International trans law

[pisacake]

What do we think?

www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/29/japan-forces-sterilization-transgender-people

The Japanese law says to have legal recognition of transitioned sex/gender, you must not have gonads or permanently non-functioning gonads and be "endowed with genitalia that closely resemble the physical form of an alternative gender."

This is described by HRW as 'sterilization'. Which is a reasonable description, however so are cross-sex hormones, which are much beloved by Mermaids, etc.

They contrast this with Nepal, where 'the sole criterion for being legally recognized as third gender on documents and in government registers was an individual’s “self-feeling."'

Third-gender is not trans-gender in the 'trans women are women' sense. It's saying that you now have 'transgender' status. It doesn't state that a man has become a woman.

I think a transgender/gender non-conforming status is the way to go.

It offers protection against discrimination to a broader range of people without impinging on the rights of non-transgender people.

It could cover non-binary and other gender combinations and take away any argument about how far you have to change your body/lifestyle to be accepted as transgender.

I like the Nepalese definition. It doesn't harm anyone else.

I agree with jelly and DJ. This seem like a reasonable and compassionate way forward. I think it would be welcomed by some, but not all, in the 'transgender community'.

Seems India goes with 'third gender' too.

www.thehindu.com/news/national/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-transgender-persons-bill-2016/article21226710.ece

All male, it seems. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)

mobile.twitter.com/parislees/status/1108363203866701825

Lees is tweeting about a badly thought through headline in the Economist for this article:
www.economist.com/asia/2019/03/16/japan-says-transgender-people-must-be-sterilised

(Headline now changed in the link above)

This article is a report on Japan’s courts requiring people to be sterilised and have SRS before permitting any legal gender transition:

‘Should transgender people be sterilised before they are recognised? Earlier this year Japan’s Supreme Court decided that the answer is yes. Takakito Usui, a transgender man (ie, someone who was born female but identifies as male), had sued over a requirement that, to be officially designated a man, he has to have his ovaries and uterus removed (as well as have surgery to make his genitals look male, be over 20, single, have no minor children and have been diagnosed as suffering from “gender-identity disorder”). He argued that all this violated his right to self-determination and was therefore unconstitutional. The court disagreed.‘

There is lots to unpack here about Japan’s legal criteria which I agree are unreasonable. And the Economist’s choice of headline was very poor.

But also comments on Lees’ thread are perplexing- unsubstantiated stuff as though women are a threat to trans people. Commenters also replying that sterilisation should only be with consent and can’t be required by the state in return for legal rights. I agree with that.

But where does that absolute need for consent leave kids and young proper undertaking medical hormonal or surgical transition?
Because they can’t consent to or understand their own sterilisation, or medically compromising their own fertility and sex organs.

And is the state permitting legal gender transition (so that individuals can legally ‘become’ the opposite sex) the only way, or the right way that trans people’s rights can be recognised?

I don’t think Japan have it right but I don’t think the UK does either with the GRA we have now.

Japan is not alone in requiring sterilisation before granting legal recognition of the person's new gender. Many countries did or still do. Japan is also not alone in having a dodgy history with regard to compelled eugenic sterilisation. They are having to deal with its aftermath now:
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/victims-of-forced-sterilisation-in-japan-to-receive-compensation-and-apology

Isn't the point they should have gone through full gender realignment surgery which can't be done without sterilisation as a "side effect" and the "legal recognition" they are talking about is basically a new birth certificate? They aren't stopping people from being trans and going about life completely nont-surgically altered.

I think the wording is extreme but I basically agree.
Why grant a new birth certificate to someone who hasn't fully committed to transitioning?
Rightfully it should be for adults over 20, not children, no children anywhere should ever be put on a medical trans pathway.

When the gra consultation was open and it was the big topic on discussion boards, I concluded that the only circumstance I would agree to a male born person obtaining a female birth certificate would be if s/he had gone through fully committed whole body surgery and passed as much as possible. Which is only possible with sterilisation. (Actually I later concluded that it's a dangerous legal fiction and should just be scrapped but that's beside the pont atm).

I disagree with the need for sterilisation but I do believe that there will be many in the general public that believe that is what already happens and what transgender people want. The removal of their sex organs to match the new gender. I have ready many comments along the lines of “men wouldn’t go through surgery”, without the realisation that for many there is no surgery. The law is horrific but for many that is what transgender is and that is what has happened/ or happening in the near future to someone they meet who is transgender.

Why is it called sterilisation and called a horrific expectation by TRAs when a right to a changed birth certificate and legal fiction involves full SRS, but there are howls of rage at women calling SRS sterilisation or castration and that's called an awful and wrong way to frame it if the conversation is about concerns over children going through it?

The outrage at this contradicts the argument that puberty blockers are saving trans kids lives. Paris Lees has had everything done and facial surgery too hasn't Paris?

Susie green had her child sterilised while still a child.

I think there’s a few separate but related questions isn’t there:

-what should be the criteria for legal ‘transition’ from birth-sex documents?

• what form should the legal doc transition take or should there be any?
• when do children and young people attain capacity to consent to these non-reversible interventions: blockers, hormones, surgery?