Passports - The Final Chapter ?

MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The Hon Robert McClelland MP

GETTING A PASSPORT MADE EASIER FOR SEX AND GENDER DIVERSE PEOPLE

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and Attorney-General Robert McClelland today announced new guidelines to make it easier for sex and gender diverse people to get a passport in their preferred gender.

Under the guidelines, sex reassignment surgery will no longer be a prerequisite to issue a passport in a person’s preferred gender.

“Sex and gender diverse people now have the option of presenting a statement from a medical practitioner supporting their preferred gender,” said Mr Rudd.

“This amendment makes life easier and significantly reduces the administrative burden for sex and gender diverse people who want a passport that reflects their gender and physical appearance.”

The initiative is in line with the Australian Government’s commitment to remove discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation.

“Most people take for granted the ability to travel freely and without fear of discrimination,” Mr McClelland said.

“This measure will extend the same freedoms to sex and gender diverse Australians.

“While it’s expected this change will only affect a handful of Australians, it’s an important step in removing discrimination for sex and gender diverse people.

“Importantly, this policy addresses a number of the recommendations contained in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Sex Files report.”

CANBERRA
14 SEPTEMBER 2011

UNCLASSIFIED

Passports - The Final Chapter?

From The Scavenger:

A transsexual woman has won the right to a full, 10-year passport in her transitioned identity, without the need for undergoing sex realignment surgery first.
...
In November 2010 after transitioning full time for just on one month, I consulted with my sex and gender therapist about how I could adjust my passport as I was required to travel overseas for business.

After receiving a letter from her indicating my change, I put together two statutory declarations, one from my business partner indicating my change and that was accepted by all our customers, and the other from myself indicating I was indeed transitioned full time. I then arranged for an appointment with the Passport Office to work with them to make the change.

I was warned ahead of time there might be issues and there were.

I live in Canberra and have been here most of my life. I have spent five years working in the public service and most of the other time contracting or consulting to them. I have friends who work in the public service. What one needs to note is that this isn't a game of chess when dealing with them, it’s much different, and I knew from the beginning that I had to ensure I was tackling their procedures and not the people working there.

As I discovered from my first meeting with them, they were polite, helpful and sincere in their dealings, it was just they were not trained or had any knowledge in what sex and/or gender identity is and how to understand transsexuals and why this was so important to us. What was missing and it was very obvious, was a lack of training and knowledge in anything sex and/or gender diverse.

It took her 7 months. It took me 20. But at least now we've gotten rid of the anomaly that some of those born overseas could qualify for Australian Passports, while those in exactly the same situation but born in Australia could not.

The case only lasted 7 months, about a third of mine. But it involved considerable expense, more even than mine. And the APO fought every step of the way. Count the number of knock-backs:

After my first meeting with the Passport Office, I was given a verbal decline for a full passport stating female in just 30 minutes because I was not booked for and showed no intention of having genital surgery.

That's one.

At this point I started on the paperwork. I knew it was important to keep a paper trail and I ensured everything said and done was documented, catalogued and tracked.

My history of events was going to be more accurate than theirs. So I requested another formal meeting. This time attending with three official letters of procedural complaint and one commendation to the original staff member who was legitimately sincere and polite in her dealings with me. There were two officials in attendance and it was a formal meeting.

The letters of complaint about their procedures related to the Passports Office’s website, which was incorrect and misleading and how my initial dealings with them were incorrectly handled. A couple of weeks later I received an official response denying my request, citing reference to the Passport Act and my birth certificate not matching my passport.

That's two.

I also didn't satisfy the “rare and unique circumstances of a compelling humanitarian nature”, which they said gave them discretion in such decisions on case by case basis.

I appealed the decision immediately citing prior cases and concerns about my safety in having to travel on a passport that did not reflect my gender identity and presentation. I requested an impartial mediator because I didn't believe my case was being heard fairly.

I also pointed out their obvious lack of knowledge and requested information about how I was judged on humanitarian guidelines. I felt confident with the appeal....
...
My appeal was rejected on the same grounds as before.

That's three.

I rang their legal counsel regarding the appeal and realised very quickly that their level of knowledge regarding the sex and/or gender diversity was non-existent. Yet they had made these decisions. They refused to acknowledge risks to my safety when travelling on a passport that did not reflect my gender identity and presentation and insisted I use a Document of Identity (DOI) like other transsexual and transgendered people.

A document that amongst other things, does not allow travel to the USA, and does not guarantee a right of return back to Australia. You can leave the country.... but it could be a one-way trip, and there aren't many places you can go to.

It was then agreed during a phone call that they would answer any further questions I have in writing. Within two hours I submitted four pages, requesting information about their skill set, training and knowledge, what methods they used for determining humanitarian guidelines. I requested detailed reasoning why I needed answers before my appeal.

My questions were never answered and with one week to go I put in the appeal request to the Federal Government Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). I had to pay a large fee up front and I requested a skilled and impartial person to handle it.

I had the same experience - formal letters requesting reasons for the decision not being answered. They're supposed to, to be compliance with the Administrative Appeals (Judicial Review) Act, if you write a letter like this:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In accordance with ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13, please furnish a statement in writing setting out the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based, and giving the reasons for the decision not to grant my passport application.

Yours Sincerely, etc etc

Getting back to the case in hand:

Realising that if I didn't do this, others would share a similar fate because the precedent was currently in the negative, I lodged the appeal and caught the Passport Office off guard as they referred to me in paperwork as female. I did succeed in getting a further small victory in that the Passport Office admitted in writing they had no procedures for determining what humanitarian guidelines one can be judged against.

Actually... I think that's a pretty big victory, and likely to have considerable legal weight.. but to continue:

At my preliminary hearing there were two lawyers, one a partner, representing the Passport Office. Intimidating – yes, but it worked well for me. I realised my case was more important and warranted more attention than I was led to believe. The Department didn't want to lose and they were using excessive legal muscle to ensure it.

The case went from a simple one of wanting to change one letter on my passport to ensure my safety when I travelled, into one now which looked absurd. Here I was, no legal skill, just fighting for my safety when I travelled, up against a government department sending in two lawyers to push their case.
...
I felt at all times that this case was not about winning or showing up the Passport Office. That wasn't my goal. My aim was to help them understand that the implementation of procedures and guidelines were causing harm to those transitioning.
...
Eventually after the preliminary hearing Passport Office conceded the case and it was settled with them issuing me with my 10-year female passport.

And some advice:

In cases such as mine, I advise people to follow their procedures to the letter, document what happens and let them know when the procedures fail. Focus on the procedures and guidelines, not the individuals. Always look for win/win situations and understand who you are dealing with. Be open and honest, do not be deceitful. Do your best not be bullied by bureaucratic procedures and stay strong because you are not alone.

And don't take "No" for an answer.

Trans women who transition late tend to have a certain stick-to-it-iveness. A certain persistence, sometimes taking that to extraordinary lengths. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have transitioned late, they would have transitioned early or died. That even applies to certain women who are technically Intersex rather than Transsexual...

It's not that it doesn't hurt. Here's what I wrote at the time things like this were happening to me:

It's important to step back, and think about what this whole situation is about.

