Wednesday, 4th June 2008
I am a woman
Joanne Cassar: I always felt and feel that I am a woman who happened to be born with a disability which I have now corrected.
Joanne Cassar holds her birth certificate in her perfectly manicured hand and, as she points out her female gender annotation on the document, she glances into the mirror of her salon and says: "How can you call me a transsexual or a man? I always felt I was a woman. I am a woman".
Her kohl-rimmed eyes exude confidence but sorrow sometimes seeps through as she talks about a recent court decision barring her from marrying even though she was legally recognised as a female on her documents following gender reassignment surgery.
After freeing herself of a life trapped in a male body through the surgery, she now feels trapped in a legal limbo that does not allow her to marry - either a man or a woman - despite her fundamental right to marry.
"Of course, I'm not interested in marrying a woman," she says in a soft tone as she recounts how, ever since she was a child, she always felt she was female.
She was happy during her early school years when she attended a mixed school but the nightmare started in secondary school when she was in a boys-only school. "I felt like a fish out of water. I felt that I was a girl but was surrounded by boys... Children can be very nasty to one another and they used to pick on me and tease me a lot," she says.
After keeping her feelings bottled up for years, when she turned 15 she opened up to her mother. "She told me that she had been expecting me to tell her for years... My parents and sister were a pillar of support from the start," she says with a sparkle in her eyes. "They backed me up in all my choices and encouraged me to study to become a hairdresser and open my own business."
Ms Cassar's family also stood by her side when she travelled to the UK for the gender reassignment surgery. Not doing the surgery was never an option for her. "I had been ready for the operation since I was about 14 but could not do it earlier as I had no money. Imagine, each time I would have a shower I would get the shivers."
After saving up, at the age of 22, she got the surgery done. Before going under the knife she was subjected to various hormone treatments and medical and psychiatric tests to ensure she was medically and psychologically prepared for this invasive surgery. She was also informed that there was not a 100 per cent guarantee that the operation would be successful. She might end up in a wheelchair or, in the worst scenario, die.
"I was determined to go ahead. I would have rather died during surgery and had 'Joanne' written on my tombstone than lived a life in a man's body."
Luckily, the surgery was successful and, following an excruciating recovery period of about six months, Ms Cassar filed a court application to have her gender changed to female on her birth certificate. Some nine months later the court upheld the request allowing her documents to truly reflect who she felt she was.
Ms Cassar was finally at home in her body and confident of her identity. Having been with her boyfriend for several years they started thinking about a future together.
"Initially, we were going to have a private function and draft a contract between us but then I thought: Wait a moment. Why can't I get married to the man I love like any other woman?"
The couple started planning their wedding and booked everything for December last.
But the Marriage Registrar refused to issue the marriage banns and so she filed an application asking the court to order the issuing of the banns.
"Some time later (February 2007) my lawyer called me and told me that the court had ordered the banns to be issued. I was under shock... I could not believe that the man I loved would be my husband. I called my parents and my close friend to tell them the good news," she said.
But her joy was short lived and obstacles started mushrooming in her path to wedded joy. In May last year, the Marriage Registrar filed an application asking the court to revoke the previous court's judgment to issue the banns and the banns were stayed pending a decision.
"I was devastated. One minute I had it all and the next it was all taken away. Our matrimonial home was ready; all was set for the wedding and, suddenly, we had to cancel everything."
Even her relationship with her partner of five years was put under a lot of stress and they ended up breaking up.
Then, last month, the Civil Court overturned the February 2007 ruling. The court ruled that Ms Cassar will never be considered to be a "woman" according to the Marriage Act and declared that the change in her birth certificate, allowing a change of name and gender, was only intended to protect the right to privacy and to avoid embarrassment.
Initially shattered by the judgment, Ms Cassar has now pulled herself up and is determined to keep fighting for her right to marry.
Although she is disappointed by the courts, having allowed her to taste joy and then take it away, she feels confident and accepted by society.
"I feel comfortable with who I am and I have no problem with society and feel accepted by the people around me. I always tell my story to people I meet. I feel it's my duty to let them know."
One thing that annoys her is when people refer to her as a transsexual.
"I feel insulted by the term. I always felt and feel that I am a woman who happened to be born with a disability which I have now corrected. There is a medical term for it - gender identity disorder.
"Think about it. Imagine you were born with the face of a monster and you knew that surgery would solve it. Wouldn't you opt for it if you had the opportunity? I think you'd have to be crazy not to, as it would mean a better life. I chose to make my life better... I just want to live the kind of family life my parents brought me up to live."
Gender identity disorder
Gender identity disorder describes a conflict between a person's physical or apparent gender and that person's self-identification. A person identified as a boy may actually feel and act like a girl, according to the University of Maryland Medical Centre website.
