanian trans activist Martine Delaney is the recipient of this year's Sex And Gender Education (SAGE)'s Human Rights Award, which recognises an individual's contribution to furthering the rights of sex- and gender-diverse people.

Delaney uncovered Liberal Party links to anti-trans and anti-gay election advertisements authorised by members of religious sect, Exclusive Brethren, and is currently bringing a case through the state's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

There was a small but dedicated group gathered at Parliament House in Macquarie St on November 20th to commemorate transgendered people who have been murdered, and address the violence and fear systemically affecting transgendered people. There was a showing of "A Girl Like Me", the Gwen Araujo story, a telemovie about a transgendered Latino teenager beaten savagely to death by a group of homophobic men in the USA in 2002.

This was followed by a panel discussion with NSW Upper House MPs Penny Sharpe (ALP) and Lee Rhiannon-Jones (Greens), and other long-term advocates for transgendered people [all pictured in attached picture, and named in caption],including this writer.

Penny Sharpe MLC (ALP) told of her experiences as a same-sex-partnered parent of primary school students, and spoke of the state government's support for diversity in education. Lee Rhiannon-Jones MLC (Greens) said she had moved a private bill to clean up gaps left in the Anti Discrimination Act exempting private religious schools. Rhiannon-Jones told the panel this bill will not be heard until Parliament resumes next year, and only then if there is considerable support gathered for it.

The gathering discussed personal survival stories and reactions, and supported the need for education to support acceptance of diversity.

Disclaimer: The writer is regularly taunted as “tranny, tranny” by ignorant children who sometimes throw missiles. I have survived 45 years and a bus, and am living in fear of no body no way no how.

Photo: Ian Gould, courtesy Sydney Star Observer

The genetics behind intersex babies are among the projects from the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (IMB) that will receive funding from the latest round of Australian Research Council grants.

Professor Peter Koopman will receive over $1.5 million to study the genetics and development of intersex babies, who are born with characteristics of both sexes.

"Sex reversal and intersex syndromes are among the most common and highly stigmatised disorders affecting newborn babies," Professor Koopman said. "Our research will reveal how the Y chromosome regulates normal male development, identify the steps that go wrong in many male babies, and suggest ways to diagnose and deal with these conditions."

The Transgender Day of Remembrance was set aside to memorialise those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. The event is held in November to honor Rita Hester, whose murder in 1998 kicked off the “Remembering Our Dead” web project and a San Francisco candlelight vigil in 1999. Since then, the event has grown to encompass memorials in dozens of cities across the world.

This year Sydney, Australia will host a Memorial event.

When: November 20th, 11am-2pm
Where: Waratah Room, NSW Parliament House
Details:

11:00am - Introduction by MC (TBA)
11:05am - Keynote Speaker - Kate Walker
11:25am - break
11:30am - film (TBA)
01:00pm - break
01:05pm - refreshments & panel discussion (panel TBA) 02:00pm - close

This is a small venue, so please RSVP to eleanor@pacific.net.au so that your name is on the entrance.

All Welcome.

At a meeting of the Anti-Discrimination Board meeting in Sydney on 1 August, it was noted that:

Anti-Discrimination Act

The President of the Board wrote to the Attorney General regarding Part 9A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (ADA), which deals with public sector employment. The provisions in Part 9A of the ADA assist in increasing equality of opportunity in public sector employment for women, people with disabilities, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and indigenous people. It does not contain provisions relating to people who are transgender.

The Attorney General responded, stating:

"I note that the Law Reform Commission undertook a review of the Act in 1999 and expressed certain views concerning Part 9A. In light of the Law Reform Commission's comments, it is not currently proposed to add any further groups to Part 9A without revising the Part in a broader context.

"Any future review of Part 9A may, however, consider including other groups, such as transgender persons, in the Part.

"The Government has in place a number of policies which promote equal employment opportunity which benefit all employees. This includes selection on the basis of merit (which ensures that the best applicant is selected for a job), access for all employees to training and development and grievance handling procedures that are accessible to all employees and deal with workplace complaints promptly, confidentially and fairly."

Lee Rhiannon, for the Greens is continuing to try and push her Bill through the NSW Parliament to prevent discrimination against sex, gender and sexuality diverse identified people in education. The Bill seeks to remove the loopholes in the law that still allow such discrimination. The Bill had its second reading in September, and the final speech will be 19th October, when it will be voted on and when the State Govt will either approve it or not.

The NSW Greens GLBTI group met recently, and agreed about the HREOC inquiry that it was unsatisfactory for trans and intersex people, but had some benefits for gay, lesbian and bisexual people, although even there it's far from perfect. SAGE member Eleanor Lister has been delegated to write a letter to HREOC criticising the adherence to the gender binary (as the SAGE submissions mentioned) and noting the absurdity of trying to capture the fluidity of our gender with any fixed schema.