It's about simply getting a Passport, something that by the Australian Passport Act, every Australian has a right to. I'm no Criminal, nor someone with dodgy citizenship, nor a Passport Trafficker or Terrorist. I already had a UK passport with the same correct details in. I needed to go overseas for surgery, there was a growing risk of cancer. I have a congenital medical problem, nothing particularly unusual, and that's all.

At a time when I was under great stress, when I was most vulnerable, I was treated worse than a Murderer - they can get passports. I was ordered to Divorce before a passport would be granted, something that was a gross abuse of power, and blatantly discriminatory. Had I not recorded it on my blog, as it happened, it would seem unconceivable that anyone could be treated this way.

For many months I faced the possibility that I would not be allowed back in the country to see my little son. The sleepless nights, the vast amounts of time spent writing letters, or waiting (sometimes for hours) at the Passport Office, all that was totally un-necessary. Pain and Suffering is an exact description of what was inflicted on me. I think many in a similar situation would not have coped. I came very close to losing it, as was reflected in my writings.

Now that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel, I can let my outrage at being treated like dirt show. I'm crying now, trying to get rid of the pain, the anguish, the frustration at the unreasonable and unconscionable conduct of some of those who had me at their mercy. HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO ME? I'm Human.

I'm Human. I'm human. No human being should be treated like that.

I intend to make sure they don't ever do it again. That they never order anyone to Divorce. Victimised, I refuse to be a Victim. They don't have my permission to de-humanise me.

And so thanks to a very brave and persistent woman, who took them to Court - something I didn't have to do - there's been another step forward.

I just hope we don't have to go through this all again. They need some training, this is a systemic problem.

But if we do... then we will, and every single bit of caselaw helps.

Travel Issues

New Information The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has advised all airlines that, effective November 1, 2010, all passenger reservations containing any U.S. city segment or flying over U.S. airspace must contain full Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD). Reservations without full SFPD will be rejected by the TSA, and airlines will be subject to penalties.
* Provide Secure Flight Passenger Data information: When making a travel reservation, travellers should provide the required data elements (full name, gender and date of birth).

I'm due to attend a conference in New Orleans in November.

I've asked the TSA which gender I should report - the one on my UK Birth Certificate, the one on my UK passport, the one on my Australian passport, or by one reading of Wilma Wood vs C.G studios, none of the above?

Meanwhile... I'm making contingency plans to fly to Mexico, then travel overland from there. Just in case.

This is silly. But then, that's nothing new in the collision between legalities and biological realities.

Prevalance of Transsexuality in Australia

A snippet from a story about a young trans woman, from The Australian:

Last year the Australian Passport Office issued 202 passports in which the stated gender was different to an earlier passport or to a birth certificate.

Some of those might be for Intersex conditions, but a reasonable approximation is 200 transsexual transitions per year. Most people - including all FtoMs who have GRS (Genital Reconstruction Surgery) have to go overseas. There would be perhaps 30 GRS procedures performed in Australia per year, the bulk of them by Dr Ceber in Melbourne.

Australia has a population of about 21 million. It has a birth rate of about 1.25%. Although population has grown significantly over the last 50 years, birth rate has declined from around 2% in 1960, so the number of births per year is pretty constant, about 200,000 per year.

The usually quoted figures for transsexuality are 1 in 30,000 for women, and 1 in 100,000 for men.

So we could expect the single trans man per year to get a new passport, and three or four women. Let's be generous, and say 5 in total.

Now, there's probably some backlog there - the previous government had a very trans-unfriendly policy, but even then, it was possible, as long as one had had SRS - Sex Reassignment Surgery, and one was unmarried. So the expected figure might be double that, to be generous, say 10.

The measured figure is 202. Strongly suggesting that the rate of transsexuality in Australia is not 1 in 30,000/100,000, but 1 in 1500/5000. This would be consistent with similar figures measured in Singapore, of 1 in 3000/10000.

There's not just a handful of us: there's thousands, of trans or intersexed people who have transitioned.

Media Release

Further to a previous post, I'm a member of Sex and Gender Education Australia, and have given presentations to University students with Stefanie Imbruglia in the past.

MEDIA RELEASE:

30 October, 2009: For immediate release.
Sent on behalf of Stefanie Imbruglia and Sex And Gender Education (SAGE).

AUSTRALIAN PASSPORT OFFICE ISSUES APOLOGY TO TRANSSEXUAL WOMAN

Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) agrees to issue appropriate passports to sex and gender diverse people and changeoffensive terminology in its training material to be more inclusive of diversity.

In July 2007, Stefanie Imbruglia, a 42-year-old transsexual woman (cousin of singer Natalie Imbruglia), applied to the Australian Passport Office to get a female passport so she could travel to Thailand for Sex Realignment Surgery. While she was registered as male at birth she had been living as a female for two years. To her amazement she was told by the passport officer at the counter that she would only be allowed to travel on a male passport even though she had lived as female for two years and had letters from her medical specialists confirming she had been undergoing treatment for sex and gender dysphoria.

Over the past 20 years the Australian government has issued a one-year limited passport for people registered male at birth, who lived as transsexual females who were going abroad for surgery. Under the Howard government the Minster of Trade and Foreign Affairs rescinded that right secretly in 2007 without any consultation with any specialists in the field, service providers or any members of the sex and gender diverse community. It is dangerous for transsexual women to have to travel abroad on male passports as they could be subjected to stop and searches, intimidation, arrest, violence and embarrassment.

Stefanie was subjected to ridicule by a passport officer, who insisted on calling “Sir” even though she had on a skirt and jacket and presented as female. When Stefanie arrived in Thailand for her surgery at the airport she was stopped by a passport control officer in front of all the other passengers on her plane and called to account for the discrepancy between her female appearance and male passport. The incident was highly embarrassing for her and forced her to have her medical history disclosed to the public against her will. Exactly what she warned the Australian DFAT would happen, did happen.

On returning to Australia, after surgery, Stefanie as a member of SAGE (Sex And Gender Education), a political lobbying group for sex and gender diverse people, decided to bring a case against DFAT with the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) now the Australian Human Rights Commission) AHRC). The case was that DFAT had knowingly placed Stefanie in danger by refusing to issue her with a passport that reflected her identity. It was in Breach of Article 12 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. The United Nation’s convention on human rights requires countries to issue citizens with documents of safe travel in and out of their countries.

Stefanie also filed a complaint that DFAT had been guilty of sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Since it had issued her with a female passport on her return from Thailand but refused to issue her with one before she went, it had discriminated against her because she presented as the same person on both occasions. The complaint also encompassed the way she had been mistreated by the officer at the passport office.

Over the ensuing two years the AHRC sought conciliation between the two parties. In the interim the AHRC had published its project in 2008 that looked into the human rights difficulties faced by people who were sex and gender diverse and concluded that many government departments needed to adopt a more positive and accommodating attitude to all sex and gender diverse people. For far too long this group of people has been excluded from fully taking part in society as government bureaucracy has failed to keep up with scientific knowledge and human rights. Within the past few weeks the conciliation between both parties has drawn to a close to end the case.

