He said, she said

Rachael Wallbank: Sexual identity is determined between the ears, not the legs. Photo: Janie Barrett

Sydney, Australia — Lawyer Rachael Wallbank turned 50 on Saturday. Among those sharing the family law specialist’s milestone were her grown children, Rebecca, Kate and James. They often refer to her as Rachael, but still think of her as — and sometimes still call her — Dad.

Lawyer Rachael Wallbank turned 50 on Saturday. Among those sharing the family law specialist’s milestone were her grown children, Rebecca, Kate and James. They often refer to her as Rachael, but still think of her as — and sometimes still call her — Dad.

The lives of people with transsexuality, and their emotional, medical and legal battles have entered the mainstream’s consciousness with the release of firsttime writer-director Duncan Tucker’s groundbreaking film Transamerica, starring Felicity Huffman in a critically lauded role. Huffman scored a Golden Globe in January for her performance and was favoured to win a Best Actress Oscar on Sunday for her role as Bree, previously known as Stanley, who was born with transsexualism.

Wallbank, a formidably intelligent woman, changed her “public sex” at 38, but does not call herself “a transsexual” or a “transsexual woman”. Previously married and known as Richard, and having fathered three children, Wallbank refers to herself as a “female who has experienced transsexualism”.

For her, the description transsexual reduces a person to a condition. Pop culture could now improve public understanding of people with transsexualism. Last week, Wallbank and her son James, 16, saw Transamerica. Felicity Huffman’s Bree plans to undergo sex affirmation surgery (what used to be commonly known as sex change surgery) to change her genital sex to female, but her plan is diverted by the discovery of a teenage son she never knew she’d fathered.

Confused? So is Toby, Bree’s 17-year old son, played by Kevin Zegers. He takes her at face value as a female missionary as they travel America’s roads together, only to spot her in the rear view mirror standing, rather than squatting, to take a roadside pee, in a fairly graphic moment.

“I was pleasantly surprised,” Wallbank says, seated behind her desk in her office in Burwood, in Sydney’s innerwest. “I enjoyed it. And I found it quite poignant, particularly the parent-child issues; the reality of a female father and her relationship to her son. It’s used as a vehicle to tell a human story. It’s not used as a circus routine.”

Sally Goldner, 40, a spokeswoman for Transgender Victoria , says Transamerica is a “landmark transsexual film and very relevant”. In it, Bree’s parents essentially say they love her but don’t respect her.

“That was the part that hit the spot for me,” says Goldner, who was declared male at birth and today is happy to be called a “transsexual woman” for the sake of conciseness. Huffman, Goldner says, is very believable in the role of Bree. One child’s question of Bree in the film — “are you a boy or a girl?” — is the classic experience of transsexual people, says Goldner.

Wallbank was also impressed by Bree facetiously telling her psychiatrist how funny it is that cosmetic surgery can “fix” a psychiatric condition: a reference to the continued treatment in some medical and cultural quarters of transsexualism as a mental disorder, sometimes referred to as “gender dysphoria”.

Wallbank’s views are noteworthy, and not only for the cause of the estimated 5000 Australians who live with transsexualism. Her efforts in the Family Court on behalf of her clients “Kevin and Jennifer” — not their real names — who wed in 1999, established marriage rights for couples where one partner has already had sex affirmation surgery.

Kevin’s sex had been “reassigned” in 1995. The full court of the Family Court affirmed the marriage in 2003 , dismissing the Commonwealth’s objection that Kevin could not qualify as a husband because he was born with female genitalia. In doing so, the court significantly rebuffed the Howard Government’s views about who should be allowed to marry.

An anticipated High Court challenge has not materialised. In the past three years many more such couples — at least a dozen that Wallbank is aware of — are known to have also married. Kevin, 40, and Jennifer, 39, remain married in Sydney’s inner-west with their two sons, conceived by donor sperm.

In essence, Wallbank helped to advance the understanding that sexual identity — as manifested in transsexualism — is biological and innate and not a psychological disorder or chosen.

Her case on behalf of Kevin and Jennifer introduced influential scientific expert evidence about “brain sex” into Australian common law. It means that the common assumption that genitalia automatically determine if we are a boy or a girl has been overthrown. Rather, as Wallbank puts it, sexual identity is “determined between the ears, and not between the legs”.

But there are still many battles to be won. Wallbank likens Kevin and Jennifer’s actions to those of Rosa Parks , the woman who sparked the US civil rights movement by refusing to stand for a white man on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955.

