This morning I saw three short video's that made my day and I just had to share them with you. - Just follow the link to my other Blog and enjoy.
Glad to be Out4Marriage
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Christian Bigots and Gay Marriage
 |
| Cardinal O'Brien opposes same sex marriage proposals |
I cannot help but feel angry at the constant bigotry from Church leaders over the issue of same sex marriage, the latest being the decision by the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland to withdraw from discussions on the topic - an action that is being interpreted as public snub to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmon
I understand that some church leaders have strongly homophobic and transphobic beliefs, founded on tenuous interpretations of a small number of biblical references. But the difficulty I have is with Churches claiming that they own the concept of marriage.
When my daughter married in a civil ceremony she asked me to read something at the ceremony. I decided to read the passage from Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet on marriage and that text contained the word God. Because the word God was mentioned I had to submit the reading to the registrar to seek permission to read it. Once they had assured themselves that the piece was in no way a religious reading it was allowed.
The proposals for same sex marriage do not require any church organisation to agree to conduct ceremonies so the Government is still allowing them to openly discriminate within their church. There are some more enlightened churches that are happy to accept lesbian, gay and trans members and to marry them although regrettably the UK proposals at present will apparently not allow them to conduct same sex marriage even though they will continue to be able to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.
Cardinal O'Brien wants to hold a referendum on the topic. In my view that is seriously flawed. How is it possible to secure an unbiased vote when the church leaders declare that homosexuality is a sin and are allowed, despite equality legislation, to continue to express that view most forcefully?
I think the Scottish government are to be applauded for steadfastly refusing to go down this route and for moving forward with the same sex marriage proposals which will end the stupidity of couples, where one partner changes gender, from having to divorce before they are allowed to change gender.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
First Transgender e-Bulletin from Lynn Featherstone
Lynn Featherstone, a LibDem MP is the current Minister for Equalities in the coalition government, While an oppositoin MP Lynn had always been a great champion of Trans Rights, regularly promoting bills and amendments on behalf of the Trans Community, so iit is not surprising that we are now seeing a very positive approach to trans rights.
The first Transgender eBulletin was published this month including a link to a Transgender Survey which I do strongly encourage you to complete if you are trans or if you work with trans people. As far as I am aware this is the first government run survey, although Press for Change conducted a huge survey as part of the 2007 Discrimination Law Review and the Scottish Transgender Alliance have undertaken some recent research in regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty.
This latest survey is very comprehensive and is a real opportunity to feedback to government the state of play in supporting trans people, especially in regard to medical treatment which frankly leaves a lot to be desired.
I am helping Claire Eastwood from Trans Yorkshire who is actively campaigning to make sure that the new Health Bill specifically includes provision to allow trans people to have choice when it comes to surgery. At present Leeds GIC is offering only access to Tim Terry as a surgeon, and any choice is then subject to an exceptional treatment appeal to the PCT.
Charing Cross appears not to accept patients from outside their "catchment", so the only way to access Phil Thomas and James Bellringer is to go privately. This is where the system get stupid. The cost of using Phil Thomas privately is cheaper than going through the NHS, yet PCTs are refusing because it is private treatment, even though the surgeons are the primary NHS surgeons in the south.
We have a meeting with my MP, Diana Johnson in May to try to get her support for an amendment to the Health Bill to make choice a statutory requirement. In the meantime the Government Equalities Office survey is another very useful means of influencing government and given Lynn Featherstone's history of support for trans issues, I am hopeful that she will respond poisitively to the results of this survey.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Summing up 2010
It’s probably a mixed blessing to say that this year has been another year of new experiences. Some of those experiences have been real learning experiences but when I back look at the outcomes, 2010 has been a year of amazing of progress.
In June 2010 GenderShift managed to secure over £250,000 in funding from the Department of Health to create the UK’s first single point of access centre for Gender Variant people. We opened in September and have been overwhelmed by the response from people of all ages struggling with their gender identity and sexual orientation. We have also see a huge increase in friends, family and employers seeking help. Our challenge now is to fund the running of the centre because our training revenues and access to general funding have been severely impacted by swinging public sector cuts.
This year has seen further sweeping changes in UK Equalities Law with the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 and brings new protections around Associated and Perceived discrimination while equalising the treatment of all people with “protected characteristics”. In response to this, and in preparation for the introduction of the Public Sector Equality Duty in April 2011, GenderShift has enhanced it's range of training seminars, workshops and presentations.
With so much pressure on the bottom line it is very tempting for organisations to apply cuts to soft targets like training, and equality and diversity training has definitely suffered. Unfortunately it is at times like these that people with protected characteristics are most vulnerable and it is really important for all socially responsible organisations to make sure that changes are fair to all staff, customers and service users.
That will be the theme of my Keynote Presentation, Seminars, Workshops and Consultation services. If you would like to discuss how GenderShift can help you, especially in relation to Sex, Gender and the Equality Act – don’t hesitate to contact me.
In June 2010 GenderShift managed to secure over £250,000 in funding from the Department of Health to create the UK’s first single point of access centre for Gender Variant people. We opened in September and have been overwhelmed by the response from people of all ages struggling with their gender identity and sexual orientation. We have also see a huge increase in friends, family and employers seeking help. Our challenge now is to fund the running of the centre because our training revenues and access to general funding have been severely impacted by swinging public sector cuts.
This year has seen further sweeping changes in UK Equalities Law with the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 and brings new protections around Associated and Perceived discrimination while equalising the treatment of all people with “protected characteristics”. In response to this, and in preparation for the introduction of the Public Sector Equality Duty in April 2011, GenderShift has enhanced it's range of training seminars, workshops and presentations.
With so much pressure on the bottom line it is very tempting for organisations to apply cuts to soft targets like training, and equality and diversity training has definitely suffered. Unfortunately it is at times like these that people with protected characteristics are most vulnerable and it is really important for all socially responsible organisations to make sure that changes are fair to all staff, customers and service users.
That will be the theme of my Keynote Presentation, Seminars, Workshops and Consultation services. If you would like to discuss how GenderShift can help you, especially in relation to Sex, Gender and the Equality Act – don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Hollyoaks actress Victoria Atkin to open new GenderShift Centre
Actress Victoria Atkin, who plays Jasmine/Jason Costello a young female to male transsexual character in Hollyoaks, will be in Hull on Sunday 5th September at 2.00pm to open an innovative new support centre for trans and gender variant people. Funded by a £262,000 grant from the Social Investment Business, the GenderShift Centre is the UK’s first single point of access support centre for people facing gender identity and sexual orientation issues.
GenderShift successfully applied to the Social Enterprise Investment Fund in December 2009 and was awarded the money in June this year, beating off competition from thousands of organisations from around the country. "This is an exciting time for us" says Rikki Arundel, founder and director of GenderShift. "Many support services for lesbian, gay and bisexual people focus on sexual health, while support for trans people is often about gender reassignment surgery. We will provide a much broader service."
“We are delighted that Victoria has agreed to open the new centre on Sunday,” says Rikki. “She is playing a very challenging role in Hollyoaks which is bringing much needed public attention to the difficulties faced by people with gender identity issues.” The GenderShift Centre is located at 44 Portland Street in Hull will offer services including in-house counselling, social care, education, befriending, advice, advocacy, sexual health support, volunteering, work placements, social events, movie nights, internet cafe, campaigning, training and meeting space.
The centre will be available to everyone, but especially those needing help and support with gender and sexuality issues, including family, friends, employers and other support agencies. "People will be able to drop in or phone our national help line on 08000 193 195," explains Rikki. "We want to make our facilities as accessible as possible."
The Department of Health who funded the scheme, awarded the grant as part of a £25m budget to fund new and innovative approaches to tackling health issues. They were particularly impressed with the idea of creating a single point of access centre which provides support and advice to anyone dealing with gender identity or sexual orientation issues.
