Restricted movements
This is a repost from my journal. I decided it could benefit from a wider audience.
It has until recently been the case that a transsexual citizen of Australia could have issued to them a passport showing their 'intended sex', on condition that they demonstrated their intention to have surgical reassignment within a year - after which time the passport, being temporary only, would expire. If they have had satisfactory surgery they could then obtain a permanent passport.
Since May, this law has been changed. Since May it is no longer legal to grant a passport showing a sex other than that listed in the person's 'cardinal document' (to the best of my knowledge, their birth certificate or, I am guessing, whatever documentation an immigrant is issued when they are granted citizenship). This document cannot legally be changed until after proof of genital reassignment surgery is presented. Consequently any transsexual person who wishes to travel overseas, for whatever reason, including the surgery in question and including attending a family member's marriage and including a desire to see Stonehenge, will be required to travel with documentation specifying their sex to be other than in the manner they present themselves, or to apply for a limited-duration Document of Identity which does not specify gender at all.
This does not seem, to me, to be the safest of situations, although the purpose of this change was ostensibly to "strengthen the integrity and security of Australian passports". I suspect the news stories about the flood of terrorists slipping into the country under passports showing a different sex has passed me by unnoticed. Can anyone think of a way in which this changes accomplishes the goal it is claimed to have? Because to me it sure looks like its main effect is to increase people's risk of harm and harassment, which is an awful thing to do.
The articles I am getting most of this information from include speculation that the real motive is to prevent people from exploiting the previous system to bypass the federal ban on non-straight marriage. They include reference to the case of a woman suing the federal government for refusing to grant her a female passport because she is still legally married to a woman. They also, incidentally, point out that the Australian position was already a violation of international law.
Thanks to laura_seabrook for bringing this to my attention. It puts me in mind of another post I have been meaning to make and which may appear in the near future.
It has until recently been the case that a transsexual citizen of Australia could have issued to them a passport showing their 'intended sex', on condition that they demonstrated their intention to have surgical reassignment within a year - after which time the passport, being temporary only, would expire. If they have had satisfactory surgery they could then obtain a permanent passport.
Since May, this law has been changed. Since May it is no longer legal to grant a passport showing a sex other than that listed in the person's 'cardinal document' (to the best of my knowledge, their birth certificate or, I am guessing, whatever documentation an immigrant is issued when they are granted citizenship). This document cannot legally be changed until after proof of genital reassignment surgery is presented. Consequently any transsexual person who wishes to travel overseas, for whatever reason, including the surgery in question and including attending a family member's marriage and including a desire to see Stonehenge, will be required to travel with documentation specifying their sex to be other than in the manner they present themselves, or to apply for a limited-duration Document of Identity which does not specify gender at all.
This does not seem, to me, to be the safest of situations, although the purpose of this change was ostensibly to "strengthen the integrity and security of Australian passports". I suspect the news stories about the flood of terrorists slipping into the country under passports showing a different sex has passed me by unnoticed. Can anyone think of a way in which this changes accomplishes the goal it is claimed to have? Because to me it sure looks like its main effect is to increase people's risk of harm and harassment, which is an awful thing to do.
The articles I am getting most of this information from include speculation that the real motive is to prevent people from exploiting the previous system to bypass the federal ban on non-straight marriage. They include reference to the case of a woman suing the federal government for refusing to grant her a female passport because she is still legally married to a woman. They also, incidentally, point out that the Australian position was already a violation of international law.
Thanks to laura_seabrook for bringing this to my attention. It puts me in mind of another post I have been meaning to make and which may appear in the near future.