In my interviews with young trans Lithuanians, I learned about the personal struggles within what is understood to be the “very private, self-contained, and shy” trans community. One young Lithuanian wrote to me that in Lithuania, “most people are raised in a way that makes them blindly and earnestly believe in antiquated nonsense,” which in turn leaves trans individuals with a weak emotional support system. Rasa, a trans individual, explained that politicians, closely tied to the Catholic Church, are “continually blocking passage and discussion of the sex change bill.” Another young trans individual, Lukas, is frustrated with the obstacles that trans individuals face in heteronormative culture in Lithuania: “I think transgender youth is very uninformed and strangled with limited possibilities in Lithuania…most of the transgender people are seen only as a problem, but not as a person.”
Disturbed by this bleak reality and motivated by Lukas’s reflections, I was eager to investigate the legal ways in which Lithuania deals with the “problem” of trans issues. I learned that psychological therapy for trans individuals is funded by the government, but the criteria and methods involved in determining a diagnosis of “transexualism” (F 64.0) questionable. Hormone therapy is funded as well, but only for a limited amount of time. Ultimately, gender reassignment treatment must render permanent sterility under Lithuanian law. Many critical surgical procedures, such as vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, and metoidioplasty are only available on principle, but there are no legal provisions to protect these rights to gender reassignment. Acquiring a legal name change, said one trans individual, was “the easiest part” of her transition. However, if you only want to change your name and have no other procedures completed, you are legally required select a gender neutral name – and gender neutral names do not exist within the standard Lithuanian language!
Within the 2007 European Court of Human Rights court case L v. Lithuania, the State argued that gender reassignment surgery could be accessed by trans individuals abroad, but the Court upheld that the State was liable for gender reassignment treatments and the protection of private and family life through the legal recognition of gender. Yet speaking with Rasa, I learned that many people in her situation have in fact traveled abroad to have surgical procedures. The choice to have these operations abroad, often followed by dangerous travels home with little to no post-surgery recovery time, is usually a result of the lack of support within the Lithuanian medical community.
Lukas notes that in Lithuania, the general public “seems to lack the understanding that this is just one aspect of life, not the general purpose of life to be transgender.” His thoughts led me to consider the responsibilities of individuals and organizations that advocate for trans rights. Lukas, for example, is impressed by the work that Lithuanian Gay League has done for advocacy of trans individuals, but remains critical of the negative attention that tends to parallel, and usually override, the advocacy work within the political arena. He is of the opinion that “more attention to this problem is only causing savage arguments, instead of cultured debate…you have to think forward – how will it make you sound in the press, for all majority of people, who understand very little about this.” Rasa, on the other hand, believes that a solidified and unified voice for advocacy should be taken, and she thinks that an “even stronger position” should be held by Lithuanian Gay League on the issue in the future.
This discordance in approach brings about critical questions: how can we negotiate our position as advocates, such that we can support and empower trans individuals while also working with the opinions and prejudices of the public? Should our notion of “support” be based on protecting the privacy of trans issues, or based on exposure and visibility?
I am of the opinion that we must be inclusive of all sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions within our advocacy work. In this way, we accomplish our most critical goal of educating the State, health care professionals, and the general public about the issues at stake. Education is a long-term project, and it might take time to reach a civil dialogue, but without increasing visibility, the educational process simply cannot begin. Lithuanian Gay League is taking this exact stance with their new project for 2011, “Empowering Women” led by Vilma Gabrieliūtė: lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered women’s rights will all be covered together within a comprehensive twelve month program focused on equality for all sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions within the health care system.
It can be frightening to watch negativity rise in response to our actions within Lithuania, and attacks from the church and the State almost always receive more positive attention from the media than our initial actions. Yet I argue that ignoring the issues and promoting invisibility – especially when motivated to do so by fear – does a disservice to all parties involved in the debate. We cannot think about removing the social and political obstacles that trans youth face unless we can openly identify them in the first place.
As I look towards the future, I forsee that if LGBTQI activists continue to exclude trans issues from their greater agenda, creating conservative models of quasi-tolerance simply to appeal to a wider, more conservative audience, we will only heighten levels of transphobia and hurt our overall cause. If we want the public to understand that trans individuals are people, not problems, we must be sure to eliminate transphobia from our own advocacy work as well.
*Names have been changed to protect anonymity.