Founded in 2001, GenderShift began tackling atypical gender issues when founding director Rikki Arundel, also founder of the Professional Speakers Association, changed her gender and became 'unemployable'. She set up the organisation to deliver trans awareness training aimed primarily at public sector organisations and now has over 100 leading organisations as clients.
As GenderShift has become more widely known, a growing number of trans people and their friends, families and other support agencies have sought advice support. "We realised that as well as changing attitudes we needed to help people to cope with living with gender and sexuality issues," says Michelle Pindar, also a Director at GenderShift. "We do what we can to change attitudes so that we are more accepted, but trans people are often very isolated. Now we can help to tackle the isolation as well."
Monday, April 05, 2010
Are Christians Being Persecuted
I am not sure if anyone saw the programme on BBC last night, but it seems that a number of Christians believe they are being persecuted and marginalised - especially by the provisions of the soon to be Equality Act 2010.
It's interesting that, following a millennium of persecuting others, they are finally having to face up to the repercussions of that history.
Having watch the programme on BBC last night and on iPlayer today it seems that there are three primary complaints
1. Christian festivals like Christmas and Easter are being taken over by non Christians and renamed. Oddly the presenters of the programme seem to have forgotten that both of those festivals were originally pagan festivals that were hijacked by Christians in order to suppress pagan religions.
2. There is concern over the number of incidents where Christians have recently been penalised for practising their faith publicly or wearing symbols of their faith. Interestingly they seem to ignore the fact that Christians, more than any other faith, have persecuted people who are Lesbian, Gay, Trans, Witches, Pagans and Muslims, to name a few, for practising their lifestyle choices publicly and have for centuries imposed their beliefs on others, often with lethal consequences.
3. Most concern seems to be over the implications of the Equality Act 2010 the provision of which mean that Christians, and everyone else, will be prohibited from discriminating against and persecuting others. Well about time is all I can say.
We live in an increasingly secular state where we have, as a society, decided that allowing one group of people the right to discriminate against another group is unacceptable. It is going to take a while for us to work out in practice what is now being embodied in law, but it really is about time.
On our Trans Awareness workshops we have been slowly modifying the content to reflect the changes that are taking place in equalities law, but more importantly I have been doing a lot of research into the history of homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic discrimination.
The history of misogyny goes back at least to the time of the ancient Greeks. Active campaigning by women over the past century has finally brought us to the point were the law operates in favour of removing discrimination. Yet 40 years after the Equal Pay Act and we discover that in the financial services industry the average pay of men is still 122% higher than the average pay of women. The health sector is not far behind this. Why? well perhaps because we still assume that women do not need as much money as men and that they are less important. And whilst some churches will now ordain women, few allow them to become become bishops and leaders.
But the mistreatment of women is nothing when compared to the way in which homosexual men and trans women have and often still are treated. Still I have people on our workshops arguing that homosexuality is a sin - fundamentally forbidden by god. Yet the references in the bible are few and mostly unclear.
When I looked at the history of the bible it is interesting that the "authorised edition" of the Bible was published in 1611 during the reign James VI. At that time James was encouraging bishops to preach against cross dressing, especially by women and homosexuality or more especially Buggery, was a capital offence. Homosexuality remained a capital offence until 1861 and remained illegal until 1967. There is nothing in the gospels against homosexuality, and often the arguments I hear are based on interpretation of the bible - eg "god made adam and eve - man and woman - therefore homosexuality is a sin"
Yet when we look at nature we see all manner of sexual practices naturally occurring. Of course in biblical times a woman was stoned to death for adultery and we do not do that now because we have moved on. All religious doctrines need to be constantly reassessed against the changing moral codes of current society and that is not happening with homosexuality.
When I talk to Christians about their objection to gay and trans people it becomes clear that the objection is entirely about sexual practice, yet far more heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse than same sex couples, and of course same sex couples do far more in their lives than just engage in sexual practices.
I think arguments in last nights programme will rage for a while yet and it will be interesting to see how the Equality Act 2010 works in practice, especially if, as currently predicted, we end up with a Conservative government having to implement an important plank of Labour legislation. Interesting times ahead but one thing is now certain - the Equality Act is going to come into law and we are all going to have to learn how to live with each other and reconcile our differences.
Monday, January 25, 2010
News of the world - "I'm 16 and want sex change"
Once again the media circus has lost its way with understanding trans people, this time with a 16 year old trans girl from Hull who has prompted angry comments following revelations in the News of the World that she may become the youngest person to undergo gender reassignment in the world. In fact this is probably not true.
Ria has been referred to the Tavistock Clinic in London for assessment. Once it is determined that she definitely is transsexual she will be prescribed hormone treatments to suppress the male hormones and then cross gender hormones to feminise her body. At some time after two years of assessment she may then be referred for gender reassignment surgery by which time she will be 18.
The first I knew of the story was a phone call from Radio Humberside asking if I would like to comment on the Peter Levy show. Interestingly I had had a conversation with one of Ria’s school friends just last week when I discovered that she had been the subject of an article in Closer Magazine. I have been aware of Ria for a couple of years and colleagues from GenderShift have provided some support from time to time.
At the interview the first challenge was over how she was to be referred. Because the New of the World article had referred to her as ‘Bradley’ and used male pronouns throughout, Peter insisted on doing the same to avoid confusing everyone. I agreed because I was not sure how she wanted to present herself. Had I spotted the video on the News of the World Site earlier I would have known that this was wrong.
Ria clearly identifies as female in the video, uses a female name and pronouns and her mother refers to her as female. The newspapers should have respected that and used pronouns appropriate to her present gender expression. I don’t know if she has changed her name legally – but I suspect so.
Apart from this – two regular issues came up in both the Radio Humberside Interview and the Newspaper articles. The first was “How can someone of 16 know their own mind” and “How can it be justified for the NHS to pay £10,000 for this surgery when there are people who are really ill”.
Well Ria knew she was confused about her gender at age 5 – she told her mum at 12 and has received lots of support – she has been dealing with this issue and the resulting bullying and hostility for 10 years. She has learned to survive on some of the toughest sink estates in the country where the pressure to conform has been immense – yet despite that she is undeterred. I think she knows her own mind. Also she will undergo a minimum of 2 years of assessment and support to help her make sure that this is the right decision. The NHS are paranoid about making a mistake.
On the cost - gender reassignment is the internationally agreed best solution to gender dysphoria. The consequences of not providing this treatment are years of mental health counselling and the very high risk of suicide, self harm and other forms of abuse. This is a treatable condition originating during fetal development and we know what treatment works. Many of the serious illnesses being cited in the media are avoidable, like cancer caused by smoking or heart conditions caused by obesity. We have a health service for everyone and that means we should not discriminate just because a condition only applies to a small community of people.
The good thing is that we are seeing more and more trans children coming out and being supported by parents. What is needed now is better education in schools and for the media to get the pronoun thing – at the moment the tone of articles and their instance in using incorrect pronouns is encouraging transphobia.
At GenderShift we have recently been joined by a counsellor who will be enabling us to provide an extended range of services to support our workshops and drop in services, and start to provide a local first point of call for trans people and their families. I will blog about this later in the week.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Channel 4 response to my complaint about "AGE 8 AND WANTING A SEX CHANGE"
Following the Channel 4 Programme last week I wrote a complaint about the misuse of pronouns along the lines of my blog post below. I have today received a response which has actually made me more angry than the original programme. I have responded to them and both their letter and my response are published below (together with their email address if you would like to also respond to them)
Thank you for contacting us regarding the programme AGE 8 AND WANTING A SEX CHANGE. The Commissioning Editor responsible for the programme has provided the following response for those viewers who wrote in connection with the programme and, in particular, the narrator's use of personal pronouns:
" Thank you to everyone that has contacted Channel 4 to share their views on AGE 8 AND WANTING A SEX CHANGE. The film has aroused a great deal of comment, almost all of it favourable, but I am sincerely sorry to hear that some members of the transgender community were upset by our use of biologically-accurate pronouns in the narration of the programme.