What DFAT agreed to:

1. A complete unreserved written apology to Stefanie for the way she had been treated.
2. The restoration of the right for people going abroad for sex realignment surgery to be given a passport in their appropriate sex and/or gender.
3. The recognition that some people who are intersex, transexed, transsexual, transgendered or any of the other sex and gender diverse identities may not be suitable to have genital surgery. They may, however, live in their preferred sex and/or gender roles.
4. That such people upon presentation of a letter from a medical professional would be able to have a permanent passport in their needed sex and/gender. Not all people are able to change their birth certificates or cardinal documents to reflect their identity. Each case would be considered on case by case basis.
5. That the phrase ‘medical professional’ would be interpreted as meaning a doctor, gynaecologist, endocrinologist, urologist, psychiatrist, endocrinologist, psychologist, psychotherapist, counsellor, sexologist, and social worker; in accordance with international standards of care for helping sex and gender diverse people.
6. An alteration to DFAT’s training material for employees that lumped all sex and gender diverse people under the umbrella ‘transgender’, which is offensive to many sex and gender diverse people. They changed their terminology to address Sex and Gender Diverse people’s needs and allowing those people to identify as they needed under the Sex and Gender Diverse label without discrimination.
7. The removal of an offensive training handout to employees that gave wrong and misleading information about sex, gender and sexuality diverse people to its employees.
8. That people presenting with no sex or gender on their cardinal documents may be considered for a passport that does not state sex or gender. This clears the way for parents of intersex children who do not wish to be forced into registering their children as male or female when that child may be strictly neither or both. Some adults identify as neuter and wish their documents to reflect that status.

Stefanie wishes to thank AHRC for its part in brokering the conciliation, DFAT for readjusting its position to afford equal human rights and appropriate passports to all sex and gender diverse people, to SAGE for its assistance in bringing the case before AHRC, and Dr Tracie O’Keefe DCH, ND, for her assistance in helping Stefanie bring the case.

More information can be found on Stefanie’s website www.stefanie888.com

FOR MEDIA INTERVIEWS AND COMMENTS:

Stefanie Imbruglia: Ph 0414 835 352
Dr Tracie O’Keefe, DCH, ND (SAGE spokesperson): 02 9571 4333 or 0403
398 808. SAGE website www.sageaustralia.org

I'm more into education than activism. But sometimes the authorities won't let you not be an activist.

Here's what I wrote when I was in the midst of my own fight, but at last it looked like I was going to win after all, if it came to a full-blown court case:

It's important to step back, and think about what this whole situation is about.

It's about simply getting a Passport, something that by the Australian Passport Act, every Australian has a right to. I'm no Criminal, nor someone with dodgy citizenship, nor a Passport Trafficker or Terrorist. I already had a UK passport with the same correct details in. I needed to go overseas for surgery, there was a growing risk of cancer. I have a congenital medical problem, nothing particularly unusual, and that's all.

At a time when I was under great stress, when I was most vulnerable, I was treated
worse than a Murderer - they can get passports. I was ordered to Divorce before a
passport would be granted, something that was a gross abuse of power, and blatantly
discriminatory. Had I not recorded it on my blog, as it happened, it would seem
inconceivable that anyone could be treated this way.

For many months I faced the possibility that I would not be allowed back in the country to see my little son. The sleepless nights, the vast amounts of time spent writing letters, or waiting (sometimes for hours) at the Passport Office, all that was totally un-necessary. Pain and Suffering is an exact description of what was inflicted on me. I think many in a similar situation would not have coped. I came very close to losing it, as was reflected in my writings.

Now that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel, I can let my outrage at
being treated like dirt show. I'm crying now, trying to get rid of the pain, the
anguish, the frustration at the unreasonable and unconscionable conduct of some of
those who had me at their mercy. HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO ME? I'm Human.

I'm Human. I'm human. No human being should be treated like that.

I intend to make sure they don't ever do it again. That they never order anyone to
Divorce. Victimised, I refuse to be a Victim. They don't have my permission to
de-humanise me. Revenge is not in order, but Recompense, and Retribution, is. If I
can swing it.

A good Barrister has been recommended. Hopefully it won't come to Court. I have no
wish to see people suffer, but I do wish to give such aversion therapy that they
never, ever, do anything like this again.

Steph's fight was over a different issue - things got worse before they got better, and her treatment appears to be in direct retaliation for us not lying down and surrendering. But yes, those who persecuted us are no longer in a position to do so, and DFAT has had a cultural change, even if it took years of legal "aversion therapy". They've genuinely reformed.

An Apology from the APO

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

A Transsexual has won a written apology from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the distress she experienced as a result of having to travel on a passport that identified her as a man.

Stefanie Imbruglia, 42 - a first cousin of the pop star Natalie Imbruglia - has also secured the department's agreement to other measures that amount to fairer treatment of transsexuals who apply for passports.

Ms Imbruglia had lived for two years as a woman before applying for a passport to travel to Thailand for sex realignment surgery in October 2007. She wanted her passport to identify her as a female. But the Howard government rescinded an established practice of issuing transsexuals who were to travel abroad for surgery a one-year limited passport in their nominated gender.

Forced to travel on a passport that identified her as a male, Ms Imbruglia said she was subjected to ridicule by an Australian passport officer who insisted on calling her ''sir'' even though she was wearing a skirt and jacket.

When she arrived at Bangkok airport, a passport control officer asked her to account for the discrepancy between her appearance and the gender on her passport.

''At the top of his voice in front of a hall full of people he looked at me and looked at my passport and said, 'Male or female?' Everyone turned around. It was scary.''

Ms Imbruglia said it was dangerous for transsexual women to have to travel abroad on male passports as they could be subjected to intimidation, violence, and arrest. The one-year passports were instituted, she said, after an Australian transsexual, forced to travel on a passport that identified her as male, was arrested in Singapore.

''My greatest fear was being detained in a male prison,'' she said. ''The danger the government put me in was huge.''

One correction: she's not a "Transsexual", she's a "woman". One with a transsexual past.

Because of the data sharing between immigration authorities worldwide - notably that between the UK and USA - I still face that danger because of the mismatch between my female UK and Australian passports and my male UK birth certificate.

However, I got my own written apology from the APO before Steph got hers. My issue was different, but the cause, rampant, bloody-minded and Kafkaesque transphobia at the highest level, was the same.

I've since had clear and convincing evidence that the APO is now one of the more trans-friendly government departments, reasonable and accommodating of both trans and intersexed people. Now. It took Steph's court case over another passport issue, and other women making themselves incredibly irritating to the APO in their persistence to cause this sea-change, but we did it.

Passports - The Aftermath

Longtime readers of this blog will know about the battles I had over 20 months to gain a passport.

The Australian Passport Office now has a new policy on the subject. Actually, not so much a new policy, as going back to the future - or rather, back to the far more humane policy they used to have.

It's detailed on their website, rather than being some big secret (as it used to be - so secret that even they didn't know it). And I'm not sure I could improve on it. All of our requested requirements have been met, and there's even a paragraph about assessing applications not within the guidelines on their merits, rather than adhering to rules that don't fit.

Had this policy been in place in 2005, it would have saved me much heartache, quite a few tears, not to say inummerable letters to ministers and bureaucrats and visits to lawyers. Some money too.

The whole schlemozzle is detailed in this set of posts. But it has had a happy ending, and normal human decency has prevailed. Not before time, but we got there in the end.

Passports - The Last Battle

And we won it. We've regained everything that was lost, and gained something new - recognition of our actual sex on our passports.

From the Sydney Star Observer :

The Rudd Government has reinstated gender-neutral identity documents and passports to help transgender people travelling overseas for surgery.

