Peppercorn.Allen’s

ContentsSponsors

Additionally, JDO courses differ from those on-campus. Taught according to a ‘tri-cluster’ system (i.e. all subjects underpinned by con-cepts of FAL, legal theory and LJE), subjects are combined to be more logical for legal practice, such as torts and litigation, equity and corps. The theory is that students will gain a broader and more practical understanding, and avoid that pesky ‘you’ll learn that when you’re older’ an-swer. While these subjects will be differentiated from the on-campus subjects with different titles and course codes, they’re no longer comparable to the on-campus subjects. It’s problematic that the faculty insists that online students are get-ting the same degree while studying completely different subjects, whether or not the students ultimately achieve the same outcomes.

Finally, JDO students will have to pay the same amount as on-campus students, despite discrep-ancies in the forms of course delivery. Their fees will also include students and amenities, even though they’re not on-campus to enjoy most of them. There will also be issues with representa-tion of JDO students by organisations such as PARSA and the LSS, who currently feel unable to adequately communicate and engage with this new online community.

As Education Director, I think online delivery of the JD could be an accessible and inclusive option for people who can’t or don’t want the lifestyle and culture of on-campus delivery. But there are some fundamental shortcomings in the arrangements that disadvantage both on-cam-pus and online students, as well as logical inconsistencies that haven’t been addressed by the faculty.

If you have any thoughts, contact your law reps in the LSS: lsseducation@anu.edu.au, and PAR-SA: parsa@anu.edu.au.

Juris Doctor OnlineOlivia SparrowThe law school has recently introduced the JDO – a Juris Doctor degree wholly delivered online. Teaching has just begun, however there’s been a bit of a backlash since the announcement, particularly from the postgraduate community on campus. Queries abound of ‘Do I still have to get up for 9am lectures?’ ‘But what is this crazy new technology?’ ‘Won’t this dilute the reputation of my degree?’ ‘Will they have to still pay the student and amenities fees?’ So here’s the rough breakdown.

The JDO will give online students the same qual-ification as on-campus JDs, so everyone will end up with a Juris Doctor at the end. The ‘O’ part is merely short-hand for the law faculty to differenti-ate between the students. The faculty insists that the new degree will not detract from the current on-campus version; it will instead allow students who would be otherwise unable to study post-grad law, i.e. those who can’t pick up and move to Canberra (or any other university town that offers the JD).

However, there are gaping inconsistencies be-tween the two degrees. The JDO will be deliv-ered in an entirely different style. Classes will be delivered in small ‘webinars’ (whyyyy does this word exist) with far fewer students than tutorials and seminars on campus. There won’t be lec-tures. Rather, the JDO classes start with a ‘trig-ger question’ to prompt discussion and research – a complex and multi-faceted problem with the aim of students learning content in collaboration and through the lens of the question. This com-bination of online delivery with trigger questions is purportedly a world first. But does it mean that on-campus students could be disadvantaged with their larger class sizes and conservative teaching delivery?

2 3

3 ‘Juris Doctor Online’ OLIVIA SPARROW

4 ‘The Mooties’

DAN TREVANION

6 ‘Australian Model United Nations’

CARYS ATKINSON

7 ‘Women in Law Organisation’

MARA LEJINS, RUTH PARSON, HAN- NANH CAMERON, EMILY LANGFORD

10 ‘The Revolution That Never Was: Law Ball 2016’

HARRY MCLAURIN

14 ‘Offshore No More’

KANIKA KIRPALANI

15 ‘LSS Events: Clerkship Evening’

18 ‘97 Lonely Nurses Want Boyfriends’

ELIZABETH HARRIS

22 ‘Chaos in the International Legal Order: The ICJ Strikes Again’

CLAIRE RAPSON

24 ‘Why Are We So Scared of Men Being Pregnant?

KIRSTY DALE

ExperienceThe Mooties

Dan TrevanionLast summer I was part of the ANU 2016 Jessup Moot team. The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition is in its 57th year in 2016. It is the world’s largest mooting competition, with participants from more than 550 law schools in 80 countries. Teams compete in regional qualifying competitions in a bid to advance to the Interna-tional Rounds held in Washington.