SAGE has also been writing to the Hon Kevin Andrews MP at the Department of Employment and Work Place Relations, Canberra, pointing out the gender is not mentioned in The Work Place Relations(Work Choices) Act 2005. Therefore under the act the omission allows employers to discriminate against people on the basis of gender presentation. The department maintains that people who are gender diverse are covered under the section of the act that protects people from being dismissed on ground of sexuality in all states across Australia. The department also responded by say they had no intention of attempting to change the Act.

For a long time there has been much controversy in the sex and gender diverse communities over what label is appropriate for what people. Often clinicians have attempted to label people in ways in which that person themselves does not feel comfortable. All labels carry medical, psychological, social and legal meanings and ramifications. When a person is labelled in ways that they do not feel comfortable with, it can do them great harm.

For many people who have altered their sex and gender identity to reflect the opposite sex (eg male to female and female to male) from which they were registered at birth, they have been labelled transsexual because there were no categorised obvious intersex conditions. Many people have been unhappy with this label because it denotes that their choices to alter their sex and gender identity were done with regard to their sexuality, which was not for some people true.

Such people have also been referred to as transgender, which suggests that the transition was with regard to their gender identity, which again was only true in some cases.

Many members of the intersex community have also previously rejected many transsexual people because they did not want to take on the baggage that transsexual people brought with them. For instance being legally determined as third "no male or non-female" human being with all the trappings of ghettoised disadvantages that has meant for them in law.

It has also meant that people altering their sexed bodies and gender identities have had to be subject to often controlling and inhuman approval by psychiatrists and psychologists. This struggle has been reminiscent of the way women were controlled in the 19th and 20th century by the medical professions.

SAGE now wishes to add to the people it represents people who refer to themselves as transsexed, who were never comfortable with the label transsexual. These people see their transition as a process of altering their sex and gender because they perceive themselves to be of an intersex nature that cannot currently be medically detected.

Transsexed - to have transitioned or are transitioning from being registered at birth as one sex to living as and altering the body to represent another sex (eg male to female or female to male). To have a sense of one's own intersexed self and not to have any form of psychiatric or psychological condition. SAGE believes that such people should have the right to be categorised as being intersex.

A complaint was made to the New South Wales Anti Discrimination Board (ADB) in relation to the Telegraph newspaper. Earlier in the Year the Telegraph had reported on the proposed release of the convicted murder Maddison Hall from prison.

Hall had been imprisoned many years ago while living as a male. During that prison term Hall identified as female and underwent sex and gender transition. During the Telegraph's reporting earlier this year the newspaper's reporter kept referring to Hall as "he" in the present tense when in fact Hall must now be legally referred to as female and as "she" and "her".

The Telegraph has now changed the present tense pronouns by which they refer to Hall in later stories. While the story of Hall's proposed release from prison is of great interest to the public, that does not allow newspapers to flout the law in order to create more sensationalist stories.

SAGE sent the following letter to the General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK, in support of psychiatrist and sex, gender & sexuality expert Dr Russell Reid who is presently before the GMC Fitness to Practise Committee after complaints were made by four psychiatrists:

SAGE wishes to make it publicly known to the GMC (UK) that our members are extremely concerned about the hearing being heard against the psychiatrist and sex, gender and sexuality specialist Dr Russell Reid. We believe that the complaints have been brought against Dr Reid on the basis that he prescribed hormones too soon to some patients wishing to undergo sex and gender transition and that he may have allowed patients to go forward for sex alteration surgery with only one referral letter.

Our members wish for it to be made known that we do not believe it is appropriate for any psychiatrist to attempt to set themselves up or act as gatekeeper preventing people going forward for sex and gender alteration. We have members in Australia who were previously patients of Dr Reid and found him to be one of the most competent and profoundly compassionate doctors they had ever encountered.

SAGE believes that it is the role of the physician to help people determine their own future and not to act as the sex and gender police or gatekeepers. It is the belief of the members of SAGE that all the complaints against Dr Reid are politically motivated by persons who wish to see psychiatrists as gatekeepers, and should immediately be dismissed without delay.

SAGE today sent an email and accompanying documents to MPs Warren Entsch, Andrew Olexander and Nicola Roxon regarding concerns that sex and gender diverse people may be further marginalised and left out in the cold when it comes to proposed legislation seeking to eliminate discrimination against GLBT people.

Queensland-based Liberal MP Warren Entsch is proceeding with a private member's Bill which would eliminate areas of discrmination in federal legislation for "same-sex couples". SAGE does, however, believe Entsch's bill may cover a more inclusive and broader 'interdependent' relationship model and is awaiting confirmation of this from his office at the time of writing this report.

Former Liberal and now independent MP Andrew Olexander has just released the first draft of his private member's Bill seeking to enact civil unions in the state of Victoria. Media reports flagged up the fact that "same-sex couples" would be able to take advantage of these unions if they became law, but there was no mention of sex and gender diverse people.

And Labor MP and Shadow-Attorney General Nicola Roxon is pushing a Sexuality Discrimination Bill designed to stop harassment of "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people".

