Trans youth charity Gendered Intelligence are running a fundraiser at London’s Royal Vauxhall Tavern tomorrow (Friday 13th July).
On the off chance you’re around, you should totally come because it’s going to be amazing.
There will be performances from a whole bunch of trans artists and allies, including:
Cyndi Rogers
…and DJ sets from myself and Puja Maniar.
Entry: £8 (£6 concesssions)
Doors: 7pm – 2am
LGBT Youth Scotland have produced a fantastic new booklet with advice on coming out for trans people. Some of the information and language is a little Scottish-specific but there’s some good stuff in there that could be useful to anyone.
Contents include general advice on coming out to friends, family and in school/college/uni etc, as well as links to further resources in terms of general advice and UK law.
You can download the guide in PDF format here:
And so the Bizarrely Busy Month of Trans News rolls on.
On the subject of trans parents, the Daily Mail has effectively outed a trans father; on a slightly brighter note, Green MP Caroline Lucas has tabled an Early Day Motion condemning the ongoing media witch-hunt that’s currently targeting pregnant trans guys. Kudos once again to Trans Media Watch and Jane Fae for their ongoing work on this. Meanwhile, bookmakers Paddy Power are under fire for a transphobic advert, and today saw a five-year-old trans girl splashed all over the tabloids (including front page stories in the Metro and the Sun).
Paddy Power will no doubt defend their advert (basically a “spot the tranny” competition themed around Ladies’ Day at Cheltenham) on the grounds of humour: it’s just a laugh, right? Meanwhile the tabloids will continue to defend their almost fetishistic obsession with the private lives of trans people on the grounds of “public interest”. Both actions serve to dehumanise and objectify trans people even as they build public interest in the queer freak show we supposedly offer.
This is all, of course, of massive concern to the so-called trans community. But we’re not the only ones who are affected.
In today’s front-page article, the Metro quotes “social commentator” Anne Atkins (who?) Atkins – clearly a great expert on gender diversity – says:
“Between the ages of about five and eight, I wanted to be a boy more than anything in the world. Acute though my longing was, it was relatively shortlived. I am grateful to say that there was no one around at the time to diagnose me with GID [Gender Identity Disorder]”
If I had a pound for every well-meaning cis friend who’d told me this at the beginning of my transition…well, I wouldn’t have a huge amount of money, but I’d definitely be able to afford a better toaster. But my problem with this isn’t one of cis privilege. It basically runs as follows:
What’s intrinsically wrong with a kid spending part of their childhood as a “boy” and part of their childhood as a “girl”?
What’s intrinsically wrong with the idea of a man having a baby?
What’s intrinsically wrong with (or, for that matter, funny about) gender being complex or fluid or aligned with their body in a non-normative fashion?
I’ve not come across a single answer to any of those questions that isn’t inherently sexist in one way or another. We shouldn’t have to subscribe to an ideology of gender difference that necessitates people being placed in boxes that restrict their self-expression. We shouldn’t have to rely on old-fashioned gender roles. At the same time, we shouldn’t have to demand that “gender” be obliterated altogether. Why can’t five-year-old Zach live as a girl? Why couldn’t Anne Atkins live as a boy for a few years before settling into womanhood?
In a gender liberated world, gender expression would be free and fluid. Adults could be men, women, genderqueer, polygendered or non-gendered as they desire. Children could be children, and explore gender as one set of social possibilities amongst many. And everyone benefits, not just trans people. We’d all have more space to be ourselves.
If you think this is hopelessly utopic and ultimately impossible, try dropping by spaces such as Genderfork and Wotever, where users/attendees are pioneering gender liberated approaches to language and social interaction.
We don’t need to do away with gender, but at the same time we don’t need to subscribe to fixed, binary ideals of gender in order to live in a decent world where people value one another’s work and care for one another.
In a gender liberated world, neither the media nor the medical world would care about five-year-old trans girl, a pregnant man or a trans person at Cheltenham because it simply wouldn’t be a big deal.