The decision follows an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling last year that transgender married couples were entitled to be issued new passports with their correct gender and existing marital status.

The policy review recommended those applications by people who are legally married and in a same-sex relationship should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
“Since the AAT decision, five passports have been issued to married sex- and gender-diverse persons,” the Department of Foreign Affairs stated in response to Senate questions.

And at least one before - mine.

A new limited-validity passport will be available to applicants who wish to travel overseas for gender re-assignment surgery.

This isn't so much new, as restoral of a right enshrined in legislation, but which was summarily withdrawn at Ministerial whim. Out of pique at the way TS people had had so many wins in the courts. Supposedly it was an anti-terrorism measure, though the exact logic of that was never explained, especially since the USA never stopped issuing such 1-year validity passports for this purpose.

Transgender people who have not legally changed genders will also be allowed to apply for an internationally-recognised document of identity (DOI) with the gender field left blank.

Well.. internationally recognised by some nations. Not others. It's not good for travel to the USA for example. And most importantly, neither does it guarantee right of return.

Applicants who wish to travel overseas for gender reassignment surgery may be eligible for a limited-validity passport in their intended gender.

As the legislation always provided for.

Gender Centre spokeswoman Katherine Cummings said gender-neutral documentation wasn’t quite good enough because it draws attention to the traveller. She said the Gender Centre was not consulted when the re-introduced documents were first removed under former foreign minister Alexander Downer, nor were they consulted as part of the recent review.

No, and it wasn't through lack of trying on our part. We repeatedly requested dialogue, but they weren't interested. So we had to fight for everything via the Courts.

A war that should never have been fought is now over. And... we've won. And maybe, just maybe, the transphobia that infected the Australian Passport Office is now a thing of the past. I hope so.

But if we have to go through all this pain and nausea again when the Government changes, we will. And corporate memory is strong - they know just how indomitable we can be, never giving up, never giving in, and with the demonstrated ability to prove our case in courts. Perhaps they may be deterred in future. Time will tell.

I hope it's not necessary.

In Good Company

From GayUnganda:

Ugandans know a guy called Brenda. A gal, because Brenda is a trans person. Meaning that biologically the birth was to a male baby, but growing up Brenda was more confortable in the female role, and ultimately embraced the female gender.

Far as I know, she has not got surgery.
...
I can, and do hide the fact that I am gay. Brenda does not. She does not hide the fact that she is transgender.

Recently, Brenda needed travel documents. They were denied. Reason, they don’t give them to ‘people who have changed themselves’. Julie Victor Mukasa tells of the time that she had to prove that she was biologically female at the RDC’s office in Kampala, when she went to get passport forms filled. Use your imagination how she proved that.

Our constitution states that it is a citizens right to get a passport. Brenda is apparently not included in that definition of a citizen.

From the Australian Passports Determination 2005 Explanatory Statement Section 6.3 Para 89:

Persons who are to be denied passports because it is undesirable that they be allowed to have one include:
Australian citizens who are transgender, that is are living in the identity of a member of the opposite sex; and
Australian citizens being repatriated or deported to Australia or extradited

Readers of this blog will know that it took a 20 month fight, with legal letters, letters to Ministers, the Prime Minister, members of the (then) Opposition (who gave no help at all), to get my passport - and an apology over the phone, not in writing. Had I been a pre-op transsexual like Brenda, I'd still be waiting.

I didn't have to go to the lengths of Julie Mukasa, though the thought had occurred more than once. It came close to that. They did require me to give a detailed verbal description of my genitalia, yet another humiliation (and not the worst I've had to endure from the Government). The written medical evidence that I was intersexed and in transition was insufficient for them. I was neither asked to provide, nor did I give them, any surgeon's letter showing what procedures had been performed. They required Sex Reassignment Surgery, and as the mountain of evidence I'd already provided showed that I was medically female before surgery, that would have meant FtoM. They dared not ask for that.

Looking back on it, I think that when they realised the consequences of what they were doing, and that I was not ashamed of my condition, but eager to blow the whole filthy business wide open in a courtroom, that they caved. That, and the legal drubbing they'd recently received from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a related issue. They'd relied on me being too embarrassed to proceed.

Anyway, in this one area, the generally trans-friendly Australia can claim to have exactly the same stellar human rights record as Uganda. <sarcasm> Makes you proud to be Australian, doesn't it? </sarcasm>

Passports - The Last Battle

I've just received a phonecall from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Today, they are issuing me with a passport. At no charge. And, just as importantly, an apology for the inconvenience.

It's cost me about $500 in application fees (rather than less than $200 of the original application), hundreds of hours of writing letters, going to interviews, communications with Ministers and Department Heads, being ordered to divorce, innumerable blog entries recording it all...

But I've won. Some 20 months after I first walked into a post office and put in my application, as is the right of every Australian citizen.

This should never have happened. Yes, unusual circumstances, well outside the norm, but had there been a modicum of rationality, goodwill, or simple decency at the highest levels, this would have been resolved long ago.

I dared to hope even before the election. You see, I'm not the only one in an equally unusual situation, involving foreign birth, marriage, change of legal sex, children... and DFAT had started helping, serving the Public, in some other cases, rather than being bloody-minded. There were signs and portents of a change of culture.

Now I have a lot to do: informing the various mailing lists and support sites, and individuals too, of the new precedent that's been set. Helping others, as I have been helped. The greatest gift I've received is the network of support from others who, like me, can only rely on each other, as we certainly can't rely on others. Well, that's not quite true, not for me. Unlike so many, the readers of my blog have been a pillar of strength for me. Any victory is really theirs, more than anyone else's. They had no dog in this fight, no self-interest as I did, they just helped out of a sense of justice, of doing the right thing no matter what.

Had this schlemazzle not happened, I never would have known the friends I had. Thank you all.

Now to do some e-mailing. But first, a cup of tea, and a good, long cry. I'm not superhuman, after all.

A Phonecall from the APO

They have no record of me giving them my corrected Citizenship certificate back in September last year. *SIGH*

They were also suprised to hear that I hadn't been given a refund. "It has already been processed" they said. They said they'd look into it.

I pointed out to them that if they checked the data from Immigration - something they are empowered to do under the Australian Passports Determination 2005 (No 4) they would have seen that my records had been corrected over a year ago. I told them that there was no way I was going to put in another application: my position is that the original one should never have been refused.

I also told them exactly where they had fallen down regarding the Administrative Appeals (Judicial Review) Act, exactly the extent of their maladministration (that is, apart from the refund and them losing the record of citizenship change) and that the AAT would at the very least remit the matter to them for re-consideration. Which on the evidence they had available to them as of today, would mean them granting me a passport at last, something they'd already agreed with. They didn't contest my assessment of the AAT's likely ruling either. Given the facts, that shouldn't be surprising. Not being lawyers, they couldn't give an official view either way, but some things are too obvious to gainsay.

My offer was for them to give me a full refund, and also a new passport. Then I wouldn't claim for the additional expenses involved in getting an Australian Declaratory Visa due to their maladministration, nor damages. I'd still be out of pocket by a small amount, but the sheer inconvenience and stress of a court case is a penalty I'll try to avoid if I can. To give me compensation for the ADV would be difficult, but there's existing provision for waiving fees in exceptional circumstances. The fees are comparable. It seemed a reasonable compromise.

