by

A Reflexive Post (or: What’s This Blog Even For?)

I’ve been writing here for a while, on and off, but it’s occurred to me that I haven’t really written anything about the purpose of the blog itself, let alone about myself and where I’m coming from.

This is partly deliberate. I’ve got a pretty busy life and don’t always feel like updating. As such, this isn’t a regular blog: it’s more like somewhere where I can occasionally let off steam, or write a political rant which I want to share with anyone who happens to stumble across it. Once in a blue moon I might link people here, and sometimes others want to link to me, which is cool.

The result of this situation is that I don’t always write about the stuff that I care about most, or the stuff I think is most important. Sometimes I do,  but often I’ll be actively trying to campaign on an issue or desperately trying to keep up with work rather than spend time getting angry in the general direction of the internet.  This is a political blog, but it’s also somewhat personal and self-indulgent.

Still, I hope you might find something of interest here. I’m a trans woman in my twenties, and this tends to shape my political interests. I’m interested in queer rights in general and trans rights in particular. I’m involved in a number of trans youth communities and aim to raise awareness of stuff that particularly impacts young trans people since it often tends to get sidelined or forgotten about. Since I’m UK-based, most of my entries are about UK stuff. I’m also in possession of various privileges (white, middle-class, abled, neurotypical etc.) and do my best to keep track of these and make sure they don’t blind my perspective.

by

My response to a Nationwide customer survey

I’ve always enjoyed banking with Nationwide. The service has been good and the website easy to use. However, I’ve had it up to here with the transphobic bullshit used to advertise Nationwide services. The television advert based on the “bad transvestites” from Little Britain portrays an interaction between staff and customers which would be highly inappropriate if experiences by actual trans people – whether transvestites, transsexed women, or genderqueer individuals. We have quite enough of this crap in our everyday lives, thanks. Seeing two offensive characters toddling across the computer screen whilst I’m trying to check my account doesn’t help.

This, combined with Nationwide’s continued (and clearly unlawful) demand that trans people present them with a Gender Recognition Certificate when changing their name with the bank, means I will soon be closing my account and moving elsewhere.

Good riddance.

by

Update on the Charing Cross gender clinic deed poll affair

This is a brief update on the entry I wrote about Charing Cross gender clinic getting a bit funny about DIY deed polls. In short: the clinic is once accepting such documents, so hurrah!

I have been reliably informed that the issue was raised at a stakeholder meeting. It was confirmed that was indeed some confusion at the clinic about the status of home-made change of name documents.

The policy at the clinic has now been changed to bring it in line with the advice of the Gender Recognition Panel, which recognises appropriately written change of name documents signed by the person changing their name, and a witness.

Such documents can be found online in a number of locations, such as here.

by

“Censoring Julie Bindel”: a response

Beatrix Campbell has written a delightful article about Julie Bindel’s involvement in feminism’s “trans wars”. I couldn’t help but noticed that it’s riddled with inaccuracies…

“Airing the complications and troubles of transgender politics is being traduced as “transphobia”.”

No. Arguing that transsexed people shouldn’t exist, consistently belittling and propagating prejudice is being characterised as transphobia. It’s possible to air the complications and troubles of ‘transgender poltitics’ without being a bigot.

“Transgender people who used to live as men and now live as women persuaded the May 2009 NUS women’s conference to mandate its officers to share no platform with Julie Bindel.”

The motion wasn’t proposed by trans women.

Moreover, characterising trans attendees of women’s conference as ‘transgender people who used to live as men’ merely demonstrates your own ignorance.

“The NUS women’s campaign shows no solidarity with women who are offended by the presence in their safe spaces of people who used to be men.”

That’s true! Well, minus the ‘used to be men’ bit…but that’s a whole other kettle of fish which I’m sure others will address at length. We also show no solidarity with straight women who are offended by the presence of lesbian women, or white women who are offended by black women. In fact I might go so far as to argue that it is these ‘offended’ people who undermine the ideal of a safe space…

“This month, her enemies mustered a picket outside Queer Question Time in a London pub. They’re not censoring her, they say, you can read her, they say, just don’t go to hear her.”

“The transgender vigilantes should listen up, wise up and grow up, participate in, not proscribe, the debate they started.”

First off: it’s worth noting that the NUS has nothing to do with the picket outside Queer Question Time, which was organised by independent activists.

Also, you’re inaccurately depicting the arguments of those who would prefer not to see Bindel given a high-profile speaking slot at a supposedly queer-friendly venue. Unlike journalists with newspaper and magazine columns, we usually don’t have access to an audience to listen to our side of the story outside of blogs and community publications. We don’t have the opportunity to ‘participate’ on the level that Bindel does.

This doesn’t mean that we want transphobes to be entirely censored: rather, we wish it to be recognised that there are events at which it is inappropriate to invite a bigot to speak. Moreover, in what way is it fair for people to ‘debate’ our very existence? This, incidentally, is why we’re so ‘offended’ – and why we don’t give much credence to the ‘offence’ experienced by those who would discriminate against us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/31/julie-bindel-transgender-nus
by

Another man gets pregnant; commentators are “confused”

The tabloids are busily latching onto the next big “pregnant man” story. The second one ever, apparently. And this one’s gay! Or is he a lesbian? Maybe he could be a Threat to Gay Equality Itself.