The trans girl could live out her childhood as she desired and privately transition physically – or not! – at an appropriate point in her teens. The man could access appropriate care during his pregnancy without fearing the consequences of doing so. And at Cheltenham…well, isn’t the very concept of “Ladies’ Day” totally regressive?
Jane Fae wrote a powerful post
today highlighting
the connection between two important events this week for trans people in the media.
The first of these events is the launch of a petition that calls upon the press to stop using dehumanising and othering language to describe trans people. The petition was started by the family of Livvy, a 10-year-old girl who became one of the most recent examples of trans children hounded by the news media.
They argue that transphobic language can ultimately kill:
“People with gender identity issues are being murdered, beaten, threatened with their lives, bullied, teased, intimidated, disowned and are prone to suicide both attempted and successful and self harm. The Press being an extremely powerful medium has the responsibility to ensure they are not aiding peoples ignorance and hatred and increased lack of self esteem.“
Meanwhile, the Leveson Enquiry is due to receive evidence from Trans Media Watch this afternoon (a live video stream will be available here, as well as an archived video and transcript following the hearing). Josephine Shaw posted the following announcement on the group’s Facebook page:
“[…] Helen Belcher will be representing us at the Inquiry, next Wednesday – February 8th. She’ll be doing so following a detailed written submission made by TMW a few weeks ago, a public version of which is available via the downloads page of the TMW website.
There have been a very large number of written submissions to the Inquiry – only a small number have resulted in Lord Leveson calling witnesses in person. We’re absolutely delighted to be counted in that number […]
TMW’s aim next week is simple. To give voice to the pain and anger of all those trans and intersex people whose lives have been invaded, even ruined, without any cause or warning by the British press. Who deserved accuracy, dignity and respect. Or who simply deserved privacy. And to try and represent our community in calling for a profound change in the attitude of the press and an end to the incessant outrageous and unwarranted intrusion into the lives of innocent trans and intersex people.”
This week therefore sees two significant responses to the ongoing media assault upon trans lives. The two met this morning on the BBC’s Breakfast show, when Livvy and Trans Media Watch’s Paris Lees spoke about transphobia in the media.
It’s really heartening to see all of this happening. I agree with Jane that we have good reason to remain cynical, but equally we have plenty to celebrate at this juncture. For too long, journalists have been getting away with inflaming public opposition to trans liberation, and people in power are finally beginning to listen to our howls of outrage. This is an early step towards a more fair and friendly world, but an important one.
I was fortunate enough to meet Livvy a few months back and was inspired by the sheer determination of both her and her family; we have a lot to learn from them! I was also struck by my own surprise role in Livvy’s story via a sensationalist piece published by the Sun back in September:
“But yesterday a row broke out after a parent claimed that kids as young as EIGHT at Livvy’s school were shown a film about sex-change surgery.
In the footage, made for the NHS website, Ruth’s Story describes how she was born a boy — but knew from the age of 16 she wanted to be a woman.
One parent said: “We are not against the child. It’s that the children are being asked to treat her differently and watch a transgender video without parents knowing.“
The video in question was made for the NHS a few years back, and at the time I had no idea it could ever be shown to a primary school assembly! I would probably phrase a few things differently now but ultimately I’m still pleased with how it turned out. I became involved in the project by responding to an email from a mass trans mailing list: someone else could just have easily done it.
Ultimately I suppose my point is that every bit of effort counts. Every signature on Livvy’s petition, every angry letter to an editor, every trans awareness workshop and every intervention within public conversations. Let’s keep up the pressure, because it’s the only way we stand a chance of winning!
Boosting the signal on this one. It’d be great to see a load of outspoken young trans people at this event – if you don’t represent an organisation, it’s probably worth giving it a shot anyway!
Dear friends and colleagues,
The Government Equalities Office would like to invite you to a trans youth workshop we are holding on Thursday 28 July at the Home Office, 17.30-19.30.
