Originally appeared in Transgender Tapestry #99, Fall 2002.

Nancy Nangeroni wrote the following in response to Juli Goins? letter in the Vitale online newsletter.

As J?Noel Gardiner now knows all too well, it?s all a lie. The surgery that was supposed to bring happiness, that was supposed to make her a real woman, the surgery that was supposed to change her sex, didn?t. The Supreme Court in Kansas, following the lead of the Supreme Court in Texas, has now ruled on that question, and they both agree. The sex that was assigned to you at birth is your sex, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or changes.
If you are a transsexual woman, you may not marry a non-transsexual man. If you are a transsexual man, you may not marry a non-transsexual woman. Of course, if you?re a transsexual woman, it?s OK to marry a woman, and likewise with men.

Contrary to the expectations of some people, such homogenderal unions have yet to discomfort anyone enough to inspire a legal challenge to their validity. Rather, this new ruling is just the latest in a series of defeats on this issue, dating all the way back to 1971 in Corbett vs. Corbett, the British case that also went badly for the transsexual involved.

The Gardiner ruling has some very serious ramifications for the transgender community. It?s only a matter of time before some enterprising attorney or business owner or manager makes the argument that, since a transsexual woman is still legally a man according to the supreme court, then he (the transsexual woman, who is, after all, a ?man?) must use the men?s room. After all, the ?proper? assignment of transsexuals to bathrooms has barely begun to be dealt with by our courts. This new ruling could prove to be a serious impediment to access by transsexuals to their bathrooms of choice.

But there?s an even more fundamental issue at stake here. If there is no sex change, then there are no transsexuals. At least, there are no transsexuals who are not living a lie, or at least an elaborate self-deception. In the view promulgated by this ruling, we are all just a bunch of addle-brained losers who haven?t enough common sense to know that ?we are what we are? and can?t change the simple fact of our sex any more than we can change our height or our race. Sorry, transsexuals, you?re just a bunch of self-deluded idiots. That?s what the Kansas Supreme Court told us on Friday, March 16, 2002. You can?t change your sex. Unless, of course, the legislature passes a law that says you can.

Interestingly, the Gardiner ruling reflects the kind of thinking that was prevalent about 30-40 years ago, when doctors claimed to be making ?good citizens? out of transsexuals by performing the surgery, turning those who might otherwise be labeled as ?deviant? homosexuals into apparent heterosexuals. While this most recent judgment is opposite in effect, the predominant consideration is the same: homophobia. Back then, transsexuals were sacrificed on the altar of defense against homosexual visibility. Doctors performed the social service of hiding homosexuals by making them into women. Today, transsexuals are pawns in the struggle to defend the exclusive heterosexuality of marriage. The cause is once again defense of ignorant bigotry, and the victim (among others) is again the transsexual or visibly transgendered person.

Fortunately, it seems clear there is a rising tide of public opinion in support of legitimating gay presence in our culture. That tide seems likely to sooner or later overwhelm the shrinking islands of defenders of the status quo, and marriage (or civil union) based on desire and commitment rather than the shape of one?s body parts should eventually become an accepted part of our society. When that happens, then the issue of whether or not a person has had genital rearrangement or any other surgery will become moot, at least with respect to marriage.

However, it now seems clear that day will not be advanced by a transsexual test case. Rather, it will happen when society as a whole legitimates unions based on spiritual merit without regard for physical shapes. Those trans persons who would like to see the courts legitimate a change of sex would do well to support efforts to legitimate gay marriage. As a locus of homophobic resistance, failure to create change there impedes all movement towards greater respect for individual difference, especially with regard to gender.

In fact, I write this as one who has contributed little to that particular struggle. I have long regarded the institution of marriage as suspect, something better left to others. But maybe it?s time for a rethinking of my priorities. Maybe a more inclusive, gay-friendly concept of marriage or civil union would have a significant effect on the institution. Maybe, just maybe, gay-friendly marriage might be a more tenable way for two people not just to bind themselves to one another, but to celebrate their commitment to each other and enjoy the support of society at large for their union while still retaining their love and respect for, and most importantly their interest in, one another.

Even if gay marriage becomes legitimated, it doesn?t magically rescue transsexuals from legal limbo. But by making the issue moot for the purposes of marriage between two people, it removes a huge obstacle from the path towards legitimating sex change. Instead of being pawns in the struggle to protect a heterosexist institution, we could then be seen in our own light, rather than obscured under that huge shadow.