It's important to remember that the majority of our audience will have had little or no understanding of transgender issues. The decision to use the pronouns we did was based on our responsibility to make the programme comprehensible to a mainstream audience.
As many viewers have pointed out, the parents featured in our programme always referred to their child by their "preferred" gender. We were happy that this made it absolutely clear that each family had accepted and were extremely supportive of their child's decision.
I hope you'll agree that AGE 8 AND WANTING SEX CHANGE was a story worth telling, and a story worth telling to as many people as possible, even at the risk of causing some dissatisfaction amongst those who understand the subject well already."
We hope the above explains the reasoning behind this decision and would like to assure you that your complaint has been logged and seen by those responsible for the programme.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.
Regards,
Jessicka Burton
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
As the email was signed off by both Jane and Jessicka I am not sure who wrote it - so I have to make a point used an inappropriate, but technically correct, salutation. My Response is as follows - and for once I have not taken time to reflect on it - I want my anger to be conveyed.
Dear "Sir"
I am sorry but this response is utter "bullshit." The pronouns were socially inaccurate, insulting and demeaning, especially given the comments about pronouns in the programme by the parents.
I read the responses on your web site - which incidentally did not include mine - and from my quick calculation about 80% of the responses were negative about the pronouns. Bearing in mind mine was not positive and was not published I suspect that there was an overwhelming negative response on this issue.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the audience had little or no understanding of the subject means that it was all the more important for you to take the socially responsible position of informing them of the "correct" use of pronouns. Your response simply confirms that your producers either did not bother to research the issue effectively, or that they made a conscious decision stir up transphobic feelings.
If you check with the guidelines issues by the Equality and Human Rights Commission you will discover that persistent use of incorrect pronouns, ie pronouns that fail to reflect a persons acquired, or, as you put it, preferred gender, is considered to be Harassment. In a workplace this is sufficient grounds for a discrimination case to be successfully brought against a perpetrator.
Yes, AGE 8 AND WANTING A SEX CHANGE was a story worth telling - but you failed to tell it. I have been interviewed on radio a number of times since this programme and I have noticed that on every occasion I am being asked questions about whether a child is old enough to make decisions about their gender. This did not happen before your programme and other transphobic media stories over the past month and I can only surmise that the change of attitude is because of the way your programme misrepresented the facts.
Can I suggest that next time you plan to cover this topic instead of seeking advice from "Sun Readers" and other homophobes and transphobes, you seek advice from gender professionals, of whom there are many, and get your facts straight. The difficulties these children, and later in life adults like myself, face are because producers like you continue to promote outdated homophobic and transphobic attitudes.
I wonder if the next time you read of a young gender variant person taking their own life you will be prepared to bear some of the responsibility for that, because your programme has contributed to the hurtful and discriminatory way in which other children treated then at school by the model of behaviour set by your programme.
Regards
Ms Rikki Arundel MSc (Gender Research)
Director
GenderShift
Edited 27th October 2009 12.30 pm
And here is their response to that:
Dear Rikki,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding BODYSHOCK: Age
8 and Wanting a Sex Change.
We are sorry to read you are disappointed with our previous response. You can be assured all your complaint has been logged and forwarded for the information of those responsible for our programming.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.
Regards,
Lorna Dane
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
Well - thats three people who have been involved. I have called the Equality and Human Rights Commission - and they are sending me some template letters - I will blog later with details of what I have done next and how you may be able to get involved as well.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Channel 4 Bodyshock Documentary - Inciting Transphobia?
I have just finished watching the Channel 4 Bodyshock documentary - “Age 8 and Wanting a Sex Change” and like many of the people who have commented on the Channel 4 web site, I am both shocked and angry by their presentation. (Please follow the links above to see the documentary and the comments.)
Throughout the programme the parents described their children with appropriate pronouns, even making comment about how upsetting and offensive they and their children found it when incorrect pronouns were used. Yet despite this the narrator constantly used birth sex pronouns even when to do so was cringingly and obviously wrong. This is not the first time that this production company has acted so irresponsibly in the presentation of children with gender dysphoria.
But the effect was not just to make the narrator and Channel 4 appear silly, it had far more serious undertones of inciting transphobia. Just three weeks ago the Sun and then the Daily Mail and others reported on children born male bodied in the UK and who had started back to school as girls. The reporting of those stories encouraged such transphobic comment that the police have become involved.
Clearly the use of incorrect pronouns was a conscious policy. As a support organisation for trans people we devote much of our time to helping repair the damage done by a society that treats trans people as “freaks”. Far from helping, this programme has encouraged transphobia by presenting the actions of the supportive parents as questionable and refusing to accept these children, and an adult trans man, in their acquired gender. The way this programme was presented will encourage people to question a parent’s decision in allowing their child to grow up in their preferred gender.
What concerns me is that there was that the decisions of the parents were constantly being questioned and there appeared to be an inference throughout that allowing a child to start the process of gender change before puberty was wrong. Interestingly what was not addressed by the programme was the fact that in the UK hormone blockers are not available for children although on the Channel 4 web site comment is made regarding the current debate about this issue. I therefore suspect that this programme has a far darker objective of positioning public opinion against those who are campaigning for change in line with the current practice in the US, Netherlands and Germany.
Currently parents in the UK have to take their children to Boston in the US where Dr Norman Spack will provide treatment. Many of the trans children who go to him have self harmed or attempted suicide. Not allowing a child to express themselves in the gender they feel themselves to be is known to contribute to significant mental health issues.
I am disappointed that Channel 4 have decided to take what could have been a hugely empowering documentary and used it to present an outdated transphobic message that will probably now do more harm than good.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Media stirs up Transphobic responses to children dealing with gender change
The Sun - Boy, 12, turns into girl
Daily Mail - Boy, 12, turns up for school as a girl after sex swap during the summer holidays
Daily Telegraph - Boy, 12, turns into girl
The Sun - Now boy, 9, is a girl
I have not posted here for a while but the events of the past few days have demanded a comment – and possibly even more action. I think it must have been difficult for anyone to miss the press comment over the past few days about “sex change” children.
As an expert in the field of gender diversity I have been appalled at the manner in which newspapers like the Sun and the Daily Mail have misrepresented the stories in a manner designed to stir up huge levels of transphobic and homophobic hatred. Their coverage of the issue will inevitably cause damage not only to the children in question and their friends and families, but to other children struggling to cope with gender identity and sexuality issues.
In case you have not read any of the news, the story that broke on Friday concerns a 12 year old who has started secondary school as a girl. There is actually only a limited amount of information available because the details are at least being kept anonymous for the child’s protection, which has led to lots of misinformation that I will try to correct in this article.
It appears that the child has always expressed herself in female terms (both the Sun and the Mail refused to refer to this trans girl as female), which is a common characteristic of this condition, however the head master at the child’s previous primary school refused to allow her be addressed as a girl. This is an issue we have had in at least one school in Hull and have had to involve the police to get the school to see reason.
On moving to secondary school her parents and the school have agreed to allow her to start the school as a girl, but it seems that some of her previous school friends recognised her and the bullying started. The school head intervened and held an emergency assembly to explain what had happened and made it clear that the child was to be treated as a girl and that no bullying would be tolerated.
That is such a good message because we know how many schools are not as supportive – however that was not the main thrust of the newpaper articles. It is not clear exactly what happened next but reading three accounts I have surmised that some children told their parents who have objected because their children are “confused”. These parents say they should have been informed first and at some stage homophobic parents have contacted the Sun and the Mail and other papers have picked up on the story – giving it a “Boy 12 has sex change” theme.
The only balanced story was that in the Daily Telegraph, although even that still made misleading and inaccurate comments. The articles have attracted vitriolic homophobic and transphobic comments about how wrong it is to allow a child of this age to have a sex change, including many very negative comments on social network sites some of which could result in criminal prosecutions.
