In 2003, Alex MacFarlane quietly became the first person in the country to obtain a passport with neither an M or an F in the sex field. Almost 50 at the time, they had spent much of their adult life pushing to obtain an X there instead, demarcating indeterminate, intersex, and/or unspecified.
Ten years later, in a move that Professor Gillian Triggs called “profoundly significant”, the federal government introduced the “Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender”, a publication that built on progress made in the decade prior and mandated that all federal institutions comply with standards of terminology, privacy, and care.
Commencing on July 1, 2013, the guidelines stipulated that all departments and agencies were expected to comply within three years, but as July 1 2016 passed, it became increasingly clear that many had failed to meet the deadline. I had heard of friends slipping through cracks in these systems with little fanfare, so asked several people who are navigating these systems to speak with me about their experiences.
Vern*, born in New South Wales, considered almost every interaction they’ve had a “campaign of bureaucratic frustration”. While federal guidelines exist in Australia, what you are able to change — and when you can change it — varies from state to state, with NSW’s guidelines remaining rather regressive. During numerous appointments with Medicare, they have had multiple staff called over to puzzle at the paperwork Vern has handed over, with no idea how to enter it into their systems. Some staff even said they’d “never seen one of these forms before”.
In lieu of an option that fit them, Vern was able to have their gender at Medicare updated from F to M, but this presents its own range of problems. For as long as X has been written on forms, it has legally recognised a gender that is by definition not male or female, a definition further enshrined in 2013. The substitution of X with another option is not only a discriminatory act, but legally fraught.
Stevie mentioned this problem, saying it bothered them “not just on a person identity level, but am I also committing fraud?”. MacFarlane noted similar concerns in 2003, saying they didn’t want to change the world, but that they “should not have to commit fraud because of a department’s production inadequacies”.
Born in New Zealand, Stevie saw a form that reflected their gender for the first time, last year, on a police background check. But when flying in from overseas, they found themselves held up at an automatic entry gate because, despite Border Control’s standards allowing for the use of X markers, the technology had not been updated. Mordantly, finding a solution to their gender not being recognised resulted in almost constant misgendering from the staff who, if trained, retained none of the tact.
Laurie, also born in NSW, received an apology from the ATO that their systems hadn’t been updated for the 2016 deadline, and was told they’d be updated by January 1 2017, instead. Calling again in the new year, they found out this had simply never been the case. They, too, expressed frustration “because people make out like it’s not possible, but what they’re saying is it’s not a priority, and that’s the bit that hurts — not being important, or worthwhile, to those people”. They’re still trying to update their information.
When we spoke, Stevie noted that young people today eschew binary gender more than ever before, and were confused that organisations aren’t going out of their way to change the processes. X markers are the rarest they may ever be. “They’re putting off the backlash when they could be doing it now,” they said, “and avoiding a whole lot of pain”.
Regardless, it is inherently a matter of discrimination. With even the Australian Defence Force pushing to bar non-binary people only last year citing “administrative difficulties“, we are on the cusp of a national conversation around what anti-discrimination measures are considered “reasonable” to accommodate — a conversation missing the voices of those who are currently experiencing harm because of it.
*Some names in this article have been changed to protect their privacy.
The real mystery is why sex is recorded on birth certificates and thereafter deemed to somehow be a vital part of a person’s ID for official purposes. Most every attempt to answer that is a variant of “We record this because we have systems that require it to be recorded.”
How about for the collection of demographic statistics?
We must collect data because we collect data.
Yes, let’s be unable to prove wage discrimination against women by refusing to keep the data (just to use one example).
The fact that some poor jobsworth at Centrelink either can’t explain the use of the data or doesn’t know it doesn’t mean it isn’t used in a thousand ways.
We collect data for many reasons, including health care. Keep up.
It might be worthwhile for the author to point out the proportion of the population that is intersex. According to the IHRA, which Duck-Chong cites, the figure is estimated to be 1.7%.
Is it therefore reasonable for bureaucracies or businesses to consider recognition of intersex people a priority?
Sexuality is complicated even for straight people, and so I can imagine intersex people have potentially very challenging lives, but how – exactly – are intersex people “harmed” by having a conversation about anti-discrimination measures?
Intersex people in our society do have a lot of issues and these shouldn’t be artificially worsened by inflexible software. In 2007 I worked on the Census and took a call from a very upset caller who objected to being forced to identify as either male or female, which the caller was not. The caller was born with characteristics of both male and female and rightly wanted this recognised since it is not really uncommon and is a biological as well as social reality. We do, after all, have a word for this: hermaphrodite. I spent about half an hour on the phone trying to soothe the caller’s feelings since there was nothing I could do to change the Census form. With the advantage of hindsight I wish I had suggested that the caller decide between ticking both the male and female boxes or ticking neither since I now know that one inconsistency on the form would not have been followed up with the respondent.
Sorry that should read 2006.
Why do you assume that non-binary = intersex? The demographic data that IHRA share shows that only 1 in 5 intersex people are non-binary.
Leave it to science, you can’t quibble about your chromosomal makeup. Its not likely anyone who is not confused about their sexuality care less about yours… Sorry your nor special.
So if it’s not important to you but it is important to the non-binary why force the non-binary person into categories that suit you.?
You are, I assume deliberately, inverting Gjb’s point.
this topic will be obsolete if not already irrelevant- in the near future Canberra will be the repository for all population data on health etc. estimated at the end of 2018 and the data base will be accessible at a price – and for agencies.
XX = female. XY = male.
There are of course various genetic overlaps, errors (yes, they are error in transcription and exchange) that give rise to various aberrant genotypes.
Those apart, hormone exposure in utero and to some cultural ideas post natal can give rise to various confused states of sexuality and identity to a greater or lesser degree and with a more or less permanent impact on the individual. That is also fine to a degree. Live and let live.
But when somebody with a clearly defined genotype wants to identify as the other, not just L,G or B, there is something seriously wrong and those who pretend it is a range of normal are doing nobody any favours.
If genotype has you as a fully functional male, then that is it, no matter how you “feel” inside or how much do$$$h you can make from a Follywood..
Seek hormone therapy before you seek the knife and before saying “doctors support the concept” you have to take a look at their vested interests. Bit like those private “fertility specialists” who help women of 70+ have babies.