Some argue trans women are not women and should have a separate category for documentation purposes.

Transgender issues have developed momentum quickly. The process for changing official documents to match gender identity is still catching up and so is the debate. Martin van Beynen reports.

Transgender people are a tiny part of the population but they occupy a big space at the frontier of minority rights.

As societies move beyond the normalisation of gay relationships and greater inclusion of diverse groups, transgender (gender identity doesn't match the sex people are born with) issues have gained a new prominence.

Although New Zealand takes a while to catch up with world trends, gender transition services are in greater demand and gender dysphoria (a powerful disconnection with your assigned sex) is recognised and treated at an earlier age.

Officialdom is ringing changes to accommodate diverse identities. Agencies like the Ministry of Education recommend schools provide gender-neutral uniforms and toilets and have health programmes that affirm sexual and gender diversity. Statistics New Zealand has introduced a new category of "gender diverse".

READ MORE:

* Pregnant dad-to-be ready to welcome first child

* Birth certificate changes 'will protect trans people'

* How to debate transgender issues without being offensive

* 'Mother' and 'mother' on birth certificate

* 'Transgender' definition may be erased in US

​In this climate of sensitivity and inclusion, a piece of innocuous proposed law called the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill (the Bill) has created a sometimes fraught catalyst for transgender issues.

For both practical and philosophical reasons, transgender people want official records to match the gender they identify with. Passports and driving licences are relatively straightforward. Authorities require a simple self-declaration to change the documents or issue new ones.

However, as the law stands under the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 (the Act), the process for changing a birth certificate to the desired gender is more cumbersome and expensive. Transgender people must apply to the Family Court and satisfy it they have "taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the gender identity of the nominated sex". Expert medical evidence "that the applicant has undergone medical treatment to acquire a 'physical conformation' that accords with their new gender identity" must be supplied.

The Bill will change all that. As it has emerged from the Governance and Administration select committee, the Bill will remove the Family Court and the medical evidence from the equation.

Under the proposed law, adults (over 18) will apply to the Register-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to have their nominated sex registered by specifying they want to be female, male, intersex (neither male nor female) or X.

All they need to do is swear a statutory declaration saying they intend to continue to identify as a person of the nominated sex and understand the consequences of the application. No medical evidence is needed.

It's also simpler for 16 and 17-year-olds. They need the consent of their guardian and confirmation from a health professional that they understand the consequences of the application and that the change is in their interests. The definition of health professional is wide, ranging from a psychiatrist to a social worker.

MONIQUE FORD/STUFF Transgender woman Penelopy Mansell was questioned about her gender when she tried to sign up to a women only gym in Wellington. She has not had gender reassignment surgery.

The change would follow countries like Sweden, Argentina, Denmark and Colombia that already have laws to ensure the process to change the legal gender on birth certificates is an administrative rather than medical one.

In New Zealand, the Human Rights Commission supports the changes, saying the Act "fails to uphold the rights of some of the most vulnerable members of our community – transgender, intersex and other gender diverse people". The Department of Internal Affairs, in a report on submissions on the bill, has also endorsed the reform. Its report says it has been unable to find any evidence internationally that non-trans individuals have "gamed" the simplified procedure. The department's report also quotes a 2016 European Commission review of legal gender recognition measures that found fears about the changes were unfounded.

The objections to the current process are mainly based on the way the law puts medical expertise above the experience of trans individuals and sets up hurdles, including expense, for people already struggling with years of discrimination and disapproval. Although the law has been applied flexibly, the emphasis on physical changes is misguided, objectors say. Surgery is not appropriate for many transgender people.

Transgender activist Allyson Hamblett, who presented a petition pressing for the changes to Parliament in 2014, says: "We are the experts on our gender identity, not psychologists, psychiatrists and GPs."

Advocates for the changes say although New Zealand has no official identity documents, a birth certificate is still a necessary or useful document for many purposes. They say discrimination and suspicion can result when, for instance, a birth certificate is required for a job or a flat and it shows a different gender to that presented in person. Another example they offer is a transgender prison inmate who can find themselves in a prison matching their biological background rather than their chosen gender unless their birth certificate has been changed.

Submissions in support of the changes all call for a simplified and cheaper way of changing gender on birth certificates.

"Changing this legislation would help to empower a marginalised group of people and make at least one thing easier to do, easier to understand and get rid of at least some of the red tape that we find our lives embroiled in. Trust us to make our own decisions about our lives. We know who we are," one submitter says.

Advocates also point to the gender self-identification process for driving licences and passports and ask why it should be any different for birth certificates.

However opponents of change see it as a fundamental shift that requires a lot more consultation and advice. For instance they believe government agencies aren't aware of what the changes could mean for their services. The Bill, which has the unanimous endorsement of its select committee, was introduced without the simplified proposed process for birth certificate changes.

ROSA WOODS/STUFF Born female, Wellington teenager Angus Coleman is raising money to have a double mastectomy, the next step in his transition to a transgender male.

A birth certificate, opponents say, is unlike a passport or driver's licence in that it is a foundation document and cannot be revoked.

Opponents' main fear is that the definition of transgender women (biological males who identify as female) as female will erode the protections and allowances for women. Self–declaration means any male can be female, they say.

The worries range from granting transgender women access to women-only spaces like changing rooms and refuges to lumping transgender women into female health funding and statistics. Scholarships designed specifically for females, equal opportunities provisions and sports teams are other minefields. Predatory males will game the new system, they say.

It's argued transgender women retain their male strength and size and, socialised as males, are more prone to violence and asserting their views. In an essay in the Economist magazine Kristina Harrison, a British transsexual (has had surgery and hormone treatment) and political campaigner, says: "It is women's experience of sexism and misogyny, and their struggle against them, not bigotry, that overwhelmingly motivates opposition to the trans movement's current agenda."

Wellington feminist Renee Gerlich says the one-step process under the Bill means the loss of any robust, shared definition of sex.

"That in turn undermines all sex-based protections, which are especially important for women," she says.

"In short, these government proposals represent an unprecedented rollback of gains that women have fought hard for."

Georgina Blackmore, from the organisation Speak up for Women, worries about putting biological males, who have changed their sex on their birth certificate with a minimum of fuss, in female prisons. She points to the experience of United Kingdom authorities who face an increasing wave of prisoners serving terms for serious sexual offences seeking gender reassignment

Part of the discomfort over the changes is also due to the simplified way teenagers will be able to change their birth certificate sex. Opponents suggest a genuine teenage desire to change sex may not be permanent and that many dysphoric teenagers will grow up to be lesbian or gay adults. Clinicians, they say, are increasingly concerned at how mental illness, peer pressure, rebellion against society's expectations of their sex or normal teenage angst are dismissed in the race to affirm gender choice.

The danger with unsceptical affirmation, Blackmore says, is that the diagnosis becomes self-fulfilling.

"It is important that trans-identifying young people are supported and not stigmatised. But it is also important that mind/body disconnect and the serious medical interventions that ensue are not normalised or worse presented as desirable."

Internal Affairs minister Tracey Martin declined to comment. The Bill is due for its second reading, probably in the new year.

Comments have been closed.