Because of the reaction by homophobic and transphobic parents, the child has had to be withdrawn from school and the family given police protection. And today the Sun has “uncovered” a second story of a 9 year old child who has returned to school as a girl and, fuelled by yesterdays comments, this has now also stirred up a similar homophobic and transphobic response.
So what is the truth:
First – Gender Identity disorder in childhood is a well known and surprisingly common condition. Girls expressing masculinity tends to be less of a story because society accepts “tomboy” behaviour, but effeminate behaviour in boys is far less accepted and we also know that typical gender expression in both boys and girls is the single biggest cause of bullying in and out of schools. Unfortunately whilst a child may simply be expressing gender in a way that is not typical of their sex, society seems to always sexualise it. It is possible that such children will later reveal same sex attraction, most at this early age are not sexually active, just confused by a world that will not accept them as they wish to express themselves.
Second - A child of 12 cannot have gender reassignment surgery. That cannot take place until 18. In the UK even hormone treatment is withheld until after puberty, despite very successful experiences in Europe and the USA in blocking puberty until sufficient psychiatric assessment to determine whether gender reassignment is the best course of action. What can and is done in the UK is to support the child in developing socially in the way that is most comfortable to them. I wish the schools and my parents were as enlightened when I was young. Instead I had to keep this as a deep dark secret living in fear most of my life.
Trying to force a child to live in a gender they are uncomfortable with has been proved to cause considerable psychological damage. However there is very little professional support for children, especially outside of London. The most important part of any treatment is to support a child in living in their acquired gender role. This enables the child to experience life in that new gender and thereby as they grow older enable them to determine if they want to make a permanent and irreversible decision. Very few trans people ever undergo gender reassignment surgery and then change their minds and the assessment process is designed to reduce or eliminate that risk.
Third – Most schools do not seem to want to deal with this issue. The schools in the news this week are to be congratulated for attempting to tackle this difficult issue, but need to be criticised for not including gender identity, and sexual orientation in the school curriculum earlier which would have made the process less of a problem. Children need to understand gender diversity. They will have school friends expressing atypical gender, or with lesbian, gay or trans parents. Until we educate children there will always be bullying. And allowing parents to interfere with this education is not acceptable – that simply perpetuates the homophobia instilled into them through the school system. Making sexuality and gender identity a forbidden topic (which we know to be the case in a large number of faith schools who have a “Blue Book” specifying what can and cannot be discussed) encourages phobic responses. This refusal to address the issues or to stop bullying as a result of atypical gender expression or behaviour sends out a message that homosexuality and transsexuality are wrong, effectively giving permission to the bullies to target "gay" pupils.
BBC Leads on Anti Bullying story
It is interesting that with two days of debate on children changing gender in the papers, one of the lead stories on the BBC news today has been on the lack of effective management of bullying in schools. I hope that the traumatic experiences these trans children and their parents are having to face as a result of the media circus being stirred up will finally lead to the issue of atypical gender bullying being properly addressed. Then perhaps their experiences will have not been for nothing.
Monday, February 02, 2009
LGBT History Month - Stonewall Riots
February is LGBT History Month, and 2009 is the 40th Anniversary of the most significant event in our history, the Stonewall Riots that led to the Gay Liberation Movement and the improved rights we now enjoy.
Friday June 27th 1969 was warm night in Greenwich Village, and New York’s Gay community had been swelled by the many who had come to attend Judy Garland’s funeral. Homosexuality was illegal, as was cross dressing, so few bars admitted openly gay, lesbian and trans customers.The Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street was one that did. It was a small, private, mafia owned club frequented by the gender diverse and homeless – stone butch lesbians, effeminate gays, nellie queens and street fairies (transsexuals, transvestites and drag queens). It was the only gay bar where same sex dancing was permitted and it was packed with over 200 people.
Local ordinances (by-laws) in New York required that men must wear at least three items of male clothing, and the women must wear at least three items of female clothing – failure to do so would result in arrest if a venue was raided, after a humiliating search.
At 1.40 am on June 28th police raided the Stonewall Inn, which was unexpected because the bar had been raided earlier that week. Subsequently it became apparent that the police had intended to shut the bar down permanently. As usual people without ID or cross dressed, including butch lesbians, were lined up and searched, trans people being required to remove all make up. However on this night the trans women and drag queens refused to go into a separate room to have their sex verified, then the men refused to provide ID.
The police decided to arrest them all. Those not arrested were released but did not disperse and remained outside the bar where because of the presence of the police a small crowd had begun to gather. Some of those released played up to the crowd and mocked the police. When the arrested mafia bosses were brought out the crowd jeered and threw coins, then bottles.
A trans woman was seen resisting arrest by hitting the police with her hand bag and a lesbian woman fighting four police officers goaded to crowd to do something. The crowd grew to become a mob of over 500 attacking the police vehicles, and in the confusion some of those arrested escaped. In panic police retreated into the Stonewall Cafe under a hail of bricks, coins and bottles to chants of “Gay Power”. Someone used a broken parking meter to jam the doors shut and lighter fuel was squirted in and lit.
45 minutes later the riot squad arrived to free the trapped police while the mob continued to grow, fires broke out and vehicles were overturned. As police with riot shields tried to disperse the crowd they they found themselves faced with a “kick line” of trans women and drag queens advancing towards and taunting them singing:
An eerie calm had been established by 4 am but further rioting occurred the following night and throughout the week. The police had been publicly humiliated and the world had changed. The years of oppression and harassment were not over, but the gay community now has a new sense of the power of united action and, modelling on the Black Power movement, four months later the Gay Liberation Front was established and gay magazines began to appear.
The police decided to arrest them all. Those not arrested were released but did not disperse and remained outside the bar where because of the presence of the police a small crowd had begun to gather. Some of those released played up to the crowd and mocked the police. When the arrested mafia bosses were brought out the crowd jeered and threw coins, then bottles.
A trans woman was seen resisting arrest by hitting the police with her hand bag and a lesbian woman fighting four police officers goaded to crowd to do something. The crowd grew to become a mob of over 500 attacking the police vehicles, and in the confusion some of those arrested escaped. In panic police retreated into the Stonewall Cafe under a hail of bricks, coins and bottles to chants of “Gay Power”. Someone used a broken parking meter to jam the doors shut and lighter fuel was squirted in and lit.
45 minutes later the riot squad arrived to free the trapped police while the mob continued to grow, fires broke out and vehicles were overturned. As police with riot shields tried to disperse the crowd they they found themselves faced with a “kick line” of trans women and drag queens advancing towards and taunting them singing: We are the Stonewall girls
We wear our hair in curls
We wear no underwear
We show our pubic hair
We wear our dungarees
Above our nelly knees!
An eerie calm had been established by 4 am but further rioting occurred the following night and throughout the week. The police had been publicly humiliated and the world had changed. The years of oppression and harassment were not over, but the gay community now has a new sense of the power of united action and, modelling on the Black Power movement, four months later the Gay Liberation Front was established and gay magazines began to appear.
Two years later in 1970 a march on Christopher Street became the first Gay Pride and the following year Gay Pride events took place to commemorate Stonewall across the US and Europe, including the first London Gay Pride.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
LGB and Trans Exclusion
Why this topic is still one that I need to write and speak about I really do not know but, once again I find myself getting embroiled in debates about trans exclusion that really should have been long ago put to bed.
The reason I get so het up about this issue is that it is an issue of discrimination – cross strand discrimination. In most parts of the UK now, support groups tend to be LGBT. Where they are LGB only – the argument put forward is that sexual orientation is different to gender, and that many trans people, once they transition, identify as heterosexual. In fact many trans people once they have transitioned identify as women, secure gender recognition in their acquired gender and cease to identify as trans. So as heterosexual men or women they are unlikely to want to support in the LGBT community anyway.