The person on the other end obviously wasn't empowered to say Yea or Nay. Given that all Government Departments will be in "Caretaker mode" shortly due to the election, I told them that I'd leave off any legal action until the new year. To give them a reasonable time to think about it.

The recent decision by the AAT has put the APO is a very invidious position. OK, their own fault, but still Not Good. Essentially, they must "second guess" the Family Court on the matter of exactly what someone's Sex is, in case the documentation is at all inconsistent with the simplest of cases.

I proposed that they just go by what Medicare Australia says, the biological and medical facts. This way they can say that they are acting in accordance with the AAT's ruling that they should go by the Reality of the situation, and not pay too much attention to official records that are demonstrably incorrect. More to the point, it would be someone else's problem.

Medicare Australia only changes gender on their records due to gender reassignment surgery, or in case of Intersex conditions. Although not perfect - some Intersexed people can be male for some purposes, female for others - it's as good as we can get as a general rule. Exceptional cases that don't fit should always be booted upstairs, past "Policy" to the Minister. That will happen once every alternate blue moon, as it should.

This way, people with 5ARD, 17BHDD or other apparent sex-changing Intersex conditions can at least get a passport with minimal problems. For them, and for the APO.

Hopefully this message will be transmitted upstairs. OK, I'm an optimist.

Right now, I'm really fed up though. My Blog has a record of me constantly trying to get them to act within the law, and see reason. If there's any cavil at my offer, one predicated on them not causing any more distress and suffering than they already have, it's off to the AAT. This can't go on. I have enough on my plate without it, but if they insist on being bloody-minded, I'll cooly extract as much monetary compensation for their actions as the law will allow. Cooly? Not exactly, Right now I can hardly stop the tears. I'll just get lawyers to act for me, I'm too upset.
This should never have happened.

OK, Zoe, get yourself together, you have a son to parent and a PhD to complete.

Passports Round 2 - Getting Legal

Mr Ross Tysoe
Assistant Secretary
Passport Services Branch

9th October 2007

Ref: Your letter of 28th August 2007

Dear Mr Tysoe

Thank you for your courteous and prompt reply. My apologies for not replying earlier.

I have waited until the outcome of the case "Abrams and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade [2007] AATA 1816 (28 September 2007)"
and it has taken some time to get legal advice.

I am at a loss at the APO's statement:

"We have no record of your submitting at the time of your application a citizenship certificate describing you as Zoe Ellen Brain"

This was passed by hand to the case officer by 4pm 6th September 2006, before final disposition of the case. The certificate has been issued on the 24th of August 2006, and the Immigration records changed accordingly.

In view of this, the medical evidence in the APO's possession since July 2006 stating that I am female, and the recent AAT decision, I invite the APO to radically re-assess their position on this matter. If not, I will commence legal proceedings.

Yours Sincerely
etc etc

Now to see how much money this is going to cost me, and see if I can get some of it done pro bono publicum. Any suggestions welcome.

And they still haven't sent me the refund. Incompetence or Malice? I still think incompetence, though there's obvious malign neglect in the whole culture. At some point in time you have to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt. That I haven't reached this point is proven by this letter: otherwise I'd go legal without warning them.

Some Good News

After blogging about some very depressing events where it doesn't affect me directly, some Good News in a matter where it does:

Abrams and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade [2007] AATA 1816 (28 September 2007)

Given the unconscionable conduct shown to me by the APO, and as documented in correspondence from them reported on this blog, I'm considering my options.

But first, a good, solid cry. This inhumanity hurt me more than I'd allowed myself to realise.

And you know what? The cold emotionless part of me is saying "well at least you got your mental anguish over their actions recorded in your psychiatric notes". For the compensation claim, should I go all legal on them. As I've a mind to. I can prove concrete financial loss too, the cost of the ADV when no passport was issued, for example.

You see, money would be very convenient in my parlous financial situation. I'm still waiting on the twice-promised refund of my passport application fee. But money cannot heal the wounds they gave me, nor sooth them.

But I know some gals who can't afford treatment. Financial compensation for "Pain Suffering and Humiliation" would not make me feel better. But using it to help some who really need it, that would.

Time to talk to a lawyer, I think.

Passports Again

I'm not the only one who's been having problems.

From SSOnet:

The Federal Government has refused to issue a post-operative trans woman a female passport on the basis that she is married to a woman.

Grace Abrams last week appealed the decision by Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
...
On returning to Australia as a female, Abrams applied to the NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages to register the change of sex. A female birth certificate was refused on the basis she was married.

Shortly after, Abrams armed herself with documentation that proved she was a woman, including medical certificates and statutory declarations, and lodged an application for an amended passport through the Australian Passport Office.

Not only was her valid interim female passport destroyed, Abrams was told she could be issued with a passport in the male gender only. She was later informed she could not be issued with a valid passport in the female gender because she could not provide a birth certificate showing the gender of reassignment.

All Australian citizens, including Abrams, are entitled to a passport if they can prove their identity and citizenship.

Abrams’s lawyer David Shoebridge said if a trans person is not married, the Department of Births Deaths and Marriages would issue a birth certificate in the new gender.

“The Minister relied upon the failure of Grace Abrams to provide an amended birth certificate as the reason for refusing her application,” he said.

“That is purely a policy position taken by the Passport Office and is not founded in any legal requirements.”

Lawyers acting on behalf of the government told the Tribunal that Abrams could not be issued with a female passport because she did not have an amended birth certificate. They said the Minister was not satisfied Abrams was a woman.

Even though her OB/GYN is. Right.

However, it was acknowledged in the government’s Statement of Facts that the Minister was not bound to the policy.

Abrams said it was not fair to force trans people to choose between having their marriage or post-operative gender recognised.

“It is inhuman and unjust,” she said.

The verdict will be handed down in about two weeks.

Sex and the MAPI

That is, Sex Change, and the Manual of Australian Passport Issue.

The 2005 Version (PDF)

The 2007 Version (PDF)

This blogpost brought courtesy to anyone who is Australian, Transsexual, and is applying for a passport. I did the hard yards so you won't have to.

Passports Round 2 - Section 9

From a letter to my lawyer
However.... it's now been totally clarified in the APD that the gender
on the passport is *always* that shown on the Australian Birth 
Certificate, or for those born overseas, the gender in the Department 
of Immigration and  Citizenship (DIAC) database, as evidenced by the 
Citizenship Certificate. DIAC only issues a new one in a new name if 
the citizen's gender changes.

Now in August last year, two months before I got the final knock-back, 
I'd had my details changed by DIAC (DIMIA as was at the time). DFAT 
had been given a copy of my new citizenship certificate.

Furthermore, the now super-secret MAPI (Manual of Australian Passport 
Issue) is a section 9 document according to the National Archives. 
It's on the record that the MAPI is available for inspection at any 
Passport Office. When I confronted the APO with the DFAT section 9 
list showing this, I was still not able to be granted full access. 
There had been a directive that certain parts are not to be made 
public.

However, and in a total contrast to the whole atmosphere before, I was 
given a printout of the sections I was interested in, free of charge. 
Not only that, but a photocopy of the MAPI as was in force at the time 
of my application, and until May this year. The attitude was one of 
helpful co-operation, no longer adversarial. I may be disappointed in 
future, but I have hopes that matters will be resolved for me soon.