In the journal Nature in 1995, a team of endocrinologists and sexologists published a landmark paper that established the “brain sex” concept and challenged the gender dysphoria model .

In Kevin and Jennifer’s case, two of those experts, Dutch professor Louis Gooren and American professor Milton Diamond , gave evidence accepted by the court that some people are born with a brain that recognises them as a member of the sex opposite to that indicated by their chromosomes, genitals and gonads at birth. This is the proposition the Family Court of Australia recognised, concluding that transsexualism is a biological variation in human sexual formation , rather than a psychological disorder. Transamerica wins Wallbank’s praise mostly because of the emotions it shows between Bree and her son, given her experiences with her own son, James. It takes almost the whole film before Bree can declare of her son: “I am his father.”

Wallbank, however, says her own sex affirmation as a woman never stopped her being a father. James was five when his Dad “transitioned” from Richard to Rachael. As a little boy, James tried to correct the occasional stranger who referred to Rachael as his mother, telling them she was his father. James’s two older sisters, Kate and Rebecca, would try to stop him explaining the whole story .

As her children have grown, Wallbank has been aware that they were obliged to share her difference. Kate is now 23 and Rebecca is 19.

Wallbank thinks they had to mature sooner than their peers. But she does not think they have experienced any significant emotional difficulties as a result of her affirming her identity as a female and as their father. “I loved being a father. I really liked that role, and I still do.”

Becoming Rachael, in the mid-’90s, was tough, despite her children’s ready acceptance. She had no way of knowing what would be left of her legal practice after her transition. Wallbank, as Richard, recognised she had become dependent on alcohol and would have to stop drinking if she was to survive “transitioning” and managing a new life.

And there were other emotional adjustments. Rachael’s mother, Clare, had died two years earlier, and her father, Ed, could not understand what had become of the person he thought of as his son. “I knew he loved me, but he withdrew,” Wallbank says.

One day, though, Wallbank’s father phoned, and she visited him. Ed gave Wallbank her mother’s engagement ring, and said: “I know she’d be as proud of you as the daughter you’ve become as I am.” He died in 1999.

Wallbank has found herself on a spiritual journey — her belief in God strengthened when she experienced the rejection, isolation and despair that went with making the decision to transition.

While Wallbank has experienced her sexual identity as fixed, her sexuality or sexual orientation appears more fluid. She loved and was sexually attracted to her wife when they were married but, in transitioning to Rachael, a “light went on”, and she became attracted to men. Some might describe this as bisexuality, but Wallbank says she wanted to have a sexual relationship with a man because she could do so with a female body.

Wallbank hopes one day to marry. “I’ve met some nice guys, but I haven’t met the right one yet,” she says. “But then, neither have so many of my girlfriends. I’ve been so busy, too. I’d have to meet someone who so owned his own stuff, and was so sure of his maleness, that he could handle me doing this public reform work.”

The estimate of 5000 people with transsexualism in Australia is low, Wallbank says, as an unknown number suffer in silence, harm themselves or take their lives. Even trying to talk to a medical practitioner about such lifelong feelings is fraught with potential rejection and ignorance. “To be seen is sometimes to be destroyed,” Wallbank says.

If pop culture is now making a mark — alongside internet home pages and blogs by people with transsexualism announcing themselves to the world — the law is far from satisfactory in the eyes of many.

A person whose anatomical sex has been “reassigned” or rehabilitated by surgery can get themselves a new birth certificate under NSW or Victorian law. But people who get married first — as an opposite-sex couple according to genitalia — and then have the same treatment cannot have their legal sex changed unless they get divorced. Otherwise, state authorities believe, same-sex marriage would be effectively sanctioned.

As well, Australian laws differ significantly from state to state, creating “needless inhumane uncertainty and confusion”, Wallbank says.

The next big battlefront, as Wallbank sees it, is restoring the rights of children with transsexualism to have medical treatment in their teens. Access was restricted in a 2004 ruling that forced parents to first obtain approval from the Family Court before any treatment started. Wallbank has been acting for the parents of a teenager under 16 in such a case (she declines to give the age).

The parents recently obtained approval for the teenager to receive medication to enable her to postpone the physical effects of puberty while she is assessed for later hormonal treatment at 16. The teenager, “on her own insistence and with medical approval”, Wallbank says, has for several years been living as a girl in her everyday life, even though she was born a boy. The 2004 requirement, Wallbank says, has caused considerable delay in treatment.