Thanks to the myopic Gardiner ruling, though, we may be facing an uphill battle for recognition of sex change across the board. At the very least, we will need to buttress the gains we?ve made towards respect for transgenderism and transsexualism, and rethink the strategies we will deploy in moving forward. It?s time to rally the troops.

I propose that we start with the surgeons who have been making out like bandits by doing cash up front surgery on clients too desperate to complain. Consider Dr. Stanley Biber, who has for many years been bringing in over $30 million a year (by the conservative estimate of 300 surgeries/year at $10,000 each) performing what he calls ?sex change surgeries.? Biber is considered by many to be a good friend of the transsexual community, and indeed he has advanced the legitimacy of SRS (not to mention continuing the practice when most others had abandoned it). But it?s time for Biber and all the other SRS scalpel jockeys, Schrang, Meltzer, Menard, Ousterhout, and so many more to let their representatives in the judicial and legislative systems know that this ruling puts in jeopardy their business (not to mention the financial health of the town of Trinidad, Colorado, Biber?s place of business). If there?s no possibility of legally changing sex, then their services become a lot less attractive and their business will suffer. So it?s time for these guys to let their elected representatives know that this kind of court ruling is bad for the economic health of their constituents.

They might also make the argument that sex change is healthy for transsexuals. Longstanding legal practice, though, shows that the health of transsexuals is at best a peripheral consideration when legal rulings involving us are being made, so this argument, while soothing of our egos, will probably have little effect.

This would also be a good time for Rikki Swinn to put some of her dollars to work. When my co-host Gordene MacKenzie and I interviewed her on GenderTalk radio, Rikki asserted that her foundation would primarily target, in its work, the medical profession, because they?re the ones legislators would turn to for advice in crafting any trans-relevant legislation. At the time I disagreed strongly, but now I?m not so sure. Is our system of laws so lacking a true moral compass that it would require the certification of a medical doctor to allow something so clearly and obviously healthy to individuals and so harmless to everybody else? Remember, we?re just talking about whether or not to legally recognize sex change, no more. If this requires a doctor?s certification, then we must, like the inmates in the asylum, belly up to the doctors who control our future freedom, or risk lifelong imprisonment. While some of the qualities of what passes for ?society? and ?living? (can you say ?herd? and ?consuming??) might lend one to think that we?re all in a bizarre kind of global prison, we might as well fight for positive change as much as possible.

But I digress.

It?s time for a resurgence of transgender education and activism, with renewed support from the helping professionals. We must get the word out and reverse the tide of public opinion that makes rulings such as this one feasible. All transpeople who are using the services of medical professionals should let them know that their help is urgently needed. Just ask the next doctor you visit to write a letter to their state representative expressing concern over the treatment of transsexuals by their state law. If every legislator got one such letter, it would prepare them to be sympathetic, or at least a little more aware, the next time such an issue came up.

For all transgendered, trans, and transsexual persons, our work is clear: we need to continue to work at the grassroots level to educate more people about the reality of transgenderism and sex change. We got where we are today by getting out of our little closets and putting our reputations and pride at risk by admitting the truth, our truth. What good is pride if one is living in hiding? What good is privilege if it makes one hide in shame, eating away at one?s self-esteem? What good is a reputation if, at the core, one hates oneself? We must strive to live with real integrity, not just the watered-down, ?good enough for government work? version that tolerates the hiding of personal truths in support of social systems that compromise us for no good reason. In order to be real, whole, healthy persons, claim the fullness of who we are, and walk in the world with our heads up, unashamed, we must own up to our truths and deal with the consequences. The alternative is denying large parts of ourselves, living lives that look nice, but feel miserable.

Our transgender desire and realization is neither unnatural nor unhealthy. Most people, when they get to know us a little, come to understand this and accept us as we are, with the fullness of our complex gender. For many people, the very existence of our gender complexity widens their own gendered playing field and acts as a source of some relief for them. Why do you think we attract such great television ratings? At least in part it?s because we represent a kind of Our systems change when we develop the will to change them and the courage to act on that will. We have the will.

Courage is simply a matter of admitting that there is no other choice. freedom that some people are literally dying for. While most people don?t want to change their sex, most would love to be freed from some of the gender traps that bring displeasure to their daily lives.