The Government published Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality: Moving Forward on 14 March 2011. This document included a commitment to publish the first ever Government transgender equality action plan by the end of 2011. The action plan will outline commitments that the Government will deliver within specific timescales, to improve equality for trans people, including young trans people.
To shape the development of this action plan we will continue to talk to the widest range of people, including groups or individuals we have not spoken to substantially in the past. This includes young trans people. The workshop will be a fantastic opportunity for trans people aged 14-30 to tell us directly what has gone well, what are the specific challenges they face and how we may be able to address them, whether it’s at college, university or when starting a career.
The meeting will be held at the Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. A map can be found here. A detailed agenda will be sent closer to the workshop.
Reasonable travel costs (standard rail fares) will be reimbursed. This is train fare only – other expenses or non-standard rail fare must be agreed in advance.
Can you please confirm to me by Friday 15 July whether you or, if applicable, another representative of your organisation will be able to attend? Please note places are limited so we are accepting responses on a first come, first serve basis. Because of security reasons, you will not be able to attend unless you have confirmed attendance with us first.
Please note that the usual procedure to enter Home Office buildings is to bring photo ID. If you have photo ID we would be grateful if you could bring it with you. However if you are unable to produce photo ID please let us know in advance and we will make sure you can enter the building. Please let us know if you have any disability needs.
I look forward to seeing you at the workshop.
Regards
Anne-Yael Halevi
Government Equalities Office
Anne-Yael.Halevi@geo.gsi.gov.uk
Want to get involved? Please check our second transgender e-bulletin here.
I found myself filling in a campus safety survey for my university’s Student Union yesterday. As I began the form, I thought about how safe I feel on campus.
I have this arguably unhealthy tendency to wander around all kinds of places alone at night, but inevitably feel a bit on edge and on guard in town and city centres. By contrast, I always feel comfortable on campus. I mean, this place is full of busy academic types during the day and feels quiet yet friendly at night. During the early years of my transition in particular the place was like a safe haven.
Moreover, I’ve always felt that I got off pretty lightly compared to many of my trans friends: I’m lucky really. I mean, I don’t get pestered by transphobic morons on a regular basis, and I’ve never been physically or sexually assaulted. At least, not since all those times I was beaten up as a teenager. But that was ages ago, and they had no idea I was trans (…right?)
Yet as I continued with the survey, I began to realise how much being trans causes us to redefine what counts as “lucky”, and, for that matter, what counts as a normal experience.
Firstly, there were the questions on physical attacks. Of course I’ve never been physically attacked! Oh wait, there was that time that someone threw a mysterious object at the back of my head outside the Union nightclub. Yeah, that time when the security guys clearly couldn’t care less and gave me some hassle because I immediately approached them and asked for help. Still, that was just the one time, right?
So, on to harassment. I know some trans people on campus who have had all kinds of horrible experiences in halls and suchforth but again, I’ve been pretty lucky. Except for that time I was subject to some totally inappropriate questioning during a club night at the Union: good thing my friends were there to stand up for me. And that time I was pestered by a chaser. And that time I was kicked off a bus and told to “cut my hair” after I got confused over the fare. And the time a woman refused to sell me a banana because she wouldn’t accept my gender(!) Huh, how these incidents build up…
These incidents are extremely infrequent, leading me to think that I’m lucky. This thought process points to the normalisation of transphobia: I’m entirely used to the idea that people will treat me like crap because of who I am. It’s something we all get used to, to one extent or another.
This normalisation then leads me to redefine safety. A safe place becomes a place where I experience minimal harassment, rather than somewhere I don’t expect to be harassed at all. I suppose I always expect to be harassed to some extent.
Of course, this is all par for course in the UK if you’re not a visibly abled middle-class white guy. Ho hum.
The following was written by Louis, who recently experienced an appointment with “Dr Jiff” that unfolded pretty much as outlined.
“But let me tell you, this gender thing is history. You’re looking at a guy who sat down with Margaret Thatcher across the table and talked about serious issues.”
– George H. W. Bush
One morning, as I awoke from anxious dreams, I discovered that in my bed I had been transformed into exactly the same body as I had been the night before.