When we look at difference, the reality of course is that lesbian issues are as different from gay issues as they are from trans issues – and support groups are often very focused on specific issue within the umbrella of LGBT. I can see the value in separate lesbian, gay and trans support groups but often the smaller interest groups are too small to provide any meaningful level of support or secure funding – and when it comes to tackling the broader issues of discrimination and changing attitudes we need to be working together. Trans women for example face issues of Homophobia because many people refuse to see them as female – including some radical feminists – at the same time many trans women are lesbians.
Trans exclusion is not just an issue with some LGB groups – there are a large number of women’s centres that are open only to “women born women” which in practice means “No Trannys allowed”. Trans men often first identify as lesbian – yet most report that the moment they identify as trans men – they are rejected by many radical lesbian feminists. Whist this has not yet been legally challenged, I am certain that this level of trans exclusion is now illegal – and anyway it is only people who are unable to pass who are excluded.
Surely our ultimate goal is to remove the barriers to acceptance and for us all to be considered equal members of a diverse society, where sexual orientation and gender expression cease to be issues. We still have a lot of work to do before that happens, but it is not sexual orientation that leads to discrimination and harassment, it is the expression of atypical gender which is interpreted as lesbian or gay even if the person is straight.
Rikki Arundel
Pansexual Trans Woman
The reason I get so het up about this issue is that it is an issue of discrimination – cross strand discrimination. In most parts of the UK now, support groups tend to be LGBT. Where they are LGB only – the argument put forward is that sexual orientation is different to gender, and that many trans people, once they transition, identify as heterosexual. In fact many trans people once they have transitioned identify as women, secure gender recognition in their acquired gender and cease to identify as trans. So as heterosexual men or women they are unlikely to want to support in the LGBT community anyway.
When we look at difference, the reality of course is that lesbian issues are as different from gay issues as they are from trans issues – and support groups are often very focused on specific issue within the umbrella of LGBT. I can see the value in separate lesbian, gay and trans support groups but often the smaller interest groups are too small to provide any meaningful level of support or secure funding – and when it comes to tackling the broader issues of discrimination and changing attitudes we need to be working together. Trans women for example face issues of Homophobia because many people refuse to see them as female – including some radical feminists – at the same time many trans women are lesbians.
Trans exclusion is not just an issue with some LGB groups – there are a large number of women’s centres that are open only to “women born women” which in practice means “No Trannys allowed”. Trans men often first identify as lesbian – yet most report that the moment they identify as trans men – they are rejected by many radical lesbian feminists. Whist this has not yet been legally challenged, I am certain that this level of trans exclusion is now illegal – and anyway it is only people who are unable to pass who are excluded.
Surely our ultimate goal is to remove the barriers to acceptance and for us all to be considered equal members of a diverse society, where sexual orientation and gender expression cease to be issues. We still have a lot of work to do before that happens, but it is not sexual orientation that leads to discrimination and harassment, it is the expression of atypical gender which is interpreted as lesbian or gay even if the person is straight.
Rikki Arundel
Pansexual Trans Woman
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Pope Benedict - the Pope of Hate
I am not a fan of Christmas - and after reading the comments made by pope benedick (spelling intentional) I am even more resolved to get any thought of celebrating christianity out of my life.
OK I expect a pope to maintain the catholic church's unfounded discriminatiuon against homosexuality and transsexuality, but what was said on December 22nd went well beyond maintaining a bigoted view - this pope is now entering the realm of "Incitement to Hatred" and ironically at a time when the general christian message is about good will and love.
At GenderShift we spend much of our time helping to repair the damage caused by the behaviour and attitudes of bigoted christians. Don't misunderstand me, my life is strongly influenced by the teachings of Jesus and other great teachers but I do have a problem with the catholic church and evangelical churches in particular who seem to ignore those teachings relying instead on twisted interpretations of poorly translated writings from the distant past.
Just incase you missed the popes comments, he said in his christmas speech on Monday that "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction." and that "[the Church] should protect man from the destruction of himself." He also said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to "understand the intended roles of man and woman" and compared behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work".
Wow! Imaging after that message how devout catholics might respond to their young children this christmas if they express any atypical gender behaviour. This almost makes child abuse "the work of god" if it is now to be seen as "saving the planet from the destruction of God's work." This is also reinforcing gender stereotypes and trying to undo half a century of progress.
Fortunately looking at the comments across the internet, there seems to be little public support for this and there are attempts by church leaders at damage limitation, but with the Single Equality Act due next year, I for one will be lobbying hard to ensure that faith groups generally do not secure any further rights to discriminate against us, and that those they have are removed as soon as possible.
We will of course be on the lookout over christmas for any young people finding themselves homeless or damaged because they live in a home where there are supporters of this dangerous bigot of a pope.
Perhaps pope benedict is the Anti Christ that christians have all been waiting for. We know he had connections to the Nazi's and he now seems to be inciting the ethnic cleansing of gay and transsexual people just as was done by Hitler. Did you know that 15,000 gay and transsexual people were sent to concentration camps and after the liberation the few surviving gay and trans people were then re-imprisoned by the allies because homosexuality was illegal.
You may also not know that all UK LGBT legislation in the past decade has been designed to limit the impact of EU directives and court judgments and provide exemptions to church groups, and that this was largely led by Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly - both staunch catholics.
OK I expect a pope to maintain the catholic church's unfounded discriminatiuon against homosexuality and transsexuality, but what was said on December 22nd went well beyond maintaining a bigoted view - this pope is now entering the realm of "Incitement to Hatred" and ironically at a time when the general christian message is about good will and love.
At GenderShift we spend much of our time helping to repair the damage caused by the behaviour and attitudes of bigoted christians. Don't misunderstand me, my life is strongly influenced by the teachings of Jesus and other great teachers but I do have a problem with the catholic church and evangelical churches in particular who seem to ignore those teachings relying instead on twisted interpretations of poorly translated writings from the distant past.
Just incase you missed the popes comments, he said in his christmas speech on Monday that "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction." and that "[the Church] should protect man from the destruction of himself." He also said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to "understand the intended roles of man and woman" and compared behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work".
Wow! Imaging after that message how devout catholics might respond to their young children this christmas if they express any atypical gender behaviour. This almost makes child abuse "the work of god" if it is now to be seen as "saving the planet from the destruction of God's work." This is also reinforcing gender stereotypes and trying to undo half a century of progress.
Fortunately looking at the comments across the internet, there seems to be little public support for this and there are attempts by church leaders at damage limitation, but with the Single Equality Act due next year, I for one will be lobbying hard to ensure that faith groups generally do not secure any further rights to discriminate against us, and that those they have are removed as soon as possible.
We will of course be on the lookout over christmas for any young people finding themselves homeless or damaged because they live in a home where there are supporters of this dangerous bigot of a pope.
Perhaps pope benedict is the Anti Christ that christians have all been waiting for. We know he had connections to the Nazi's and he now seems to be inciting the ethnic cleansing of gay and transsexual people just as was done by Hitler. Did you know that 15,000 gay and transsexual people were sent to concentration camps and after the liberation the few surviving gay and trans people were then re-imprisoned by the allies because homosexuality was illegal.
You may also not know that all UK LGBT legislation in the past decade has been designed to limit the impact of EU directives and court judgments and provide exemptions to church groups, and that this was largely led by Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly - both staunch catholics.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Landmark Court Ruling for Trans Rights in the USA
I often read comments to the effect that the USA is ten years ahead of the UK, but when it comes to the rights of trans people that situation is reversed. In the UK discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment was made illegal in the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment Regulations) 1999 which has been further strengthened in the Equality Act 2006 by the inclusion of Gender Reassignment in the Gender Equality Duty. And largely the same situation exists across Europe due decisions in the European Courts of Human Rights and Justice.