SAGE sent all three MPs its two HREOC submissions, SAGE's Sex and Gender Identity Guidance Document for Australian Government Employees, and in addition sent Roxon SAGE's Legal Policy Document.

By sending the documents earlier today, SAGE hoped that the three politicians will gain a better understanding of the particular needs of sex and gender diverse people, and how these will not be accommodated a banner of 'same-sex' or even a more inclusive category of 'transgender', and will amend their proposed legislation accordingly.

Just an hour or so after emailing Olexander, he telephoned SAGE steering committee member Tracie O'Keefe and sent an email assuring us that his Bill does, in fact, not discriminate against any human being, regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexuality. "The Bill allows for Civil Unions between two people regardless of gender or gender identity," Olexander told SAGE. "Therefore, it treats all human beings as equals, and confers identical rights under Victorian Law to those which married couples (men and women) currently enjoy. I have been very careful to draft the bill so it includes anyone who has completed or is undergoing gender re-assignment treatment; intersex people and androgynous people. All people, (including heterosexual males and females) will be treated in a non-discriminatory manner under this legislation."

An hour after this, Tracie O'Keefe spoke with Entsch who confirmed that indeed his Bill is pushing for interdependent relationships - which includes anyone living together, regardless of gender or gender identity or sexuality, and could even include two sisters.

In light of both Olexander's and Entsch's responses, SAGE commends both politicians on their inclusiveness and prompt responses, and encourages its Victorian members to spread the word to local GLBTI groups and individuals, asking them to lobby their MP to support Olexander's Bill and for members nationally to support Entsch's Bill.

Updates and responses from Roxon will be posted on this site as they are received.

Transgender activist Norrie May-Welby has lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW (ADB) against sex-on-premises club The Pleasure Chest on George Street in the city after s/he was refused entry to the venue’s cruise lounge on the grounds she was “not a man”.

Police were called to the scene on Sunday after May-Welby, who identifies as “androgynous, not a man, not a woman, a man and a woman”, refused to leave the premises.

“A staff member told me [the cruise lounge] is a men-only area,” May-Welby told SX. “I told him this was a breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act of NSW. He wouldn’t let me in and asked if I would leave. I said I was not leaving. The staff member called the manager, who turned up after about an hour with three armed police.”

After discussion with police officers, May-Welby was eventually admitted to the cruise lounge. “The police pressured the manager to let me in,” May-Welby said. “I told them the law is being broken every minute I’m not allowed in there; it’s being broken every second I’m being treated differently to anyone who’s not considered a man.”

Under NSW law, a venue must gain an exemption from the ADB if it wishes to operate a single-sex policy. May-Welby said s/he expects The Pleasure Chest, which currently does not have such an exemption, to apply for one, but urged the GLBTI community and the ADB to oppose this. “Trannies should be allowed to go somewhere too,” s/he said. “Who’s got the right to decide what I am?”

A spokesperson for The Pleasure Chest told SX it was investigating the matter at press time.

NB A feature looking at the issue of single-sex spaces also appeared in SX on 10 August 2006. Click HERE to read it.

The World Sexology Conference, to be held in Sydney in 2007 has conceded to change the section title dealing with sex and gender diverse people from Gender Dysphoria to Transgenderism & Diversity. After months of lobbying by Tracie O'Keefe from Sex and Gender Education Australia (SAGE) and Sam Winter, Director of the Transgender Asia Research Center, the organisers of the conference (World Association of Sexology - WAS) finally conceded to the change. This change in nomenclature helps lead the way towards both the medical and academic establishments changing their perspective in not pathologising sex and gender diverse people under the medical, psychiatric model. SAGE campaigned for a change of section name to sex and gender diversity, but celebrates the shift away from gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, SAGE has learned that the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) is now in the process of introducing everyone to its new name : The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Christine Burns from UK campaign group Press for Change confirmed the move this week. "The first visible evidence of the change is on a new page advertising the association's 20th International Syposium, planned for Sep 5-8 2007 in Chicago IL. See http://www.hbigda.org/20061stAnnouncement.htm," Burns said. "As yet there is no formal pess release on the change of name, but Stephen Whittle (the association's president elect) confirmed that the change is definitely happening - it's just that something like that takes time to work though."

Yesterday the European Court of Justice ruled that a British transsexual woman was discriminated against when she was treated as a man and refused a state pension.

Sarah Richards, was told (at the time - when it had not been possible for her to obtain a GRC) by the British authorities that she would have to wait until she was 65 before receiving a pension - the standard pension qualification age for men. Ms Richard had applied to have her state pension paid from the age of 60 in line with the standard pension age for women in Britain. She was refused.

The European Court of Justice found in favour of Ms Richards, who was born a man in 1942. It ruled that the refusal to recognise a male-to-female transsexual as a woman and award a pension at 60 flouted an EU directive.

(The different pension ages - 65 for men and 60 for women in Britain - do not fall under Europe's equal treatment rules.)