What is it like to be part of Jessup?Jessup was a collection of events that on their own are miserable and unbearable yet together form an experience so meaningful and exception-al that I would do it all again.Our preparation began in November 2015 after exams finished. We worked solidly throughout the summer with 24 hour access to the law library except a short break over Christmas as the library was fumigated. Collaboratively, we completed two written memorials of about 12,000 words each ar-guing each side of the case by mid-January. Next, we had about 20 practice moots with our coaches and guest judges over 3 weeks to prepare for the national rounds in early February.

This was in many ways your typical group assign-ment experience mixed with some fire and brim-stone. I met most of my team for the first time just before exams. We broke the ice over 2 for 1 pizza at Debacle that night then forgot about each other until exams were over a month later. We divid-ed the problem five-ways. Then spent the next few weeks silently (for the most part) tolerating each other’s most obnoxious study habits. As the deadline for submissions drew nearer the calls to check out the latest YouTube clip became less fre-quent.Our arguments and critique became louder and more pronounced. The nights became longer – if you think academics have a cushy lifestyle I can testify that they roam the library at 1am. It was by any measure a terrible way to be spending my summer holidays.

Any description of Jessup must include these mis-erable and unbearable moments. These moments are shared drunkenly by all competitors on the last day of competition at Mooseheads. But there are also the exceptional moments that are unique and meaningful to me. When I first walked into my FAL tutorial room I didn’t realise five years later it would be my safe haven when I needed a break. I also never thought that the ‘freshest’ meal to eat over the summer would be a McDonald’s salad. When someone mentions a pomodoro I think of study not a tomato. When I walk to a particular corner of the High Court I will remember five stu-dents and two academic staff in a football huddle firing up for our last moot as UQ shoot us quizzi-cal glances.

I’ve now presented submissions in the High Court of Australia, travelled to Washington to compete among 136 other teams, and all while receiving support and email chains from friends, family and ANU College of Law staff that made us feel like an Australian representative sport team. Never has such a collection of miserable events become something as meaningful and unique an experi-ence as Jessup.

Even now I can picture my team reading this, some rolling their eyes, others editing my writ-ing. Each of us is moving on to different paths in our lives; one of us to The Hague, another Italy, another Yale. But each of us shares a unique and meaningful experience in Jessup. I would do it all again and you should try it too.

Applications for the ANU Jessup Team open around September. Keep an eye out for informa-tion sessions. For more information contact Kate Ogg or Imogen Saunders.

4 5

OpportunitiesAustralian ModelUnited Nations ConferenceCarys Atkinson Mara Lejins, Ruth Parsons,

Hannah Cameron and Emily Lang-ford

Women in Law Organisation

‘There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women’

- Madeleine Albright

The Women in Law Organization (‘WILO’) is a student- run mentoring program for female undergraduates beginning next semester. The program will pair female law students with pro-fessional women in the legal sector, as a means to empower and develop women studying law.

Although women represent more than half of law graduates, the course of female law careers do not reflect this positive trajectory. Female law graduates earn 4% less than their male col-leagues, and as their careers progress; women are significantly underrepresented in senior legal roles. The Law Council of Australia recently re-leased a Model Equal Opportunity Briefing Policy, which highlighted the need to promote programs with female mentors and role models.

WILO not only seeks to build relationships be-tween students and professional role models, but also to increase interactions between motivated female law students. Our university peers will likely be the professionals we interact with in our future careers. Relationships with other law stu-dents can be a source of support, friendship, and mutual assistance.

The Mentoring Program will begin next semester. WILO has already started sending out mentoring applications to the private sector, the public ser-vice and smaller enterprises around Canberra.

For all you UN enthusiasts, those just looking for a reason to go the Malaysia during the holi-days, and anyone in-between; there is the per-fect opportunity coming your way. Applications for ANU’s Delegation to the annual Asia-Pacific Model United Nations Conference are now open! AMUNC is the largest annual conference in the region, bringing together over 700 students from across the Asia Pacific to participate in a simula-tion of the international political landscape where delegates take on the roles of diplomats, am-bassadors, judges, journalists, NGO agents, and renowned experts. With 19 committees to offer, AMUNC 2016 aims to create an atmosphere where attendees can come together and collab-oratively solve international issues; becoming one under the name and calling of the United Nations.