This is distinct from homosexuality as homosexuals nearly always identify with their apparent gender. The feeling of being in the body of the "wrong" gender must persist for at least two years for this diagnosis to be made. The cause is unknown but hormonal influences in the womb, genetics and environmental factors are suspected to be involved. The disorder may occur in children or adults and is rare.
According to Psychology Today, identity issues may manifest in a variety of different ways. For example, some people with normal genitals and secondary sex characteristics of one gender privately identify more with the other gender. Some may cross-dress and some may actually seek sex-change surgery. Others are born with ambiguous genitalia, which can raise identity issues.
To be clinically diagnosed with this disorder, a person must persistently and strongly identify with the opposite gender and experience a persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.
Many individuals with gender identity disorder become socially isolated, which can contribute to low self-esteem and may lead to school aversion or even dropping out. Peer ostracism and teasing are especially common consequences for boys with the disorder.
RSS
Comments
The second is the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 23 (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article%2023.2) Article 23. which *is* binding, and to which Malta is a signatory. See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty5_asp.htm
Malta's reservations on articles 13,14,19,20 and 22 do not affect its obligations under article 23. To repeat, the Yogyakarta principles merely spell out the details of existing obligations under UDHR.16 and ICCPR.23.
The situation is not only manifestly unjust, but actually against treaties to which Malta is a signatory. A rare case where justice, common sense, and the law coincide.
Pity, I suppose, considering how the Church is one of those organisations pivotal and totally for liberty and freedom for all. Some people know better (...obviously).
One has to keep in mind that these operations are not taken lightly at all. Numerous tests (not merely psychological but also behavioural etc) are carried out on these individuals and GROs are not performed unless it is asserted that the person involved is actually suffering as he/she feels that he/she belongs to another sex.
Now once a person so undergoes a GRO and the law recognizes him/her as belonging to that particular gender which is so assigned to him/her (something which the law must do)...birth certificates and other documents relative to that person's gender MUST be changed as the notion that changing such documents would be tantamount to telling a lie to society has long been abolished!
Having analyzed the above...It does not take an expert to realize that it is outwardly contradictory and that it makes NO SENSE to EFFECTIVELY recognize a person as belonging to a particular gender but nonetheless deny him/her the possibilty of enjoying ALL the rights attributable to such gender.
This Maltese judgement in this case is a complete outrage for the following reasons:
1. The Court actually admits it is going against the case law of the European Court of Human Rights
2. Then it reads the ECrtHR's assertions that it is up to the State to determine when gender reassigment is complete and to determine the formalities of marriage as an authorisation for that State to actually DENY that, for the purposes of marriage laws, gender reassignment can ever be complete.
3. It quotes English case law that after Goodwin is obsolete.
4. It expressly states that post-op transsexuals cannot get married to ANYONE in clear violation of the ECHR.
P. Attard
AD Spokesperson for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Issues
Thanks for the info to Zoe Brain.
As a concluding note, I am not saying that the principles involved are wrong per se, I'm just asserting that legally speaking at international law they are far from being "binding international legal standards" which the Republic of Malta is in violation of. Thinking otherwise is, legally speaking, bogus.
3. Failing both 1 and 2, one can eventually make reference to what is termed as jus cogens (the peremptory norms of general international law). These peremptory norms binding on all members of the international community are even more limited than the customary international law mentioned in 2. Morever, even though the creation of new norms of customary international law is quite a hard process, even more so is that of a peremptory norm of general international law.
CONCLUSION - There are no binding obligations in relation to the generic subject matter treated here which the Republic of Malta is violating and the assertion that these Yogyakarta Principles are "binding international legal standards with which all States must comply". Ergo, the assertion by the posted website/organisation is untenable and the notion that the Republic of Malta is in breach of international obligations in the field is laughable at best...continued in post 3...
PREMESSA: The website, with a clear agenda to promote mentioned principles, claims that it promotes "international legal standards with which all States must comply".
Questions:
1. Upon which binding treaties, signed and ratified by "all States" including the Republic of Malta are such "international legal standards" held to be obligatory upon the Republic of Malta?
2. Failing a treaty-based obligation at international law, it is to be held that the obligation arises out of what is termed "customary international law" which requires a uniform and extensive application of a particular practice which is practiced by the international community as being binding. In relation to the subject matter treated here there is neither the practice nor the intention required...continued in other post...
"The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply."
Why make life miserable to this individual! If she is now medically (and ironically, also civilly) certified as a woman, let her get on with her life. Why should the courts get involved in this?
Joanne...get married elsewhere, and not in this third-world theocracy...and then return and slap (hypothetically) the marriage certificate in our fundamentalist marriage registrar's face.
To all those who oppose a completely harmless act of love, get a life!
