Just Plain Sense

A Review of the Year - 1996

2011-12-27T15:28:00.001Z

This is the time of year when the media turn out their drawers and rehash their notes to produce reviews of the year just passed.

Rather than recycle 2011, however, I thought it would be much more interesting to dig deep into the archives and see how I viewed things 15 years ago when, as a campaigner for the organisation Press for Change, my colleagues and I were still a full eight years from achieving our primary goal.

The review below appeared on the Press for Change campaign's groundbreaking campaign web site on the evening of December 30th, 1996.

Review of the year

On Friday 27th December 1996 the BBC did something quite extraordinary. Mind you, you'd be forgiven if you missed it ... for it was the very low key nature of the event which made it the more remarkable.

Never an avid television watcher, I must admit that the event wasn't something I'd anticipated either … It was pure chance that I decided to turn on the television in my kitchen to accompany some rather overdue seasonal washing up at 7.30. It was pure coincidence that the set was tuned to BBC2 ... and it was sheer serendipity that meant I caught the name of the presenter of the programme that was just about to begin. Otherwise I suspect I'd have missed the significance of what I was about to see too.

Along with names like April Ashley and Caroline Cossey, Jan Morris is probably one of the best known transsexual names in the world. Her book, Conundrum, first published in 1974, gave the world an intelligently written, even if annoyingly stereotyped, account of what it was like, for her, to be a transsexual woman in the 1960's. An accomplished travel writer and historian, famous first for bringing an on-the-spot account of Edmund Hilary's historic Mount Everest expedition back to the world in 1953, Ms Morris's chintz style of writing isn't everyone's cup of tea. I suspect that it was Jan who gave the world that annoying expression “trapped in the wrong body” too. Mind you, like many who followed in her footsteps, I owe a great deal to her for that book ... the first I read on the subject, and the first opportunity I had, back in 1974, to really begin to understand my own life.

To give credit where it's due though, Jan Morris's most important contribution to transgendered history will be that she has simply got on with her life and treated her condition with a matter-of-factness which invites others to do likewise. As with so many other successful transsexual people, indeed in common with other successfulwomen, the key to her survival has been her very great skill at what she does. And if it's true that a woman has to be far better than a man to get on in this world then it does not take a great deal of imagination to appreciate what it takes for your skills to eclipse the notoriety of being a transsexual woman.

So the remarkable aspect of BBC2's two part personal travelogue, Escaping from Liberty, was not that a transsexual woman was on television ... we've had rather a lot of that this year ... but that it marked, as far as I'm aware, the very first occasion when a transsexual woman was on television to talk about something other than transsexuality.

For Jan Morris's early evening two-part television programme was very firmly in the mainstream. In it she traced the well worn road of so many other travelled writers before her. She was visiting the places that were important and interesting to her ... ticking off the list of places with important associations. And that list did not includeCasablanca!

It was, for me, the cherry on the cake. The summit of a remarkable year. A reflection that transsexuality is coming to rest in the nation's psyche as something that can now be dismissed in a single sentence explaining, out of necessity, how the programme's presenter came to visit Trieste as a 19 year old “Tommy” during the Second World War. It represents the subtle recognition that maybe, at long last, a change of gender is no more of a liability on one's CV than a tonsillectomy.

.. And it set me thinking how far we've come as a campaign in one astonishing year.

A year to remember

When the history comes to be written then I'm sure that 1969 will undoubtedly be recognised as the year when it all started to go horribly wrong for transsexual people in the United Kingdom. Maybe, however, 1996 will go down as the year when, at last, the tide began to turn the other way too.

Many of the foundations were laid before that, of course. Indeed, Press for Change and its' associates had been preparing the ground actively for four years before 1996 even began, and that was on the foundations laid by brave individuals like Mark Rees and Caroline Cossey who had gone before. The flavour for the campaign in 1996 was set, however, by the European Court of Justice hearing of the P vs S and Cornwall County Council case in the autumn of 1995, the proactive appearance of many activists in public at the Conservative and Labour Party conferences that year, and then ... the jewel in the crown ... the opportunity, just before Christmas, for Alex Carlile MP to present a private members bill to parliament in the new year.

It was like a double Christmas present. In the space of one heady week we heard the preliminary recommendation by Advocate Tesauro ... that `P' had been illegally discriminated against under the Treaty of Rome and then the next day, on December 15th, came the announcement that the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, Alex Carlile QC MP, was to use his (ninth) place in the ballot for private members' bills to present a piece of legislation to eliminate the problems endured by British transsexuals.

It certainly was an exciting time. In the space of a few months we'd gone from nowhere as a campaign, talking furtively to journalists we barely trusted, to ringing them up and demanding coverage. Chasing ... Cajoling ... Educating. And, less publicly for some of us, sitting down in a corner now and then to cry in sheer relief at the sense that a lifelong burden was at last being shifted ... if only slightly. On December 31st of that year, in fact, I wrote to my colleague, Stephen Whittle :

…But the tide is turning, Stephen, don't you think? Maybe we're in that moment of stillness when the waters have stopped flowing one way, and have not yet begun to rush in the other .. but the boats are ready, and maybe this is our tide. May 1996 bring health, wealth and happiness to you and your family. And may it be OUR year too.

It's hard though, even just twelve months on, to fully take in the sense of excitement that gripped us in January as we started the year. Suddenly we had an enormous task on our hands ... to get our message across to sufficient MPs, in all parties, to put some support behind Alex's bill.

Encouraging people who are accustomed to keeping their heads down to actually go out and see their own MP, or even just write to them, is not an easy task ... and yet in the end hundreds did so. Some even went further… One partner of a transsexual woman personally mailed the entire parliamentary Labour party herself ... signing each letter, and addressing every one of the 300-or-so envelopes by hand. Many others spent late nights on smaller, but no less impressive, personal mailshots too.

