COMMENTARY by [Name Withheld]
If ever an effort deserved to be called the tip of the spear, it is the International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy. It might be characterized as redundant by some, an affront to the existing transgender support or medical groups by others or even a radical splinter effort by those who have passed on to lose themselves in a new identity. But… One irrefutable fact stands out concerning the conference. In over two centuries of law under the U.S. Constitution, there has been very little progress made in eliminating the prejudicial treatment of identified transgendered persons. Judge Bayless said it all when he pointed out that you can criminalize an action, but not a state of being. We are who and what we are and we are no more or less criminal than the population as a whole. Marla Aspen hit the nail on the head with her remarks in the medical law committee last year. She said we should seek protected class status and it may well be that it will become requisite to do so if violence results from pressing for our guaranteed rights under the constitution. With reference to the murder trial mentioned earlier in the newsletter, Marla was right on the money again when she proposed that transgenderism be dropped from the DSM. We cannot allow ourselves to be characterized as mental defectives or permit anyone to shield themselves from the consequences of their crimes by virtue of being transgendered. Other psychological and psychiatric problems are often seen in those who represent they are transgendered. It is on the basis of those that legal defenses should be developed and that would be the case if we were not in the DSM.
TATS, V1/I2, 02/1993
When we ask “should transgender people be included in antidiscrimination laws,” what broader issues are we overlooking?
This dismayed transgender people seeking to have their operations performed locally. The online edition of the now-defunct newspaper Project Eyeball carried out a survey in June 2001 asking, “Should sex-change operations be resumed in Singapore?” 39% of respondents said, “Yes, they are people with valid medical needs, like infertile couples” and 35% said, “Why not? It is legal here, as are transsexual marriages”. The results showed that Singaporeans were generally quite supportive.