In the USA the position has been far less clear with a number of state rulings going against trans people and the exclusion of trans people from recent legislation improving the rights of lesbian and gay people. However on Friday all that changed with a landmark ruling in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia in the lawsuit by Diane Schroer against the Library of Congress. There have been rulings in favour of transgender plaintiffs under the federal sex discrimination statute but the first time a court has ruled that "sex" includes "gender identity." It is likely that there will be an appeal, but legal opinion indicates that this ruling may be difficult to overturn.
My in-box has been filled with comment on this case since the judgement was published on Friday, with a near party like atmosphere in the trans community. This is a hugely important case and will have a significant impact on attitudes towards trans people. I was going to comment earlier but have waited for comment from Jillian Weiss, who is probably the leading expert in workplace rights for trans people in the US. Her comment has been well worth the wait and I highly recommend that you read her post which is a comprehensive analysis of the case and impact of the judgement.
Landmark federal decision on transgender employment discrimination: Schroer v. Billington - Analysis from Dr Jillian Weiss
This CNN Interview with Diane Schroer, conducted before the decision, explains the background to the case and why the decision is so important.
In the UK if a public sector employer had offered a job and then withdrawn it on being informed that the applicant was planning to undergo gender reassignment, it would be a clear case of sex discrimination. Interestingly here, as in the USA, it is religious based objection that is often behind resistance to changes in legislation regarding LGBT people. Ironically Judge Jefferson in this case used treatment of religious discrimination to support gender identity discrimination as Jillian Weiss Explains
"[Judge Jefferson] recognizes that the definition of sex is a hotly contested areas, so he changes gears, and says that it is unnecessary to decide what the scientific definition of sex is. Rather, the only question is what the statutory definition of sex is. And since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, national origin, sex and religion, he analogizes the "sex" claim to the "religion" claim. He notes that no court would accept the argument that discrimination based on changing religion is allowed, even though the statute does not explicitly state this. He also notes that race discrimination has not been limited to exclude discrimination based on interracial marriage or interracial friendships.
So those many courts that have accepted a similar argument -- that sex discrimination is limited to exclude changing sex -- are wrong."
I do urge you to read Jillian's Post - Whilst specifically applicable to the USA many of the principles discussed are universal and provide a good understanding of the fundamental principles of equalities law in practice.
In the USA the position has been far less clear with a number of state rulings going against trans people and the exclusion of trans people from recent legislation improving the rights of lesbian and gay people. However on Friday all that changed with a landmark ruling in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia in the lawsuit by Diane Schroer against the Library of Congress. There have been rulings in favour of transgender plaintiffs under the federal sex discrimination statute but the first time a court has ruled that "sex" includes "gender identity." It is likely that there will be an appeal, but legal opinion indicates that this ruling may be difficult to overturn.
My in-box has been filled with comment on this case since the judgement was published on Friday, with a near party like atmosphere in the trans community. This is a hugely important case and will have a significant impact on attitudes towards trans people. I was going to comment earlier but have waited for comment from Jillian Weiss, who is probably the leading expert in workplace rights for trans people in the US. Her comment has been well worth the wait and I highly recommend that you read her post which is a comprehensive analysis of the case and impact of the judgement.
Landmark federal decision on transgender employment discrimination: Schroer v. Billington - Analysis from Dr Jillian Weiss
This CNN Interview with Diane Schroer, conducted before the decision, explains the background to the case and why the decision is so important.
In the UK if a public sector employer had offered a job and then withdrawn it on being informed that the applicant was planning to undergo gender reassignment, it would be a clear case of sex discrimination. Interestingly here, as in the USA, it is religious based objection that is often behind resistance to changes in legislation regarding LGBT people. Ironically Judge Jefferson in this case used treatment of religious discrimination to support gender identity discrimination as Jillian Weiss Explains
"[Judge Jefferson] recognizes that the definition of sex is a hotly contested areas, so he changes gears, and says that it is unnecessary to decide what the scientific definition of sex is. Rather, the only question is what the statutory definition of sex is. And since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, national origin, sex and religion, he analogizes the "sex" claim to the "religion" claim. He notes that no court would accept the argument that discrimination based on changing religion is allowed, even though the statute does not explicitly state this. He also notes that race discrimination has not been limited to exclude discrimination based on interracial marriage or interracial friendships.
So those many courts that have accepted a similar argument -- that sex discrimination is limited to exclude changing sex -- are wrong."
I do urge you to read Jillian's Post - Whilst specifically applicable to the USA many of the principles discussed are universal and provide a good understanding of the fundamental principles of equalities law in practice.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Real Life Test - Is it really necessary?
Stephen Whittle has posted a very interesting article on the Real Life Test or as he more accurately describes it, the Real Life Experience. This is the requirement embedded in medical practice of treating trans patients that we are required to live and work successfully in our intended gender for a period of at least a year - though 2 years in practice, before we an qualify for surgery. Reading Stephens Article, The Real Life Test: to be or not to be, that is the question has challenged my own thinking on this. Should there even be a requirement for "living in role?"
I suppose the difficult questions is whether a trans person should be entitled to surgery even if they are unable to cope with living publicly in their acquired gender. I have come across a small number of trans women who feel they should be entitled to have the right body even if they continue to present a largely male gender. I was recently consulted by a leisure centre faced with a dilemma. A trans woman who presented in their view as male and is preoperative, wanted to use the female open changing facility. They offered her access to a disabled changing facility where she could change in private which she accepted, but she has subsequently returned and asked again to use the female facilities.
Our laws here in the UK permit a trans person to legally change gender without having surgery - and this is often the situation with trans men where surgery is less satisfactory. So if it is OK for a trans man to have a vagina - then surely it is OK for a trans woman to have surgery and still present as a male - especially if it is very difficult to pass. If you are over six foot, with little hair and a very masculine build it is always going to be difficult to pass. But should the reconstruction of our bodies be in anyway linked to the presentation of our gender?
On the other side, of the argument, if it is important for a trans person to be accepted in their correct gender, having surgery is not going to change the way we are treated most of the time. If I do not present a gender expression that other people see as female then I will be treated by many as "different" and will likely be subject to a degree of discrimination even humilliation. We can change all the laws we want - but it will not stop people from treating me inappropriately, just as disability, age, race and other discrimination laws do not stop the issues from happening.
It seems to me that the primary reason for the RLE is to reduce the likelihood of someone suing the medical profession if they change their minds and claim that the doctors were wrong to agree surgery. This has been aggravated by the case of Charles/Samantha Cane. Cane was able to a degree to circumvent the RLE rules because he could afford to. He made a lot of money also from a book and film about his experience then changed his mind, destroyed the career of a leading gender Psychiatrist who was seen to have supported surgery to easily, Fear of litigation is in my view the primary motive for the RLE, although the general social pressure to fix everyone clearly into the gender binary is also a problem.
I have a gender recognition certificate but I am still pre-operative - largely because of the huge waiting lists for surgery but also because I was not in a hurry for surgery - I was more interested in tackling the social challenges and gaining public acceptance as a professional speaker. When I finally got to the gender identity clinic, I was told I wold need to complete two years RLE. When I pointed out that I had already done three years and that my driving license and passport proved that, I was informed that didn't matter I had to do another two years supervised by them. That has now dragged out to three years, mostly because I have not appeared to want it urgently enough which I think they measure by evidence of self harm attempted suicide depression etc.
A friend, who for a variety of good reasons lives in both genders has been refused a referral to the gender identity clinic because she is happy to work as a man (she finds it pointless putting on a wig and make up to do what can be quite mucky manual work work.) Essentially they decided that she would be unable to complete the RLE so refused any treatment.