It was, in the words of one MP, “the most impressive lobby of its' kind that I've seen in 25 years”. Looking back though, I'm less surprised ... more inclined to visualise the scene when word goes round the prison that there's a crack in the outer wall…

Meanwhile the combined effect of a favourable court recommendation and the kudos of a parliamentary bill (even a bill doomed to failure from the start) was having a long awaited effect on the minds of folk in the media.

Dec 14th 1995	Advocate General Tesauro of the European Court of Justice recommends a favourable outcome in the case of P vs S and Cornwall County Council
Dec 15th 1995	Alex Carlile QC., MP wins ninth place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills and announces that he'll use the opportunity to promote a bill giving full legal rights back to transsexual people.
Jan 1st 1996	A new web site begins, dedicated to supporting the objectives of Press for Change by charting news of the campaign and distributing educational resources to campaigners and journalists alike.
Late Jan	Sonia Carmichael, a pre-operative transsexual woman from Manchester, takes her employers to court on her own for wrongful dismissal ... first evidence that transsexual people across the country are suddenly prepared to stand up and be counted.
Late Jan	The European Commission on Human Rights decides that there is a case to be heard concerning the claim by a transsexual man to be recognised as father to the children of his partner (conceived by donor insemination). A hearing is promised for the autumn. Broader human rights cases by two transsexual women are admitted too.
Late Jan	The Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism updates and reprints “Transsexualism : The Medical Viewpoint”, incorporating significant new research published in Nature.

With the best will in the world it was hard to get many mainstream journalists to think very far beyond the agenda set by the headline writers little more than a year ago. Brought up on a diet that cast transsexual people as perverts, attention seekers, outlaws of gender discourse (or just plain misguided) it was an uphill struggle to get some writers to think beyond their first stereotyped paragraph, which you could usually write for them in advance…

Strapping worker David stunned colleagues when he sashayed into the office on stilettos and announced: "Don't call me David - call me Jane." The gender bender who deals with [his employer's] most sensitive cases has caused a storm with his sex swop. Six-footer David, who dresses in sharp career woman suits, is already growing breasts, has softened his voice and learned to flutter his eyelashes….
(Sunday People feature, July 1996. Names changed out of respect for the victim)

The idea that there were real people driven to slit real wrists behind this appalling facade was lost on even the more intelligent and thoughtful writers though. And those who did sit still long enough to listen to the catalogue of real issues which we wanted to bring to public attention were just as likely to come back later with their unpublished pride and joy, having been told by their editor or producer that “we did something on transsexuals six months ago ... it's too soon to do another”. Could you imagine that form of self censorship with any other minority issue?

So if the courts and parliamentary legitimisation didn't necessarily achieve direct successes at the start of the year, the one thing they did do was to make transsexual issues a debatable topic all of a sudden.

Jan 31st	A PFC activist appears on Channel 4's “The Slot” in a five minute film explaining the true extent to which she is marginalised and discriminated against.
Early Feb	Regional television covers the run up to the Carlile bill. A first opportunity for PFC activists to say their piece to an early evening audience. Television journalists admit to being stunned by how wrong their own preconceptions had been. PFC activists appear in print too.
Feb 1st	Woman's Hour presents a piece about a teenage transsexual girl and her family.
Feb 2nd	The Alex Carlile bill has its' second reading in the House of Commons. It is pointed out that the bill is being read 26 years to the day after the Ormrod summing-up in the April Ashley case. The bill runs out of time, as expected, but it has served its' purpose well.
Feb 6th	Channel Four shows the first of a two part documentary about young transsexual boys. (The Decision, by Oliver Morse, has been two years in research and production and is widely acclaimed. The media “discover” transsexual men for the first time and gender dysphoria is seen in a non erotic light because the films are about the feelings of children).
Feb 19th	The Kilroy programme revisits transsexual issues.

As the activity began to die down in late February, however, our sights turned once more to applying legal pressure on the establishment and making appointments to speak to groups who had suddenly discovered our existence after all this time.

Mar 6th	A Judicial review examines the cases of two transsexual women (P and G) against the registrar general, for the refusal by the (then) Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys to alter their birth certificates. The case is the first of its kind to be awarded legal aid.
March 31st	A distinguished surgeon, senior enough to have worked on the Queen Mother's hip replacement, goes public when faced with blackmail threats about his treatment for gender dysphoria. William (now Sarah) Muirhead-Allwood gets a relatively good press in some broadsheets and attention is focused on the behaviour of the Sunday tabloid involved in the story.
Early April	Press for Change encourages all transsexual people to apply at once for their birth certificates to be altered in the light of new scientific findings, and reflecting a possible opportunity created by the judgement in the unsuccessful Judicial review. The OPCS ends up dedicating an official, full time, to systematically reject the applications.
April 30th	The event of the year. The European Court of Justice confirms the Advocate General's December recommendation, that `P' was discriminated on the grounds of sex when dismissed by her manager `S' and employers Cornwall County Council. Another brief media flutter ensues, although there is little to report ... for `P' remains `P', an anonymous icon immune from caricature.
Early May	Even less well publicised, another English employment tribunal considers whether the P vs S ruling applies beyond so-called emanations of the state, to private employers too. The court decides in the case of `N' that the ruling does apply, but the employers vow to appeal.

If P vs S had one lasting effect, apart from the obvious, then it was to further reinforce the message to thousands of hidden transsexuals in the community that it was now possible to go for it. To seek compensation for the crude and extraordinary treatment they'd endured at the hands of employers and the people whom you might have expected to know better ... their doctors and health authorities.

We'd always known that the majority of health authorities had a poor record of care in terms of transsexuals. Research conducted for the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism confirmed that impression. What was more astonishing, however, was the lengths that authorities were prepared to go to in order to circumvent actions threatened by people who were denied basic therapeutic assessment, let alone hormonal and surgical treatment. Once informed of their legal obligation to treat transsexual people within the NHS, the trusts then seemingly went out of their way to concoct regimes that could only be designed to inflict as much delay and anguish as possible upon the patients ... and this remains an area to be tackled. New rules have thrown out previous treatment and assessment records and put patients in some authorities to the back of the queue at the one grossly overloaded centre which is entrusted with the work ... at Charing Cross Hospital in London. Those actually reaching the end of the assessment process, too, then find an unwillingness to fund their surgery ... or that surgery is scheduled and then, for no reason, cancelled days beforehand.