No, it would be to society's benefit for her to be allowed to marry. Her marriage - to a man who is aware that she was born with the wrong genitals - should not concern you at all unless you are the man in question. Any special difficulties they will face, including that she is unable to have children at present, would be something that they will have to deal with. They don't need a church-led state to try to make things more difficult for them.
Apart from anything else, these unwarranted restrictions and meddling only serve to reduce what little meaning marriage still has.
In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights handed down its landmark decision on transgender rights, Goodwin Vs. UK. In this case, the Court held that:
1 A person's gender cannot be determined by purely biological criteria but also psychological factors need to be taken into account.
2 Hence, if a birth certificate (basing only on biological criteria), states, erraneously, that a person's sex at birth is (for example) male, and then later on in the individual's life it turns out that their gender is female, then that birth certificate is factually incorrect.
3 Hence, the UK's argument that a birth certificate records a historical fact (i.e. the sex at birth) and thus should not be changed because of things that happen later (i.e. the gender reassignment) is not a defence because AT BIRTH that determination of sex is incorrect.
4. Hence birth certificates and other documents have to be chanegd in order to protect an individual's private life, and once the individual is recognised as having undergone gender reassigment, s/he should be entitled to get married to a person of the opposite sex.
...
AD Spokesperson for LGBT Issues
A few, rare, Intersex conditions mean that a child can be born looking female, and wil masculinise late in life. Look up "5 alpha reductase deficiency syndrome" (5ARD) for example. The conditions going the other way, from a male appearance at birth to a female one later, are really rare. People like me cause legal systems to have fits, as we can have male birth certificates, but are biologically female. Or the reverse.
The Yogyakarta declaration is a clarification of existing law, not something new. It spells out in detail the obligations of existing signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN conventions, in this particular area. The reason for its existence is to prevent situations exactly like this one.
If you choose to do as Joanne Cassar did you should be allowed to live your life as you see fit, NOT be told you can not be Happy by some COURT or GOVERNMENT. My Loving GOD made NO such judgement on any of us.
Why should HER life be made miserable for your benefit - If you ask me its not my benefit, its society's benefit - and by that same arguement, it should be vice versa shouldn't it?
@Albert Gauci Cunningham
it takes guts to say you're gay - It aint the case no more - the media has made it not only easy but cool - I'm not bashing gay people "I have alot of friends who are gay" - but this is totally different.
@Corinne Vella
because they do not fit another person's definition of acceptability - Its not ONLY my definition and if it is then I feel sorry for the coming generations where nothing is sacred.
P.S. Im extremely curious to see what you liberals think about that pregnant fellow in the UK - what of the poor offspring he is about to bring into this world? If you dont think that theres something fundamentally wrong in that then I pity you and your kids.
@ Corinne Vella "What sort of relationship is it that relies solely on the law rather than on honesty and trust? " That is precisely what I am stating , if a girl (in this case) cheats her spouse and someone knows about the difficulty she had , one is morally obliged to to inform the authorities about the said difficulty , that is why banns are placed on notice boards .
It would not be a good relationship if one finds out that his/her better half did not tell him/her the important truth about her/his life .
Both have a right to know about each other's lives.
How fickle that men should queue up to marry someone because of her looks only to turn her down 'because she is unable to bear his children'. Perhaps there should be law against men who marry for appearances alone? We could also add one that obliges a man to recognise that the children a woman bears are not just his but hers too, and very obviously too given that it is the mother, and not the father, who carries and gives birth to a child.
With what you have just stated even the British and the Australians cannot really agree on what rights you should have.
I think Joanne has a right to be legally bonded with another person (who is informed about her 'condition') as much as a gay person has a right for same sex legal bonding which will give the right of inheritance and other legal rights to the spouses .
I cannot judge wether Joanne should have the right to adopt a child or not , I would leave that to the child's guardians .
I would oppose child adoption to gay couples.
In similar cases to Joanne's what happens if the spouse is not informed that he is marrying a person who can never ever bear his children?I am sorry if I am sounding harsh , it is not my intention to hurt anyone.
In my opinion Joanne could have kept her case private . She was not coerced to go public.
ROBERT THAKE------My parents never explained anything to me and I was the last person in the family and in the town where, I was born and bred, who was expected to be gay!! But here i am OUT AND PROUD OF MY PAST AND MY PRESENT......it takes guts to say you're gay let alone to go through Joanne's legal battle!!!!!!!!!
WELL DONE FOR PUBLISHING STORIES LIKE THESE!!! No wonder THE TIMES ,as always, remains our best choice!!!!!!!!
May our forefathers keep on turning in their graves if it means that people no longer need to hide themselves for fear of bigotry. The moral issue here is not another person's gender but whether anyone should be shunned simply because they do not fit another person's definition of acceptability. If your children have learned that already, you need not fear for them.
So, we should deny this woman the right to marry simply because you don't know how to explain to your children that some women need this surgery? Put a shackle on her life so that you don't have to read the news about it? Why should HER life be made miserable for your benefit?