Applications close May 27th, to register follow the link below and use the buzzword ANU007 to become part of the ANU Delegation. www.amunc.net/group-delegate-registration

AMUNC is great fun and open to all levels of ex-perience! If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to send the ANU UN Society a Facebook message (chuck us a sneaky like while you’re there) or get in contact with Carys Atkinson at president@unsociety.org

ANU Delegation 2015 – Winners of Outstanding Dele-gation Award

We are always keen to hear from prospective mentors. Mentors will meet with mentees at least twice during the semester and attend our celebratory cocktail party at the end of semester.

We will begin taking applications from mentees via an online form on the LSS website, and ap-plications will likely close in Week 2 next semes-ter. Students applying to the program should have an interest in pursuing the legal profession after graduation or an interest in learning more about a career in law. Successful applicants must be prepared to enter into a respectful and reciprocal relationship with a mentor.

Once our mentees have been selected, we will have an introductory cocktail party in Week 3. Cathie Armour, ASIC Commissioner, will be our guest speaker and will talk on the importance of female mentoring. This event will also serve as a means for our mentees to get to know each other, and begin the exciting journey that is WILO.

Further information will be available on the LSS website shortly, or alternatively we can be con-tacted on U5570167@anu.edu.au or through the LSS email. We look forward to the commence-ment of this exciting program and we hope that it will develop into a pillar of the LSS.

Co-founders of WILO

6 7

8 9

LSS EventsThe Revolution that Never Was: Law Ball 2016Harry McLaurin

The counter arguments were just as predict-able: it would be no less formal because you can still dress up, there is greater opportunity to mingle standing up, the LSS Social Justice event is already a sit down meal, there would still be seats for people to sit if they got sore, people would still buy tickets, and ‘traditions are made to be subverted’. The mood was tense. No one wanted to say they were in support of something labelled exclusive and inaccessible for fear of being politically incorrect. However no one wanted to throw away the traditions of Law Ball either.

Ultimately the final decision came down to practical considerations. There were safety concerns with 800 people swarming over a canape dish. How many venues can host 800? Would there still be busses? And most impor-tantly, how different would the cost be? As it turns out, the costings indicated that a

It’s the most lavish, resplendent social event on the College of Law calendar. Law Ball. The annual opportunity for students to adorn them-selves in their finest attire, to dine over the most exquisite mass-produced two-course cuisine, and be regaled with tales of classmates over one of the most generous beverage packages of all the Society balls. Tickets are feverishly sought after and are sold-out as fast as your average tu-torial sign-up. Despite their prices – which fitting with the splendour of the event, are also extrava-gant – Law Balls consistently attract unparalleled interest. And with glamorous venues, luxurious table ornaments, live music and endlessly flow-ing champagne, Law Ball is always a night to re-member. For many decades, Law Ball has been the jewel in the Law Student Society’s (LSS) crown. It has become an inherent responsibility of the LSS Events Vice President to host this glit-tering yearly event, and justly it has become the most expensive item on the LSS budget. While the cost and format of the ball has been unques-tioningly acceded to by committees-gone-by, this year there was a spanner thrown into the works.

As the LSS does not publish its minutes from its committee meetings (full disclosure: a practice for which I am partly to blame), the uninvolved law student has little idea about the mysterious goings-on inside their representative Society. With Facebook posts, emails and, of course, Peppercorn magazine the main modes of com-munication, the student cohort were largely unaware of the challenge that had befallen their cherished Ball.

Having flagged this debate at an earlier com-mittee meeting, Social Director Kirsty Dale stood against the tide of accepted wisdom and raised underlying concerns that the Ball is expensive, exclusive and inaccessible. For a university as progressive as the ANU, she said, why do we persist with this antiquated event in its present form? Her concerns were legitimate. Many people had expressed pessimism in the past at the prospect of forking out over $120 for a ticket. Moreover, with last years’ table book-ing fiasco, many could not even sit with their friends. Kirsty believes the expense and limited number of tickets available restrict many stu-dents from attending, given not everyone gets support from their parents while studying, with many students working a number of jobs to support themselves.

