Who Stole My Organs? — Interpretation No. 97

Introdution

This work uses satire to parody a classic scene from Hollywood film Urban Legend (1998): after a night of revelry, a person wakes up in an unknown motel, submerged in a tub of ice, only to discover that their organs have been removed. Looking up in the mirror, they see a warning written in bright red letters.

However, the victim here is not a fictional character from whispered stories, but a stand-in for the transgender experience.

In the past, a 2008 ruling from Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior (also dubbed “Interpretation 97” in reference to Republic of China’s own calendar system) meant that transgender people could not change their legal gender on a whim. They must first provide medical proof that specific reproductive organs have been surgically removed.

When a person is required by law to pay with their flesh and viscera in order for the gender markers on their national IDs to reflect who they are, we have to ask: who is stealing their organs?

The answer is written on the mirror:

It’s not 911.

It’s Interpretation 97.

Comment From the Judge :
Po Sung Chai

Who Stole My Organs? — Interpretation No. 97-1 uses a cinematic set-up to poke fun at the particular violence of Interpretation 97.

Why must transgender people undergo self-castration in order to be recognized and respected by the state? Must organs be forcibly removed before transgender citizens can be recognized as legitimate? What kind of simplified notion of a transgender person is this legitimacy based on?

The character in the photograph appears helpless and pleading, as if wordlessly asking: how come society intuits the cruelty of organ harvesting, while the involuntary sterilization of transgender individuals is treated as the bottom-line for gender confirmation?