Bill of Rights for the Sexually Exceptional

[Beau Geste (imported)]

I'm not sure whether I should have used the word "exceptional" in the title of this post, since that word might be thought to imply that the individuals described are somehow "not right," and that's really not what I mean. But, I couldn't think of a better term--if somebody can think of a word with a neutral shade of meaning, perhaps Krister could change the title of the thread.

Anyway, according to what I've read, the hijras in India have gotten some legal protections over the last few years, the most noticeable being that their gender status has been acknowledged, in that they can get passports (not sure about other IDs) on which they are identified as eunuchs. And, as you may be aware, some hijras who are acknowledged eunuchs (not all hijras have had orchiectomies or were born without testes) have been elected to public office in India. Thinking about this, I thought it might make sense to suggest that legal protection be provided for all those in the U.S. who are in some way different sexually than those with typical male and female organs and orientations. Gay and lesbian individuals now have some protection for their rights, and it seems sensible to extend some of those protections to others.

It is, of course, unlikely that protections of that type could be written into the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution has been amended only twice in the last forty years, and those amendments were relatively noncontroversial (one giving eighteen year olds the right to vote, the other prohibiting members of Congress from increasing Congressional salaries until after the next election.) However, it seems possible that, at some future time, laws protecting the rights of those who do differ in some way from those who are sexually "normal" might be enacted, either by state legislatures or by Congress.

I remember reading, long before I became aware of this Archive, about the surgical alteration, which I think began in the 1950's, of infants and small children whose sex organs were considered to differ from those of males and females. This was described as "reassignment", but it must have included, in nearly all cases, the amputation or removal of some of the genitalia of those operated on. I remember thinking that the surgeons and also the parents who advocated or did this, were extraordinarily presumptuous and callous, in thinking that they had a right to decide what the child's sexual future would be.

So, it seems to me that there ought to be legal protection for those whose genitals appear at birth not to be the usual male or female genitals. As far as I can tell, in most individuals of that type, the apparent differences from "normal" organs are not life threatening, and do not contribute to any discernible health problems. The surgeries appear to be done solely so that the individual's body will conform with somebody's standard of what the appearance of the sex organs should be. My view is, that there ought to be a law that prohibits the alteration of anybody's genitalia until after the person reaches the age of consent, and can understand what the consequences are, and can decide what surgery, if any, it is, that he or she wants. I would even include circumcision as something which should not be done without an individual's informed consent.

Beyond that, there is a whole range of protections which, in my view, people should have, so that individuals are not unfairly discriminated against because of the character of their sex organs, or, in some cases, of their orientations, or even because of hormone-affecting pharmaceuticals they are using. It's clear from reading the posts in this forum, that nearly all those who have had orchiectomies, or who have other surgical alterations of the genitals, feel some need to conceal the effects of their surgery, because they might be discriminated against in some way if people knew about the differences between the individual who has had the surgery, and other persons. Some types of discrimination are social, and can't really be addressed adequately by the legal system. But discrimination in employment, in housing, even perhaps in education and in certain protections provided by government, could be legally prohibited. In some sense, even discrimination in regard to medical services could be prohibited.

Since laws of this type would actually protect only a small minority, it doesn't seem to me that legislation of that type ought to be considered a major issue by the rest of the population. Similar laws providing protection to gay and lesbian people have been passed in some jurisdictions. Of course, people would have to be educated to some extent regarding the reasons why laws providing protection to those who differ sexually from the rest of the population, should be enacted. But it seems to me that legislation of that type would make sense, and could be passed sometime before the middle of this century.

[XtheUndead (imported)]

Colombia recently passed some legislation along those lines, protecting intersexed babies from mutilative surgery.