A Cynic would say that they were just glad that I didn't insist on 
seeing the whole thing - that would have put them in a very difficult 
situation, in direct contravention of the FOI act. My evident goodwill 
in not putting them on the spot was followed by a change in attitude 
on their part. It may be causal.

If I had applied today, the case would have been straightforward, and 
a passport issued immediately. The problem is that my case lay outside 
the guidelines before. It is arguable that it should have been granted 
anyway, that the new amendment merely clarifies matters that already 
existed. In any event, it was certainly a case that should have been 
recognised as outside the usual, and kicked upstairs so someone human 
could make a reasonable decision, rather than be shackled by 
administrative guidelines.

DFAT were astonished that they'd already received the citizenship 
certificate. I think this snuck under their radar, they'd already had 
months of trouble with this "turbulent priest" and were convinced I 
was trying to pull a fast one of some kind. That I could have gotten 
the DIAC records changed was an impossibility (so they thought) as I'm 
married, and they *knew*  the Marriage Act prevented that.
By the current rules, my reading is that they definitely should have 
issued a passport when they received the DIAC data. Certainly everyone 
at Immigration was astonished and horrified that they didn't, seeing 
it as blatant discrimination.
The Saga Continues. Hopefully Reason will prevail. If not, well, not only I know
how shamefully I've been treated, but DFAT knows now as well.

It's important to step back, and think about what this whole situation is about.

It's about simply getting a Passport, something that by the Australian Passport Act,
every Australian has a right to. I'm no Criminal, nor someone with dodgy citizenship,
nor a Passport Trafficker or Terrorist. I already had a UK passport with the same
correct details in. I needed to go overseas for surgery, there was a growing risk
of cancer. I have a congenital medical problem, nothing particularly unusual, and
that's all.

At a time when I was under great stress, when I was most vulnerable, I was treated
worse than a Murderer - they can get passports. I was ordered to Divorce before a
passport would be granted, something that was a gross abuse of power, and blatantly
discriminatory. Had I not recorded it on my blog, as it happened, it would seem
unconceivable that anyone could be treated this way.

For many months I faced the possibility that I would not be allowed back in the country
to see my little son. The sleepless nights, the vast amounts of time spent writing
letters, or waiting (sometimes for hours) at the Passport Office, all that was
totally un-necessary. Pain and Suffering is an exact description of what was inflicted
on me. I think many in a similar situation would not have coped. I came very close
to losing it, as was reflected in my writings.

Now that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel, I can let my outrage at
being treated like dirt show. I'm crying now, trying to get rid of the pain, the
anguish, the frustration at the unreasonable and unconscionable conduct of some of
those who had me at their mercy. HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO ME? I'm Human.

I'm Human. I'm human. No human being should be treated like that.

I intend to make sure they don't ever do it again. That they never order anyone to
Divorce. Victimised, I refuse to be a Victim. They don't have my permission to
de-humanise me. Revenge is not in order, but Recompense, and Retribution, is. If I
can swing it.

A good Barrister has been recommended. Hopefully it won't come to Court. I have no
wish to see people suffer, but I do wish to give such aversion therapy that they
never, ever, do anything like this again.

Passports Round 2 - First Volley

From:
Mr Zoe Ellen Brain
(address redacted)

To
Mr Ross Tysoe
Assistant Secretary
Passport Client Service Branch

Date: 17 August 2007

Re:
Letter recieved 6th October 2006
Letter sent 17th September 2006

Dear Sir,

1. Could you please inform me of the legislative basis for denying my passport application, and offering me a Document of Identity (DOI) instead, in the letter of the 6th Oct 2006?

I would appreciate it if you quoted not merely the name of the relevant acts, determinations, explanatory notes, and instructions, but the exact sections therein.

As I understand it, section 6.3 of the Australian Passports Determination 2005 as was in force at the time indicated that an offer of a DOI may be made to

"an Australian citizen to whom the issue of an Australian passport is unnecessary or undesirable"

The Explanatory notes paragraph 89 indicated that such people included:

* Australian citizens who are transgender, that is are living in the identity of a member of the opposite sex
and
* Australian citizens whose travel the Minister believes should be restricted.

along with other categories that obviously do not apply.

I will leave aside the blatant contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1980 ATS 23, Article12) as clarified by the The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Principle 22.

I was born overseas, and the DIAC (DIMIA as was) records indicated that I was female at the time of your letter. I had supplied the APO with evidence of that in the form of a new Citizenship certificate (something only issued for a gender change), so the APO knew, or should have known, that fact. I applied for a passport in a female gender, so to say that I am "transgendered" under the definition of para 89 of the Notes would be a difficult assertion to substantiate.

Recent DFAT statements have been made asserting that the DIAC record is legal recognition of gender.

"The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the purpose of the amendment was to "strengthen the integrity and security of Australian passports", arguing that only the State and Territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have the legislated power to amend records when people have satisfied their requirements to record a change of gender.

"It would be inconsistent ... for the Department to continue to issue passports, albeit limited in validity, to persons in a sex other than that shown in the records held by the State or Territory BDM Registrar or the Department of Immigration and Citizenship," a spokesperson told SX."

2. Can I assume then, that the Minister believes my travel should be restricted? If so, could you please explain why, in a manner that would convince the AAT that such a belief was reasonable?

3. I would appreciate you telling me the exact portion of the Manual of Australian Passport Issue, that states that persons born overseas (I must emphasise that) in this situation must be unmarried to gain a passport.

DFAT already has in its possession and in my file a statement by the Hon Phillip Ruddock to the effect that valid same-sex marriages can exist under the Marriage Act if, and only if, one partner changes legal gender. Leaving aside the issue that it is not for DFAT to make up rules to enforce it's own peculiar and contra-legal interpretation of the Marriage Act, as far as I'm aware, the rules at the time did not require an overseas-born applicant to be unmarried.

It is my contention that I should have been issued a passport last year. Since according to Medicare Australia I was biologically female (more female than male, anyway), and since according to DIMIA (as was) I was legally female, no Sex Reassignment Surgery from Male to Female was legally or medically possible. I did have reconstruction in that area subsequent to my application, and according to my gynecologist, look normally female there at last. But the reconstruction was Gender Affirmation, rather than Re-assignment, and arguably would not count under the exact letter of the law. I was medically and legally female before it.

4. Since the recent amendments to the Australian Passport Determination 2005 (no 4), it is now clear that the record of gender for those born overseas is the DIAC record according to section 7.2. I would appreciate a statement as to the likelihood of a further passport application with exactly the same data supplied succeeding.

As I am on a fixed income, a subsistence level scholarship, I cannot afford to keep on making applications that get knocked back for reasons unclear to me, and possibly without legal foundation. Contrary to your letter of October last year, I still have not received any form of refund, although I'm given to understand that this may be forthcoming at some future time.

So in summary:

1. Please tell me the legal basis for refusing my application last year.
2. If the Minister believes my travel should be restricted, could he tell me why?
3. Where does it say that I have to be unmarried?
4. Would an identical application succeed now?

Yours Sincerely,

Zoe E Brain

Passports Part II

Now that my health is better, time to deal with some unfinished business.

I just had a TELCON with the case officer for my passport application from last year. In it, he stated that for me to remain married and be recognised as female would contravene the Marriage Act.