Scott Moore – who is in a relationship with another trans man – acquired some sperm from a friend, became pregnant, and is having a baby. People are inevitably treating this as a big deal, mainly because they really don’t get it. The comments over at Perez Hilton pretty much sum up the “commonsense” attitude: they’re not really men because they have vaginas, testosterone will HURT THE BABY OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN, and how can someone possibly be a Real Transsexual if he wants to be pregnant?

My answer to all of these questions in short is: get over yourself, and then educate yourself.

Since I’m nice though, here’s some pointers:

1) Trans is an entirely real phenomenon, and is not just in people’s minds. Really. You can look at this from a scientific, biological perspective, or a postmodern, agency-driven perspective, but either way there’s plenty of literature out there discussing the subject. Either way, this fellow is male-identified; he’s a man. He also lives as a man, and appears to have a pretty funky beard. Do you have a funky beard?

2) Some cis* men might fancy getting pregnant. Some trans men fancy getting pregnant. He’s got the bits, so why shouldn’t he? It doesn’t make him any less of a man. After all, some men grow massive moobies which, let’s face it, are basically breasts. That doesn’t make them women, just men with massive moobies. Also, did I mention the funky beard?

3) I’m pretty sure this guy has gone off testosterone for the duration of the pregnancy, just like Thomas Beatie. As such, there’s almost definitely no real risk to the child. If he I didn’t take this precaution, I concede that he’s a bit of a dick. I seriously doubt it though.

4) If you think trans people having a choice in how they use their bodies is a threat to LGBT equality because it seems “freakish”, take a good hard look at how homophobes tend to regard anal sex. Moreover, what’s so freakish about someone wanting to give birth? Shouldn’t that be a beautiful thing?

4) Whilst we’re at it, neither Scott Moore nor Thomas Beatie are quite the pioneers that the media is making them out to be. All power for them for drawing attention to the very existence of trans men for a change, but they’re hardly the only such guys who have been banged up. They’re just the ones that others have caught on to.

Now get on with your lives.

* For the newbies: “cis” means something a little like “non-trans”.

by

See this man?

This is Peter Robert Forster, the Lord Bishop of Chester.

He wants to deny my genderqueer friends and trans children protection from discrimination. (see Clause 7)

Some of my friends are regularly abused by their parents, beaten up in school, or regularly receive abuse at university. They have been shouted at, taunted and raped. They have been harassed on the streets, in the workplace (if they can get a job) and by the police.

Fuck you, sir. I bet Jesus is really fucking pleased with you.

Take your fancy pen and fucking well shove it up your arse.

by

Charing Cross gender identity clinic outlaws DIY deed polls

A friend of mine who changed her name a few months ago received a phone call from Charing Cross yesterday to inform her that her deed poll (which had been seen and approved of in her presence by both receptionists and medical staff working at the clinic) was “inappropriate”. As such, they will revert to using her male name in correspondence.

She says that: I have found out that my deed poll is ‘inappropriate’ because it has not been signed by, and I quote, the “Government Deed Poll Issuing Authority”.

They didn’t like her deed poll because she printed it herself, using a free template (similar to this one). A lot of young trans people do this because we often cannot afford to “buy” a deed poll. Others on low income or benefits are likely to use these deed polls too.

These documents are widely accepted. My friend whose deed poll was not good enough for Charing Cross has successfully changed the name on her driving license with hers, for example.

Apparently this wasn’t a one-off case. My friend pointed out that she knew others with similar deed polls which had been accepted by the gender clinic. She was informed: “then they are most certainly in our pile of deed polls to return and names to revert to the original name on the deed poll.”

I honestly don’t know what the hell they think they’re playing at. My own DIY deed poll was used to change my name with a university, the NHS, a couple of banks and on my passport. I fail to understand what makes Charing Cross gender clinic so special that they get to not-accept someone’s (perfectly legal) change of name, just because it hasn’t been witnessed by a solicitor.

This policy seems to demonstrate once again that Charing Cross do not have their patients’ best interests at heart. Rejecting deed polls like this will be a blow to many trans people who already have low confidence or self-esteem, and could be dangerous for those who have already changed their name and are living “stealth” if the clinic sends them correspondence addressed to their old name.

Edit: Following complaints, this policy was reversed.

by

Brief update on the Equality Bill (and PFC)

I’m not in the mood for a full update on this, but since a previous entry contains heavy criticism of Press For Change, I feel it’s worth a brief summary of what happened next.

Following heavy criticism of the draft briefing by PFC, a new briefing was issued that better addressed the problems faced by trans people with non-binary identities. At a meeting with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, every trans group present (bar a:gender) argued strongly for a fully inclusive equality bill.