As I have written this article I have discovered that I really do not have a totally clear view on this myself, but that I am certain that the present policy around the RLE is not right. It is based on a presumption of a sterotypical norm for gender presentation. In order to secure the surgical and hormonal changes that will enable us to reconcile the mismatch between our physical bodies and out gender identity, we are forced to comply with a gender norm, after which we are then free to express ourselves anyway we want. This is exactly what a number of my trans friends have done, settling eventually for a largely androgynous gender presentation, but happy with the sence that they do now have the body they felt they should have been born with.
I think reflecting on this that the real focus should be simply to help trans people to cope with being who they are, not in making them tr to be who society wants them to be. Then perhaps we should be trying to do that for everyone.
Rikki
www.gendershift.com
I suppose the difficult questions is whether a trans person should be entitled to surgery even if they are unable to cope with living publicly in their acquired gender. I have come across a small number of trans women who feel they should be entitled to have the right body even if they continue to present a largely male gender. I was recently consulted by a leisure centre faced with a dilemma. A trans woman who presented in their view as male and is preoperative, wanted to use the female open changing facility. They offered her access to a disabled changing facility where she could change in private which she accepted, but she has subsequently returned and asked again to use the female facilities.
Our laws here in the UK permit a trans person to legally change gender without having surgery - and this is often the situation with trans men where surgery is less satisfactory. So if it is OK for a trans man to have a vagina - then surely it is OK for a trans woman to have surgery and still present as a male - especially if it is very difficult to pass. If you are over six foot, with little hair and a very masculine build it is always going to be difficult to pass. But should the reconstruction of our bodies be in anyway linked to the presentation of our gender?
On the other side, of the argument, if it is important for a trans person to be accepted in their correct gender, having surgery is not going to change the way we are treated most of the time. If I do not present a gender expression that other people see as female then I will be treated by many as "different" and will likely be subject to a degree of discrimination even humilliation. We can change all the laws we want - but it will not stop people from treating me inappropriately, just as disability, age, race and other discrimination laws do not stop the issues from happening.
It seems to me that the primary reason for the RLE is to reduce the likelihood of someone suing the medical profession if they change their minds and claim that the doctors were wrong to agree surgery. This has been aggravated by the case of Charles/Samantha Cane. Cane was able to a degree to circumvent the RLE rules because he could afford to. He made a lot of money also from a book and film about his experience then changed his mind, destroyed the career of a leading gender Psychiatrist who was seen to have supported surgery to easily, Fear of litigation is in my view the primary motive for the RLE, although the general social pressure to fix everyone clearly into the gender binary is also a problem.
I have a gender recognition certificate but I am still pre-operative - largely because of the huge waiting lists for surgery but also because I was not in a hurry for surgery - I was more interested in tackling the social challenges and gaining public acceptance as a professional speaker. When I finally got to the gender identity clinic, I was told I wold need to complete two years RLE. When I pointed out that I had already done three years and that my driving license and passport proved that, I was informed that didn't matter I had to do another two years supervised by them. That has now dragged out to three years, mostly because I have not appeared to want it urgently enough which I think they measure by evidence of self harm attempted suicide depression etc.
A friend, who for a variety of good reasons lives in both genders has been refused a referral to the gender identity clinic because she is happy to work as a man (she finds it pointless putting on a wig and make up to do what can be quite mucky manual work work.) Essentially they decided that she would be unable to complete the RLE so refused any treatment.
As I have written this article I have discovered that I really do not have a totally clear view on this myself, but that I am certain that the present policy around the RLE is not right. It is based on a presumption of a sterotypical norm for gender presentation. In order to secure the surgical and hormonal changes that will enable us to reconcile the mismatch between our physical bodies and out gender identity, we are forced to comply with a gender norm, after which we are then free to express ourselves anyway we want. This is exactly what a number of my trans friends have done, settling eventually for a largely androgynous gender presentation, but happy with the sence that they do now have the body they felt they should have been born with.
I think reflecting on this that the real focus should be simply to help trans people to cope with being who they are, not in making them tr to be who society wants them to be. Then perhaps we should be trying to do that for everyone.
Rikki
www.gendershift.com
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Sex and Power 2008 - Report from EHRC
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission have released their first Sex and Power report for 2008. This report was originally produced annually by the Equal Opportunities Commission and due to the merging of the EOC into the EHRC last October, the 2007 report failed to materialise.
Unfortunately the news from the report is not good showing that fewer women now hold top posts in most of the measured categories than in 2006, and that at the present rate of progress is will be 200 years before women have equal representation in parliament. This is a short video from the Equality and Human Rights Commission discussing the report.
Reading the comments made on the Independent Online site shows that this is still a topic that inflames passionate debate and which draws out strong sexist comments from both men and women. (scroll to the bottom of the Independent article for comments if you follow the link above)
There is no doubt that if there are men in power who believe, as some commentators do, that men are essentially better at leadership than women - then equality will take a long time. Having been in positions of leadership as both a man and as a woman perhaps I can inject a different perspective.
My experience and study suggests not that men are better than women, but that women tend to do leadership differently. Unfortunately because men have monopolised power and leadership for the past few thousand years, there is a tendency to measure leadership by a male model - ie a hierarchical model of command and control.
My studies suggest that women are more inclined to what I would describe as a networked model, where women seek not to be at the top of an organisation but rather at the centre of it. This different approach to leadership which I have attempted to introduce into GenderShift is not easy to work with because of the tendency of competitive people, primarily men in my experience, to try to take over.
Regrettably the EHRC appear to have decided to discontinue what I consider to be a more useful and interesting publication - Facts about Women and Men in Greater Women. This publication now two years old provides detailed statistics about underlying inequality highlighting the real causes of the problem - pay and employment inequality.
However I believe the fundamental cause of the power inequality is that men tend to be more competitive where women tend to be more collaborative. It is for this reason that many women drop out the power struggles in public life to run their own organisations on a more networked and collaborative basis, hence the steady growth of women owning their own businesses.
The difficulty with understanding any of this is that the moment anyone defines gendered behaviour someone will highlight an exception. Which leads us to needing to understand that masculinity and femininity are not necessarily tied to male and female bodies - which every trans person knows.
Rikki
GenderShift
Unfortunately the news from the report is not good showing that fewer women now hold top posts in most of the measured categories than in 2006, and that at the present rate of progress is will be 200 years before women have equal representation in parliament. This is a short video from the Equality and Human Rights Commission discussing the report.
Reading the comments made on the Independent Online site shows that this is still a topic that inflames passionate debate and which draws out strong sexist comments from both men and women. (scroll to the bottom of the Independent article for comments if you follow the link above)
There is no doubt that if there are men in power who believe, as some commentators do, that men are essentially better at leadership than women - then equality will take a long time. Having been in positions of leadership as both a man and as a woman perhaps I can inject a different perspective.
My experience and study suggests not that men are better than women, but that women tend to do leadership differently. Unfortunately because men have monopolised power and leadership for the past few thousand years, there is a tendency to measure leadership by a male model - ie a hierarchical model of command and control.
My studies suggest that women are more inclined to what I would describe as a networked model, where women seek not to be at the top of an organisation but rather at the centre of it. This different approach to leadership which I have attempted to introduce into GenderShift is not easy to work with because of the tendency of competitive people, primarily men in my experience, to try to take over.
Regrettably the EHRC appear to have decided to discontinue what I consider to be a more useful and interesting publication - Facts about Women and Men in Greater Women. This publication now two years old provides detailed statistics about underlying inequality highlighting the real causes of the problem - pay and employment inequality.
However I believe the fundamental cause of the power inequality is that men tend to be more competitive where women tend to be more collaborative. It is for this reason that many women drop out the power struggles in public life to run their own organisations on a more networked and collaborative basis, hence the steady growth of women owning their own businesses.
The difficulty with understanding any of this is that the moment anyone defines gendered behaviour someone will highlight an exception. Which leads us to needing to understand that masculinity and femininity are not necessarily tied to male and female bodies - which every trans person knows.