What illegallity there is in letting this woman getting married to a man.
We are in the EU, bit we are very far away from observing the rights that we have.We are always late in getting the same rights from our local authorities. Why we always find these nerds in dictating out own personal lives,
Im more than sure that Joanne have all the means in fighting this last illegal step and succeed in her plan to get married.
I, wish you the best in life, after all we know of only one life that we are living, and a very short one too.
@ John Schembri. You're missing the point completely. How many people do you now who had to go out and scream their case out so they could get married. Yes Ms Cassar waived her right for privacy when she spoke publicly about her case but only because she was forced to. Every weekend there are many marriages around the islands but you never read/hear about most of them. Normal Joe's and Rita's leading normal lives, part of which is to get married and try hard to live happily ever after. Unfortunately Ms Cassar cannot have her normal life and she chose to go public. What did you want her to do? Keep her privacy and cry her eyes dry in a dark corner?
In my opinion if a person is forced to give up their right for privacy then this right was taken away, NOT WAIVED. We are not talking Victoria Bekham who chooses to live in front of the cameras. We are talking about private citizens.
For the layperson, I recommend looking at the Yogyakarta Principles, available at http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/
"The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply."
As a hint, look at Principle 3(e), corresponding to the appropriate section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"States shall:
(e) Ensure that changes to identity documents will be recognised in all contexts where the identification or disaggregation of persons by gender is required by law or policy;"
Malta is in direct violation here, and it doesn't take an expert to see that.
Regarding the Marriage ACT, if it does not reflect present realities, then it is outdated and needs to be updated accordingly asap.
Keep fighting for your rights and make your voice heard on the media. Finally justice will triumph....hopefully.
Good luck for a bright future!!
by wearing a bear mask, doesn't mean you're a bear.....
People like you, have become so obsessed with human rights that the threshold set by 'modern Europe' (which means a bunch of coerced politicians who cant do otherwise) has destroyed it from the inside, out and loosened the bonds of society which once earned it its grace.
The fact that this sort of news runs rampant today distorts MY HUMAN RIGHTS to MORALITY and BASIC VALUES. What will I tell my children when men are women and women are men. What next? Our forefathers turn in their graves. I don't know why this article was published in the first place.
We are ruled by archaic laws that our incompetent Prime Ministers, Ministers, Secretaries and Members of Parliament had never the guts to change into just , equal , humane and modern ones. They continuously never bothered about single people, especially people like the person in the article. They cared only for families as that is where the odds to be elected were most favourable. Single people are never taken into account. They are just numbers on the list and nothing else.
When Malta was conned to join the European Union there was a huge hope among the conned majority that Malta would suddenly be on equal par with the other nations in this one grand Utopia. On par? My foot!!!!
I think that persons like the one in the article should be given every single right and opportunity to enjoy all the existing Human rights. But here in this little confused island we have a lot of little legalized dictators who think that they are above us and dictate to us
This is a truly banana republic and it has been since 1974.
Welcome to the show and pass the bananas around, please!
Oh what a country....oh what a beautiful live! Come on MALTA. Wake up! We are living in 2008.....and all persons having problems HAVE to be treated on their own case!! ....and make way for red tape!!!
And by what calculus does anyone need to be "a lawyer specialising in International Human Rights" in order to make the entirely spot-on observation that Zoe Brain so aptly made? It's pure common sense by someone who happens to be extraordinarily well-informed on this particular subject. Beyond that, what purpose is served by any law that cannot be readily understood by lay people without the benefit of counsel? In my experience, anyone who prefaces his/her comment on any law with "I'm not a lawyer but..." is simply announcing his/her ignorance on that particular subject.
FYI, I am a lawyer and my opinion is that Malta has in fact breached the relevant EU human rights conventions to which it is signatory.
The court is as useful as a bible in a brothel with matters of the sort .The odesity was that they said they only issued her with legal documents to avoid the embaressment!!!!! Its a shame that they did not see the big picture and the fact that the only embaressing thing is the outcome of their worthless rulings,
Are you a lawyer specialising in International Human Rights ?
"The court ruled that Ms Cassar will never be considered to be a "woman" according to the Marriage Act and declared that the change in her birth certificate, allowing a change of name and gender, was only intended to protect the right to privacy and to avoid embarrassment."
And this action protects her privacy? This spares her embarrassment? It seems that blatantly lying is something the Maltese administration do at every level, at the level of International relations, at the level of the bureaucracy, and the judiciary too. They don't even try to hide it.
The International community has been made aware now that all Maltese documentation, birth certificates, marriage licences, passports, even international treaties, are meaningless scraps of paper. In that regard, the court has done the world a favour.
Oh yes... she's a woman. To say anything else violates not just the basics of simple human decency, but sanity too.
Best wishes for a positive future.