In June, an amendment was proposed by Lynne Featherstone MP (Lib Dem), Dr Evan Harris MP (Lib Dem) and Tim Boswell MP (Cons) that would extend protections in the Equality Bill to non-binary trans people. Unfortunately this was then struck down byVera Baird (Lab), the Solicitor-General. A report of the debate can be found here, under “Clause 4”.

Since then, I believe various trans organisations – as well as independent activists – have continued quietly lobbying for full inclusion. Press For Change have indicated that they are now fully behind this.

Update: a:gender have since supported a fully trans-inclusive Equality Bill.

by

The Well of Loneliness

I finished reading The Well of Loneliness last night.

As a novel it’s not fantastic. The plot plods along in a relatively predictable fashion, following Stephen – the protagonist – as they grow up, get a job, and meet people. The writing is mediocre and occasionally quite dull.

As a giant “fuck you” to the world, it’s very powerful and still disturbingly relevant. The story follows Stephen, a female-assigned “invert”. Invert is a late nineteenth century/early twentieth century term that’s often said to refer to homosexuality, but there’s a whole body of literature out there discussing whether or not it’s more to do with gender identity than sexuality. It’s now considered somewhat backward to associate lesbianism with necessary masculinity, which has led to a great deal of criticism by latter-day activists. However, if Stephen – and other female-assigned inverts such as Jamie – are seen as trans men, everything begins to make a whole lot more sense Certainly Stephen’s story often reads more like that of a trans man than a lesbian.

I’ve come across several pieces that describe The Well of Loneliness as a plea for tolerance. It strikes me more as a demand for tolerance, and one that’s still disturbingly relevant. . The condemnation of those “good people” who oppress others for differing from society’s norms still holds true. The demand to accept the very existence of those who transcend sexual and gender stereotypes still holds true.

I got pretty depressed earlier today reading the mindblowingly ignorant comments following a Guardian article about trans rights. It made me think about how there’s still a lot of people out there who happily move through their “normal” lives whilst handing out casual bigotry whenever it suits them. We’ve come so far, yet we still have so far to go.

On a brighter note, a guy I know from Queer Youth Network was in a positive documentary on Channel 4 last night, which you can still watch on 4od. The fact that we’ve got to the point where we can tell a positive story like this on national television shows that progress.

by

Press For Change does a HRC

Update: After this post was written, Press For Change began to campaign openly for a fully trans-inclusive Equality Bill. Fair play to them. I originally wrote the title of this post in anger, but now feel that PFC have demonstrated that – unlike groups such as Stonewall and the HRC – they are prepared to listen to others and revise their position.

Contrasting somewhat with the approach of the Scottish Transgender Alliance and Gender Spectrum (see previous post) is that taken by Press For Change, the UK’s most high-profile trans rights group. As an “insider” group, they’re in the privileged position of being able to prepare a briefing for the Equality Bill Select Committee.

That doesn’t guarantee that the briefing’s proposals will be taken forward by the government or even individual politicans who wish to take on the cause, but it’s one of the most influential things any part of the trans community can contribute at the moment. Unfortunately, there are a couple of serious issues with this document.

1) Press For Change speaks on the behalf of “ALL trans people”, but has not consulted widely on this issue. The text of the briefing implies that PFC has attempted to consult with “several organisations who work the transgender community” (sic) rather than the community on the whole. This is understandable given the rapid turnaround that has to be undertaken by individuals who are essentially volunteers in order to prepare this kind of document at very short notice. However, it was perfectly possible for the Scottish Transgender Alliance and Gender Spectrum to create a basic survey at short notice, which is being passed around by word of mouth. By their own admission, PFC have access to 1800 people through their mailing list: why didn’t they even ask for opinions on this vital issue? Given the circumstances, I may have considered this forgiveable, if it wasn’t for this:

2) Press For Change seem intent on pushing for the rights of transsexed people at the expense of all other trans people. This accusation is increasingly levelled at PFC by members of the trans community, and this document appears to confirm that. PFC describe themselves as “the leadership of Britain’s campaign for the social inclusion and non-discrimination of transsexual people”, and describe “trans” as shorthand for “transsexual”, making a mockery of their “ALL trans people” slogan. When criticising the government’s choice to protect individuals on the grounds of “gender reassignment” and suggest that a term such as “gender identity” be used instead (a position widely agreed upon by many trans organisations and individual activists) they then clarify this by stating:

“we feel that to ensure clarity of purpose the bill should refer to gender identity as the defining characteristic including transsexual and transgender people, with by way of the explanatory notes a clarification to refer to people intending to live, or living permanently, in their preferred gender role which is opposite to that of their natal sex”

This would mean that those trans people who are unable to transition or are discriminated against because of a non-binary identity would continue to recieve no recognition or protection: exactly the problem that providing protection on the grounds of “gender identity” is meant to overcome!

This is horribly reminiscent of the approach of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the USA. That supposed LGBT rights group received heavy criticism from those trans people it was meant to be representing after supporting a trans-exclusive version of ENDA.