As one observer commented..

These are people who, through hormone treatment, have long since stopped looking like a member of their natal sex ... and who have taken work leave and endured the effects of coming off that hormone regime in preparation for surgery. They are, literally, in a state of limbo. Neither able to function as one sex or the other. To cancel their surgery just hours beforehand, when the surgeon is free and beds are free, is hard to credit.

Some of the attitudes which inform this type of behaviour became apparent to us, however, as May and June became the time for leaks and reports…

Early May	Press for Change obtains and publishes a health authority report recommending a regime of assessment and treatment. Few transsexuals recognise the creatures which the report describes, but it is progress at least.
-	A fitter in the RAF takes the government to court for wrongful dismissal after being diagnosed as transsexual.
-	The Gender and Sexuality Alliance (G&SA) submits a report to HM Prison Service for a review on the treatment of transsexual prisoners. The report highlights cruel and exceptional treatment, and a system biased against any attempts to rehabilitate transsexual inmates. Tales of sexual abuse emerge ... and a blackmail case involving Harrods illustrates very clearly that transsexual offenders can expect disproportionately punitive treatment in court.
-	The press gets concerned about alleged levels of oestrogen-like chemicals in baby milk formula. The talk is about fertility effects. Nobody wants to discuss the far more serious possibilities on brain development from pre and post natal environmental oestrogens and anti-androgens ... and the world that awaits those we may be poisoning.
-	The Daily Mail reports on a leaked document from the Cabinet Office concerning transsexual rights issues, and passes it to press for Change for comment. The Home Secretary angrily refutes any suggestion that a review should be led by his department.
May 22nd	Rights of another kind hit the press, and the Gay rights movement in the United States shifts into a new gear ... this time with long overdue recognition of the benefits to be had from uniting with transgendered groups out of common interest. The Romer vs Evans ruling is the first shot of many, striking down Colorado state attempts to reverse anti-discrimination laws. People are talking about same sex marriages so loudly that they fail to realise that transgendered Americans have been enjoying them for years.
June	The G & SA reports depressing research that the majority of Rape Crisis Centres have policies excluding transsexual women ... and the attitude of women's groups in general towards transsexuals of both sexes becomes an issue for debate as PFC activists take up invitations to speak at Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay events. The good news is that people prove ready to listen, to learn, and to revise their opinions.
-	Press for Change publishes research into the case of Ewan Forbes-Semphill, a story almost completely erased from the public records in 1967, and which was mysteriously passed-over in the Corbett vs Corbett case that followed two years later. Conspiracy theories abound.

The depressing aspect to July was that even as we finally started to think that we'd actually made headway in eliminating ignorant attitudes from other minorities towards the transgendered, some transsexual people were standing up to prove the depressing fact that small mindedness and fear are universal human traits. In Press for Change we started to get angry and condemnatory letters demanding to know why we were taking part in the Pride 96 march .. and why, indeed, it was now known as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered pride! Some, it seems, thought they'd achieved integration and acceptance in their communities by showing that they were just as capable as them at being bigoted. Mercifully, however, the letters pages in journals on all sides were to show that the bigots are well outnumbered ... and London's Pridewas judged a great success all round.

As summer took us nearer and nearer to the silly season though, and as we anticipated another flurry of legal activity, the more important question was whether we were now building on solid journalistic and legal foundations, or not.

July	Radio Four's Today programme displays a sudden penchant for transgendered stories ... first with a feature (completely out of the blue) about Chinese Lesbians and Gays having sex reassignment surgery in desperate attempts to legalise their lifestyles and relationships ... and then with the news that the Japanese government was at last debating whether to legalise surgery. The subtext in the Chinese report is that homosexuality and transsexuality are two very different things and there is some irony in the observation that China regards the latter as a quite legitimate medical necessity and the former as an abhorrence. The conditions aren't exclusively western phenomena ... merely our peculiar regard for them.
July 6th	Press for Change leads a contingent of twenty-or-so rather ordinary looking transgendered people near the head of the Pride 96 procession in London.
July 17th	A transsexual man appeals against the nullification of his marriage after 17 years, in a case which demonstrates that the judges are now treading far more carefully. There appears to be a desire to embrace what is happening elsewhere in the world (New Zealand in particular), and to reflect the implications of the work published in Nature. Lord Justice Ward, announcing a deferral on the decision, says "We are aware of the growing body of medical and international opinion that this court will ignore at its peril".
August	Channel Four screens a series entitled Dark Secrets. Entire half hour programs explore the taboo topics of incomplete or hermaphroditic genital formation and the condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome ... the condition that produces women who are chromosomally male. The last program in the series, dealing with transsexual men, is a huge disappointment though.
-	Channel Four also screens the film Thanks a Bunch Mr Ormerod by Pamela Jane Hunt, one of a few television producers who happens to be a transsexual woman. The programme, with its' unusual imagery, has mixed reviews from both the press and the transsexual community.
Aug 27th	The XYZ case finally opens in the European Court of Human Rights and provides a new excuse for a round of news pieces and media appearances. The Daily Mail names PFC's Dr Stephen Whittle as the plaintiff, and Stephen shows a lot of style as a personality-in-the-making, with an appearance on Radio Four's Midweek establishing him, above all, as a likeable and essentially rather ordinary Father concerned for the welfare of his children.
Sep 3rd	And, not to be outdone, a new producer in the Kilroy camp, decides that it's time for a third look at transsexuality ... in what turns out to be a far-from-civilised debate.

