The ABC of XYZ
August 24th, 1996
Applications are invited from transsexual people with a grievance whose names begin with those difficult scrabble letters like ’Q’. The Press for Change campaign needs YOU! Indications are that at the current rate at which new cases are being brought under the hard-won shelter of reporting restrictions we’ll be needing you in court by about the end of next year.
This year alone we’ve had ’P vs S’, followed by P’s less well-known employment rights tester ’N’ (who confirmed that the European Court of Justice ruling on unfair dismissal applied to private business as well as public employers). Then there were ’P and G’ … with ’R’ ready to follow through in judicial reviews on the birth certificate issue. In October we have an ’M’ coming along to test another employment implication of transsexuals’ contradictory status against West Midlands Police and, before then, we’ll see mesdames Horsham and Sheffield staking less anonymous claims to their respective parts of the litigation alphabet.
Perhaps it’s fitting that a government so insistent on interpreting the letter of the law in a way that serves nobody should find itself wading knee deep in the legal broth being stewed by all these highly intelligent and aggrieved people of letters.
One of the most significant cases to be brought so far though will be heard in the European Court of Human Rights next week however … and just so it sticks in your mind it’s got a really catchy title …
X Y and Z v H.M. Government
The case involves a female to male transsexual man (X), his female partner (Y) of nearly 20 years, and their child (Z).
X and Y applied in 1990 for fertility treatment in the form of Arificial Insemination by Donor (AID) and, in October 1992, their daughter Z was born as a result of the treatment.
In order to get treatment the couple underwent extensive counselling and fulfilled the requirements of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, in that the doctors were satisfied that it was appropriate and in the best interests of any child born, and X agreed that under the Act’s requirements he would for all legal and social purposes be the father of Z - which is the role he acts in today.
The couple now have another child, and there are twins on the way too. They are, to all intents and purposes, a happy family.
However at the time of the registration of Z’s birth, X was refused permission to register his name on her birth certificate as her father. The reason for this is that he is to all intents in British law a ‘female’ because on his birth certificate it says ‘girl’. No account is taken of the fact that X underwent gender reasignment in 1975, and has lived and worked as a man succesfully ever since.
At that time Y was told that for all purposes, including social security benefits etc., she would be a single parent, yet X was told that he could claim the tax allowance for Z as he can prove he provides for her.
The family made an application to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of themselves and Z, pleading that the UK government’s refusal to allow X’s name on the birth certificate contravened the rights to privacy contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, and stigmatised the whole family, but the child in particular, and removed basic parental rights from X, and the right of Y to choose who would act as the father of her child.
The European Commission found in the family’s favour and referred the case to the Court. A decision is not expected for around 9 months.
The hidden consequences
People may ask of course, "why all the fuss"? Can’t X and Y just get on and bring up their children without X’s name on their birth certificates? In practice they do. Yet it’s a fair weather solution at best. Stop and think for a moment about X’s position if Y were to die or merely become incapacitated … and then think how any parent would feel to live in the shadow of that uncertainty. Remember that X is unable to marry Y either … and think of the effects which that has on both his and the children’s financial security.
Think about very much more everyday consequences too. In law X has no legal right to an interest in his children’s education. If the children require hospital treatment there is a question mark over whether he can give consent to drugs or surgery. Every direction he turns in is a cruel reminder that his role as both a father and as a man is under question.
What sort of monsters insist on perpetuating this kind of mental cruelty?
Well, curiously, they say they’re concerned for the future of "the family". But if that’s the case then they have a strange and warped way of expressing that concern.
