The Riddle of Gender - Deborah Rudacille [125]
In the trial, which was shown in its entirety on Court TV, Linda and her attorneys argued that Michael should be considered legally female, that their ten-year marriage should be deemed void, and that Michael should be stripped of his parental rights and prevented from seeing the children. Judge O’Brien ruled otherwise, partly on the basis of extensive medical evidence presented by Walter Bockting, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and former president of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association; Ted Huang, M.D., a surgeon; and Collier Cole, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Texas, Gal-veston. One of the major issues disputed in the case was Michael Kan-taras’s decision not to undergo phalloplasty (surgical construction of a penis). Linda Kantaras’s attorneys argued that Michael’s lack of a penis indicated that he was not a man, and that the marriage was therefore invalid. The medical experts testified that gender identity disorder was a legitimate medical condition and that Michael Kantaras had followed the Standards of Care of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association for the treatment of gender identity disorder. Kantaras actually relocated to Galveston for two years in order to carry out his transition under the care of the Gender Identity Clinic there. (He met Linda shortly after his return to Florida.) The doctors pointed out that most female-to-male transsexual people do not opt for phalloplasty, because of its great expense and uncertain outcome, and that Michael Kantaras’s decision was therefore congruent with prevailing treatment norms. They also testified that most married transmen enjoyed satisfying marital relations with their wives irrespective of their genital status, and that they did so as men, in the male role.
Most observers agree that the medical testimony was crucial in establishing an outcome favorable to Michael Kantaras. Previous court cases in which the legality of marriages contracted by a transsexual person were at issue did not rely as heavily on the testimony of expert medical witnesses. In two of the four U.S. cases {Gardiner, Littleton v. Prange), the marriages were ruled invalid. “To our knowledge this is the first transgender marriage case in the U.S. in which extensive medical evidence was presented, including testimony from three of the foremost experts on transsexualism in the country,” attorney Shannon Minter said in a statement when the Kantaras ruling was announced. “As the court has recognized, the medical evidence overwhelmingly favors recognizing that the law should accommodate transgender people so they can be productive, functioning members of society. This includes permitting transgender people to marry and have children.”
Under the circumstances, many transsexual and transgendered people and their allies are understandably wary of any attempt to eliminate the GID classification without replacing it with a medical diagnosis. The solution to the GID issue, and to many of the other medical and legal challenges that confront the transgender community, they argue, is research. “Basically, we know squat about our community,” says Julie Maverick, a university professor in the physical sciences who heads the research subcommittee of the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC). (Like many cross-dressers, Maverick is closeted and has requested anonymity.) In 2002, Maverick and colleagues at NTAC requested