In a far less glamorous vein, September was a busy time for some PFC activists, preparing to take stall space at University Freshers' week events up and down the country. For, all of a sudden, both the academic world and student lesbian and gay groups had noticed a whole new topic for discussion. Over in the United States things seemed to be hotting up too ... and we hoped to follow through on the XYZ case with a compensation hearing for `P'.

Early Sep

The United States panics when faced with the back-door legalisation of same sex marriages and rushes in the Defence of Marriage Act (DoMA). It is a long awaited opportunity for US transgender activists to claw their way to the centre of the fight back ... pointing out that the new law threatens, uniquely, to unmarry countless Americans who've had legal gender changes but whose partners stuck faithfully to their marriage vows. It's an opportunity, too, to argue for transgender inclusion in the anti-discrimination legislation, ENDA ... for, whilst UK transsexuals have won employment protection and struggle for legal recognition, Americans face the opposite problem.

The final chapter of P vs S and Cornwall County Council should have been her return to the Truro employment tribunal, where she had begun, to seek damages for the unlawful termination of her employment. A five figure sum is expected eventually. In the event, the day came and went, as her former manager and employers sought a deferral of the hearing, “to give them more time.” And it now seems that we'll have to wait till later in 1997 for an outcome.

In some ways we can look back now and see that the Conservative and Labour Party conference fringe events, organised by PFC for the first time in October 1995, were something of a watershed. The previous year, at the Liberal Democrat conference, a similar event had been feasted upon greedily by the press. It was treated as a great laugh. In October 1995 the press turned up at the Labour party event expecting something similar ... and left somewhat disappointed. They didn't get what they wanted, and they weren't ready to print what we wanted. By the next week, at the Conservative Party Conference we were relying on favours from broadcasters we knew to even get a presence. The success of those events lay, in fact, not in the coverage ... and certainly not in the paltry turnout of an audience ... but in the message conveyed by the disinterest. Transsexuals were becoming safe for politicians to associate with. We were therefore rather unsure what to expect out of going back to the conference fringe this year and, in the event, decided at the last moment to give the Conservatives up as a lost cause for the moment, and concentrate our efforts on the Labour fringe instead. It was also a month for broadening the range of issues we are fighting. October, in fact, became a month for consolidation.

Oct 3rd	Press for Change holds a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference. The press stay away this year, but their places are taken by a much bigger audience of politicians and activists, deeply moved as one of the transsexual speakers dissolves into tears. People confess astonishment : they still weren't aware of the petty and not-so-petty realities endured by transsexual people. Several new speaking invitations are issued ... and delegates go away to tell their colleagues what they missed.
Oct 7th	A transsexual woman takes West Midlands Police to court for wrongful dismissal after they had changed their minds about employing her in the middle of her training. They were worried about conflicts between her legal status and the rules governing the sex of officers carrying out body searches on suspects ... and solved the problem by dismissing her.
-	Back on the less glamorous side of campaign work, another PFC activist has been taking on a life insurance company ... using the weight of medical and legal opinion built up over the year to make the case that there is no reason why they should not treat her as a woman, and so eliminate the breaches of privacy she would otherwise have to endure when dealing with them in the future. That just leaves health insurance, motor cover and pensions to fight over.
-	Other activists reported successes too in getting unions and employers to formulate transgender-inclusive equal opportunities policies ... in an area where it has often been wrongly assumed that a policy covering sexuality is sufficient. (It isn't).
Oct 28th	And just to round off the month we are treated to the rather overdue decision that a transsexual woman can at last, in the eyes of the law, be a rape victim. The ruling by Mr Justice Hooper in Reading Crown court is the more remarkable as it has taken over two years since male rape was recognised, for the law to be extended in this way to transsexual women too. The decision was barely reported, and almost twenty seven years of sexual violence and intimidation mandated by another consequence of the Corbett v Corbett decision are now, presumably, to be swept under the carpet and forgotten. In some respects, at least, rapists have always displayed far better manners than lawyers ... ready to treat transsexual women as women regardless.

It wasn't all positive news as the year drew towards a close. In November, the man appealing against the annulment of his marriage lost ... although as his solicitor said afterwards :

“We lost [the case] but on the facts, rather than on the laws. There was clear indication from the judges that they believe that Corbett needs revisiting, and perhaps an analysis of the law should take into account the concept of gender rather than sex. They said that the New Zealand case and the jurisprudence from the US could not lightly be dismissed and in those cases it was said that once a transsexual has undergone treatment, and the other party is aware of their condition, then there is no legal impediment to marriage.”

We started November with a very tangible piece of recognition though ... as Press for Change found itself shortlisted in the nominations for Campaign of the Year in the British Social Services Media Awards, run by Jewish Care. We didn't win, but the breakfast reception in London's Berkeley Square were an opportunity for networking, and for reflecting that a few years ago we wouldn't have even been considered.

In December too we learned that Channel Four Television are now planning an entire season of programmes about transsexuality for the Spring of 1997 ... an opportunity to rerun programmes made in the past and, perhaps, add something new to gradually developing public sophistication and awareness too.

So, as I witnessed last week, maybe we'll see more transsexual people taking a part in television programmes about something other than their transsexuality. Or ... perhaps more accurately ... those of us in the know will see them and it won't be the tabloids' public duty to warn the rest. A well known Liberal Democrat councillor from Tonbridge may be able to advance his political career further. A talented magician may advance her broadcasting career. A surgeon may go on doing what she has been trained to do ... and airline pilots, solicitors, lawyers and the rest may just get on and do the jobs they're good at. It would be nice to think that 1997 might be the year, too, when 5,000 Britons recover the right to marry and participate in family life like anyone else ... but then perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. After all, it's taken 27 years to reach this point. It would be a major advance just to enable transsexual people to die with dignity .. with a death certificate which records their death, rather than the death of a person who never was. The idea that we might officially recognise the birth ritual of the real person might take a bit longer.

