“There are only two genders – male and female…” An Analysis of Online Responses to Tasmania Removing ‘Gender’ from Birth Certificates

Louise Richardson‑Self
{"title":"“There are only two genders – male and female…” An Analysis of Online Responses to Tasmania Removing ‘Gender’ from Birth Certificates","authors":"Louise Richardson‑Self","doi":"10.19164/ijgsl.v1i1.995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article details and analyses some of the public online response to the Tasmanian Government’s decision to make the recording of gender on birth certificates an opt-in process. Tasmania is the first jurisdiction in Australia to make such a change, which aims to simplify the legal processes involved in affirming a person’s gender identity (including agender and non-binary status). The data set is comprised of comments posted on Facebook in response to The Australian newspaper’s coverage of this event; The Australian is Australia’s only truly national daily broadsheet. This article argues that the effect of this overwhelmingly negative ciscentric response, as revealed by the aesthetic of this digital social space, is the generation of an impression of Australians as trans- (and intersex-) averse. This risks undermining the basic good of assurance that transgender and intersex people ought to have: an assurance that they can inhabit public spaces and be treated with dignity and respect (cf. Waldron). To prevent this kind of hostile response in the future, we must find a way to communicate and make resonant to the general public what queer and feminist theorists have been arguing for quite some time: that sex and gender are not synonymous and that both gender and sex are social constructs.","PeriodicalId":384136,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19164/ijgsl.v1i1.995","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article details and analyses some of the public online response to the Tasmanian Government’s decision to make the recording of gender on birth certificates an opt-in process. Tasmania is the first jurisdiction in Australia to make such a change, which aims to simplify the legal processes involved in affirming a person’s gender identity (including agender and non-binary status). The data set is comprised of comments posted on Facebook in response to The Australian newspaper’s coverage of this event; The Australian is Australia’s only truly national daily broadsheet. This article argues that the effect of this overwhelmingly negative ciscentric response, as revealed by the aesthetic of this digital social space, is the generation of an impression of Australians as trans- (and intersex-) averse. This risks undermining the basic good of assurance that transgender and intersex people ought to have: an assurance that they can inhabit public spaces and be treated with dignity and respect (cf. Waldron). To prevent this kind of hostile response in the future, we must find a way to communicate and make resonant to the general public what queer and feminist theorists have been arguing for quite some time: that sex and gender are not synonymous and that both gender and sex are social constructs.
“只有两种性别——男性和女性……”对塔斯马尼亚州取消出生证明上“性别”的网上反应的分析
这篇文章详细分析了塔斯马尼亚政府决定将出生证明上的性别记录作为一项选择加入程序后,公众在网上的一些反应。塔斯马尼亚州是澳大利亚第一个做出这一改变的司法管辖区,旨在简化确认一个人性别认同(包括性别和非二元身份)的法律程序。该数据集由Facebook上发布的评论组成,这些评论是对《澳大利亚人报》(The Australian)报道这一事件的回应;《澳大利亚人报》是澳大利亚唯一一份真正意义上的全国性日报。这篇文章认为,正如这个数字社交空间的审美所揭示的那样,这种压倒性的消极反中心反应的影响是,澳大利亚人对变性人(和双性人)产生了一种厌恶的印象。这可能会破坏跨性别者和双性人应该拥有的基本保障:他们可以居住在公共空间并受到尊严和尊重的保障(参见Waldron)。为了防止这种敌意的反应在未来发生,我们必须找到一种方式来沟通并引起公众的共鸣,这是酷儿和女权主义理论家长期以来一直在争论的:性和性别不是同义词,性别和性都是社会建构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信