There is something exceptionally wrong about the government’s pandering to the gay lobby. That something is the rainbow-coloured pedestrian crossing in Floriana, which is triumphalist and possibly a danger to both drivers and pedestrians.
Other than that, I really think they have this one properly thought-out and going according to plan. The Civil Unions Act was a godsend to same-sex couples who wished to put some structure into their relationships and live as married people do. I’d have gone all the way and called it ‘marriage’. But it would be very wrong to let either/or reasoning get in the way of a fair general assessment.
I am not scandalised at the sight of an organised and powerful gay (more accurately, LGBTI) lobby that takes to the streets at the drop of a hat. I see it as an example of political mobilisation and action, surely a desirable attribute of a healthy democracy.
Nor do I think that minister Helena Dalli is hostage to what someone described to me as a “qaqoċċa tal-gays” (gay cabal) populating her ministry. It is true that she has surrounded herself with people who have a strong interest in gay rights, and who for the most part are themselves gay. They also happen to be tremendously competent in their field, which helps.
It shows, too, because the Gender Identity Act is another solid piece of legislation. I’m aware it has been called an April fool’s joke, but I’m also aware that homophobia is a master of disguise. In any case the new Act does two things.
First, it introduces the right to gender identity. It entitles citizens to the recognition of their gender identity, to the free development of their personhood according to that identity, and to autonomy over their bodies.
If that sounds like so much hot air, it isn’t. It actually affects many tangible and practical aspects of the lives of transgender and intersex individuals. For example, it means that they will no longer have to undergo surgery, hormonal therapy or psychiatric treatment in order to ‘prove’ their gender to the State.
Second, it makes it possible for people to have their legal gender changed at will, by simple public deed. It follows from the first point that they will not be asked by notaries, or by anyone else, to prove their gender by filing their plans for the new plumbing.
The main reason why I think the Gender Identity Act is a good idea is that it transfers responsibility from the State to the individual. Anything that does that generally is welcome as far as I’m concerned. It’s especially welcome when it has to do with bodies, and with experiences of a deeply personal kind.
The main reason why I think the Gender Identity Act is a good idea is that it transfers responsibility from the State to the individual
My version of the hottest part of hell is a cartel of psychologists and meddlers that exists solely for the purpose of making private experiences palatable to the State.
This is not a rant about psychologists. I know there can be, and often is, much value to the discipline. My problem is when ‘professionals’ become part of a self-serving industry imposed by the State on hapless individuals trying to sort out some or other aspect of their lives. The textbook case was the circus of professionals which had grown around the business of marriage annulment.
That’s the pleasant bit. Only in the case of gender identity the industry would also have included a vicious regime of prescriptive surgery and medical treatments.
The sight of Joanne Cassar running around from one specialist to another, simply to try to convince her government that she was a woman, was not a pretty one. The State’s demand was that if Cassar wished to be treated as a normal person, she first had to prove that she wasn’t.
The new Act sweeps all of that into the big dustbin where it belongs. It is now the individual who is responsible for their gender. Whether or not they choose to go under the knife, or to seek professional advice, is entirely their business. I find that refreshingly libertarian, in the good sense of the word.
There are two objections one might raise. First, if gender is of social import and consequence, how right is it to relegate it to an individual decision and a trip to the notary’s? The premise is surely sound and the objection seems sensible enough.
Except it ignores the fact that these ‘individual’ decisions are in fact profoundly social and invariably so. It would be quite useless to have one’s gender changed and then proceed to live as a recluse with one’s new papers for company. Rather, a gender identity is there to be experienced and lived socially, with or without the State’s meddling.
People like Cassar describe a long process of soul-searching that also involves family, friends, and broader social circles. That, and not State regimes, is what will keep the new Act from lapsing into a ‘things to do on a rainy afternoon’ round of notarial whimsy.
The second objection has to do with children. Surely it wouldn’t do to encourage parents to rush to conclusions simply because their three-year-old girl prefers climbing trees to dolling up Barbies?
Certainly the new Act is consistent in that it assigns responsibility to parents rather than the State. Given that there is such a thing as bad parents, we know there are risks to that. But they are the same risks that exist in matters of child education and health, for example. Most of us believe that those risks are worth taking. That or all parents should transfer their responsibilities to a State-run crèche.
Still, the new Act is cautious in the case of children. Parents cannot just have their child’s gender changed. The procedure will involve what the civil court deems the best interest of that child.
I’m especially glad the Gender Identity Bill made it through Parliament unanimously. The Nationalist Party needn’t worry about missiles that would have it aping Labour or courting political expediency.
Values and Christian roots babble notwithstanding, the PN hadn’t been truly conservative in decades. It was only in the late noughties or thereabouts that a bigoted and bloody-minded faction got the upper hand. Simon Busuttil was never part of that faction. So when the PN today supports the gay lobby, it is simply doing what it does best.
mafalzon@hotmail.com