©Steve Dow, The Age 2006. All Rights Reserved

The Right to be Wrong

A series of events occurred within a very short period and prompted consideration of the ethical dimensions of how, when, and why individuals, institutions or governments decide to get involved in people’s lives. In particular we began to question if they should get involved with allowing, or not allowing, people to make major decisions regarding their own bodies. This is an essay reflecting such thoughts. It involves consideration of two tenets of medical practice: Relieve pain and suffering; and First, do no harm.

Click here to read this article:  The Right to be Wrong: Sex and Gender Decisions by Milton Diamond Ph.D. and Hazel Glenn BEH, PH.D., J.D. Published in: Intersex & Ethics. S. Sytsma ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006.

When a man loves a woman

Sydney, Australia — Kevin and Jennifer consider themselves a normal, married Australian couple. They have two little boys, a mortgage, and a loving, extended family. Kevin is a keen do-it-yourselfer who likes lots of help from his boys: the elder of them copies Dad’s every move with his own plastic shovels, rake, wheelbarrow, hammer, and drill.

This family likes to take trips to the beach. They like playgrounds, barbecues and riding bikes. The boys, aged three and one, love to hose the family car almost as much as they love to hose each other. They remain oblivious to the fact that the federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, has twice tried to have their parents’ marriage ruled invalid.

Williams fears there is a major principle at stake, for Kevin was born Kimberly. Williams fears that if transsexuals are allowed to marry as the sex they legally become through hormone treatment and surgery, it places a big question mark over the idea of marriage – what it means, and who is allowed to do it.

But while Williams believes Kevin was born a woman and can thus never qualify as a husband, the Family Court has taken a profoundly different view: that Kevin has always been a man.

Kevin, 37, and Jennifer, 36, met in 1996, the year after Kevin had hormone treatment and irreversible sex reassignment, including breast reduction and a hysterectomy, allowing him to gain a new birth certificate in 1997 declaring he was male.

I thought all my Christmases had come at once,” says Kevin of meeting Jennifer. “I was open and honest with Jennifer about my predicament from the beginning.”

Jennifer says Kevin’s transsexual condition didn’t make him seem “any less of a man”. On their wedding day in August 1999 before a civil celebrant, she had been seven months pregnant with their first child – both their children were conceived through artificial insemination – and admits it was a stressful day, considering the legal struggle they knew lay ahead.

The couple, who live in the western suburbs of Sydney and are uncomfortable with the media attention (their names have been changed to protect their identities), vow they will tell their boys the truth about their father when the time is right.

In the past, transsexualism was seen as a psychological condition, and transsexuals were considered to be making a choice to change sex, in so far as electing to have sex reassignment surgery. But the weight of recent medical opinion is that transsexualism is biological, and a natural, though uncommon, part of human sexual formation. Transsexualism is thrust upon an individual, not chosen.

In the journal Nature in 1995, endocrinologists and sexologists published a paper that established the new concept of “brain sex”. Professors Gooren, Diamond, Walters and Walker argued some people are born with a brain that recognises themselves as a member of the sex opposite to that indicated by their chromosomes, genitals, and gonads. Given the brain sex theory is widely accepted in medical circles – and now by the Family Court in a legal precedent – those cries in the birthing suite of “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl” might not always be cut and dried.

Kevin was not born a woman,” says Jennifer. “That is not the language of our case, world-renowned experts, or any of the judges. To talk about transsexualism from a before/after angle is winding the clock back. A ‘man born a woman’ belongs on Jerry Springer.”

The case of the Commonwealth of Australia v Kevin and Jennifer began in 1998. The couple were making inquiries about their plans to marry when they received an email from the Attorney-General’s Department.

I am sorry we are unable to help you,” read the email, “but I am concerned that if you attempt to go ahead with the course of action you suggest you are leaving your partner open to criminal charges and the possibility of jail and I hope you will take this into consideration when making your decision … Believe me, as a married mother of four, marriage is not all it is cracked up to be.”

Jennifer says she found the email “flippant, yet threatening; we were shocked that an employee of the Government would casually reveal her own bias, in writing”. They also realised that they were going to need a lawyer.

Kevin and Jennifer had their first appointment with Rachael Wallbank on referral some weeks later. Her credentials as a practitioner in family law impressed them. But Wallbank also had every reason to empathise with their case: at birth she had been declared male. Wallbank does not call herself “a transsexual”. She says that description indicates a condition instead of a whole person. She refers to herself as a “person who has experienced transsexualism”.

Wallbank accepted the case on a pro-bono basis, and was later funded by the Commonwealth when it became a test case. “I believed my clients were legally married,” she says.

