Link

Alex Brett links to several articles summarising the situation by which the ‘X’ sex marker allowed by the international standard for passports is being adopted or considered by Australia, New Zealand, India and the UK. The meaning and availability of the ‘X’ varies by country:

Australasia

  • New Australian passports allow third gender option (BBC) 
  • The official policy (Australian government). Here X means “indeterminate/unspecified/intersex” and “[a] letter from a medical practitioner certifying that the person […] [is] intersex and do not identify with the sex assigned to them at birth, is acceptable.” To their credit the policy does use singular they - but overall this isn’t much good for non-binary people
  • Zoe has a nice clear summary of who will be affected and how
  • New Zealand also offers gender X, but not for intersex people [content warning for degendering]

India

  • In India the third gender option is displayed in the human-readable section of the passport as E (apparently for eunuch). I’m not clear on the usage or availability but I understand it is intended for use by hijra.

UK

Read the original post at Alex Brett’s Dreamwidth

There has also been extensive coverage of the UK proposals in the press, with varying degrees of accuracy. Some media outlets, such as the Daily Mail, have included some strong expressions of prejudice against non-binary and intersex people (with worse in the comments).

View a list of related news articles at Google News

Link

Various news outlets recently reported that Australia was to offer transgender people a third sex ‘X’ designation on their passport. This was in fact an erroneous conflation of two decisions, one allowing binary trans people to change their passport’s sex without surgery and another offering medically intersex people the option of a ‘X’ designation to signify ‘indeterminate’ sex, as this GlobalComment article explains.

Jane Fae writing at the Guardian gives insightful analysis of the affect Australia’s decision to allow intersex people to opt for an ‘X’ designation may have on passports in other countries:

How does this compare to the UK and elsewhere?

According to the EHRC, the UK passport service already allows gender to be changed on the basis of a letter from a medical practitioner: it does not require gender reassignment surgery to have taken place. The US shifted to a similar position last year. In France, by contrast, a series of recent court cases suggests that surgery is needed. Australia is the first government anywhere in the world to provide recognition to the intersex minority.

Could the UK go the same way?

It depends on what change Australia has put in place. There is no international legal requirement that passports include gender: and any country that complies with the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s specifications for machine-readable passports can choose to introduce an “X” gender/sex.

In the UK, passports are issued under royal prerogative: so a change could be implemented next week, if the government so desired. According to a report by trans support group Gires, a similar reform in the UK could eventually affect up to 90,000 individuals. The implications for intersex are far wider: best estimates suggest up to 4% of the UK population could carry some form of intersex variation – often without being aware of it.

However, in a debate on abolishing ID cards last year, Lib Dem Julian Huppert raised the issue of why many official documents required gender on them at all. This is a fair question: for trans individuals, having a passport with their identified gender on it may be a matter of safety when travelling to less tolerant countries. For everyone else, the question now on the table is why does my passport need gender at all?

Read the full article at The Guardian

Meanwhile, Mary-Beth Snow’s GlobalComment article explains how it’s significant that the transgender and intersex stories were confused in this way:

What has been notable about the coverage of this story, though, is the confusion between the two groups and the institutional policy governing each.   The creation of a new sex category on passports is indeed newsworthy, however, newspapers have conflated the two groups.  An AFP wire piece on the story has spread worldwide, using various version of the same misleading headline.  Britain’s Daily Telegraph declares “X marks the spot for transgendered Australians”), the Times of India “Australian passports allows transgender ‘x’ option,” while the Vancouver Sun states “Australia passports introduce transgender X option.” This is, to be clear, false: transgender people will not be able to access the X, it is strictly for intersex people.

But the mistake is telling.  In her landmark book Whipping Girl, writer Julia Serano discusses the cultural tendency towards “third gendering” – the idea that transsexual/transgender men and women are not their sexes but rather a third, different sex from men and women.  Calling a transsexual woman like Serano a third gender, she argues, “completely negates the fact that I identify and live as a woman.”  She argues this stems from the fact that Western cultures are organised by what she calls cissexism, “the idea that transsexuals’ identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals (ie people who are not transsexual).”  The confusing coverage glossing transgender men and women as a third “X” sex is a clear instance of cissexism.

There is still much work to do, therefore, legally and culturally.  The new Australian regulations remove Federal discrimination, though Australia’s patchwork of laws governing birth certificate changes.  Australian transgender advocates will continue their fight for less restrictive state sex marker laws.  In Western Australia, two transgender men have been fighting the State government to obtain male birth certificates without undergoing surgery for several years now.

But more broadly, transgender advocates and their allies will need to continue the tricky work of untangling the knot of cissexist assumptions that creates such confusing, inaccurate journalism.  Serano notes that it is “crucial to make a distinction between those who identify themselves as belonging to a third gender and those who actively third-gender other people.”  Some intersex people consider themselves to be men and women with a medical condition, others consider themselves to be a third gender.  Most transgender people consider themselves to be men or women, others a third (or fourth, or non) gender.  All should be respected.

