Words, Words, Words, I'm So Sick of Words

by Gina Dumas

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

For several years, I have considered the difficulties we have brought on ourselves , as we attempt to educate a world slowly awakening to our realities.

As the understanding of Transsex and all the Intersexes increases, we seem to paint a bewildering picture of ourselves and the biology of our being , by attempting to cram too many meanings, into words that we use interchangeably.

Perhaps it would be better to say we are attempting to stuff too many heads into too few hats. Let me illustrate this point.

If we take the descriptor 'breathing difficulties' and claim that this term alone suffices to cover our understanding of this life threatening condition, then those that do not suffer from breathing difficulties, will assume that they have a grasp of the problem, and that one cure fits all.

When we reflect on issues such as lung cancer, influenza, fractured ribs, the common cold, a broken nose etc , we see that they are all very different causes of the problem "breathing difficulties" and most certainly will not respond to the same treatment.

As a very misunderstood community, we do ourselves no favours when we attempt to use a one blanket fits all approach to our issues, it simply doesn't.

We most certainly have the common problem "that society doesn't understand the words that define us, and fails to respond to our very different needs". We have banded together around this problem , it is the only commonality we have.

It was very interesting to read the 88 page judgement of Justice Chisholm in the case Re:- Kevin , and to see the evidence that the Family Court of Australia accepted both in this case , and the appeal before the full bench which also upheld the judgement based on the same evidence.

A key was turned in our favour, by the wonderful efforts of Ms Rachael Wallbank (the solicitor running the case), the courage of Kevin and Jennifer, and those who testified with such telling effect . We would be fools to turn the key back again, by muddying the waters so recently made clear.

Transsex is an Intersex condition, done sealed and delivered, into Australian law. Let us build on this fact.

From the time of Dr Harry Benjaman and through the fifty years since, this had been posited by the most reputable minds in the field of treating the Transsexed. It has now been accepted as fact. Transsex is not C.A.H., neither is it A.I.S. nor Klinefelters or any of the other Intersexes , but neither are they each other . You will notice that I drop the '-uality' of the descriptor, when I write of the Transsexed , for the word Transsexuality screams the wrong message to those we need to educate. Words can do that.

Words are probably our biggest common headache, we desperately need to redesign the words we use to define ourselves. There is not a single word we use, that was not coined by someone seeking to express a meaning, they are all inventions.

People can be utterly petrified by words that have been given taboo status by their having been pickled in fear, spiced with distortion, or seen in company with the wrong images. Bounce the word Transsexuality in front of a stranger, and you will quickly see what I mean, they more often than not become intellectually constipated on the spot, you can see the fear dance in their eyes.

Interestingly, those of the otherwise intersexed in our community are often terrified of being associated with the words Transsexual and Transsexuality. I don't really blame them; the words have become associated with very negative images. It will be easier to change the words than to change the images.

Some words imply quite correctly, that something has happened to the person with whom they are associated, something beyond their choosing . To be Intersexed, is one such 'word - person' relationship, even if the word is not understood in the wider community.

To be Transsexed could be understood this way, for the word again implies quite correctly, that Transsex, like the other Intersexes, is not a choice. The biological realities of our lives cannot be laid aside, when they are not convenient on any given day.

Much tension exists in our community over the ownership of words and the concepts associated with them. These tensions are products of the need we have to define ourselves to society and the adoption of new or modified words, will be one sensible and easy way to avoid stealing each others thunder.

I urge the adoption of the "concept words" Transsex and Transsexed . Rachael Wallbank points out that the word 'Transgender' was coined by Virginia Price, an American transvestite. The word Transgender is very much in the same boat. It is a one -blanket-fits-all, that doesn't fit at all.

I do not say that the transvestite part of our community does not share the common problem about which we gather for mutual support, but the reality is, that just as the Intersex conditions (there are around sixty of them ) are not the same as one another, and don't all require the same treatment, neither can the word 'Transgender' serve the need we have, to define the particular identity and needs of the Transsexed.

I join with those who urge the adoption of standard meanings for words such as gender, sex, gender roles, sexuality, etc. These are words that bring us to grief as a community, for we use them in confusion of their true meanings.

As a community we need to develop and use, simple, crisp, plain English meanings, that will make these terms more effective tools for us.

Perhaps the most glaring examples of our using words so as to confuse, is to be seen in the frequent use of the word Gender when we mean Sex, and we speak of Gender reassignment when what surgery aims to achieve, is Sex reassignment.

Gender is a realisation of the sexed brain, we have yet to see a reassignment of the brain's sex.

Before the less flexible in our ranks put their Doc Martins through the Internet in rage, at my daring to assail the Holy Grail of 'the concept of gender', may I suggest that we explore the difference between Gender and Gender Roles, and the amenability of these realities to modification.

I agreed with our lovely editor , when she said at the bottom of page 18 in edition of Polare No.41, "neither genitalia nor chromosomes define Gender. The brain is the arbiter and the brain usually follows the prompting of pre-natal hormonal influences". Neatly expressed Katherine, the court agrees with the evidence supporting this point of view.

Gender is therefore not amenable to modification.

And Gender Roles? Well, I have been using my own definition of these structures in all my recent correspondence and lobbying . 'signaled to you by a person's Sex, one assumes (sometimes incorrectly), that we know this person's Gender, and that they will live in a pattern or role, that each culture sees as normal for that sex.'

As Gender Roles differ between cultures, we are able to see that Gender Roles are, at least in part, constructed by the culture in which they exist . Gender Roles are therefore amenable to modification . Should Gender Roles be redefined as 'Sex Roles'? I think so. It is our gender which drives us towards identifying with a Sex Role.

Our community needs to change the minds of those who change the laws, we will struggle to do this, until we settle on a standard use of words to express to the legislators our socio-biological predicament.

A law is a fence, placed around a concept for the purposes of administration.

(I hope Ms Wallbank will forgive me this definition... it came to me in the middle of designing a concrete ramp but it does the job.)

Our legislators cannot frame a law on ethereal concepts such as "how long is a puff of smoke" or "what shape will a cloud be in ten minutes" they need certainty, certainty that the concept at the centre of a proposed change , is defensible in the public eye. They will always seek confirmation of any facts we put to them in support of law change. They have always sought this validation from the professional bodies of law and medicine. This will not change, risk taking is not their business.

We as a community have the task of presenting defensible concepts to the legislators, based on the facts we are best able to support, expressed in words that always have unambiguous meanings.

I propose that we need at least a national consensus on the words we use in our submissions, and in arriving at this consensus, the last thing we should have in mind is any attempt to make one blanket fit all, or we will have "trouble with words"

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.