The European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling on April
6, 2017 “in favor of three transgender people in France who had been barred
from changing the names and genders on their birth certificates because they
had not been sterilized.”[1]
I submit that the use of the term sterilization is misleading. Such a framing
gives the erroneous impression that human rights are at issue. In other words,
it is possible for a human-rights activism to go too far.
A gay march in Paris. Are transgender people necessarily gay? If not, maybe the gay pride flag has gone too far in representing gender issues too. (Source: NYT)
Julia Ehrt, of the group Transgender Europe, claimed that
the court’s decision “ends the dark chapter of state-induced sterilization in
Europe.”[2]
The European states had not been requiring transgender people to be sterilized,
as for instance the Nazis had required mentally retarded people. Rather, the
names and genders on birth certificates could not legally be changed unless the
gender had been changed—meaning that a man could not be legally recognized as a
woman unless he no longer has the male genitalia. The fact that a man who is no
longer a man would no longer be able to produce sperm does mean that he would
be sterile, but to characterize this as a requirement by the state that he be
sterilized is misleading at best because being sterile is simply a consequence
of him no longer being male. In fact, were it possible to transplant female
reproductive organs and genitals in him, she would no longer be sterile and yet
she could be listed as female on her birth certificate! Clearly, sterilization
was not the intent of the laws. Rather, the point is that a man can feel like a
woman and relate to women psychologically, but as long as he has male genitals,
he is a man.
The problem, societally, I submit, is that cultures
excessively limit what is considered to be masculine (and feminine)
characteristics, mannerisms, and styles. Even so, to “break out” of these artificial
strictures is to relegate them rather than no longer be a man (or woman). If a
person with male genitals naturally talks a certain way or whose face or body
looks a certain way (naturally), that way is masculine, by definition, rather
than being of the other gender. For people who feel they are of the other
gender, actually losing their original gender means losing (or replacing) the
genitals of that gender, rather than merely relating to the other gender or
even thinking that one is of that gender. Put another way, the “facts on the
ground” have not changed unless the original genitals are gone or replaced
(i.e., not necessarily sterile).
To refuse to change the gender on a government document
simply because a person relates to or feels like the other gender can thus not
reasonably be said to violate the person’s human rights. The claim that it does
capitulates to a self-defined subjectivity that all too often demands its own
legitimacy—that it be accepted by people of opposing views—in modern society. In
other words, the European Court of Human Rights may have unwittingly succumbed
to a social-reality enforced by the passive (and active) aggression of the
political correctness movement. The danger is that any aggrieved sensitivity
will be deemed a basis of human rights. If someone doesn’t like a word or
expression, for instance, the person will need only declare (presumptuously) that it is inappropriate and saying the word will be judged to violate the
person’s human rights. For example, at a talk on a university campus about
modern social mores, I asked whether polyamory isn’t just a nice name for
playing the field, sexually. A student interrupted the presenter’s answer to
demand that the question not be answered because the expression “playing the
field” is inappropriate and thus unacceptable. Fortunately, the presenter answered
my question, though in line with political correctness—for the presenter
himself was in an open relationship. To the extent that the “requirements” of
political correctness do not rest on a firm foundation, but, rather, merely on subjective
preferences, the violation of them can hardly be said to be a violation of
human rights. Hence, the advent and perpetuation of the political correctness
movement may ironically weaken the human-rights movement precisely in diluting
it.
[1]
Liam Stack, “European
Court Strikes Down Required Sterilization for Transgender People,” The New York Times, April 12, 2017.
[2]
Ibid.