Examination of my whole organic structure proved this to be true, and as my mother greeted me normally in the kitchen, my feeling of de-centralised horror was crystallised. Most people, upon waking to find themselves the same, would find reassurance in the stability of their own identity – unchanged by the nights stargazing. To the average man or woman, the roaming of a well-gendered mind at rest is a pleasure. I, however, on that morning, realised that my unprecedented disquiet was the beginning of something. I was right. I have not been quite at home with myself since.
Psychology today is a noble hobby, halfway between a humanity and a science. I tend to lean towards the side of art.
On the 9th December, 2010, I find myself sitting in the office of Dr Jiff in University Hospital Coventry. It’s the psychiatric clinic. I’ve spent half an hour waiting outside, before being beckoned, with a smile, into this room, where I am to give the performance of my life. My part: Myself, as the National Health Service wants to see me. The office is large and sparse, with high, grey windows and navy blue carpet. It’s warm, however, and my chair is comfortable. Not a couch, but a plain lavender seat by the doctor’s desk. Dr Jiff himself is something of a surprise. After all I’ve heard, here is a man in his twilight years: rotund, moustached, with yellow sweat patches under his arms. A fair tie, mind you – M&S perhaps.
He has an affable face, and is delightfully frank in all things… though as usual for a psychiatrist, his eyes are mirrored walls. This is our first meeting. As I write, I expect many more: my performance this day is a surprising success.
To begin to understand the nature of my madness, I would first have to explain what madness actually is, in a social context at least. I’m sure you have your own ideas on the matter, but here’s my take on the state of things. Madness is a state of mind which society as a whole (or perhaps the ideal that society projects of itself, and never seems to actually get to) finds to be outside the bounds of “normal”. Sometimes madness is considered genius. Sometimes geniuses go mad. More often than not, madness is considered a rather dangerous or undesirable thing to have around. The more cutting amongst you may have noticed that I didn’t define what “normal” is. That’s because I truly have no idea.
In Psychology and Psychiatry, different kinds of madness are categorised and given different names. The name for my particular type of madness is Gender Dysphoria. It has an average occurrence, according to the NHS, of about 1 in every 4000 people in the UK – though it is important to note that these are only those individuals seeking treatment. Estimates have been made suggesting that 1 in every 1000 people may experience gender dysphoric feelings, or even 1 in every 120. Some psychiatric organisations have suggested that there are perhaps 500,000 gender dysphoric people in the UK, and 10,000 who have successfully asked for, and received, treatment. Statistically speaking, you’ve probably met at least 3 people with some level of gender dysphoria within the last 5 years of your life. Whether or not you were aware is a moot point.
The treatment of my disorder is seen with some contempt by the general populace – it requires the breaking of ancient rules of civilisation. This sounds more exciting than it really is. In day to day life, I’m perpetually astonished by how seriously people take gender labels, and how violently they will react against those individuals who wish to put their hand up halfway through the lesson, and say “Excuse me, I think you got that bit wrong.”
On the 19th of August 1992, a gender dysphoric person was removed surgically from its mother’s stomach and placed (screaming, purple and bloody) into the world, possessing all the appearance of female genitalia. Because of this, a somewhat tenuous, but deeply historic and traditional, social categorisation was made, and it was assigned the gender role of “female”. However, the gender label which it now identifies with, if it has to at all (and that is a whole other debate), is “male”. Some people interpret this in the following way:
“She wants to be someone else” OR “She wants to be a man.”
A gender dysphoric person find this degrading and frustrating. As far as they are concerned, they have always been the same person, and will always be the same person, in one form or another. I summarise the following:
“He is a man, and if society wishes to hang so much meaning and status on gender pronouns – a figment of language no less – then it can at least have the decency to let people identify themselves, rather than thrusting identity upon them at a stage where they can’t argue back.”
Dr Jiff’s office, on the 9th of December, is a pleasant change from the usual hostility. To begin with, he has assured me that there are “unlikely” to be any problems in my referral. I explain the issues I have had when trying to achieve this in the past, and he shrugs off the ignorance of some in his profession with a simple:
“Some people just don’t go to enough conferences.”