The full decision can be found at

http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&alldocs=all
docs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo&numaff=C-423%2F04&datefs=
&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100

(just copy into Google if it won't click direct - that will find it)

I just thought I'd give a brief advice note on what this REALLY MEANS in a European context.

The case of Richards also confirms the previous case of K.B v NHS Pensions Agency (see
http://www.pfc.org.uk/legal/kbecj.htm)

Both cases concerned pensions - and as such If you are a transsexual women, who was living permanently in your new gender role, but were refused a state pension at the age of 60, you can make a CLAIM to have it backdated. This will be of particular importance to those who continued to work after 60, as you can not only claim your pension up to the date of obtaining a GRC, but also you can claim back any National insurance contributions made in work.

SAGE has spoken to the British High commission in Canberra and they have advised us of the procedure for renewal of passports for TS British citizens who are still married. Some TS people may have been travelling on British passports showing their transitioned sex. These passports may have been issued before the Gender Recognition Bill came in the UK. Therefore the sex on their passport is the sex they have been living as and not the sex on their original birth certificate.

For people who remain married under British law and do not wish to get divorced in order to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate and an amended birth certificate or because they are unable to gain a GRC because they are still married; it is possible to have their British passport reissued in the sex in which they are living. The High commission has said that it will only require the old passport and an appropriate application form for reissuing of a new passport and will not require a birth certificate.

The BHC does, however, recommend that the passport is renewed before its date of expiry to avoid complications. Technically passports must be issued in the sex of the birth certificate but because the Gender Recognition Bill disallowed the reissuing of birth certificates for TS people who refuse to get divorced from their previous spouses, the passport office has to be more flexible.

People who are Australian and entitled to a British passport may have to apply and present official documentation from Australia that they are legally recognised as their transitioned sex in Australia.

If the passport office were to start refusing to issue passports in a sex in which the person has been officially living, the British Government would find itself again in contravention of human rights. It would be attempting to force a person to change their sex and SAGE would be interested in hearing from any people who have difficulties in this area.

Intersex and androgynous people in Australia will no longer be forced to tick the male or female box on the Census. While the 2006 Census has already been printed without the two new fields, the position of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is that it will not coerce respondents into making a declaration about their sex which they consider to be inaccurate.
In a letter to intersex activist Chris Somers, xxy, Dave Nauenburg, director, Population Census Development and Field Organisation, speaking on behalf of Dennis Trewin a CEO of the ABS said: "My advice to intersex people is that they can complete the sex question correctly by ticking none of the boxes provided for the question, and writing in the word 'intersex', or 'androgynous'."
Paul Williams, head of the Census program at the ABS, confirmed this was the organisation's official stance. "Also for transgendered people, we are happy for them to tick the box which most accurately describes their situation," he told SX. "Quite often transgendered people identify with a particular sex, so it's up to them what they put. If they feel they identify as both or neither I'm happy for them to write in whatever."
However, intersex and androgynous people will not be officially counted as such, instead being randomly allocated as either male or female by an automatic computer program, Williams added. "We will be will imputing them to male or female," he said. "We still have to produce statistics by the numbers of males and females."
Any additions to the 2011 Census must go through a submissions process which begins in 2008.

In late 2005, SAGE wrote to the Honorable Kevin Andrews, MP, Minister for Workplace Relations, the Dept of Employment and Workplace Relations, voicing its concern about the structure of the Workplace Relations (Work Choices) Act 2005 that was passed by both Houses of Parliament on 7 December, 2005 and received Royal Assent on 14 December 2005. SAGE's concerns were that the Bill did not properly define protection for sex and gender diverse people.

In a reply by Miranda Pointon, assistant secretary, Strategic Policy Branch, on behalf of Kevin Andrews, on 22 December 2005, it was stated:

"Whilst gender identity is not covered as a specific ground under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, it is still unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their sexuality in all State jurisdictions across Australia. The Federal Government will not be legislating to displace State anti-discrimination laws. This means that your members will still be able to seek a remedy in their relevant state jurisdiction."

It seems that once again government departments fail to understand the difference between a person's sex, gender and sexuality, and that the Workplace Relations Bill does not cover people who are gender variant. The department has once again misunderstood the difference between a person's biological sex identity, gender presentation identity and sexuality identity.

We advise all transsexual, transgendered, androgynous and intersex people seeking to bring an action for discrimination under this Act to make an application for both sex and sexuality discrimination. There is the chance that having brought an action under both categories which are covered in the Act, respondents are less likely to be able to use loopholes to avoid liability. Perhaps in the future under a different government which is more open to social issues, such Acts will cover gender identity and lawmakers will learn to distinguish between sex, gender and sexuality identity. In the meantime, while discrimination in the workplace continues against sex and gender diverse people, it is best to use what laws we have at the moment until we are able to change them for the better.

Only a year after Lesfest, a lesbian event advertised for 'women born women' ran afoul of the Anti-Discrimination Board in Victoria, a group of women are attempting to run a similar gathering in Adelaide at the beginning of January 2006. Sappho's Party is being touted as a camp for "lesbians raised female", with workshops, discussions, swimming, playing, a market day and other activities.