Rikki
GenderShift
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Treatment of Trans Children - a Mothers Tale
When a young child is gender dysphoric, and therefore feel that they have "a girls brain in a boys body" or visa versa, how does the medical profession react?
The answer in Britain is not very well. The rigid approach by gender experts is to force the child to go through puberty and the consequential irreversible changes in their physical body. The result is untold pain and often suicide.
In the USA and Holland and other parts of the world, hormone blockers are used to suspend puberty to enable the child to reach 16 and then make an adult decision about their future. Stopping the blockers results in normal puberty continuing. Those who are transsexual will be able then to start cross ender hormones and develop in their acquired gender without the problem of then having to undergo difficult cosmetic surgery and cope with having a body which means they will always be identified as trans.
I highly recommend this sensitive interview by Christine Burns with the mother of a young trans girl who has had to go to Holland and the USA to secure the simple treatment to suspend puberty and give her daughter a chance of a near normal life.
What is most striking about this interview is the mothers commitment to supporting her daughters needs often against huge pressure from her ex husband and the medical profession to condemn her daughter to a lifetime of misery .
The answer in Britain is not very well. The rigid approach by gender experts is to force the child to go through puberty and the consequential irreversible changes in their physical body. The result is untold pain and often suicide.
In the USA and Holland and other parts of the world, hormone blockers are used to suspend puberty to enable the child to reach 16 and then make an adult decision about their future. Stopping the blockers results in normal puberty continuing. Those who are transsexual will be able then to start cross ender hormones and develop in their acquired gender without the problem of then having to undergo difficult cosmetic surgery and cope with having a body which means they will always be identified as trans.
I highly recommend this sensitive interview by Christine Burns with the mother of a young trans girl who has had to go to Holland and the USA to secure the simple treatment to suspend puberty and give her daughter a chance of a near normal life.
What is most striking about this interview is the mothers commitment to supporting her daughters needs often against huge pressure from her ex husband and the medical profession to condemn her daughter to a lifetime of misery .
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The Ultimate Price for Atypical Gender
It's not been a good week for gender atypical boys this week.
First the awful news from California that 15 year old Lawrence King had been shot in the head and killed by fellow student, 14 year old Brandon McInerney because he was effeminate.
Read the LA Times Story here
This murder has resulted in a huge outcry from the LGBT community against the hatred and bigotry that encourages anti-LGBT attitudes.
Lori Jean from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center’s Jeff Griffith Youth Center said, "Such hatred and bigotry must be learned. It is learned in families that don’t accept their own children if they’re different than the norm. It is learned in right-wing churches where ministers preach abomination or in schools where teachers and administrators don’t protect LGBT kids from bullying and harassment."
Before you start to protest that "this is America," let me assure you that the same issues exist in the UK, however sexual orientation or gender identity are seldom recorded or questioned when children are stabbed or bullied, yet the same bullying goes on 60% of children grow up in homes where that same same bigotry and hatred exist.
Which is why it is saddening and sickening to read of the suicide last Monday night of Cameron McWilliams a 10 year old boy from Doncaster who wanted to be a girl.
Read the Telegraph article about Cameron McWilliams here
The reports in a number of papers focus on the inquest on Friday where details emerged of a young, somewhat isolated, boy who often wore his sisters underwear to school and as a result had been "teased" by other children.
Surely it is time to realise that teasing is not the right term. Teasing is bullying and it is not appropriate. Until schools start to realise the serious consequences of the targeting of children for gender atypical behaviour or appearance and take firm action against the "teasing", these suicides will continue.
What has also emerged from this inquest is that Cameron was well aware of the recent publicity about the spate of suicides by young people in Bridgend, which may have influenced him. Sadly there have been two more connected suicides by young people this week taking the total to 16 in less than a year.
There is little support for parents or children when it come to atypical gender. If you or someone you know does need any help, Mermaids is an charity for trans youth and provides some excellent information on Gender Identity Issues in Children and Adolescents here.
If the events of the past week act as a catalyst for change there perhaps their young lives will not have been in vain, unfortunately noticing that the anti discrimination legislation due to have been enacted on December 21st has still not been represented to parliament two months later I will not hold my breath. Regrettably I suspect that a few more innocent lives will be lost before the government has the balls to tackle these problems.
Undergoing MyBlogLog Verification
First the awful news from California that 15 year old Lawrence King had been shot in the head and killed by fellow student, 14 year old Brandon McInerney because he was effeminate.
Read the LA Times Story hereThis murder has resulted in a huge outcry from the LGBT community against the hatred and bigotry that encourages anti-LGBT attitudes.
Lori Jean from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center’s Jeff Griffith Youth Center said, "Such hatred and bigotry must be learned. It is learned in families that don’t accept their own children if they’re different than the norm. It is learned in right-wing churches where ministers preach abomination or in schools where teachers and administrators don’t protect LGBT kids from bullying and harassment."
Before you start to protest that "this is America," let me assure you that the same issues exist in the UK, however sexual orientation or gender identity are seldom recorded or questioned when children are stabbed or bullied, yet the same bullying goes on 60% of children grow up in homes where that same same bigotry and hatred exist.
Which is why it is saddening and sickening to read of the suicide last Monday night of Cameron McWilliams a 10 year old boy from Doncaster who wanted to be a girl.
Read the Telegraph article about Cameron McWilliams hereThe reports in a number of papers focus on the inquest on Friday where details emerged of a young, somewhat isolated, boy who often wore his sisters underwear to school and as a result had been "teased" by other children.
Surely it is time to realise that teasing is not the right term. Teasing is bullying and it is not appropriate. Until schools start to realise the serious consequences of the targeting of children for gender atypical behaviour or appearance and take firm action against the "teasing", these suicides will continue.
What has also emerged from this inquest is that Cameron was well aware of the recent publicity about the spate of suicides by young people in Bridgend, which may have influenced him. Sadly there have been two more connected suicides by young people this week taking the total to 16 in less than a year.
There is little support for parents or children when it come to atypical gender. If you or someone you know does need any help, Mermaids is an charity for trans youth and provides some excellent information on Gender Identity Issues in Children and Adolescents here.
If the events of the past week act as a catalyst for change there perhaps their young lives will not have been in vain, unfortunately noticing that the anti discrimination legislation due to have been enacted on December 21st has still not been represented to parliament two months later I will not hold my breath. Regrettably I suspect that a few more innocent lives will be lost before the government has the balls to tackle these problems.
Undergoing MyBlogLog Verification
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Different Treatment for Black Men and Black Women
When I first changed gender, I was quite surprised to discover the different way in which I was treated because I was now perceived to be female. We are all conditioned to treat men and women differently and today my attention was drawn to a fascinating article on the gender differences experienced by black trans men and trans women which are clearly very different from the experiences of white trans men and women.
Becoming a Black Man
I am planning to do a little research on this topic in the Community in Hull and also talk to diversity officers in Humberside police to see whether there are any similarities in the UK. I think the experiences of all the trans people are really important indicators of the way in which gender impacts behaviour.
The fact that as a man, one trans man found that he was stopped while driving in the few months after taking hormones, 300% more than in the previous 23 years as a women is very telling. And
the experiences of a black police officer finding that he would rather shop on-line now because of the intrusive level of suspicion he experienced after transition highlights a serious gender imbalance that needs to be addressed, especially if the experiences in the UK are similar.
Becoming a Black Man
I am planning to do a little research on this topic in the Community in Hull and also talk to diversity officers in Humberside police to see whether there are any similarities in the UK. I think the experiences of all the trans people are really important indicators of the way in which gender impacts behaviour.
The fact that as a man, one trans man found that he was stopped while driving in the few months after taking hormones, 300% more than in the previous 23 years as a women is very telling. And
the experiences of a black police officer finding that he would rather shop on-line now because of the intrusive level of suspicion he experienced after transition highlights a serious gender imbalance that needs to be addressed, especially if the experiences in the UK are similar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)