What cannot be denied, however, is that we approach 1997 in a very different position to the one we were in just one year ago ... and light years from the status we endured just five years before that.

It's not time yet to congratulate ourselves. Being transsexual is still a serious issue. The fear and ignorance cultivated by almost seventy years of institutional misrepresentation cannot be erased from society's programming overnight. That will take decades, although official recognition can accelerate the process. By gradually taking the fear and stigma out of transsexuality, however, we pave the way towards that future and ensure that the eventual establishment of a mechanism to recognise the correction of an individual's status is a courtesy, rather than a concession.

And a world that's capable of respecting an individual's right to accept and accommodate such a fundamental aspect of the way in which they relate to others, might just be a better world for everyone else too.

Happy new year. May it be a liberating one for you too.

Christine Burns
December 30th, 1996

Ten things you'll miss when the NHS has been eviscerated

2011-09-08T17:30:00.001+01:00

Last night the Health and Social Care bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons owing to the natural majority of the coalition government. It passed by a majority of 65 votes (316 to 251) after four Lib Dems voted against it and ten abstained.

The report stage debate, which preceded the final vote, epitomised all that is now worst about our democratic system.

Over 1,000 amendments were added at the eleventh hour, in ways that couldn't possibly be challenged. Ninety minutes of the precious debating time was given over to consideration of an abortion provision tabled by Nadine Dorries. And, if you watched it on TV, you would have seen very few MPs in the chamber, as legislation to radically alter a precious 63 year old institution was waved through in what had become a formality.

Still time

The bill is not law yet ... it still has to pass through the House of Lords ... although many changes had already taken place in the NHS structure before a word of the bill had been scrutinised by the Commons. Such is the contempt which the present administration has for due process.

There is a campaign to persuade members of the Lords to challenge and scrutinise the legislation. This website will give you the name of a Peer to 'adopt', and you're then encouraged to write to them.

Peers don't have constituencies and are not elected, so they don't have to fear the ballot box. This is why people don't often lobby them direct. Conversely, it's hoped that the novelty of a mass campaign appealing to the Peers' sense of independence and traditional constitutional role, will embolden their lordships to give the government a bloody nose.

Any popular campaign relies on people understanding why it is important to act. In this case the cause has not been helped by certain of the mass media (the BBC in particular) failing to challenge the issues effectively.

I have asked people to reach beyond social media networks and talk to their families, friends and coworkers about the issues, and to get them involved in lobbying the Lords. However, people have rightly pointed out that that is difficult to do if people can't readily understand what the changes will mean in personal terms if they go through.

So here are some consequences to discuss with your friends.

Ten things you'll miss

When you go to see your GP and they say you don't need to see a consultant or should take such and such a drug you will no longer be sure whether that decision is because it is best for you or because the GP has their eyes on a new Mercedes. Giving groups of GPs (now called Clinical Commissioning Groups) control of £80,000,000,000 of the NHS budget means just that.
When it takes longer to get an appointment with the GP it is likely to be because they are spending less time doing medicine and more time in meetings with staff from companies like KPMG who are making their commissioning plans for the board to rubber stamp. Commissioning is a complex process. Don't imagine it can be achieved in a few minutes round a desk by a bunch of GPs in their coffee break. The health consulting industry is poised to move in. And how many GPs will know enough to challenge the advice of the experts, with all those impressive charts they'll have?
If you want to challenge those plans then you'll find that the Clinical Commissioning Group that your practice is part of has decided that the meetings about such important things must happen in private. You'll find local politicians hamstrung because of the complexity of the system and the relationships between bodies.Even the experts haven't figured out yet how it will all work.
If your GP does say you need to see a consultant then you'll find that there's an awfully long waiting list because your local hospital will be selling as much as 50% of its capacity to private patients. This is something that existing NHS hospitals will need to do just to balance the books, especially as the government starts rationing public money for the system, year on year.
If your care requires collaboration then you'll find it can't happen because parts of the care path are being run by private companies who use different systems and, besides, planning services in that way could be seen as anti-competitive. The experts are still arguing whether the system known as 'Any Qualified Provider' means decisions about working together can be challenged using European Competition Law. What is certain is that GPs won't know, and that the big money private providers lining up to exploit the uncertainty have pockets deep enough to afford the very best lawyers to challenge every commissioning decision they don't like.
If you have a specialist need then you'll find you can no longer use your local hospital because your doctor's commissioning group has contracted each condition to different private services which, for efficiency, serve large areas and are located 50 miles away. Note that some of the first services to be contracted out in this way will be things like maternity services, because the cost profile of these is very attractive to private providers. Your local NHS hospital will be left with the complex, chronic, expensive cases. It will have to take on private cases itself in order to make ends meet.
In the longer term you'll find a system in which doctors and nurses become increasingly scarce and are not keeping their skills up to date, because the system of teaching hospitals has broken down and the private providers don't want to spend profits on training junior doctors. The Strategic Health Authorities who currently manage the commissioning and provision of training and ongoing development will be abolished in a couple of years and the health bill currently has no plan in it to replace that function. Health Education England (as mentioned by one of those White Papers that came out like confetti last autumn) is still no more than just a name.
The question of which practice you register with will suddenly be a lot more crucial, as this will determine which Clinical Commissioning Group will be paying for any care you need. Health will no longer be planned on the basis of the needs of a locality, but on the basis of the business plan for that collection of practices. Two adjacent surgeries may have very different budgetary priorities and it is quite possible this may actually be used in a deliberate way. For instance, a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) whose patients are all young middle class earning professionals without long term illnesses will have a much different cost base than one dealing with patients with chronic illnesses. PCTs currently balance that up by something called 'risk pooling'. Most PCTs serve populations of 150-300,000 people. Within that there will be an average mix of all needs .. so the budget can withstand patients who suddenly need £70,000 on a heart transplant or long term kidney dialysis. If the balance is disturbed then the services with young and fit patients will pocket their profits whilst those serving less well patients will have to ration or go bust. Commissioning Groups WILL be able to go bust, like hospitals. So, if your GP says their list is full but the waiting room looks empty you'll just have to wonder...
We don't know how the system will stand up when there is an epidemic or other health crisis because the whole system of public health is about to be reorganised on new lines and the SHAs and PCTs who formerly planned for and coordinated the system's response to crises are already being taken apart and disbanded.
And when all of this goes wrong, you are also likely to find that the Secretary of State for Health will step back and claim that his hands are tied and that it's all now out of his control, because the traditional accountability vested in him for the last 63 years has been turned into something that armies of lawyers and politicians are still arguing over. Yesterday, in Parliament, the government and opposition had two diametrically opposed legal opinions on this point, which is the first clause in the legislation.