Then:
“Do you masturbate?”
(Don’t tell me that wouldn’t knock you off balance a bit.)
“Yes.”
“Any particular fantasies?”
“Hmm.” I pull the face which I always pull when planning to politely lie. “No, just generic men.”
(Really, I have an imagination.)
“How do you identify – put into words?”
“Gay male, polyamorous.”
“Do you dream in colour or black and white?”
“Colour.”
“How do you place yourself within your dreams?”
(I want to say ‘the victim’, but I don’t.)
“Omnipresent.”
“And male or female?”
“I don’t see.”
“Any suicidal tendencies?”
“Nothing unusual. I saw a counsellor, it’s all in my notes and over with.”
And so on.
This stream of banal, sometimes cryptic, often probing questions, will determine the course of the rest of my life. In the end I “perform” so well that I achieve the referral and more: a fast track to a new clinic, with treatment as good as guaranteed in 3 months. The gatekeeper has been defeated. Apparently, the land of maleness is mine for the exploration, chatting-up, styling, drawing, eating, sucking, dressing, drinking, writing, injecting, rubbing, wanking, fucking, and taking. And the clothes. I’ll be able to wear a pair of trousers on hips that aren’t just-too-wide, and a suit tailored to fit a new figure – simple pleasures hard won. Why choose soft curves when you can have hard lines? I know which I find easier to follow. But I digress.
“What do you know about the surgical options?” Doctor Jiff asks.
“First you have to ‘live the life’ for 2 years.”
“Yes that’s right, how long’s it been for you now?”
“2 months. Facebook proves it.”
“Good. And what were you considering?”
“Phalloplasty looks generally crap. I want top-surgery though.”
“Yes. The success rates for breast reduction and removal are excellent. How big are your boobs?”
(I can’t describe the impact of words like ‘boobs’ leaving this man’s lips.)
“Small.”
“Well it will be a question of finding the right surgeon, but I can help you.”
“Thanks.”
“Phalloplasty, though, is a tricky one. In 2 years time when you’re eligible, things may have changed completely, but at the moment it’s a poor sport. What you really want is to be able to feel and to experience, which as things stand in the field is not particularly attainable, so unless you suddenly become desperate for a penis, it’s worth avoiding for now. I mean, can you have a really good orgasm with what you’ve got?”
“…Yes.”
“Then that’s good, and anyway, there are things you can do with a strap-on, especially anally, that just can’t be done by natural men.”
(It’s only after I leave the room that it occurs to me to laugh and laugh.)
The question of my sexuality is only mentioned in passing. I have heard several, interesting viewpoints on it. My good friend L___ was rather surprised when I suggested that there was any problem. “But 80% of the female population are straight,” he argued, “So surely 80% of transmen are gay? It’s just logic.” I thanked him for this excellent piece of reasoning.
Others, however, have been less supportive. The first psychiatrist I saw to try and obtain a referral was quite obstinate in her belief that a transman couldn’t possibly be gay, because all transmen must surely be lesbians who just couldn’t face up to their sexuality. “I like anal sex,” I told her, just for the hell of it. She didn’t appreciate that. Of course, there lies another minefield of debate: my under-eighteens counsellor pointed out that with my total lack of sexual experience of any kind, how could I possibly know what I was attracted to? This, to me, seems like a rather foolish question, and leads me to assert a rather controversial fact:
Nobody knows a person as well as they know themself.
That point made, it is interesting to note the breadth of reactions that a trans or gender dysphoric person may receive in their exploration of this idea. Imagine meeting someone you have known since infancy for coffee. The two of you make small talk and enjoy each other’s company, then out of the blue, your friend tells you that they have to say something important: they are not really brunette at all, they are actually blonde. To the evidence of your own eyes, this is ridiculous, and you say so. No, they explain, the brown is dye. I’ve been covering this up for my whole life.
