Court To Decide Sex Of Transexuals (Press, 16 September 1982)

On 16 September 1982, a significant legal case commenced in Sydney, Australia, which aims to define the legal sex of two transgender individuals, Lee Harris and Phillis McGuinness. This case is notable as it is the first test case in New South Wales to determine the sex of a transgender person. The two defendants, both charged as males with attempting to procure two undercover male officers in Darlinghurst in January 1981, are contesting the charges by asserting that they identify as women. Lee Harris, aged 30, and Phillis McGuinness, aged 23, were represented by lawyer Bruce Miles, who declared that the ruling would carry historic implications. He argued that their case is significant not only for the individuals involved but also for others in similar situations, labelling Harris and McGuinness as "heroines" for their representation of an oppressed group. Miles emphasised that although the defendants were assigned male at birth, they perceive themselves as female and live their lives accordingly. During the Court's proceedings at the Castlereagh Court of Petty Sessions, Miles highlighted the essence of gender identity, stating that the true measure should be based on how individuals perceive themselves. He noted that Harris had undergone gender reassignment surgery while McGuinness had not. The lawyer stressed that the change of sex is fundamentally an internal change concerning identity rather than merely a physical transformation. Harris, originally from New Zealand, described a history that included being raised as a girl and having breast surgery at the age of 14. On the contrary, police prosecutor Sergeant Ralph Lloyd argued that the current legislation under the Crimes Act only recognises two genders: male and female. He posited that including other sexual identities, such as transgender or intersex, could render the law ineffective. Lloyd described transgender individuals as existing under a 'variety of sexual abnormalities', asserting that the legal categorisation must remain strictly within the binaries of male and female. Expert testimonies were presented, including opinions from Dr Alfred William Steinbeck and Dr Ronald Ford Barr. Steinbeck suggested that without a legal recognition for transgender individuals, those who have undergone surgery would remain classified as males legally. However, Barr advocated for recognition of a person's lived experience, suggesting that if someone is accepted as a woman by society, the law could reflect that reality. The case has drawn attention due to its potential implications for transgender rights and identity recognition in the legal system. Mr C. R. Briese, the chief stipendiary magistrate, has adjourned the hearing. He is set to deliver a ruling on this landmark case on 24 September 1982.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand