laurenvork, Your making some valuable comments on this article, great work! Perhaps your not interpreting my writings as intended. What I was trying to say was that no matter what a transsexual person does they will always be biologically male (or female) depending on the case. Thats not something we as humans have control over. Sure, they can cut their penis off but that does not automatically make them a biological female. If it did, I'm sure many of them would have children. But we know that is not the case. The best they can do is live as a female in the ordinary sense. Dress like a female, look life a female etc. And most improtantly, be treated and acknowledged by others as a female. That is something we all have control over. Up until the time of this matter and the subsequent court matter, I didnt know much about gender dysphoria or transsexual people. Since then I've done a little bit of reading on the topic and have a basic understanding. Naturally, one person cant be the bearer of all knowledge. If you are well versed in this area I invite you to submit an Xombyte on the subject to show all... The content of my article that offends you wasnt intended to do so. They were questions asked in general to stimulate conversation and solicit personal views and opinions. I appreciate that you have a soft spot for transsexual people, for all I know you are a transsexual person. Thats great. You can contribute valuable input to this conversation. When I was using the word "really" I was using it in the sense to describe something as "factually". Pardon me, just substitute factually for really. Once again, referring to Ms Fell in a biological sense. She is factually a biological man. Becausee you are right in saying that adoptive parents ARE real. I would certainly not suggest otherwise. Its great to see a couple of you contributing to my work. Just a friendly reminder to everyone, including the present, not to get too emotional when making comments. This is a very sensitive subject which has the potential for people to attack other users. Lets all stay level headed, mature and professional. Thanks : )

Hi jdubhub, I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to contribute to my article regarding Ms Fell. As you may or may not have noticed in my article, I prefer to use the word "allegedly" when referring to the disclosure of Ms Fell's personal information. This matter is currently before the Court and a finding has not been reached regarding the police officers involved. I have also given Ms Fell the benefit of the doubt by using the word "allegedly" when referring to the incident with her in the shop. The guilt of someone, whether be the police officers or Ms Fell, is for the Courts to decide. I kindly ask that you not presume the guilt of the police involved. Time will tell. I will certainly update this discussion with the result. You stated that Ms Fell was assaulted because the police leaked her personal information. I'm sure you would have to agree with me that that is certainly not the case. Ms Fell was assaulted because one Garrick Jacobson consciously decided to assault her. There is no nexus or link between the police and what Mr Jacobson did. You cannot hold the police vicariously liable for what another human being did. However, I do see what it is you are trying to say. There are factors which may, or may not have, influenced Mr Jacobson's decision to assault Ms Fell. It may well be the case that he decided to assault her because he found out that she was born a male. It could also have been the case that he was intoxicated, drug effected and psychologically unstable. The bottom line is, Mr Jacobson plead guilty to assaulting Ms Fell and was imprisoned for a period of time. He is the only person responsible for assaulting Ms Fell, noone else. Now turning to the police. You couldnt be more right about police departments covering up misconduct or infringing citizens rights to further law enforcement objectives. I intend writing an article on this subject, and let me assure you now, my article will contain facts which support you statement. Privacy laws are very ambiguous. This case relates to police allegedly disclosing Ms Fell's personal information, the information being her biological gender (in laymens terms the fact that she was once a man). To what degree can the law protect this sort of information? Lets say a transsexual person is quite obviously a former man. Large jaw, adams apple, large hands, deep voice, stubble on the face etc. This would be obvious to the naked eye (for most people). Its seems difficult to implement a privacy law in this situation because what is essentially being protected is quite obviously and staring you in the face - literally! Theres a whole range of other issues that can be discussed that are specific to this matter. For example, if Ms Fell's information was already in a public document, such as a newspaper article or on a Myspace page, would it deserve protection by privacy laws? Your right about society treating unigue people differently. Everybody, including Ms Fell, should be free to be whomever they choose. However, there are certain limits on our actions and inactions. Alot of commentators on this matter believe that Ms Fell's inaction or ommission to inform Mr Jacobson about her past was unethical, immoral and one politician said it was criminal. I agree with all three. Check out what the politician said: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080304025 Let me give you an example. If you have sex with another person and that other person does not consent, you commit rape (also known as sexual assault). So, if an identical twin has sex with his girlfriend and half way through leaves the room and his identical brother takes his place without the girlfriend knowing, the brother commits rape. The reason being that the girlfriend was mistaken as to the identity of the male and therefore wasnt consenting. I understand laws can vary in countries and states but that is the law in New South Wales, Australia where the incident took place. Take a look at section 61HA(5)(a) of the legislation in question. You will see what I mean. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61ha.html The facts of this current case were that Mr Jacobson was "mistaken" as to Ms Fell's identity. Ms Fell knew that Mr Jacobson was unaware of her gender re-assignment. Mr Jacobson was led to believe that Ms Fell was born female. We know that is not the case. So, does it appear on face value that Ms Fell may have committed sexually assault against Mr Jacobson? That is a moot point for the Courts but I believe there is evidence to support that conclusion. Just to clarify, I said it "appears" and have in no way suggested Ms Fell is guilty of sexual assault. As previously stated, there are many arguments to this matter. I think we can all agree that Ms Fell should not have been assaulted and has the right to live as a female. You make an interesting point about the development of the human body in the early stages of life. Although what you have stated may well be factual, I think most lay people accept that you are either a male human being or a female human being. With reference to this matter, Ms Fell was born a man. Lets not get too technical with that. Ms Fell is, and will always be, a biological male. She cannot give birth, wont have a period etc etc. Thats not something we as society can change. What we can do is allow Ms Fell, through relevant legislation, to become a female - legally. That is, to be recognised as a female person. It doesnt end there because we have to allow her to live freely within our community without victimisation or being labelled as the media have clearly done. The possibilities in life are endless. What you said about past lives is very fascinating. I dont doubt the idea for a second. I've heard of young children describing places they have never been in their lives. Places they claim they lived in a past life. The parents subsequently confirm the accuracy of what the kids said. Ms Fell may have been a female in her past life or perhaps she has an imbalance of chemicals in her brain... who knows! The point I was originally trying to make was a simple one. Some things in life come at a cost. Ms Fell's justice has come at a cost to her reputation and private life. I invite further comment if you have the time. Thanks : )

laurenvork, Thank you for taking the time to read my article and commenting on it. Perhaps you are right in that Ms Fell wanted the police officers charged to send the public a message about the transsexual community. This incident has certainly stimulated some conversation which seems to raise a couple of points: 1. Was it immoral for Ms Fell to conceal to Mr Jacobson the fact that she had been born a man? 2. Was it ethical for the police, if in fact they did as alleged, to have informed Mr Jacobson about Fell's biological sex? From the numerous forums that I have peroused, these appear to be the big questions on people's minds. Naturally, people are going to be for and against both questions. I seek your views if you dont mind sharing them? Getting back to the point you raised in your commentary regarding Ms Fell's stance against police misconduct. As we now know, the whole world knows of Ms Fell's gender re-assignment. Unfortunately, a couple of weeks after her debute in the world media Ms Fell was again featured in the Daily Telegraph but for an unrelated matter. Ms Fell apparently damaged some property inside a store and was charged herself. This sort of matter would not ordinarily attract media attention but did so because Ms Fell is a transsexual. The opening line of the article read: "Transsexual Brigitte Fell in angry shop outburst" It seems as though Ms Fell's 'stance' if I may refer to it as that, has gone to her detriment. Other transsexuals may see the way the media have centred on Ms Fell and be reluctant to "come out" as the term is commonly used. Damage may have been done to Ms Fell, but it could have been limited. Unfortunately, emotions cause some people to react irrationally and without due consideration of consequences. The point I am trying to convey (but not necessarily convince you of) is that there were alernatives to the situation that could have been far more beneficial to Ms Fell and the transsexual community at large. On a closing note, I was a little suprised when you said that you were offended by my statement "Now the whole world knows that Brigitte Fell is really a man". Perhaps I should have been more politically correct and said "Now the whole world knows that Brigitte Fell is really biologically male". I kindly ask your opinion as to the offensiveness of that? That issue there is certainly worthy of further discussion. I will consider writing a Xombyte on it. I may start with the opening line "If a man cuts off his penis, is he still a man?". That would not be politcally correct. Perhaps, "If I paint a donkey with black and white stripes, is he (or she) still a donkey?" Thanks again : ) Heres the link to the article on Ms Fell's shop outburst: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23242105-5006009,00.html