Of course, hair colour is a somewhat less mind-bending issue than gender, but the premise is similar. Imagine the same conversation, but instead your friend reveals that they are homosexual. This is slightly more controversial. To someone like me it doesn’t matter at all, but of course to many people, this is a genuinely world-altering piece of information. Now, imagine your friend putting down their coffee cup, and telling you that they are actually the opposite gender.
Imagine walking away with that information in your mind.
Surely you know them better than that? Don’t you?
If you need to stick a label on them to understand them, do you really know them at all?
Stonewall and its representatives have been taking increasingly bizarre decisions in recent months. I recently wrote about the furore caused by Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill’s surprising comments at the Liberal Democrat party conference, where he argued against campaigning for equal marriage. Since then, a number of heated exchanges have taken place between the organisation and its critics: a good summary of some of these can be found in the Why the silence Stonewall? blog. Meanwhile, the charity’s attitude towards trans issues has been questioned once again after the organisation nominated a transphobic journalist for its Journalist of the Year award (hmmm, this sounds familiar), whilst at the Labour Party conference Summerskill claimed that Stonewall has been in talks with ministers and officials about potential amendments to the Gender Recognition Act in relation to civil partnership.
This last point is particularly strange. Why are Stonewall – an organisation who are so very keen to exclude trans people and remain LGb only – involved in trans lobbying? Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of any move towards Stonewall becoming an LGBT organisation at the very least (more on that later), but surely if they’re engaging in this kind of deeply important, high-profile lobbying on our behalf then they should damn well let us be a part of their organisation and officially campaign on our behalf. Otherwise, who knows what the heck they’re saying? For that matter, what right do they have to speak for us? Shouldn’t we be able to speak for ourselves?
It may well be the case that the “large” trans organisations (which, in the broad scheme of the third sector, really are very small) don’t have the power to push a trans-positive agenda on the scale they’d like to and have somehow managed to rope Stonewall into helping us out. For me, this is a perfect argument in favour of a united LGBT alliance, rather than separate groups where the LGb inevitably gets the power and the T ends up left out in the cold, despite our ultimately similar interests.
This brings me nicely onto the main subject of this blog: another instance of Stonewall deciding that they’re going to speak out about trans issues. On this occasion, they demonstrate how attempting to speak for someone else can backfire magnificently.
Earlier this year, Stonewall sent out a copy of “Fit” to every school in Britain as part of a wider campaign to tackle homophobic bullying in schools. On the whole, the DVD – like the rest of the campaign – is admirable in its aims, scope, and general thoughtfulness. This is something which they’ve (almost!) done really well. However, for some incomprehensible reason the people who put together the DVD decided that it would be appropriate to include a brief discussion of trans issues.
The main content of the DVD consists of a story about sexuality, identity and bullying, involving a fairly large cast of teenagers who attend a 6th form college. This central narrative is split into a number of smaller stories, each focusing based around a particular character; the brief discussion of trans issues takes part within one such story. In this scene, Lee – a tomboy who has previously discovered that her best friend is gay after following her – attends a gay youth group for the first time. Whilst she is there, the following discussion takes place:
Male 1 [is talking about his mother]: “She keeps saying: ‘but you don’t look gay’. I think that she wishes I was a tranny, so then we could be girlfriends.”
[group laughs]
Lee: “What’s a tranny?”
Female 1: “It’s short for transgender.”
Female 2: “I know this one! Transsexuals are people who want a sex change, tranvestites are people who dress up as the opposite sex. Drag kings and queens – well they dress up for a living!”
[group applauds]
Lee: [looks confused] “I need to take some notes, has anyone got a pen like?”
[Lee is given a pen]
Lee: “So what’s a transsexual?”
Female 3: “Boys who feel more like girls and girls who feel more like boys.”
Lee: “Transvestite?”
Female 3: “Well, they feel content with their born gender, but prefer to wear the clothes of the opposite sex.”
Lee: “So am I a transvestite?”
Female 2: “No. Lots of girls are tomboys when they’re young, then they grow out of it.”
