Who Stole My Organs? — Interpretation No. 97

Introdution

This work uses humor and parody to recreate a classic scene from Hollywood films and urban legends: after a night of partying, a person wakes up in an unfamiliar motel, lying in a bathtub filled with ice, only to discover that their organs have been removed. Looking up at the mirror, they see a warning written in bright red letters.

But this time, the person whose organs have been taken is not a victim from an urban legend, but a transgender person.

In the past, under the Ministry of the Interior’s 1997 administrative interpretation, transgender people who wanted to change their legal gender marker were required to provide proof of surgery removing certain reproductive organs.

When a person is required by the system to pay with their body and organs in order to make the gender marker on their identity documents closer to who they are, we have to ask: who “stole” transgender people’s organs?

The answer is written on the mirror.

Not “911,” but—

“Interpretation No. 97.”

Comment From the Judge :
Po Sung Chai

Who Stole My Organs? — Interpretation No. 97-1 uses a parody of a movie scene, reminiscent of Urban Legend, to present the violence of Interpretation No. 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 people can be recognized as legitimate? What kind of simplified idea of transgender people is this legitimacy based on?

The person in the photograph appears helpless and pleading, as if silently asking: why can the cruelty of organ theft be understood, while the forced removal of organs and involuntary sterilization of transgender people are treated as the minimum requirement for gender recognition?