I remonstrated, quoting the Re Kevin decisions by the full bench of the Family Court, the letter from the Attorney-General, the Hon Phillip Ruddock, and Mr Ruddock's numerous speeches on the subject to the contrary. The APO may not be lawyers, but they have a copy of the letter.

I informed him that according to the Australian Passports determination 2007(4), someone's sex is determined by their Australian Birth certificate (if born in Australia), or, if born overseas, the records held by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC - formerly DIMIA).

As was reported:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the purpose of the amendment was to "strengthen the integrity and security of Australian passports", arguing that only the State and Territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have the legislated power to amend records when people have satisfied their requirements to record a change of gender.

As I was female according to DIAC... whereupon he interrupted, saying that if I was married, I couldn't be. I then told him that I was, and that there was no requirement for the person to be unmarried, they merely had to show adequate medical evidence.

He then spent some time looking up the regulations. And found out that indeed, there was no requirement to be unmarried. He was also unaware that my gender had been changed by Immigration, he thought that was impossible. (So my bet is that they didn't bother checking...)

I then emphasised that this state of affairs hadn't changed since my last application. That I was legally female then, and am legally female now. I asked what legislative basis the APO had for demanding that I divorce before a passport would be issued.

He said "when you put it that way..." and advised me to re-apply. A refund cheque will also be sent to me, as should have happened almost a year ago.

I may not win. But if not, it's straight to the AAT - Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Come to think of it, I'm going to write a letter asking for the legislative basis for them denying me a passport last year, when they knew, or ought to have known, that Immigration had changed my details.

Of course if I do win, then those Australian TS women born here might have a very good case for a complaint of discrimination. That those born outside the country are allowed to be unmarried, while those born inside are not. This might help them.

Please, Please Help!

I'm calling for help here, from any and all readers and bloggers.

From SAGE:

Passports Denied to Trans Community by Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs

In May 2007 Alexander Downer the Australian Minister for Foreign affairs signed an order that changed the policies of the Australian passport office concerning the issuing of passports to members of the trans community. The paper was signed in secret without consultation with the sex and gender diverse community, health service providers and nor was it debated in open parliament.

Quote from Passport news July 2007

"On the 31st. May 2007 the Foreign Minister signed Australian Passports Amendment Determination(2007 (No. 1), which spells out that a person's identity for passport issuing purposes comprises four pieces of information; That is name, gender place and date of birth, as recorded on the applicant's cardinal document. This amendment particularly affects the issue of travel documents to transgender people and new policy instructions are being drafted and will be released shortly via the content Management System (CMS)

Transgender people travelling overseas for gender reassignment surgery will no longer be able to obtain a limited validity passport reflecting their intended sex. Instead, they may be issued a limited validity passport showing the gender recorded on their cardinal document, which may be replaced gratis after the gender reassignment is completed (i.e. produces a cardinal document in their assigned gender). Alternatively a limited validity Document of Identity (DOI), which does no include a gender field, may be issued, letter 10 must be given to the client explaining the limitations of the document and Letter 11, acknowledgment of receipt of the advice must be completed by the client.

Transgender clients are often supported by active advocacy groups and passport applications should be handled sensitively. Any client issues should be documented carefully. Only cases that meet the new policy may be issued a passport in the assigned gender."

Background

People in Australia who have undergone sex and gender realignment and have had surgery to remove their reproductive organs have been able to change their passport to their new sex and gender, for many years. Until May of this year natal birth males who were transitioning to female could get a one-year passport to go abroad for genital realignment surgery; and on proof of that surgery, then acquire a long-term female passport. For natal born females who transition to male that construction of male anatomy is surgically much harder to do so the burden of proof of genital surgery has always been a grey area, which the Australian government has never delved too deep into.

Unlike in the UK, people who are medically unable to undergo such big operations, as genital reconstruction, have been unable to get a passport that reflects the gender that they may have transitioned to because they have not had that surgery. Also people who are transgender in Australia, and live as one sex but have genitals of another sex, are also unable to have a passport that matches their social presentation whereas in the UK they would. This has always left this sector of the Australian population in the very difficult position of not being unable to travel abroad or having to travel abroad on a passport that was a different sex to the gender they were presenting. This means they are immediately identified as trans and susceptible to abuse, unnecessary interrogation and embarrassment by passport officials in other countries, hotel staff and in any situation where they would have to prove their identity.

From a human rights perspective this has always been a breach of international law by Australia as those countries, who are members of the United Nations Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (Freedom of Movement Article 12), should not deny their citizens a passport and the rights of free and safe passage. A passport that does not reflect the gender in which a person lives in society leaves that person open to danger during travel.

The effect of this order

This was an unnecessary policy change by the Australian Passport Office that sought to victimise one of the most vulnerable minorities, who the government believed could not fight back. It was plainly a move by the Howard government to please the right-wing arch conservative voters, who the government are relying upon for votes during the up and coming election. It is further a move on behalf of the Howard government to shut down any possibility of gay marriage so that a person with a passport in one sex and birth certificate in another could not marry, thereby creating a gay marriage; an extension of the present government's extreme homophobia translated into transphobia out of desperation.

These polices are in line with the kind of religious extremism that seeks to terrorise minority group in countries like Australia, America and Saudi Arabia and Iran etc, who do not fit into the mainstream religious concepts prominent in those countries. They are the opposite to countries like the United Kingdom which have embraced trans people travelling on passports of their choice or Spain which has embraced gay marriage.

This change in passport policies will affect very few Australians but it will affect one of the most vulnerable trans groups in our society: pre-operative and non-operative trans people, leaving them open to danger, intimidation, and security issues during travel abroad. A Document of Identity, which they may be issued with, does not carry the same status as a passport to restrict the travel of its owner and does not state the person's sex or gender identity. Health organisations who cater for the trans and intersex community in Australian were never consulted on this change in policy.

What the Australian Government needs to do

The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, needs to review the policies of the passport office, bringing them in line with humane principles for treating all Australian citizens with equal validity. Some people identify as male and some as female but there are many people who are neither physically or socially part of the polarity separatism. Many trans people are part of the intersex spectrum but also many transgender people live as one gender but have genitals that may be different from how they present.

The passport office needs to:

1. Give passports to pre-operative or non-operative transsexuals or transsexed people, who have not had genital surgery, in the gender in which they live, for unrestricted travel.
2. Allow people who were married before transition to remain married and get a passport in their new gender presentation.
3. Give passports to transgender people in the gender in which they live for unrestricted travel.
4 Allow an individual who requires it to have no sex or gender stated on their passport.

SIGN SAGE'S PETITION TO THE AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

www.petitiononline.com/sagepass/petition.html

See also the article in SXNews.

Two weeks ago, a pre-operative trans woman, Stefanie Imbruglia (singer Natalie's cousin), went to the Australian Passport Office in Sydney to obtain a temporary passport showing her sex as female, which would allow her to travel to Thailand for genital realignment surgery. She didn't anticipate any problems, since hundreds of trans people before her had successfully applied for and received such interim passports as a matter of course. However, in what she describes as a "twilight zone moment", things went awry: she was subjected to a passport officer insisting on calling her 'Sir' when she was presenting as obviously female, and denied a passport that reflects her gender identity.