Female 4: “I didn’t! I’m a total boy and I love it!”
Female 2: “…and I’m not a boy, I like being a girl.”
Female 4: “…and that’s fine too! Look, there’s as many way to be a girl as there are girls.”
[The conversation then turns to the issue of gay marriage. The group seems to be broadly in favour, and they think civil partnerships are an unfair compromise.]
[Edit: the inappropriate scene can now be seen here on Youtube]
In a different context – let’s say a random TV drama – this scene would make me cringe a bit but I wouldn’t think much more of it. After all, general cluelessness about trans stuff is pretty much par for course, and in the broad scheme of things this particular instance isn’t so bad. Within the context of a DVD that seeks to tackle homophobic bullying, however, this is completely out of order.
“Fit” handles homophobic insults and the common negative use of words such as “gay” in a pretty nuanced manner, putting all kinds of nasty language into its characters’ mouths and then carefully demonstrating how this impacts the beliefs and actions of others. At the same time, you learn how gay teenagers might think and feel through empathasising with gay characters.
By contrast, the tokenistic discussion of trans issues takes place in a setting where there are apparently no trans characters (Lee remains a tomboy of sorts throughout the narrative and her sexuality is somewhat ambiguous, but at no point is it seriously implied that she identifies as trans in any way because of this). We are portrayed as an alien “Other”, a topic of discussion which cis characters claim they know all about even though they get it wrong. And no-one addresses these mistakes at any point.
To the trans reader, said mistakes may be pretty obvious, but this might not necessarily be the case for cis readers. As such, here’s a brief low-down of some of the issues:
1) “Tranny” is very much a contested word. It’s commonly used as an insult by tabloid newspapers, idiotic bloggers and random arseholes on the street: as such it has a similar sting to words such as “faggot”. It’s a word with a lot of power to cause pain: something that simply isn’t acknowledged when a character in “Fit” blithely asserts that it’s “short for transgender”. Which it isn’t, anyway…it can be levelled at pretty much any given trans (or trans-looking) target, although transfeminine individuals tend to suffer from this most commonly. There are trans people who reclaim “tranny” as a positive identity. I personally support this, although I wouldn’t do so myself. However, I think it’s always important to be very aware of context when such words are used. Putting them randomly in the mouths of cis characters in this way is pretty damn inappropriate.
2) “Fit” demonstrates the complexity of sexual identity, showing how gay (and straight!) people all look different, act differently and have different interests. It even acknowledges (a little) that bisexuality exists, which has to be some kind of achievement for Stonewall. However, the brief descriptions of trans identities are incomplete, insufficient and somewhat inaccurate (try telling a trans guy that he’s a girl who feels like a boy and he’ll probably tell you to where to go). Moreover, these descriptions are binary-centric and fail to account for the further complexity of transness.
3) Where are the trans characters? As previously explained, this discussion pretty much consists of cis people talking about trans people…in complete contrast to the rest of the DVD, which is all about allowing the voices of gay people to be heard and their experiences to be seen.
I’m very much in favour of Stonewall becoming an LGBT organisation. LGBT people have many differences (and that doesn’t just refer to trans people being different to everyone else: gay men and gay women have some different issues, bi people have different issues again…) but there is a lot that brings us together. We have a shared history, and broadly shared experiences of discrimination and “coming out”. Looking at some of the other materials from Stonewall’s anti-bullying kit, I saw how easy it would have been to build in trans issues. Like gay children, trans children in schools are often bullied for appearing to subvert gender norms, are likely to feel isolated and alone and have difficulty explaining their identity to others when seeking help. Gay, bisexual and trans issues in school really are often quite similar, and we’d surely be better off pooling our knowledge and expertise to work on resources such as that produced by Stonewall rather than having separate LGB and T packs (on those very rare occasions where a trans organisation can afford to produce such a pack, that is).
What I’m certainly not in favour of is the kind of nonsense found in “Fit”. What gives Stonewall the right to exclude trans people from their organisation and then turn around and decide that they’re going to campaign ineffectively and inappropriate on our behalf, without our input?
