Strasbourg Court ruling and #TransRights
The European Court of Human Rights has finally ruled that the compulsory sterilisation for Trans and gender-plural people undergoing gender self-determination a violation of Article Eight of the European Convention of Human Rights. This decision (AFFAIRE A.P., GARÇON ET NICOT c. FRANCE) is legally-binding only in the Republic of France. However, it is a ruling that sets a precedent to all the 47 member states, especially to those who continue to require compulsory sterilisation from Trans people. This writer has written on the vital necessity of a stronger discourse on Trans identities and reproductive justice, arguing that existing #reprojustice campaigns worldwide should be strengthened with a Trans and gender-plural inclusive focus. The large majority of such campaigns and movements tend to be highly cisnormative, which limits their scope and objectives.
The AP, Garçon and Nicot vs France ruling is important as a precedent. However, and simultaneously, it is also an occasion to reflect upon the concrete impact [if not the lack thereof] of the Strasbourg Court’s rulings on member states. The Court’s jurisdiction include Russia and Turkey, home to some of the world’s strongest anti-Trans and anti-gender-plural policies, perspectives and perceptions, one can only hope that this ruling will help strengthen the hands of Trans and #reprojustice activists in these countries.
Trans people’s #reprorights: anathema to many in the West?
Western political and judicial establishments and healthcare structures have long harboured a grudge against Trans people’s reproductive rights. In the UK, the highly degrading and intrusive gender-policing practised by gender identity clinics — mostly relying on [pseudo]clinical knowledge of yesteryear––also include a clear and unambiguous hostility to reproductive justice. Existing legislation in all the jurisdictions of the British Isles (except the Irish Republic, where the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 represents an advanced piece of legislation) make it the legalities of gender recognition more challenging for Trans people who are married. In England and Wales, and in Scotland, you can stay married — which ‘compulsorily’ requires a statutory declaration from both spouses. Any shortcoming in this process can result in delays in issuing the ‘full’ Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, where even the 2013 Marriage Act does not apply, is even more rigid, and a married Trans person simply cannot get a GRC without terminating their marriage. These three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland provide an example of how Western jurisdictions have historically perceived non-cis-heteronormative gender identities. The hostility is still apparent, even when parsimonious steps are taken after years of battles to relax the [cis-het] rules.
Legal battles in France?
The Strasbourg Court ruling also provides a glimpse into a long series of legal battles in the French judiciary to secure the fundamental rights of Trans people, especially in relation to the issue of sterilisation. Making it compulsory for a Trans person to undergo this procedure, against their will, is an act of heinous violence. It suggests the extent to which society is unprepared to ‘see’, let alone ‘accept’ individuals and families who challenge the notion of a cis-het family where the gender binary and cisnormative gender norms prevail.
Global implications: Western colonisation built on racism and cis-heteronormativity?
The Court ruling is also a reminder of how the West has systematically prioritised the cis-het family and social order. This is what they forcibly imposed on colonised peoples across the world for many centuries. Some religious denominations which, under the guise of equality and freedom and peace and the word of god [lower case intended] continue to promote the same discourse in many parts of the non-Western world, where neocolonial dynamics of occupation continue to hold sway. The historic truth that the ‘West was built on racism’ is a reality that many in the West find hard to digest. This ‘racism’ also involved implanting Western cisnormativities and heteronormativities, and ideas on [pseudo]moralities on subjugated black and brown peoples. In other words, racism and cis-heteronormativity were the key driving forces of Western colonisation of non-Western places and peoples. This is the first thing that needs due and fulsome acknowledgement when organisations such as the Commonwealth discuss human rights, especially Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression (SOGIE)-related issues. Organisations such as the Commonwealth Equality Network need to admit the West’s [in this specific case the UK’s] shameless, violent and despicable historic role in perpetuating homophobia and transphobia, especially across the New Commonwealth. In the absence of such frank and clear assertions, it is not possible to develop comprehensive strategies and plans of action that can truly challenge anti-SOGIE laws, negative and false perceptions of LGBTQI identities and rights, as well as rampant homopbobia and transphobia (not to mention transmisogyny and transmisogynoir) across the global South/s.