And just a reminder

The NHS wasn't broken in the first place. In fact, various studies indicate that the present system has been on an all time high in terms of public approval, and that Britain's health service delivers top class results for less percentage of national GDP than other systems.

The case for change was not backed by any evidence. Although a system this large and complex (employing 1.4 million staff) could always be improved around the edges, it was fundamentally healthy.

There is now only one chance left to prevent the government's wrecking bill from becoming law, and that is to persuade the House of Lords to show its teeth. The degree to which they do that will depend on how much you can persuade your friends and family to pester them about it.

When the NHS is gone, it's gone. These changes will not be able to be reversed.

The majority of Britons have been born and grew up under a health service that was run for the public good rather than for profit, and which was strategically managed in all our interests. Mostly we take it for granted that it is there when we need it. The rest of the time people probably don't think about it that much.

One day, when you need it, you may discover (too late) that these changes really were as serious as I've said.

In the meantime, have you noticed the sudden glut of advertisements for private health insurance?

In Memoriam: Jodie - Crumpsall's Popular "It" Girl

2011-07-15T15:06:00.001+01:00

This piece was written by me in 2006. Until now I had forgotten about it.

Today I needed to explain Jodie's case to someone and I was suddenly reminded.

I thought it deserved the bigger readership which I can nowadays give it.

And there's always a little thought in the back of my mind about whether I should have been more nosy ... more of an advocate.

Born 20-Aug-72 Died 2006

If you had happened to be around North Manchester's Crumpsall district at any time in the last few years then chances are you might have encountered Jodie.

If you had met her you'd know it. She might very probably have told you to "F" Off. She might have hit you with an (invariably) empty spirit bottle. Or, now and then, she could have given you a cuddle.

When friends gathered at the nearby crematorium to say a last goodbye, the consensus was that Jodie was often given to bursts of anger - and that she was nothing if not unpredictable.

A private matter

Mind you, Jodie could easily be forgiven her violet outbursts and acid tongue; by all accounts she had had a pretty sorrowful past.

In my "day job" I used to be involved in the business management of a company that runs care homes for people with learning disabilities or long term mental health problems.

As I was focussed on the efficient running of the organisation and I wasn't a care worker myself, I always used to take a very strict line over the private and confidential backgrounds of our residents.

Unless I had a need to know then it was simply not my business to ask. And if people gossip, as they unfortunately do, then I generally did my best to tune out.

Nevertheless, there was a kind of inevitability about the fact I would end up learning more than usual about Jodie.

Abused

Details were sketchy, but (reading between the lines) it became apparent that this 34 year old woman who once lived with us had some kind of physical intersex condition when she was born. It was enough of an ambiguity for local Police to have once posed the question, "Is 'IT' a man or a woman".

As I gleaned eventually, on the way to her funeral, this had also been the key to how she came to be in care.

I learned that Jodie had had a horribly abused childhood.

Many of our service users sadly had nobody in the world listed as their next of kin. That's how long term mentally ill people are often treated by their families. But I was surprised to learn that Jodie wasn't born with her paranoid schizophrenia; she acquired it from a childhood filled with alcohol and drug abuse and more.

So it was that, when she turned 18 years of age, she was quickly taken into adult care.

For those of us who've been well versed in the stories of children assigned one sex or the other without consent as babies, Jodie's "medical" treatment might seem a little odd.

Again I learned on the way to her funeral that although she clearly and unequivocally came across to everyone as a young woman, and although the discrimination she found was linked with her physical ambiguity, the psychiatrists treating adult Jodie were reluctant to operate through fears related to her questionnable capacity to give legal consent.

They were afraid she might get better, think differently, and sue them.

From pillar to post

She went through a variety of institutions and care homes in her short life, ending up at one of ours for a few precious years before being taken away from that too in February 2004.

When she left I clearly remember some staff commenting, off the record, that they expected she would probably end up dead before too long. Two years later they were unfortunately proved right.

A problem nobody wanted

For social workers Jodie was a problem.

She had only to have a cuddle with a man for folks to start looking worried and consulting their guidelines on "same sex" intimacies.

Maybe that was also the reason why the system didn't seem able to find another stable residential home for her to go to when she moved on.

Instead she found her way to the hostels for homeless people in the City where, predictably perhaps, they didn't seem to know what to do with her either.

Could that have been connected with a physically ambiguous woman trying to find accommodation in a single sex hostel? I honestly don't know, but speculation of that kind is inevitable.

Homeless, but not friendless

Before too long Jodie was therefore literally living on the streets, or crashing with local friends with alcohol and drug problems of their own. How she died is unclear even now. All we know is that it was seven or eight weeks before her body could finally be released for a state-funded cremation.

I couldn't describe myself as really knowing Jodie .. other than to pass and say hello now and then when she lived in our largest home. When I learned of her funeral I wanted to go though. Part of me was awfully afraid of her leaving this world with nobody there.

I needn't have concerned myself on that front.

To my delight the little Crematorium Chapel was in fact packed. Male friends of hers, clearly with mental disabilities of their own, took instruction on how to carry her coffin into the Chapel before us. Female friends wept for a departed friend.