The event came to SAGE's attention recently after a journalist with the GLBTI press, Katrina Fox, attended a lesbian domestic violence forum run by the Aids Council of New South Wales (ACON) where a woman handed out leaflets to everyone there advertising Sappho's Party. At the top of the leaflet it states: "We are relying on word-of-mouth networks to distribute this information. Please pass this on to other lesbians, using your discretion". ACON did not sanction or endorse the contents or distribution of this leaflet at their event.

The only contact details for registration for Sappho's Party are an email address (sapphosparty@yahoo.com.au) and a post box in South Australia. Replies sent from this email address are signed only as 'Sappho'. An email sent to this address from SAGE steering committee member Grace Abrams enquiring about group bookings and whether its policy excluded trans-women received the following reply: "Re your question about who this gathering is for...yes it does exclude trans people...not from a wish to discriminate but from our own need to hold onto a few places where lesbians born female can still meet...we hope your group will respect the boundaries around this camp." No further information or registration details were sent to Abrams.

Another email sent from SAGE supporter Sammie Johnson asking if her TS girlfriend could attend received the reply: "This gathering is for lesbians raised female. I realize that sounds tough when you have a precious one who is a TS. We are feeling a desperate need to have a few gatherings simply for lesbians born and raised female for our own sanity and well being…We hope you will understand and respect this decision even tho it may be personally hard in your situation." Johnson replied to the organisers saying that she would like to attend without her TS girlfriend, and was subsequently invited to attend and sent further details, explaining the event is being held on "Peramangk land in the Adelaide Hills, less than an hour from the city, next to a 150 acre Conservation Park" with dormitories and tent sites available, although the exact location and maps would not be sent until payment for registration had been received. It also stated: "This is a camp for lesbians raised female. This is women's business, girls will need to be supervised by carers. Boys may not attend."

Catering for the event is being done by Anah Holland-Moore, one of the organisers of Lesfest. When contacted by SX News, a weekly GLBTI publication in Sydney, which broke the story today in Fox's Keeping Abreast column, Holland-Moore said she was "only doing the catering" for Sappho's Party. When asked if she knew who the organisers of the event were, she said "no, I can't help you".

SAGE's Abrams questioned the legalities of the event. "This party is being held in the public arena despite the organisers stating it's a private party. When you advertise something nationally and charge an admission fee, that's a public event. And being one, as the organisers are aware, you have to comply with the law. In South Australia the relevant one is the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, which clearly states that the provision of goods and services shall not be discriminatory on the grounds of sexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality."

On 12 December, SAGE steering committee member Tracie O'Keefe contacted the Equal Opportunities Commissioner of SA, Linda Matthews, and sent her all documents and communications relating to Sappho's Party and asked her to intervene. The matter has been passed to her deputy, Ann Burgess and SAGE will post updates as they arise.

Abrams also lambasted the organisers of Sappho's Party for their exclusionary policies on ethical grounds. "There is an expectation that in a community like ours of our own standards of ethics and concerns - like fairness, inclusiveness, and equality," she said. "Though there are some variance of points of views about these, they are what make our community. Our shared experience and treatment of us as a group, as the 'other' by mainstream heterosexual society teaches us about unity.

"Unfortunately, the policy of the organisers of Sappho's Party reflect some of the worst traits we see among society, which we as GLBTI people ought to recognise as wrong - after all, we have had them directed at ourselves. The same people who are displaying trans-phobia, bigotry and divisiveness would be the first to cry 'victim' if they received this same treatment themselves. How would they like a party run for women that said 'No Lesbians'? Imagine the furore. But for them to organise an event for lesbians, but with the caveat 'No Trannies' is OK? The Sappho's Party organisers even have gone so far this time to occlude their intentions by stipulating 'lesbians raised female' - a poor attempt, but obvious in intent while at the same time being impossible to realistically argue.

"This party is a recycled idea, mimicking the Michigan Womyn's festival in the US which continues to exclude transwomen, and Lesfest, which ran afoul of the Anti-Discrimination Board in Victoria and many people in the GLBTI community in 2004, so this manifestation has resorted to underhanded tactics to try to sneak under the radar.

"Well, lesbian transwomen have gone through enough and have to fight to win recognition of their gender and be awarded just the normal everyday rights of the rest of us. They have to battle bureaucracy and the discrimination and bigotry of society at large. It is just not good enough to have to fight it within our own communities as well. Bigotry and phobias have no place among us. If our own legal system recognises that after surgery, a post-operative TS woman deserves the right to be considered legally female and be allowed the same rights as all women, how come the Sappho's Party organisers think they know better and refuse to acknowledge this hard-won status? What proof do such people need of a person's gender? What fictitious circumstances supposedly set a person with a TS history apart from the rest of us that they must be exiled from such gatherings? It's time such fearful and prejudiced people took a good hard look at themselves."

