This text was initially published on the occasion of Manufacturing of Rights a pluridisciplinary colloquium in Ashkal Alwan, Beirut, 2015.

CASE #4

An intervention by Lawrence Abu Hamdan and Marwa Arsanios

Date: May 2011
Location: Dbayeh, Lebanon

Description:
On May 11, 2009, a patrol from Metn’s regional office for general security brought in a transwoman from the chalet where she was staying at a beach complex after receiving reports that she was taking part in acts of sodomy and group sex. After listening to her statement, and under direction from the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Appeal Court in Mount Lebanon, the case was referred to the Office for the Protection of Morality to complete the investigation.
The transwoman declared in her first two statements that she had been born with malformed genitalia and with tendencies towards the female gender. She also stated that despite her registration in infancy as a male, she subsequently—specifically in 1994—underwent a surgical operation in which she was transformed into a woman by removing all of her male sexual organs and implanting an artificial uterus. She denied categorically that he she had engaged in acts of indecency or group sex, as she considered the sexual relations that had engaged in with men throughout her life to be classified within the framework of natural relations between men and women; the duration of those relationships had sometimes exceeded a year and a half.

Accusations:
The transwoman was charged by the Public Prosecution with violation of Article 534 of the Penal Code, in connection with sexual intercourse contrary to nature.
On January 28, 2014, the Criminal judge in Jdeideh el-Metn, Lebanon, issued a ruling acquitting the transwoman in question. The ruling carries great significance, not just for the legal status of transexuals, but also because of its implications for interpreting Article 534 of the Lebanese Penal Code and the concept of “contrary to nature,” by introducing the notion of psychological sex as a determinant of the natural. The ruling also highlights the interactions between law and identity quest.
The word “Jenssiah,” which means both sexuality and nationality in Arabic, is used repeatedly in reference to the defendant’s sexuality and nationality (a refugee, without nationality). Being at once stateless and, according to the system, genderless, the verdict represents a landmark step in its acknowledgement of the validity of a “third” gender as a space for self-identification and self-definition. ¹