As such, I’ll be demonstrating against Stonewall duplicity in London on 4th November. If you’re free and can make it to the protest, I hope you might be able to do so too.
(demo link for those who don’t use Facebook)
This post is part one of my response to misha the Duck of Doom, who commented on this post.
In the United Kingdom we’re pretty lucky: we’re able to change our names for free, as long as it’s not being done to commit fraud. I believe this is not merely a privilege that we’re fortunate enough to have though; it’s an important right.
This applies to anyone who wants to change their name, but is particularly important for many trans people because of the sheer importance a name can have. A name denotes identity, is usually tied to a particular gender role and accompanying gender expectations, and tends to carry a fair amount of personal history with it. No wonder then that a name change can be a key moment for those who transition. A free name change means that everyone has equal access to this right, regardless of age and financial status.
There are several means of changing your name under UK law, but the most simple is to simply announce to the world that you’ve changed your name. You don’t actually need to do anything other than this. It might help, however, to sign a piece of paper as evidence of your doing so. Maybe you could also get someone else to witness it, perhaps a solicitor. This tends to help with getting organisations such as banks, educational institutions and the Inland Revenue to recognise your name change: hence the existence of deed polls and statutory declarations.
Solicitors – and various websites – can charge a pretty penny for preparing your statutory declaration or deed poll. The amount they might ask you for varies, although as a general rule I note that the more fancy-looking the document is, the more it costs. What baffles me is that these individuals and organisations are getting away with this when you can easily make your own document for free. There are some organisations trying to make money from this through advertising, whilst other pages make them available simply out of a desire to help others. My own (free) deed poll was emailed to me by a particularly helpful individual working for the university I was applying for a few years back. I’ve used it to change my details with pretty much every organisation which will ever need to use my name, including the NHS, a Student Union and the Job Centre.
Of course, not everyone who charges for evidence of a name change charges a lot. misha the Duck of Doom suggests:
“Go to a solicitor who swears oaths.
They have the uk courts authority to swear in
a Stat Dec name change.
When doing this, they are recognised as an agent of the court.
It costs £5 IIRC
plus £2 per stamped copy. You need about 15 copies for tax, council, education certificates, utility companies
so they change your name & sex.”
This looks relatively reasonable and not too pricey. I have three major problems with this option though:
1) “Affordable” can be two very different things to different people. The above suggestion actually costs £35 (£5, plus £2 multiplied by 15 is £35). That’s a fair amount of money if you’re a teenager, a student, on minimum wage, unemployed or permanently on incapacity benefit. Of course, many solicitors would provide you with a number of copies for no additional charge, and I’d suggest you could save a lot of that money by creating photocopies and using a stamped, self-addressed envelope when you do need to provide the original, but you’re still spending money. £5 can go a long way towards other things when you’re a teenager, and has to go a long way if you’re on benefits or minimum wage. I can make several days worth of meals on £5. Sure, even the poorest can fork out for this, but would prefer spend money on better things if it’s possible to do so.
2) Trans people are more likely than the general population to have anxiety issues or problems interacting with other people. Transition has given nerves of steel to many of us (and huge amounts of confidence when things are going well), but this doesn’t apply to all. Dealing with this kind of thing via a solicitor or courts could waste a lot of spoons. In this instance, self-created evidence of a name change is clearly preferable.
3) There’s an issue of principle! Regardless of money and spoons, why should we have to spend money on evidence of a name change when, legally speaking, we don’t have to?
This is why it particularly gets my back up when a Gender Clinic decides that it’s above free deed polls, and demands that they’re witnessed by a solicitor. It’s also bizarre that they accepted a free deed poll from a trans woman and then decided to later reject the very same document. I’m glad that Charing Cross no longer seem to be doing this – and in fact have apparently written a new policy to ensure that it doesn’t happen again – but it’s quite telling that they don’t seem to have made this new policy public at all.
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.
Dr Ruth Pearce 