Please join SAGE's URGENT campaign against this discriminatory event

What you can do:

1. Spread the word - please email your friends, families, colleagues, networks both in Australia and internationally to alert them to this discrimination.

2. If you are an intersex or trans lesbian, email the Sappho's Party organisers sapphosparty@yahoo.com.au requesting that you would like to attend the event and to send you details. Let them know you are intersex or trans. Send your replies to sage - sage3@sageaustralia.org If you get no reply, please let us know, as according to the Equal Opportunities Commission, no reply constitutes a rejection.

3. If you are a lesbian with an intersex or trans partner (female), email the Sappho's Party organisers sapphosparty@yahoo.com.au requesting that you would like to attend the event with your intersex or trans partner and to send you details. Send your replies to sage - sage3@sageaustralia.org If you get no reply, please let us know, as according to the Equal Opportunities Commission, no reply constitutes a rejection.

4. Write to Ann Burgess, the deputy commissioner at the Equal Opportunities Commission SA to register your complaint about this discriminatory event. Post: GPO Box 464 Adelaide SA 5001. Fax (08) 8207 2090. Or go to the website http://www.eoc.sa.gov.au/defaultwide.jsp?xcid=53 and fill out the small feedback section at the bottom of the Contact page, putting your comments under 'your question'.

This event is being held January 4-11, so it's imperative you act FAST. Thank you for supporting SAGE's campaign in fighting for the rights of ALL lesbians to attend this gathering.

Norrie mAy-welby, SAGE spokesperson

SAGE has lent its support to the Private Members Bill being introduced to Parliament by the Green Party's member Lee Rhiannon. Private schools in New South Wales are allowed to discriminate against homosexual teachers, students and other employees, and small businesses employing fewer than six people can also discriminate on the basis of sexuality.These schools and business have a special exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act that allows them to practise such discrimination. The Greens believe this exemption is unfair and unjust, and should be removed. Rhiannon will introduce a Private Members' Bill - the Anti-Discrimination (Equality in Education and Employment) Amendment Bill - during an upcoming session of Parliament.

SAGE has written to Kevin Andrews, MP, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations concerning the government's new Workplace Relations Bill. We told the Minister that our members found it extremely alarming that the new bill had no clauses to protect GLBTI people in the workplace.

SAGE asked the Minister to clarify the situation and confirm that GLBTI people would also have access to the $4000 legal advice that people may be entitled to in order to make their cases for unfair dismissal. We further expressed the opinion that in any such bill that may refer to TS, TG, TV, IS people that no definition should be made between so-called recognised and non-recognised people. SAGE particularly mentioned that there is no such thing as a recognised or unrecognised person so the law is pretentious in trying to make definitions that do not exist in nature.

SAGE has, however, received many differing reports about the reaction from the Gender Recognition Panel's attitudes and approach to British-born people living aboard as many are Australians. SAGE talked to officers of the Gender Recognition Panel in the UK by telephone and unfortunately has found them very unhelpful, even to the point of incompetent. The staff often did not seem to know what they were doing and they did not send out documents that they promised they would.

One of the things that many expatriate British transexuals have complained about is that the Gender Recognition Panel is insisting that they have to have a medical report from a British registered doctor. Where, I wonder, do they imagine we can find a doctor registered with the British Medical Council in the middle of the bush or on one of the many islands on which many of us may live. In other words, poor people who cannot afford to travel or go back to England to change their birth certificate will not be allowed a new birth certificate in their destination sex.

The excuse that the Gender Recognition Panel has given is that the law only allows them to recognise British doctors. This, however, is not true as many courts throughout the world recognise medical reports from registered experts in other countries. It appears the Gender Recognition Panel is being staffed by people who do not know what they are doing much of the time, which has caused stress to many transsexual people living abroad.

Another problem that has arisen is that the new Gender Recognition Act does not recognise transsexuals who are still married to their previous spouse at the time of applying to the panel for a change of birth certificate. This is one of the things that the campaigners gave up on in order to get the bill passed through parliament and is really homophobia from the British government.

What SAGE advises is that each time a person makes an application to change their birth certificate with the Gender Recognition Panel they also make an official complaint about these difficulties. It may delay the arrival of your new birth certificate somewhat, but it is important to highlight these issues.

Options

FAST TRACK: For those who have had SRS or have lived in role for a minimum of six years or more. Fast track ends April 2007.

OVERSEAS TRACK: Cannot be used, as this really applies only to those born overseas of UK parents while serving in the armed forces or the like.

STANDARD TRACK: Means returning to UK for an inspection by a doctor, unless you can find one who is practising in Australia and is still a member of the General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK. This means not having to return to the UK and saves a very expensive trip. It can be one letter from a doctor, who need not be a specialist.

Remember that you do not need to have had genital surgery to apply for a new birth certificate. Your doctor simply needs to state that you have had irreversible medical alteration of your body to be recognised as the sex you wish to have registered on your birth certificate.