The speakers played Roy Orbison as we followed her casket :

Pretty woman, walkin' down the street,
Pretty woman The kind I like to meet
Pretty woman I don't believe you, You're not the truth
No one could look as good as you.
Pretty woman, won't you pardon me?
Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see,
Pretty woman, that you look lovely as can be.
Are you lonely just like me?...

Fondly remembered

Her community psychiatric nurse, a caring sort of man, delivered a eulogy that was honest rather than false.

He described their first meeting -- with Jodie unconscious in his doorway, her body for some reason covered in potato crisps. He spoke ruefully of her attacking him with a high heeled shoe -- of her hitting him with an empty spirit bottle.

The minister spoke likewise about being told to "F" Off one day on the street, yet finding her in prayer the next.

There was no point in covering for the reality of Jodie's mental condition and yet it struck me that these people had seen past that and found someone to love, for ALL her shortcomings and flaws.

And nobody was in any doubt as to Jodie's gender. It wasn't even an appropriate question.

As we said goodbye to her and left the chapel it was snowing hard.

"Jodie loved the snow" said our area manager, who had known Jodie for years too.

It seemed in the biting cold that she had a way of still making her presence felt.

30 Years On - The Bradford Twelve

2011-07-12T22:14:00.001+01:00

July 16th 2011 will mark the thirtieth anniversary of a campaign supporting what became known as the 'Bradford Twelve'.

On that day in 1981 a dozen young Asian men from the United Black Youth League were arrested in dawn raids across the city and charged with conspiracy to make explosives and to cause explosions.

The case was set against a backdrop of racist attacks on black and asian communities in Britain, which the Police had done little to address.

The defendants asserted that "Self defence is NO offence" and the hearing of their case lifted the lid on racism in Britain at that time.

Shahnaz Ali (pictured centre) was a teenage girl at the time and was very much involved in the United Black Youth League in Bradford. She was taken for questioning and came close to being charged with conspiracy herself.

Now a senior public sector official, Shahnaz looks back on those events with me in this Podcast interview, and describes what it was like to almost become the thirteenth defendant.

Showing off our wares

2011-07-05T20:34:00.001+01:00

Regular followers of this blog will know that my main work these days is as the E&D Programme Manager at NHS North West.

NHS North West is one of England's ten regional Strategic Health Authorities.

An SHA is a kind of regional extension of the Department of Health, channelling funding from the centre to a network of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) who, in turn, decide how to spend that money on local services to meet the needs of their populations.

The SHA is then responsible for setting strategic direction and monitoring the performance of the whole 'system'.

It's a huge undertaking. In the North West, the SHA has a budget of £12,000,000,000, oversees a system of 63 organisations employing 220,000 staff, and ultimately addresses the needs of almost 6.9 million people living in a geographically massive region.

A story to tell

Earlier this year I published a series of blogs describing our team's philosophy where Equality and Diversity is concerned. The seventh article in that series provides a handy index into most of these articles.

Since then I've also published a few additional pieces about recent advances, such as the launch of our LGB&T History timeline and a unique practical guide to monitoring sexual orientation.

And if you're wondering why all of this matters then here's a reminder.

Credit where it's due

We are very proud of our achievements as a team.

Our work is led by Shahnaz Ali (pictured right), who is simply one of the most effective innovators I've ever met in this field. I don't think her mind ever stops, and she is a brilliant networker. It is her energy that gets so much out of all of us, as a small but very productive team.

My job, as programme manager, is to catch all the balls she throws and ensure everything gets delivered. Along the way I bring in my various creative and project management talents to flesh things out.

Then there is our communications and engagement lead, Loren Grant, who is simply brilliant at coordinating the talents of our creative contractors, organising the nitty gritty details of events, writing publicity and newsletter materials, running up Powerpoints, and generally producing stuff.

Telling the world

The NHS is a huge place. Overall it employs 1.4 million people. The only larger single organisation is the Chinese Army.

It is never therefore enough to just create good strategies and solutions. You have to work very hard to tell people what you are doing and where to go for expertise. Even in our own region it is a significant task to communicate regularly with 63 NHS organisations.

That's why this week we are off to staff our own exhibition stand at the NHS Confederation Conference in Manchester.

If you happen to be an NHS type and are visiting the conference do drop by to say hello. You'll find us on stand B27.

The Trans Tapes

2011-07-02T17:40:00.001+01:00

I was discussing today with globe trotting blogger Cheryl Morgan the value for young trans people in being able to hear and see older (long settled) trans role models ... a need which mainstream Film, TV and radio are still (as yet) tending to neglect.

Historically, where trans people have been featured on Film, TV or the radio it has tended to be as curiosities, gimmick plot devices, villains or as figures of amusement.

Juliet Jacques discusses the latter in a recent article for the New Statesman. She and I also talked about the broader issues when I interviewed her for my Podcast a few months ago.

Wikipedia provides a long list of films from which you can draw your own conclusions. The topic has also been analysed at length by several other commentators, such as this example from 2007. Others you can find easily via Google.

All this is then reflected in how trans people say they experience the media, as in this report recently published by Trans Media Watch.

A changing landscape

There is no doubt that things are gradually changing. Channel 4, ITV and the BBC have all developed trans characters through their prime time serial dramas, such as Hollyoaks, Coronation Street and Waterloo Road. This is at least a start.

Such stories have been far better researched and characterised than in the past. Nevertheless, the parts are always still played by non-trans performers, and the story lines are almost always around the travails of transition, having surgery, being outed, or otherwise having problems directly related to a trans background.

There is obviously still a long way to go .. though I could entirely sympathise with those trans actors who wouldn't want to become pigeonholed forever by playing trans roles.

Something has to happen before it's possible for trans performers (and they are out there playing non-trans parts) to out themselves and play a mix of roles (in the way that lesbian and gay actors can still get straight parts).

I discussed this dilemma in interviews with both Calpernia Addams and Adele Anderson.

