Ethics Forum

Categories of Person

The Story of Sandra Laing

• Born in Apartheid South Africa of White Parents.

• Was designated white at birth, but was reclassified as “coloured” just after being expelled from her all white elementary school

Sandra Laing

• Sandra’s Father sought reclassification,

• “If Sandra’s classification is not changed then my husband and I will have to send her overseas [Mrs Laing said.] She cannot live in South Africa as a Coloured, yet part of a White family.”

Sandra Laing

• “Sandra has been brought up as a White. She considers herself White. She is darker than we are, but in every way she has always been a white person.”

Sandra Laing• “…If Sandra remains

‘Coloured’ does it mean she will have to be registered as a servant in order to live with us?” [Mr. Laing] added. “Or must she move away into a location? Will we be breaking the law if we take Sandra into a tearoom or a cinema, or take her on a train journey with us? And who would Sandra be allowed to marry?”

Racial Experts • These tests included measurements of the

nose, nostrils, and cheekbones, and an expert analysis of hair texture. The latter often included the ‘pencil test.’ It was thought that a white person’s hair is not so curly to hold a pencil, whereas a coloured person’s hair could. There were gradations of skin color to be measured in various places of the body including the fingernails and the eyelids; earlobes were squeezed to determine their degree of softness. (It was thought that Black person’s earlobes were softer than others.) Individuals challenging their racial classification before the board would also be asked what they had for breakfast (it was thought only blacks would eat mealie or cornmeal porridge), how they slept on a bed, and what sport they enjoyed (blacks were thought to favor soccer while coloured favored rugby).

Sandra Laing

• “The person there said if they give me a white I.D., they’re going to take my kids away because a white woman can’t have kids who are not white. So I wanted to become coloured again.”

Sandra Laing• On her application to the

reclassification office Sandra wrote:• I am happy with my boyfriend and

our children. I want to obtain permission to be classified and/or reclassified as a Swazi and I do not want to be classified and/or considered white because I want to keep my children and also proceed to marry my present boyfriend. I have for all intents and purposes lived as a Swazi woman for the last four years and I have given birth to Swazi children and I intend remaining a Swazi and I pray that I be permitted to continue living as a Swazi in which group I have been accepted as a Swazi daughter-in-law. I do not intend to go back and live as a white.

Christie Lee Littleton

• Christie married Jonathon Littleton in 1989 in the state of Kentucky. Shortly thereafter, moved to her home state of Texas. There they lived as husband and wife for 7 years, until Jon’s unexpected death.

Littleton

• Christie filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jonathon’s physician. Physician’s legal team claimed that Christie could not file since she was not rightfully Jonathon’s widow. The basis of this claim was that she was “not really a woman” and their marriage, as one of two men, was never legal in the first place. Christie is a MTF transgender person.

Jonathon and Christie

Littleton

• In deciding the case the court did not consider the nature of the commitment between Jonathon and Christie, or the years in which they functioned as a married couple in society. Instead of these issues, it was, quite literally, Christie Lee Littleton’s womanhood that was to be decided by the Texas Court.

Under Review

• Littleton’s identity under court scrutiny– Her childhood– Her relationship to her body– The size, shape, and history of her genitals– The type of surgical interventions she has had– Personal aspects of her and Jonathon’s sex life– Psychological evaluations/Physiological examinations– The type of internal organs she had or did not have.– Her assumed chromosomal structure

The Ruling

• The 4th Circuit Court of Texas in the case of Christie Lee Littleton concludes:

• “We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid, and she cannot bring a cause of action as his surviving spouse.”

The Ruling• “Through surgery and hormones, a transsexual male

can be made to look like a woman, including female genitalia and breasts. Transsexual medical treatment, however, does not create the internal sexual organs of a women (except for the vaginal canal). There is no womb, cervix or ovaries in the post-operative transsexual female.”

• “…The male chromosomes do not change with either

hormonal treatment or sex reassignment surgery. Biologically a post-operative female transsexual is still a male.”

Complexity

• Chromosomes: Can be XX, XY,, X0, XXX, XXY, XXXY• Hormonal levels: Vary widely• Genitals: Wide variation• “In addition to males and females, I included ‘herms’

(named after true hermaphrodites, people born with both a testis and an ovary); ‘merms’ (male pseudohermaphrodites, who are born with testes and some aspect of female genitalia); and ‘ferms’ (female pseudohermaphrodites, who have ovaries combined with some aspect of male genitalia.)” (Anne-Fautsto-Sterling)

The Analogy

• Certainly, a legal recognition and valuing of Laing’s relationships with her parents, partner, and children, should not be determined by her complexion and neither should the legal recognition of Littleton’s marriage depend on absence or presence of certain internal organs or chromosomal structure.

Consequences for Littleton• “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion,

Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

Reconceptualization

• Between the years of 1950 and 1966 there were 267,541 individuals who could not be adequately categorized by the apartheid system of racial categorization.

Reconceptualization

• Between the years of 1950 and 1966 there were 267,541 individuals who could not be adequately categorized by the apartheid system of racial categorization.

• Estimates for Transgender persons in US• 97,142 – 301,140 persons.

Reconceptualization

• Between the years of 1950 and 1966 there were 267,541 individuals who could not be adequately categorized by the apartheid system of racial categorization.

• Estimates for Transgender persons in US– 97,142 – 301,140 persons.

• Estimates of those with intersex condition– 150,570 – 200,760 persons

Reconceptualization

• Between the years of 1950 and 1966 there were 267,541 individuals who could not be adequately categorized by the apartheid system of racial categorization. 97,142 – 301,140 persons + 150,570 – 200,760 persons

• Why just estimates?

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.– Law does not allow one to plan a law abiding life– Law is inconsistently applied

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.– Difficult legal issues for trans-persons:

documentation for driving, working, traveling, voting, engaging in marriage.

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.– Difficult legal issues for trans-persons:

documentation for driving, working, traveling, voting, engaging in marriage.

– Social restrictions that inhibit full participation in society

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.– Difficult legal issues for trans-persons: documentation for

driving, working, traveling, voting, engaging in marriage.– Social restrictions that inhibit full participation in society– Problem: It is assumed that these categories are similar to

sets, that is, that there are necessary and sufficient conditions that identify membership in this set. This can be fruitfully compared with Kuhn’s paradigms and Wittgenstein’s games.

Conclusions• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or

sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as being law.– Difficult legal issues for trans-persons: documentation

for driving, working, traveling, voting, engaging in marriage.

– Social restrictions that inhibit full participation in society

• Individuals that are seen “in the margin” are often ignored when considering certain aspects of group identity. (legal and otherwise)

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.

• Individuals that are seen “in the margin” are often ignored when considering certain aspects of group identity. (legal and otherwise)– There already is same-sex marriage in all states

the United States.

Conclusions

• Legal restrictions involving categories of race or sex/gender are inherently unjust and fail as coherent law.

• Individuals that are seen “in the margin” are often ignored when considering certain aspects of group identity. (legal and otherwise)

• Social practices affirm erroneous collective beliefs. Counter examples to these universal claims are ignored; the agents themselves often ridiculed.