For those who cannot get new birth certificates because of these insidious anomalies we suggest that you constantly write once a month to the Gender Recognition Panel with an official complaint about your dilemma. We would also like to hear from those people at SAGE.

Gender Recognition Panel www.grp.gov.uk

British registered doctors (General Medical Council) www.gmc-uk.org

In 2004 the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board made a recommendation to the Attorney General that an exemption be granted to Mission Australia allowing it to refuse service to transsexuals and intersex women for 10 years. Mission Australia is a Christian organisation which receives grants from the government to provide both day care and short-term stay accommodation for the homeless. The exemption applies to three projects; Lou's Place, A Woman's Place and Women in Supported Housing (WISH), and other services specifically for service users' dependent children.

During the consultation period, the ADB "failed to consult with SAGE and the gender Centre even though it had been requested to do so prior to its recommendation to the Attorney General". A legal representative from the ADB told a SAGE committee member that it had no legal obligation to take into account the opinions or consideration of any community before it granted exemptions of anti-discrimination laws.

The exemption allows those service providers to turn away transsexual and intersex women who have not undergone genital surgery to create non-specific typical female genitalia or those who cannot prove, by documentation, that they have had surgery as it does not consider those people to be transsexual women. According to SAGE "the ruling does not take into account that some sex and gender diverse women are in transition or cannot afford surgery; or that for some TS and IS women surgery may be medically or psychologically contraindicated.

"This exemption affects the most vulnerable women in the gender community: the homeless, possibly jobless and certainly those whose life is so fragmented that they are unlikely to have proper documentation".

A representative from the ADB is reported to have said that Mission Australia stated that some of its clients feared that non-operative transsexual women carry with them the threat of being rapists and that other services users feared being raped by such persons.

SAGE spokesperson norrie mAy-welby said that "it's just outrageous that while trans people with resources are recognised now as their self-identified gender, even for marriage, trans women without resources - that is vulnerable, homeless women who simply don't carry the required paperwork or who are unable to afford food let alone surgery - are left out in the cold by these patronising and prejudicial 'charities'.

"The overwhelming majority of ordinary people approached to support our petition have expressed disgust and disbelief at the prejudicial treatment these welfare providers seek to dish out to transsexual women."

Another similar exemption was also granted to Edward Eagar Lodge, a project for alcoholism, and is currently under review.

From The Bay Area Reporter online 19 January 2006
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=492

By Zak Szymanski

Healthcare access has long been a concern for transgender people, many of whom either can't disclose their status in order to secure the treatment they need, or avoid going to the doctor altogether. Some trans people have anatomy traditionally associated with the opposite sex, making coverage for certain procedures – a woman's prostate exam, for instance – difficult to obtain. Others who do not have insurance may fear that their previously diagnosed gender identity disorder will show up in their records and keep them from securing future insurance policies.

So it was good news when AB1586 passed the California legislature and was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005; the law, by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood), went into effect January 1 and prohibits insurance companies – including health insurance companies – from discriminating against people on the basis of their transgender status. But in an industry centered around discriminatory criteria for who and what is covered, what exactly does this new law mean?

It's complicated. Though rumors circulated about the law's effect, the reality is that AB1586 does not require health insurance companies to cover sex change procedures, nor was it ever intended to do so. It doesn't even require that transgenders be given policies if there is actuary data to show that they are in a higher risk category for certain diseases or cost more than the average patient to insure, as that is the same criteria for anyone seeking insurance.

"The nature of nondiscrimination law is that there is uncertainty about its scope. With AB1586 we could not enumerate the thousands of ways discrimination may occur and then expressly prohibit them one by one," said Koretz in a statement to the Bay Area Reporter . "Instead, we have said that transgender people should be treated no better or worse than others. This is basic principle that my colleagues in the Legislature supported. The unfortunate reality is that current insurance law permits unfairness for everyone, and AB1586 didn't change that."

But what AB1586 does state is that without actuary data and evidence proving otherwise, there is no reason to deny coverage or certain procedures for people based upon their transgender status alone.

"We have added gender identity and gender related appearance to the nondiscrimination provisions of California's insurance laws," said Koretz. "It is an incremental step and does not mandate coverage for specific benefits, but it will provide protection from blatant discrimination based solely on prejudice."

There are two general areas in which transgenders tend to experience health insurance discrimination: one is through trying to access care through their policies. The other is in trying to get an insurance policy in the first place, a scenario encountered mostly in the individual – rather than group or employer – insurance market.

People are denied individual policies when their particular histories or backgrounds are perceived as costlier to insure than the average individual. Under "pre-existing condition" exclusions, it is common for individuals to be denied coverage based upon previous health conditions that a new insurer deems too costly to treat, from heart disease to depression to cancer, even if such conditions have since been brought under control.

Transgenders make the equation a bit trickier. Gender dysphoria is considered a medical diagnosis, while the more controversial gender identity disorder is the psychological counterpart and is often a necessary label for transgenders to pursue their gender transitions.