Kirsty was instead proposing to turn Law Ball into a stand-up cocktail event, which in the scheme of things, was a fundamental alter-ation of the traditional event. Her rationale was simple: having no tables nor sit-down dinners would reduce ticket costs and allow up to 800 people to attend, as opposed to 680. She identified that there would be less ticketing issues, people could attend in smaller groups and the food might be better as canapes would be served which are easier to prepare in bulk. The criticisms were predictable: it would be a less formal event, people would look forward to sitting on tables with their friends, few other balls do a sit down meal, people would get sore feet, Law Ball’s reputation would go downhill, and the ball is a tradition.

stand up event with 800 people would only cost about $11 difference compared to the sit down event. Despite Dan McNamara’s claim that $11 means a lot for a person supporting themselves, he was fooling no one considering a Quarter Pounder meal with bacon costs more.

The committee put the matter to a vote and Kirsty’s proposal was easily defeated. An au-dible sigh of relief was heard. The insurrection had been stopped and the Law Ball was safe once more. Such revolutionary ideas would be shelved for the foreseeable future, doomed to failure at future discussions. Yet the debate was now out in the open. The Law Ball tradition was no longer beyond reproach. And while this years’ Ball will be as dazzling and grandiose as always, the need for inclusivity and accessibility will perhaps sit at the back of committee members’ minds as they indulge in dessert. Let them eat cake!

ANU LSS Law Ball 2015: A Midsummer Night’s Dream

10 11

12 13

It is a strange twist of fate when one’s study of Corporate Law suddenly becomes applicable and vital to understanding the latest Australian Budget. Or perhaps it is a reflection of the now infamous ‘Panama Papers’ and the impact this has had on the shaping of the 2016 Budget.

The Panama Papers became a worldwide phe-nomenon when papers were leaked from the legal firm Mossack Fonseca in the titular coun-try. The papers implicated some of the world’s wealthiest in tax avoidance schemes, whereby ‘shell companies’ were set up to harbour funds by shifting large amounts of money to tax ha-vens, like Panama and Monaco. In what seems to be a fantastic irony in today’s world, the most elite are so practiced at systematically under-mining taxation schemes, thereby reducing their overall impact. For when less taxpayer money exists, the funding of infrastructure, schools and hospitals, and so forth, becomes less feasible.

In response to this, Treasurer Scott Morrison announced in the 2016 Australian Budget a new regulatory scheme to tackle tax avoidance. In a move influenced by the UK’s ‘Google Tax’, Aus-tralian companies caught transferring profits off shore will face a penalty rate of 40% as opposed to the ordinary 30%. This will target multinational

corporations and wealthy individuals with a team of 1000 tax avoidance specialistsat the Austra-lian Taxation Office. Although this move seems completely necessary given the current climate of taxation scrutiny following Panama, the tax is also a fundamentally passive political move. Rather than delving into serious policy reform, it seems the Budget is reflecting nothing more than a likeable policy move to win the Australian public.

With the Federal Election coming up this winter, it is clear this government has an ulterior motive in presenting such reforms. The Budget intro-duced agreeable reforms to keep the everyday voter appeased. In targeting large multinational corporations and elite individuals, the Budget sought conservative ways to justify tax cuts. It is questionable how the Australian public will re-ceive these proposals, with many of them toeing the line between conservative and passive too significantly to shift public opinion in any way. If the government is genuine about taking a stand against tax avoidance by the elite, they need more serious policy reform than the creation of a taskforce. Otherwise, this will remain to appear as merely an appeal to working class Austra-lians.

Offshore No MoreKanika Kirpalani

LSS EventsClerkship EveningPhotography by Nic Bills, Pulse Photography

14 15

16 17

Opinion97 Lonely Nurses Want BoyfriendsElizabeth Harris

rately from a tort of defamation, there should be, in a society that cherishes the inherent humanity of each person, hot or not, a cause of action to combat injuries to dignity and restore an individ-ual after embarrassment.

