One for all, and all for one

The old saying one for all, and all for one takes on a deeper meaning in a story in The Economist. Me, myself, us argues that a human is much more than simply a man or a woman: we are complex beings inhabited by substantial numbers of microorganisms essential to our survival, known collectively as the microbiome. According to the article, "[a] healthy adult human harbours some 100 trillion bacteria in his gut alone. That is ten times as many bacterial cells as he has cells descended from the sperm and egg of his parents."

Understanding the human as a complex, multi-organism being may open the way for very different ways of approaching medicine and human health. Dealing with disease may turn out to be a matter of better managing the balance of organisms that comprise any given individual. According to the Canadian Microbiome Initiative, "microbes play an important role in human health, not just as pathogens, or as benign communities that keep pathogens at bay, but also in association with a number of chronic health conditions including gastrointestinal diseases, obesity, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, asthma and cardiovascular disease."

For a slightly tongue-in-cheek look at what a microbiome-positive world might look like, see Tuberculosis bacteria join UN by microbiologist and science fiction writer, Joan Slonczewski.

Future-perfect: the rationally designed human

A bioethicist suggests that genetically engineering babies along a "rational design" would benefit humanity.Professor Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford is quoted as saying, "Indeed, when it come to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children."  

What else might be erased under the notion of a 'personality flaw'? Would humanity truly improve by removing perceived flaws or is there a net benefit to retaining diversity? As the professor notes, "routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome" results in "little public outcry."

Earlier this year, there was public outcry when it was discovered that an American reproductive clinic offering gender selection services was advertising its services in Canada. Sex-selective procedures are illegal in Canada under Section 5(1)(e) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Advertising such services is also illegal under the Act.

Also under Section 5(1)(e), though, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act does allow for sex-selective procedures "to prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease ...". Under the DSM and it's proposed revisions, a substantial list of conditions fall under the broad category of Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders. How broadly applied might legislation allowing genetic manipulation actually be?

I think it's fair to state that Western culture remains heavily biased towards a sex binary and that as such, the dominant culture might consider eradicating the possibility of trans at a genetic level to be a perfectly acceptable and even non-contentious decision.

But is eradicating the trans experience from the human experience actually such an easy decision? Would those who have undergone this experience agree that the possibility of being trans is itself problematic?

Is there value to undergoing the trans experience? Does such an experience have lessons to share with those who haven't and won't undergo that experience? As trans people, would we be comfortable with trans identities never having the opportunity to exist? Is there some sort of intrinsic value to coming to know ourselves as not fitting our assigned identity and undertaking the journey to uncover and assert ourselves as who we are?

Telegraph article originally linked via Slashdot.

First provincial protection for gender identity

Ontario's Bill 33, Toby's Act (Right to be Free from Discrimination and Harassment Because of Gender Identity or Gender Expression), 2012, successfully passed third reading on June 13 and is now awaiting royal assent. The Act adds the phrases "gender identity" and "gender expression" as enumerated grounds for protection from discrimination and harassment. 

A similar bill is under consideration in Manitoba. Bill 36, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, adds the phrase "gender identity" to the provincial human rights code among other changes. 

Toby's Act establishes Ontario as the first province to choose make protection for gender identity explicit. However, Canada's first regional legislative protection for gender identity was established by the Northwest Territories' Human Rights Act.

Alberta relists GRS

In a surprise announcement on June 7, 2012, the Alberta Government chose to re-list Gender Reassignment Surgery for Albertans pursing medical intervention for Gender Identity Disorder.

Prior to 2009, Alberta was one of the few provinces to provide GRS coverage in Canada. In spring 2009, GRS was delisted without warning as part of a budget claiming to reduce health care costs. While coverage of some specific health services were also reduced at that time, no other group sharing a specific medical diagnosis was excluded from budgetary consideration.

For more details, read Mercedes Allen's post, Alberta reinstates funding for Sex Reassignment Surgery (plus, why it's necessary).

On disguises and lawful excuses

Bill C-309–the Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act–has passed second reading and is now heading to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Bill C-309 will make "wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal [a person's] identity without lawful excuse" a criminal offence should such a mask or disguise happen to be worn during a riot.

Authorities have been known to accuse trans people of wearing a disguise or be suspicious based on apparent gender non-conformity (p. 53), sometimes for the purposes of engaging in prostitution. At least one elected official has suggested that Canadians who fail to have matching identification are a security threat to air travel.

The Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act is sponsored by MP Blake Richards, who has previously claimed that granting explicit federal protection for gender identity and gender expression should not be allowed on the grounds that "gender identity is subjective ... ." Bill C-309 also appears to include subjective terminology: it does not define what counts as an "other disguise" nor does it explain what constitutes a "lawful excuse" for such a disguise.

Whither privacy?

At the Analytics: Big Data and the Cloud conference in Edmonton (2012), I attended a keynote speech by Dr. Gautam Shroff. He spoke of the many ways big data can be used, including data that many of us simply give away. Sharing the results of a study focusing on 68 hours of Twitter data, Shroff noted that it was possible to narrow down to one (randomly-chosen) Tweeter's home and work sites based on that individual's GPS-enabled posts.

My quick thoughts: Data of this sort (GPS, etc.) is often freely given away by users. Other data, such as the now much-discussed divorce of federal (Canadian) Member of Parliament Vic Toews, becomes public by virtue of the legal processes the data is embedded within. While governmental agencies and products such as the Alberta Netcare system are supposed to be kept secure from unauthorised access, how many of us pay attention to the virtual footprints we leave behind? Perhaps merely analysing publicly-available data allows our private lives to be more public than we imagine.

Happy anniversary, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms!

Today marks the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Constitution of Canada. [The Charter affirms equality rights under Section 15, however this section did not come into effect until 1985, so happy 27th anniversary, Section 15!]

Section 15 (1) states that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination ...." However, the notion that every individual is equal is still being worked out. While cases such as Egan v. Canada (1995) helped established sexual orientation as analogous grounds for protection from discrimination, no such clarification yet exists for trans Canadians.

The La Forest Report –written in 2000 under the authority of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada–affirmed that trans Canadians "are protected from discrimination on the ground of sex or the combined grounds of sex and disability" but also noted that transgender issues "remain invisible" and thus recommended the explicit inclusion of the phrase "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

To date, this recommendation has not been adopted.



Edited to add: Cross-posted at Dented Blue Mercedes.

Eventual second-post post

Gosh, has it really been three years already? Apparently so.