It was clear to me that the law of Australia had not yet been declared on the subject of transsexualism and marriage, that it was open to a court to do so. And if Kevin could be recognised as male under criminal and social security law, then why not under marriage law?”

Wallbank naturally had an interest in the case “because of my own journey”. Kevin’s plight was in some ways similar to her own. “There was something very special about having experienced transsexualism myself, which enabled me to present the expert evidence about brain sex with certainty. I was also able to express the effect of difference and discrimination upon loved ones, having seen my own family suffer.”

When Wallbank changed what she calls her “public sex” at 38, she had a lot to consider.

“I had my own legal practice, was considered a white male, had three beautiful children, a nice house and a relationship with my family that was important to me.

 Why would I put everything I valued in the world at risk? Well, the reason was I could not keep going, trying to manufacture a male persona, when I’ve known since I was five that I was female. It had become a life-or-death decision.”

In 1999, Wallbank applied to the Family Court seeking a judgement validating Kevin and Jennifer’s marriage. In preparing the case, Wallbank looked at similar cases overseas, but found that even the most favourable judgements (notably those delivered in New Zealand) had taken the line that transsexualism was a “psychological malady”. She wanted to argue otherwise.

I was certain someone’s sex or knowledge of themselves was determined between the ears, as per brain sex, and not between the legs,” she says. “The fact is there is no other explanation for why people like Kevin and I exist. There’s no other explanation as to why someone like me would undergo sex-affirmation procedures.”

Wallbank’s argument that transsexualism was an example of natural human diversity, and nothing to do with mental illness, was accepted by the court. In 2001, Kevin and Jennifer were legally confirmed as husband and wife. The court ruled that because Kevin had an irreversible sex re-assignment, he could marry as a man.

But that was not the end of it. Because of the potentially far-reaching consequences of the judgement, lawyers for the Attorney-General appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Family Court, and lost. Government lawyers in both instances argued that a person’s sex for the legal purpose of marriage is determined at birth, and no amount of reassignment surgery can alter that.

They also argued that a person’s brain sex cannot alter someone’s legal status as a man or a woman for the purpose of marriage.

It was, in part, a technical argument that relied on an English court decision of 33 years ago, a decision the court ruled was not binding in Australia. Nor did the court accept the argument that the Marriage Act of 1961 was intended as a code to strictly define the terms “marriage”, “man”, and “woman”.

A spokeswoman for Williams says the case raises serious issues about the meaning of marriage, and the role of Parliament in determining that meaning. The Government may appeal the decision to the High Court. Its chances of success are open to conjecture, although the High Court is seen as being more conservative than the Family Court.

Whatever happens, there will be a need now, says Wallbank, for the states and territories to clarify their laws on births, deaths and marriages, and on discrimination, so that in the case of transsexualism, a person’s legal sex, as delineated in their original birth certificate, can be changed to “correct mistakes”. This, she argues, is a fundamental human right.

If that happens, such changes will need to untangle transsexualism from transgenderism, which is described by Wallbank as “an act of gender expression”. The road ahead is unlikely to be smooth or without confusion.

When Kevin was a very young child and still called Kimberly, his mother would ensure he dressed as a girl on special occasions. She made him stand next to his father naked, to see how their anatomies differed. At school, children teased him for wearing boys’ jackets and pants, saying he was a girl, so why would he dress like that?
He fought to defend himself, and his three younger sisters. Family photographs show Kimberly with pistols at age three – the age Kevin says he knew himself to be male – and with a soccer ball at age eight.

Family Court Justice Richard Chisholm noted, in his 2001 judgement, a photograph of the four children. The younger ones are wearing pastel-coloured dresses and sandals, but the eldest is wearing dark trousers and shoes, and what looks like a boy’s shirt.

“To my eye,” said Chisholm, “despite the shoulder-length hair, he looks as much like a boy as a girl.” There was never any confusion for Kevin, though.

“I am a man, nothing more or less, just a man,” he says. “I am ‘trans’ nothing. Just a man who has the medical condition, an example of human variation, known as transsexualism.

“I rehabilitated my physical characteristics and corrected the mistake of public identity. There was no transition for me personally. I have always been, and always will be, male.”

As for Jennifer, Kevin is a husband, a father, the bloke next door. He’s a brother, an uncle, a much-loved son-in-law. He is an admirable male role model. He is the kind of man I hope my sons will become.”

© Steve Dow, The Age,  2003. All Rights Reserved