Receiving Roman-Dutch law from the Nether-lands, the action ininuriarum lives on in South African civil law. In a notorious case, Kidson v South African Associated Newspapers Ltd, im-pairment of dignity was held to fall under the law of delict (the Roman law equivalent of torts) in South African law. We distinguish this civil of-fence of ‘false light’ from defamation in that it bears more on the wellbeing of the person, rath-er than their reputation.

In Kidson, the photographs of three young nurs-es were shown on the front page of a newspa-per under the headline ’97 Lonely Nurses Want Boyfriends.’ One of the nurses, engaged at the time, argued that this was a misrepresentation – she was engaged and therefore, she said, was neither lonely nor in want of a boyfriend. Bear in mind Kidson was decided in 1957, and it per-haps did not occur to the court that there may be other justifications for insult to dignity than that you were engaged, rather than that you were happily single/too busy nursing/didn’t appreciate the unrequested old-timey Tinder profile.

Nevertheless, Kidson provided recourse for those whose dignity was insulted by the use of their identity or characteristics without permis-sion, causing insult to the privacy of their per-sonality.

This is something that Australian civil law fails ut-terly to protect. Now, this right is protected in the South African Bill of Rights entrenched in Part II of the Constitution. We rail against a bill of rights. In Cape Town, Hotties of Cape Town University Facebook Page accompanied by inappropriate comments encouraging sexual assault would give rise to innumerable suits. In Canberra, a similar page would give rise to a request to re-move the page, but not tortious remedy would be available to victims, whose human essence, their dignity, has been injured.

‘Your hair looks cool today’ – That guy in your Monday tutorial. Very acceptable.‘I like your dress’ – Tinder guy. Far subtler than ‘DTF?’.‘You slay me’ – The cashier at Ikea. 10/10. You never forget your first ‘slay.’‘It’s that time to hunt’ – One of your fellow students. A completely unacceptable, different type of ‘slay’ reference, of which Beyoncé would not approve.

Nevertheless, this is the kind of predatory com-ment to which students at the University of Mel-bourne (and a plethora of other Australian uni-versities) were subject on the now infamous (and thankfully no longer existent) Hotties of Melbourne University Facebook page.

This article does not aim to be trite. Cogent analy-sis scrutinising the social norms which allow such a page to exist has been made. By the time this article is published, Pledge Week will be a month in the past. The furore of public anger about the page will have died down. But the ideas behind Hotties of Melbourne University will not have – that, at least, is reasonably foreseeable.

Beyond education, shutting down pages, and writ-ing about these issues, what can we do to improve this situation? What legal solution may we have? What reform can we make? Embarrassingly, the answer is that we can look to two past societies that have already done things better: One where a father could kill his daughter as a punishment, and another where white masculinity was the rul-ing power. That is, Ancient Rome and Apartheid Era South Africa.

Ancient Rome gave us many things: The Roads of the First Century, toga parties and (bear with me, I’m an art history student) arches. But they also gave us another gift we have yet to accept: Dignitas. Broadly, dignitas referred to status, wor-thiness, and the general esteem borne towards a person by grace of their position, and, at a stretch, humanity. In civil law, dignity was protected by the actio ininuriarum. This tort provided a cause of action for those who believed that they had been misrepresented, or whose dignity had been im-paired or injured by another. While I doubt that this law was ever employed to shut down a Hotties of Pompeii graffiti wall, the central idea holds. Sepa

The broader social forces that produce young men and women who create pages like Hotties of Mel-bourne University need to be addressed, but the reality is that this will take generations, and society will never be eradicated of pests such as these. The responsible thing to do is at least to supply a Band-Aid to ease the pain of harm done to human dignity, and to show our disdain for these attitudes. If a society that fed people to lions for fun, and another that oppressed approximately 91% of its population can do it, so can we.