We, the transgender community, are not sufficiently powerful to overcome the opposition of entrenched prejudice by ourselves. We need help, a lot of it. We need many, many friends. The gay community now enjoys acceptance by a majority of the population of this country. We can get there, too? but we won?t get there just by passing laws or winning court cases, though these things help. If we make the mistake of obtaining rulings and passing laws without making friends first, we?ll be sorry, as the rulings will get reversed and the laws repealed or declared invalid.

We got where we are today, which is a whole lot better than where we were 10 years ago, by making friends. The friends we made added their voices to ours, so that when we asked for a little respect, we began to get it. Now we need more than a little respect. We need to sway popular opinion in our favor. For that, we need a lot of new friends.

Of course, everyone else out there is not just waiting for an opportunity to lend us a hand. Everybody has their own individual concerns, and we make friends by taking an interest in each other?s concerns. One of the great sadnesses about being closeted is that you become more inwardly focused and lose some of your ability to see and feel with others. I can?t tell you how many times I?ve been approached by newly emerging transpeople who can think and talk of nothing but their own concerns. Not only does this make for boring conversation, it makes for lousy politics. If we want others to take an interest in our needs, we must take an interest in theirs.

For starters, we would do well to help the gay and lesbian community with their work on diversifying marriage, although again, let me say this will not simply be a matter of encouraging a few tranny marriages. After all, there have been plenty of such marriages, but to most people, they?re not particularly disturbing. People don?t care if a person who they think of as a man wears a dress, or a woman wears a tux for their wedding. Sure, it?s good for an occasional human interest story, but it has not, as far as I know, drawn a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the union? at least not in the last 50 years. We can also be effective in helping those working on issues of racism, as well as privilege, economic and physical.

Indigenous rights, women?s issues, elderly care, prisoner rights and care, and many more issues are out there. Good people are working hard on them, but are in need of help. Defense of our freedoms, honest media reportage of world events, fighting the abuses of globalization, and so many more issues are just begging for our participation. In all of these, our visibility as transpeople earns us respect and sometimes help with our own issues. The more we?re out in the world, visible and proud, working with and helping others, the more others will be moved to respect and sometimes even befriend us. Best of all, the more we get outside of ourselves and take an honest interest in others, the more balanced we become as individuals, and the more health and respect we feel for ourselves.

All of this having been said, there is a large maybe looming. The Kantaras custody case pending in Florida, in which an FTM transsexual is battling his ex- (or soon to be ex-) wife?s claims that their marriage is invalid because of his transsexualism, promises to deliver at least an educated ruling on his legitimacy as a parent to their children. According to Karen Doering, the lead attorney for Michael Kantaras, ?The judge really was listening and learning, and we could actually see, as the trial went on, that he was grasping the concepts as he began to use the appropriate terminology.? This case may even, if the judge is feeling particularly bold or missioned, deliver a ruling on Michael?s legitimacy as a man for the purposes of marriage. If it does so, it could become the first real victory of its kind for transsexuals in this country. The only real victory elsewhere comes from Australia in 2001 in the case of Kevin, where a female-to-male transsexual was ruled a man for the purposes of marriage (see <http://www.familycourt. gov.au/judge/2001/html/rekevin_text.html>). Would such a ruling constitute the kind of far-reaching precedent that is needed in order to provide transsexuals with a legal basis for sex change? We hope to have the opportunity to find out. In the meantime, we would be foolish to put all our stock in this one outcome. Rather, working towards legitimating gay marriage and educating people about transgenderism in general are two solid strategies towards lowering the barrier to recognizing the legitimacy of sex change. Is there such a thing as sex change? Of course there is. It?s just going to take some time to open the eyes of our legal system to that reality. Our destiny is clearly linked, for the time being, to the issue of gay marriage, but it?s also linked to a world of other issues of diversity, respect, integrity and dignity. It?s time for us to show our faces, both as transgendered persons in our own right, but also in support of all those who seek to make the world a better place for all of us. The democratic country towards which we are witnessing so much patriotism lately is democratic not just because of our elected representatives, but because of the participation of each and every one of us. To the extent that we participate in our governance, we live democratically. To the extent that we leave it to others, we live under their rule.

Our systems change when we develop the will to change them and the courage to act on that will. We have the will. Courage is simply a matter of admitting that there is no other choice.