To get the basic facts right on sex and gender diverse populations is not especially difficult.  The news media can and should do better than this.

Read the full article at GlobalComment

Text

Misc Manners: How do I avoid appropriating intersexed identity when I transitioned to be a ‘hermaphrodite’?

With my ‘Misc Manners’ non-binary etiquette hat on, I answer a question from the comments at PracticalAndrogyny.com

Ash asks:

The point about not appropriating intersexed identity is not a new one for me, but it’s one I always struggle with because I only “appropriate” it to the same extent that any postoperative transsexual “appropriated” the gender they have to (at least say they) “live as” to get the surgery. I do make the sex/gender definition, and I would always use terms like “ambiguous” or “hermaphrodite” to describe myself because it’s the obvious physical description of my current state. Which is largely due to how I had myself surgically remodelled, which was largely due to my gender identity. I suppose I could use trans-hermaphrodite or something like that, but like many transsexuals I get pissed off with being judged to be “really” the gender they labelled me at birth and so I don’t necessarily want out myself as not-born-this-way to everyone when I make reference to my sex.

What sort of language would you suggest as being more respectful to people born intersexed while avoiding having my gender/sex dismissed as not “real” but “just” a binary-sexed person who goes in for body modification? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, by the way, I’m interested in what you have to say. I bet if anyone has a useful and well thought out response to this question it will be you!

Misc Manners replies:

Hi Ash, I think you might find this Privilege Denying Non-Binary Person macro relevant to why dyadic by birth people should not use intersex terms. It illustrates the point of privilege that non-binary people who consensually transition in adulthood have over intersex people who are subjected to non-consensual surgeries and “treatment” throughout their childhood and adolescence.

The majority of people of intersex experience consider themselves to be binary gendered in adulthood, and consider their intersexual bodies or histories a physical or medical issue rather than a matter of identity. Most intersex people would consider the term ‘hermaphrodite’ to be a slur. Those intersex people who hold non-binary gender identities tend to consider themselves intersex and transgender (or genderqueer) rather than simply intersex. At least in the past, the intersex community used the term ‘intergender’ to talk about the experience of feeling one’s identity to be between the binary options, as they recognised that the majority of intersex people do not have that experience.

With the intersex appropriation issue aside, I also would be very nervous about an identity defined and policed on the basis of whether a person was able to obtain surgery. I consider it harmful and problematic to conflate identities and ‘transition goals’ in that way. Non-binary people have our gender identities (or lack of gender identities) regardless of whether we feel the need to ‘transition’ in any part. I find it most helpful to take every aspect of ‘transition’ as a separate decision and not assume that our identities come as a ‘package deal’. I recommend the same of binary identified trans people as well.

I think that for most transsexual people the configuration of their genitals is something private and not directly connected to the identities they present to the world. The majority of trans men do not undergo genital reconstructive surgery but still consider themselves to be men (and are likely to consider their genitals to be male regardless of how society defines them) and an increasingly large proportion of trans women are also opting to be ‘non-operative’ without feeling that they are any less female.

So to conclude, I would recommend referring to yourself as being ‘physically androgynous’, or if you wish to be more specific, ‘genitally androgynous’. You may also find it appropriate to talk about your identity as ‘intergender’ or describe yourself as an ‘androgyne’, which in its earliest recorded usage in the 1500s was used as a synonym for hermaphrodite but which has no intersexual slur word connotations.

If you have any questions of non-binary or genderqueer etiquette for our resident agony parental sibling please feel free to drop them in an Ask :)

You can also send your questions to the excellent Ask A Non-Binary tumblr, where a panel of non-binary people will give their considered answers.

Photo
nonbinary-conversations:

[Background: a smooth  gradient of  white-black-grey-purple-green-orange-yellow-white, using  all the colors  except red and blue. Foreground: A white face with short  brown hair  looking straight ahead with a neutral expression. It was  made using a  face averager. Top text: ”Consensually getting  reconstructive medical treatments to get a body that doesn’t conform to  the standards of “male” or “female”…” Bottom Text: ”…is just like what  intersex people experience” ]
Consensually deciding what to do with your body and being subjected to non-consensual surgeries and “treatment”(MAJOR trigger warning on the link: abuse, sexual abuse) throughout your life? Totally the same thing.

Quite possibly the best argument for why dyadic trans* people should not appropriate intersex identities and experiences.

nonbinary-conversations:

[Background: a smooth gradient of white-black-grey-purple-green-orange-yellow-white, using all the colors except red and blue. Foreground: A white face with short brown hair looking straight ahead with a neutral expression. It was made using a face averager.
Top text: ”Consensually getting reconstructive medical treatments to get a body that doesn’t conform to the standards of “male” or “female”…” Bottom Text: ”…is just like what intersex people experience” ]

Consensually deciding what to do with your body and being subjected to non-consensual surgeries and “treatment”(MAJOR trigger warning on the link: abuse, sexual abuse) throughout your life? Totally the same thing.

Quite possibly the best argument for why dyadic trans* people should not appropriate intersex identities and experiences.