But there is no actuary data, and thus no legal reason, said advocates, for trans people in particular to be considered more of a risk to insure. Sexual reassignment procedures are already specifically excluded from most insurance policies, and the general rule is that a policy must cover the treatment of a condition in order for that condition to be a reason for policy denial.

Still, there are certain trans-related procedures that may fall into a general pool of what is considered higher risk to insure. Some companies may claim that the health costs are higher for all people who have undergone certain surgeries, for instance, while others may believe that a gender identity disorder diagnosis is accompanied by higher than average psychological bills.

"What we're saying is you can have that concern, but it has to be backed up by actuary data. You can't assume that just because a person is transgender that they are more costly to insure," said Chris Daley, director of San Francisco's Transgender Law Center, in reference to AB1586.

Koretz's law was necessary, he said, because of how assumptions, rather than evidence, were dictating insurance companies' decisions about transgenders.

"Our belief is a lot of these coverage denials have been based on stereotypes," he said, adding that insurance companies now "have to find sound actuary data that people with GID cost more to insure on average if they are going to exclude them based solely upon their transgender status."

Considering that most people have some kind of condition in need of monitoring, it is believed that data will not be able to show that transgender people as a whole have more health costs than other populations.

Meanwhile, biases that affect transgender people who already have insurance usually reveal themselves in the form of policies denying specific medical procedures. Sometimes this denial is because policies often assume an anatomy based upon someone's gender, other times the policy claims that the conditions in need of treatment were caused by a person's transgender status and therefore not covered.

The fact that trans people are routinely denied necessary medical procedures based upon insurance company bias has been known throughout the community for decades; there are stories upon stories of such incidents: FTMs with pelvic pain, for instance, being denied hysterectomies because their policy did not cover transgender surgeries and there otherwise was "no such thing" as a man with a uterus and ovaries.

Such discrimination was the impetus for San Francisco's landmark decision to cover sex change procedures for city employees; by removing that exclusion, companies could no longer deny basic healthcare to people by claiming that such care violated their policies. The city law went a step further to declare that transgender specific procedures were medically necessary as dictated by the gender dysphoria diagnosis.

Unlike San Francisco's law, AB1586 did not require companies to drop their exclusions or cover transgender specific procedures, and in many areas the new state law will remain uncertain until specific situations arise. But like San Francisco's law, state law now says that there will be no more denial of procedures to people based solely upon their transgender status or perceived gender incongruence.

"Health insurance is an incredibly complicated field. It's impossible to say exactly what the parameters of this law are going to be," said Bart Broome, former legislative aide to Koretz. "But what is clear is that there can now be an end to some very real situations that transgender people have encountered. There can no longer be denials of prostate care for someone just because she is legally a woman, or denial of gynecological care just because he is a transgender man."

The law also "gives a little bit more security to transgender people so they feel more comfortable being themselves with their providers," said Broome. Such a comfort is necessary not only for health maintenance and check-ups, but for providers to be able to communicate with insurance companies why certain procedures are necessary.

The law itself is a major victory and provides a foundation upon which other steps can be built, said advocates, who also cautioned that transgender patients and insurance seekers act cautiously when pursuing complaints and challenges, so that judges unfamiliar with transgenders don't wind up narrowly interpreting the law and limiting access for the majority of transgenders in need of basic care. Now would not be the time, for instance, to pursue a court ruling to get sexual reassignment surgeries covered and jeopardize the future and potential of the law, advocates said.

"Our hope is that people will be patient so that we can be strategic in getting the courts to interpret this law," said Daley, advising people with complaints or potential challenges to approach community organizations such as TLC before any legal action is taken "to make sure we're not making bad case law through the courts."

Broome said transgender people who believe their insurance companies discriminated against them should seek remedy through the state agencies set up to handle complaints; the state Department of Insurance can be called at (1-800-927-4357) while the Department of Managed Care is at 1-888-HMO-2219. The agencies report already having handled cases – transgender and non-transgender alike – that could be applied to this new law, and in the past have ordered insurance companies to cover remedies for medical complications due to faulty genital surgeries and ruptured breast implants.

"For the first time, a state has said explicitly that transgender people cannot be discriminated against in health insurance, which we know is major issue in the community. But this is a cutting edge issue and as situations come up we'll figure out how the law will be applied," said Broome, who added that the each of the many possible procedures and scenarios faced by transgenders has yet to be tested under this law. "The victory may be in each of those smaller procedures that we win along the way

From SX magazine, 18 January 2007

A new coalition of European transgender and transsexual Groups, TransGender Europe, received organisational recognition by the Austrian authorities this week. The initiative brings together 66 transgender organisations from 21 countries, after they agreed to join together when meeting in Vienna last year, for the first-ever European TransGender Council. High on the list of priorities for the new organisation are the promotion of the human rights of transgender people - especially with regards to the legal recognition of the gender of trans people in the gender they live in, as well as non-discrimination in all aspects of life, equal access to healthcare, and social acceptance.