Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.08.2019, Blaðsíða 20

20 The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 13— 2019
In 1948, German-American endocri-
nologist Harry Benjamin had a fate-
ful meeting with famed sexologist
Alfred Kinsley, wherein Benjamin
was introduced to a child, assigned
male at birth, who wanted to be a girl.
Benjamin proposed estrogen treat-
ment for the child and, encouraged
by positive results, helped develop an
evaluation process for assessing trans
people, culminating in his landmark
1966 publication, ‘The Transsexual
Phenomenon.’ The process outlined in
this work laid the foundations for how
the global medical community would
assess and progress the treatment of
trans people.
Until last June, the process In
Iceland went something like this: if you
thought you were or might be trans,
you would sign up for six interviews,
paid out of pocket and stretched out
over a period of at least six months,
with psychiatrists and social workers.
During this time, and for up to a year
afterwards, you would be expected to
“live as your gender identity” in order
to access hormone replacement ther-
apy (HRT), surgery, and other medical
procedures.
In light of new research, this
process is being slowly replaced with a
new one. The informed consent model
moves the onus from (often cisgender)
medical professionals’ opinions on any
given person’s “transness” to the trans
person themselves as the best author-
ity on what their gender actually is.
While this new model is not yet estab-
lished in many countries around the
world, Iceland has, more or less, legally
adopted it.
Trans people are arguably the new
frontier of queer rights. As we move
into Reykjavík Pride season, it is
important to understand the Icelandic
trans experience, how the law moved
from one process for trans people to a
new one, why it took so long, and what
challenges still lie ahead.
From “nice
idea” to
“bullet-
proof”
"The old law was considered one of
the most progressive ones in Europe
at the time,” says writer and activist
Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdót-
tir, who is also the chair of the Trans
Ísland organisation, and one of the
minds behind the new law. “I guess
that shows how quickly things can
change and how fast we can move on."
The old law, last codified in 2012,
contained elements that were always
considered dubious at best by trans
people in Iceland. In particular, the
stipulation that they must live accord-
ing to their “gender role” for a specific
period of time for approval for HRT
and other services.
"It was really strange that the term
‘gender role’ is written into law, because
what are gender roles? We have no
legal terms of what's a man, a woman,
or a gender role," Ugla points out.
The new law, says Ugla, began as a
well-meaning parliamentary proposal
from the Pirate Party, who sought to
have “the third gender,” as they put it,
officially recognised. Ugla says that
while this was “a nice effort,” she and
others believed there needed to be a
comprehensive law instead.
Ugla and Intersex Iceland chairper-
son Kitty Anderson got to work in 2015,
contacting numerous government
bodies, institutions, and grassroots
organisations to form a core work-
group that would help create a draft for
a bill. The fact that it took four years
for this legislation to go from draft
to law was due, in part, to changes in
Parliament (the draft was first ready
for submission as a bill when Iceland’s
previous government collapsed) but
also because they wanted the legisla-
tion to be “absolutely bulletproof.” This
would mean navigating the conten-
tious process of trying to reach some
kind of agreement between all the
sectors involved—with mixed results.
Wins and
losses
As with any piece of legislation,
changes were made from initial
draft to final form. In this case,
some of the original proposals
that did not make the final cut—
often for purely political reasons—
will have real life consequences
for already marginalised people.
As an example, both Trans Ísland
and the trans diagnostic team were
in agreement that there should be no
limits set on how often someone can
change their gender marker. However,
by the time the bill made it out of the
Parliamentary General Committee, the
law would end up allowing only a single
change to an individual’s gender marker,
barring “special circumstances”.
Ugla believes this was a mistake.
“The whole purpose of the law is that
people have the right to determine
their legal gender and name,” she says.
“Putting restrictions on that is against
the whole idea of the law. I guess we'll
just have to see how this works in prac-
tice, because in the law, it doesn't really
say who makes the decision on what is
'special circumstances.' It's a bit vague,
and we're not sure how it’s going to
work in practice."
The final version of the law also
slighted intersex people in particular.
The original draft sought to protect
intersex children from non-consensual
cosmetic surgeries on their genitals—
something that would seem to be a
done deal for a Parliament that got very
close to banning penile circumcision.
Instead, the final law merely called for
the establishment of a committee, to
submit findings in 12 months’ time,
to examine these surgeries. To Ugla,
it was an “absolutely ridiculous” deci-
sion, given that four years have already
been spent discussing the matter.
“There needs to be a ban on these
surgeries,” says Ugla. “It's something
that absolutely has to happen. It's not
even a discussion for us.” Ugla specu-
lates that this element may have been
excluded because of Parliament’s
worry that it could jeopardise the
law's passage. “In the meantime, these
surgeries will continue. They don't
realise the urgency of this and that this
needs to happen now.”
Kitty elaborated on this point
during a conversation with Grapevine
last February. “When there is no risk
to health it is imperative that children
be allowed to grow up and still have the
possibility to make their own decisions
about what they want to happen to
their body,” Kitty said, in part. “When
invasive and irreversible procedures
are performed on children, it not only
violates their fundamental rights, but
also takes away choices from them
when they are older.”
Welcome
to the
labyrinth
In a law such as this, numerous
government institutions are affected
and must make systemic changes.
Some institutions have proven more
receptive than others. This can mean
a delayed reaction between the law’s
passage, and such institutions imple-
menting the changes the new law
demands.
As one example, even though the
law codifies the recognition of a third
gender marker, X, the National Registry
has said it could take them 18 months
to add that option to their system.
Another example concerns asylum
seekers and refugees. By law, if an
asylum seeker or refugee comes to
Iceland and they are trans, they should
be given ID according to their gender
identity, regardless of what their legal
documents might say. However, Ugla
and the Grapevine have been made
aware of instances in which the Direc-
torate of Immigration has failed to
honour that section of the law. Ugla
says Trans Ísland will meet with the
Directorate to be sure they fully under-
stand the part they must play.
Alexandra Briem, a trans woman
and Reykjavík City Councilperson for
the Pirate Party, believes that a large
part of the problem is the endemic
inscrutability of Iceland’s bureaucracy.
Ministries can even write internal
regulations that may seem to contra-
vene national laws.
“It's part of what makes Iceland and
it's bureaucracy difficult to navigate,”
she says. “The law may say something
which seems straightforward, but it
can turn out that the regulations from
the ministry interpret it completely
differently. It's that interpretation that
counts, unless you successfully sue a
ministry in the Supreme Court.”
Another issue is that the Icelandic
authorities often pass the buck on cases
they find difficult, says Alexandra.
“People don't want to be responsible
for something that costs more money,”
“So many peo-
ple are com-
ing out now
that oth-
ers think so
it must be a
fad.
But I think
it's actually
because we're
reaching a
space where
there's much
more aware-
ness, people
are able to
express them-
selves more
freely.
We should be
celebrating
that there
are more peo-
ple willing to
be who they
are.”