"I handed my documentation across to him [and] almost immediately, he referred to me as 'Sir', but the first two times, I thought I was just hearing things," Imbruglia recalls. "He then told me that I could not get a passport with the letter 'F. I asked to see where I couldn't in writing and he went away for about five minutes or so."

Upon his return, the passport officer, still referring to Imbruglia as 'Sir', handed her a copy of the July 2007 issue of Passport News, an internal newsletter for staff, with a story titled 'Transgender Passport Applicants: New Policy'.

The story, seen by SX, states that the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, signed an amendment to the passport legislation in May this year that disallows trans people to obtain a passport in their "intended sex". Applicants may obtain a passport stating the sex on their birth certificate or be issued with a Document of Identity (DOI), which states their new name and the fact they are an Australian citizen, but does not disclose their sex.

I blogged about this previously.

This piece of legislation was slipped through without any consultation with the trans community and has caused an uproar with trans advocacy groups and professionals who work with trans people. Sex and gender specialist psychotherapist, Dr Tracie O'Keefe DCH, tried unsuccessfully for a week to get Downer's office to supply full documentation on the new amendment and lambasted him for putting trans people wishing to travel overseas in danger.

"This will put members of the trans community in danger when they are travelling because they will not have a passport that matches their gender presentation," O'Keefe told SX. "The psychological damage as well as the security risk to these already vulnerable people will be enormous."

Information officer at the Gender Centre NSW, Katherine Cummings, agreed. "Our clientele are forced to carry documentation which doesn't include their innate gender, leaving them open to be harassed in customs areas."

Imbruglia's case has been taken on by lobby group Sex and Gender Education (SAGE) which is planning a campaign and online petition. Spokesperson Norrie May-Welby told SX: "You can't travel with breasts and 'male' on your passport and this is what Downer is making trannies do. A DOI creates fuss and bother and someone travelling overseas doesn't need that. They could be travelling through fundamentalist countries or just going through high-security post-9/11, where if there's something out of the ordinary, they can target someone. It's most unfair to single trans people out to travel with dodgy paperwork."

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the purpose of the amendment was to "strengthen the integrity and security of Australian passports", arguing that only the State and Territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have the legislated power to amend records when people have satisfied their requirements to record a change of gender.

"It would be inconsistent ... for the Department to continue to issue passports, albeit limited in validity, to persons in a sex other than that shown in the records held by the State or Territory BDM Registrar or the Department of Immigration and Citizenship," a spokesperson told SX.

My Department of Immigration records state that I'm female. I have been refused a passport anyway. This goes beyond mistakes, glitches, or misdirection. It's Lying.

Trans activists, however, have suggested that that the move was precipitated by the government wanting to plug a loophole which could open the door to same-sex marriage.

A post-operative trans woman has a case pending in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in which she is suing the federal government for refusing to grant her a female passport because she is still legally married to a woman. The trans woman married her female partner using her male birth certificate. She is challenging the federal government on the grounds that it was out of its jurisdiction by taking any other information from the birth certificate apart from residency. If she wins the case, she and her partner will be the first legally recognised same-sex married couple in Australia. But this new amendment to the passport legislation now gives the government power to ask for more information for a passport, including sex and nationality.

As for Imbruglia, the change in law leaves her fearing for her safety. "I'm now unsure about my travel to Thailand," she told SX. "I have two options: go with M on my passport which I don't want or travel with a DOI with no sex written on it. So basically I'm forced not to have a passport, so my peace of mind has been shattered and I shouldn't be in that position."

Please forward this information and petition link to your family, friends, colleagues, networks, groups etc.

Please do that. Please at least look at the petition yourself too.

There have already been cases of women travelling on male passports being refused entry into the US, and missing out on necessary surgery there as the result. None have as yet been put in male immigration holding areas, with the guarantee of rape there, but this possibility cannot be excluded. They know that. That's why the limited-validity passports are in the legislation.

Retribution

From a mailing list I'm on.

I am sorry to say that the Department of Foreign Affairs has made
changes to the legislation in Australia regarding TS girls being able
to get an interim passport with their female gender on it.

Previously girls in Oz used to be able to get an interim female
passport, provided that they could show proof that they had
transitioned, and were travelling overseas for the purpose of SRS.

Now they will have to travel passports with 'male' on them, until
after the surgery, when they can then apply to change their birth
certificate. This is such a backward step and is going to cause a lot
of distress and increase the danger of travel for T girls.
Especially in the current climate of suspicion and paranoia around
terrorist threat.

Just thought everyone should know.

And from another:

I was the Girl M...... was talking about, who turned up to the
Passport Office to be confronted with this distressing new reality.
It seems this change had been snuck in under the radar. I was so
shocked. It made their request of me bringing a letter from my
presiding doctor, stating I was going for Reassignment surgery, a
complete waste of time. This is really a SAFETY Issue. I rang up to
complain & the people higher up in the passport office had not even
heard of this change. All I can say, is that we haven't heard the end
of this backward stupid & dangerous amendment.

Another shock I had was the man dealing with my application kept
calling me "sir". I was dressed in a bright fuscia business skirt
suit. There was no doubt I was presenting as a professional, well
dressed Female. He said "sir" three times before I twigged. I
corrected him by saying.."Ma'am"

He looked at me in the eye & replied "sorry sir, it says on this
form (My new altered birth certificate) that you are Male......Sir"
I scowled back "As a common courtesy, Call me Ma'am".

Of course, I also put in a complaint against him. It was the first
time I had ever been vilified by anyone in over two years of living
full time & here I was getting it from a government department. As a
co-worker said when I told him the story... "Why am I not surprised"

And another:

Hi Zoe and everyone,

Yes, some moves are afoot at present through SAGE to address this.
Tracie is going to ask some internationally recognised people to make some representations and argue the case.

The legislation that was snuck through, is a cynical and reprehensible attempt by the current conservative government to repeal an important right as an underhanded and ill-thought out 'quickie" response to the upcoming challenge being mounted by M....... and myself, to the decision of DFAT to deny a full female passport to myself after SRS, for the reason of an existing legal 'heterosexual' marriage.

Our case is strong, and they are peeved, but there is no excuse for this totally unnessary repeal of an existing right. It flies in the face of the UN guidelines for fair treatmant of gender-variant people and places us in clear danger when forced to travel with inappropriate documentation.

This case will be familiar to those with long memories, it is almost 2 years since we went to Phuket and applied to have my documentation amended.
The hearing is on 12th September. We'll let you know how it goes.....

This is petty. It always was a possibility that we'd face if we made a fuss though. That rights existing for decades, rights actually enshrined in legislation, could effectively be withdrawn by bureaucratic or ministerial fiat to punish us for being uppity, and not knowing our place. Now unless the Australian Passport Regulations 2005 (as amended to July 18 2007) have been changed by Parliament, it's also against the law. But that doesn't seem to matter to them, as I've found out in the past.

If it wasn't for the fact that the ALP has been even less supportive, offering pious platitudes while the rusted-on Catholic Socialists quietly block any attempt at helping TS and other IS people, I'd change my vote.

As it is, I'm considering my options. I think I'll apply for a passport again.... write a few letters to newspapers... see if I can get the public informed of what has happened. Make a fuss. But not today. I'm too angry to act with full rationality, and this one is too important to act on without cool, calculating intelligence.