Role Model lives

In my previous blog (and the comments that followed) it was clear that there are many potential role models in real life, happily getting on with valued work, supporting themselves, having fantastic social lives and settled with lovers or long term partners. They're just not being seen outside of their own circle of influence.

These people's lives are far beyond the stories that the media are fixated upon. They have things to say, and except for those few who write for mainstream publications, they are not being heard.

World wide there are even more names to choose from. This site by Lynn Conway, for instance, documents hundreds of examples of trans women ... although it has been criticised for appearing to privilege looks and passability. There is also an equivalent section about trans men.

The Trans Tapes

Although the Just Plain Sense Podcast is about diversity as a whole, I have tried to feature trans people and trans topics as much as I can within reason.

I thought it would therefore be a useful contribution to bring all those programmes together in one place which is easy to bookmark, share and return to.

If you think that's useful why not mention it to your friends. And if you think more voices should be heard this way, why not pick up a microphone or video camera and start featuring more yourself.

The Performers

Calpernia Addams - on the murder of her boyfriend, the aftermath, and making a career in the media

Adele Anderson - on being one third of the group 'Fascinating Aida'

... and on being a trans performer and entertainer

Nadia Almada - on growing up, coming to Britain, transition, winning Big Brother, and her life after

The Activists, Writers and Academics

Professor Stephen Whittle OBE - on growing up, transitioning, and developing into a law professor

Mark Rees - on growing up, transitioning, taking the UK to court, and retirement

Professor Lynn Conway - on transitioning, rebuilding a career, and being a microchip industry pioneer

Professor Joan Roughgarden - on transitioning mid career, support from Condoleezza Rice, and challenging Darwin

Juliet Jacques - on writing her groundbreaking blog in the Guardian and about trans people in the media

Trans Kids and their parents

A mother's tale - on coping when a small child says they have a girl brain in a boy body

The adolescent hormone blocking debate

Mother and trans daughter update the hormone debate

Events and Issues discussed

Adopting children

Hate crime - The International Transgender Day of Remembrance

Charing Cross - Clinician Dr Stuart Lorimer talks about the service

Media Portrayals - The launch of a Memorandum of Understanding

Thank you, but...

2011-06-25T20:10:00.001+01:00

We can all do with a little recognition now and then, can't we?

But when recognition is awarded in a clumsy and cack-handed fashion the result can be the very opposite to what was intended.

I learned this week that I've been placed as number 96 in a 100-strong 'Power List' dreamed up by a London listings magazine - one behind singer George Michael, but one ahead of a "talented pantomime dame".

First I was cautiously bemused. Then I was annoyed. Finally I was embarrassed.

Let me tell you why...

A game everyone can play

Like I say, everyone likes recognition.

Do mothers protest against Mother's Day? Hardly. As children we are all raised to take part in the ritual. We buy into the symbolism so much that it's unlikely you'd find many new Mums to argue against being on the receiving end when their turn comes.

The same goes for the other half of the population. Last Sunday it was Father's Day. Even men whose sole contribution has been no more than a proverbial "cock-up" expect to be recognised by some little token of pampering when the day comes round each year.

If we are to discuss systems of recognition, therefore, we have to enter with our eyes open.

Divisive

We ALL take part, with duties and expectations. If Sandra next door gets chocolates for being a mum, the chances are you may feel aggrieved if you don't get the same.

Recognition is hugely divisive that way.

Being awarded the prestige of an MBE a few years ago I know how destructive that divisiveness can be.

However much my colleagues and I may have deserved national recognition for the voluntary work we put in over decades, the fact remains that our awards left other colleagues, who had also worked hard, feeling overlooked.

It is one thing to all work hard for no return. It becomes something else when some are recognised and some are not.

In our own case national awards worked like ice forming in the cracks between paving stones. Fantastically effective partnerships that were key to our successes in the first place were put under strain and fractured.

In fact I have a theory. If a government really wants to screw up a political movement then all they have to do is lavish favours on some parts of a coalition and ignore the others. A strong overnight frost then does the rest.

So that's my declaration of interest in this matter. However, I digress.

Without warning

I learned about my new 'recognition' quite by accident earlier this week. The Pride Power List had apparently just been published by the London listings magazine Time Out.

An erstwhile colleague challenged one of the compilers, the gay author Paul Burston, on why there didn't seem to be any trans people on a list of the great and good in LGBT society. He tagged me in the facebook thread where Burston replied.

And that is how I was informed that I had been put on this list, tucked away near the end where my friend hadn't first noticed.

Not another list

Time Out's compilation of LGBT glitterati is not the first attempt to list and rank queer people for some kind of recognition.

The Independent on Sunday's annual Pink List is perhaps the most established compilation in the UK.

Each year's selection is bound to attract controversy. In fact I suspect they are designed to. It's both a publicist's and a blogger's wet dream.

(Hey, and what am I doing? Aw shucks, sorry ... I know)

Objective? Well...

It's hard to know where to start picking fault with lists like these. The flaws are so obvious.

Quite apart from the divisiveness which I've already mentioned, what's the basis for picking names for a list of 100 'top' LGBT people?

A list of the top 100 ranked by personal wealth or Body Mass Index I could perhaps understand. These are measures which could be indisputably objective. Maybe even health-promoting.

I could even understand a list based on public votes .. although those are susceptible to distortion. I could ask my 1500 Twitter followers to vote for me and my associates, for instance. (Actually, that would be one measure of "power and influence" of sorts).

But how are these lists compiled?

Well, in the case of the Time Out list, Pride London publisher Linda Riley explains,

'We have tried to make it more public-oriented [than the IoS Pink List] by asking the advice of a wider selection of people and organisations. The original top 300 were sourced by various people, who were given the chance to submit their favourites. This means there are entries who aren’t necessarily known to the wider public and not necessarily famous, such as business professionals. The list celebrates those who have contributed through their work to the LGBT community and/or have influence on the LGBT community by being inspirational role models.’

The magazine continues,

The final list of 100 was decided by judges Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall; