Queer Ontario was invited to and participated in a consultation interview with ServiceOntario on Tuesday, August 19, 2014, regarding an amendment to the Vital Statistics Act, to address the ability of individuals under the age of 18 (minors) to change the sex designation on their Ontario Birth Registration from Male to Female (or vice-versa). 
.
Currently individuals born in Ontario, who are 18 years of age or older are permitted to do so, based on a 2012 amendment to the Vital Statistics Act following a decision by the Ontario Human Rights tribunal in XY vs. Ontario, which ruled that it was discriminatory to require proof of ‘sex reassignment surgery’ [sic] to change the sex designation on an Ontario Birth Registration. Queer Ontario had participated in the consultations regarding this amendment at the time.  Now, individuals wishing/needing to do so must provide a Statutory Declaration confirming their current legal name, the fact that they identify as a gender identity that ‘accords’ with the requested sex designation, and their ‘intentions’ to ‘maintain’ that gender identity. They must also provide a signed letter by a practicing physician or psychologist supporting the request for a change of sex designation. (See: https://www.ontario.ca/government/changing-your-sex-designation-your-birth-registration-and-birth-certificate)
.
As expected, questions centered around child and youth agency and, specifically, parental/custodian notification and consent. Building on the insights we provided during the first round of consultations, we first and foremost highlighted the need for the government to give individuals the autonomy and power to make decisions for themselves, without resorting to experts — let alone parents/custodians — for validation. This is as much the case for minors under the age of 18 as it is for individuals over the age of 18. We highlighted the Argentinean approach to changing a sex designation, which only requires an individual to (a) prove that they have reached the minimum age of 18 (with exceptions provided for individuals under the age of 18), and (b) submit a request for an amendment to their birth certificate and national identity card, along with (c) their new first name (See: http://www.tgeu.org/sites/default/files/Argentina%20-%20Gender%20Identity%20Law%20ENG.pdf)
.
Secondly, we challenged not only the government’s need to record an individual’s sex at birth (or any point afterwards) instead of, say, an individual’s gender once they are conscious enough to make such a decision (although the need to record this was also contested). We also challenged the government’s insistence on individuals identifying as either “Male” or “Female” at the exclusion of other sexed possibilities, as well as its insistence that individuals be unmoving in their identifications. Indeed, this excludes an entire plethora of individuals, not only those who are intersex/intersexualized either at birth or otherwise; but also those who are gender-queer, gender-neutral, sex-queer, sex-neutral, bi-gendered, multi-gendered, gender-fluid, Two-Spirited, cross-dressing, non-gender-identified, non-sex-identified, etc.
.
As expected, the government showed much interest in our points — albeit frustratingly at times — but it was clear that they were only looking to validate a plan that they already had in mind: To provide conditions to allow individuals under the age of 18 to engage in the change-of-sex-designation process — most likely by reducing the age of consent to 16 or requiring parental/custodian consent — without changing anything else. Their commitment to working with existing systems, maintaining the status quo, superseded any consideration to creating policy that would be more expansive and inclusive of the variance in sex and gender identities.
.
Either way, our comments and critiques have been entered into the public record, and are now being made public through this newsletter. Although, we believe having a policy in place that allows for minors to change their sex designations on birth certification is better than the complete absence of one (which is the current circumstance), we hope but don’t anticipate that a systemic reconsideration of the assignation and recording of a sex at birth will take place any time soon, as the government of some provinces did, not too long ago, for the recording of an individual’s ‘race’ and ‘father’s occupation’ (See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/mom-of-transgender-child-wants-id-rules-changed-1.2584966)
.
The implications of such policy are extensive, which may explain the government’s intent to work within the system, but this does not preclude the variance in sex and gender identity and experiences of many and the need for policy to adequately address this.
.
– Nick Mulé
– M. Otarola
– Rob Teixeira