18 19

20 21

Claire Rapson

Chaos in the International Legal Order: The ICJ Strikes Again

OpinionTake the case of the investment arbitration tribunals which interpret the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) concluded between States. In a series of recent judgments, a number of these tribunals decided to throw a spanner in the works and morph from Legal Interpreters of BITs into self-appointed Guardians of Foreign Inves-tors . One could question whether it is really a tribunal’s task to defend a putative investor, who did not agree to the terms of the BIT, and was probably not even known by the States at its conclusion. Shouldn’t BITs be interpreted according to the intentions of the States who are party to it, as per the ordinary canons of inter-pretation reflected in custom or the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?The problem with allowing international courts to make decisions based on arbitrary goals, instead of on the law agreed to by States, is that these goals are not defined: nothing can stop the ICJ from promoting the maintenance of peace today, and then the interests of investors tomorrow. There is no certainty in this kind of system, and there can be no consent by the

For those of you who spent International Law asleep, on Facebook or too unnerved by Hitoshi’s relentless bounding around Coombs to pay at-tention to what he was actually saying, the Inter-national Court of Justice (ICJ) is the BNOC of the international legal scene. As the UN’s principal judicial organ, it has two main functions: resolving inter-State legal disputes submitted by its members, and providing advisory opinions on legal questions requested by UN organs and specialised agencies. Any self-respecting first year can tell you that a domestic judge can’t spontaneously override Par-liament’s statutory law with their own opinions, no matter how justified. Although crystal clear at the domestic level, international issues tend to be more nebulous. International law is far more political than domestic law, and therefore the separation of powers is not as defined.

One of my lecturers recently attended a public lecture by the ex-ICJ President, Judge Gilbert Guil-laume. In response to a question from a student, he controversially suggested that the ICJ was not concerned with the application of international law, but with the maintenance of international peace. Clearly the material application of international law does not necessarily lead to a peaceful outcome.

With all due respect to Judge Guillaume (love your work), I can’t agree with him on this point. Inter-national law is based on a system of facultative jurisdiction; it only functions because States con-sent to it. For those who need a quick refresher, the international legal equivalents of our statutory law are treaties and customary international law (which requires (a) widespread State practice and (b) opinio juris – States’ subjective belief that they are ‘legally bound’ to act according to that practice). If the ICJ starts to base its decisions off what it considers nec-essary “to maintain peace,” instead of according to custom, it will unleash a tumultuous rollercoaster of unpredictability onto the international legal scene. States will no longer know what they are consenting to when entering into agreements. Take a minute to think about the colossal implications this could have on the future of international relations: States are going to feel pretty reluctant about engaging in international negotiations if they don’t know how their treaties will be interpreted. Beyond this, if we don’t limit the work of interna-tional courts to the application of the law, then where do we set the boundaries? What’s to stop them from deciding according to any other cause they deem worthy?

main agents of the international legal order: the ICJ may be the BNOC of international law, but the States are Brian Schmidt. International law only works because they give their consent to its application, and they only do this because they trust that the ICJ will interpret it according to de-fined legal principles. When courts and tribunals stop doing this, States lose their confidence, and the international legal order stops working.

This all comes down to what we think the role of international courts should be: should it be to favour certain values (such as the right of inves-tors to access arbitration, or the maintenance of world peace)? Or should it be to apply the law? In an era of international cooperation, confront-ed by unparalleled global issues such as climate change, it is of utmost importance that States feel that they are able to rely on our international legal system. The only way for this to happen is if we leave the peace-maintenance and investor protection to the States - the ICJ should do what it does best and apply the law.

22 23

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Hu-man Rights article 16 provides everyone with the right to marry and found a family. Although equal marriage rights are strongly advocated for, trans-gender issues do not receive the same wide-spread support or attention. This right to marry and found a family should be no different for trans-gender people as article two dictates that the Dec-laration applies to all people without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or so-cial origin, property, birth or other status. The pro-vision for health and wellbeing in the declaration makes special reference to motherhood as need-ing additional assistance and care. This reference to ‘motherhood’ is clearly outdated in the current social climate where our society sees fathers tak-ing a greater role in parenting, and in particular instances of entering ‘motherhood’ themselves. The UN would do well to change this reference to ‘motherhood’ to the broader term ‘parenthood’ to ensure adequate and equal recognition of this.

Transgender men have been discriminated against for expressing the wish to have children or merely retaining the capacity to do so. In the case of West-ern Australia v AH [2010], the WA Court of Appeal denied two female-to male applicants the right to be issued gender reassignment certificates on the basis they had not undergone invasive surgery to remove internal female reproductive organs and create male genitalia. The applicants did not see these organs as disruptive to their gender identi-ty, and did not think surgery was an appropriate response to their existence. Phalloplasty, the arti-ficial creation of a penis is not performed in Aus-tralia due to an extremely high risk factor with low success rate.

The decision in WA v AH has since been over-turned by the High Court of Australia replacing this with the requirement that they only be socially rep-resented as male. Unfortunately the preference for female-male transgender people to be perma-nently and irreversibly infertile still lingers in many countries around the world. This approach con-dones the surgical ‘mutilation’ of transgender bod-ies. So it might be shock that most of Australia’s state legislation is yet to reflect this precedent.

A recent study by A.D. Light took surveys of 41 transgender males who had experienced preg-nancy and delivered a baby after they had com-menced their transition from female to male. Fall-ing pregnant required them to stop their hormone replacement therapy for the period leading up to the pregnancy and throughout, which often led to the reemergence of their gender dysphoria as their bodies became more feminine again. The men recorded various responses to pregnancy. Some finally felt happy and at peace knowing their bodies were doing something useful that other men’s bodies couldn’t do: “It was relieving to feel comfortable in the body I’d been born with.” But for most, the experience of pregnancy heightened the feeling of gender dysphoria as pregnancy is a “bizarrely feminized world” increasing the gap between some transgender men’s psychological identity and their biological sex: “Heavy time, hav-ing a baby, not passing as male, all the changes and a society telling me to just be happy.”

The study found that unfortunately the majority of the men reported negative experiences with the healthcare system. Hostile looks, suspicion and double takes were moderate and typical ex-periences reported by the respondents. In an ex-treme incidence one participant was reported to Child Protective Services for being a “tranny with a baby.” There were also instances of transgen-der men being turned away from doctors and healthcare professionals refusing to use correct pronouns. This negative, discriminatory and irre-sponsible response from the healthcare system needs reform including establishment of special-ised ethics committees. If a patient presents with the capacity and desire to have children (a uterus, fertile eggs, donor sperm) then there is absolutely no reason to deny them this vital service.

OpinionWhy Are We So Scared of Men Being Pregnant?The need to destroy the gender binary and norms entrenched in Australian society

Kirsty Dale

“Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire” – as Thomas Beatie, a prominent transgender man, put it. We typically see pregnancy as an exclusively female act, but male identify and appearing indi-viduals are also capable of this. Individuals born with female sex characteristics and reproductive capacity that identify as male and have made a physical transition to this thus subvert our ex-pectation of gender in our binary societal views. Pregnant transgender males are not the norm in Australia or any Western country. It’s imperative that the law recognises the existence of these in-dividuals and offers them the same rights and pro-tections relating to pregnancy as cis-women.

The medical field regards transgender people as suffering from a condition called ‘gender dyspho-ria’ where they have continual and strong feelings of discomfort associated with their gender iden-tity not being consistent with their biological sex. Pregnant transgender males often struggle with an even stronger sense of gender dysphoria as they feel detached from their chosen male identity in doing something society considers an inherent-ly female act – giving birth.

All states and territories excepting Western Aus-tralia and the ACT still require a ‘sex-affirmation’ procedure to correct the sex on one’s birth certif-icate. It is unclear in the legislation what exactly a ‘sex-affirmation’ procedure entails, but it is de-fined in South Australia as a procedure that alters the genitals and other sexual characteristics of a person.

Overwhelmingly, the denial of adequate health-care to transgender men seeking or undergoing pregnancy leads to discrimination, significant health risks, and a significant impact on general wellbeing. This flies in contravention of interna-tional human rights, although there is some nec-essary progress needed in that area. Domestic legislative reform in line with improved represen-tation and education of gender and sexual iden-tity would help spearhead a change in how we view non-binary conforming and transgender in-dividuals and their reproductive rights.

24 25

26 27

Allen’s

Peppercorn.EDITORIAL TEAM

Rose Bruce-SmithKanika KirpalaniHarry McLaurinLucy Peel

COVER ILLUSTRATION

Kanika Kirpalani

PUBLICATION DESIGN

Kanika Kirpalani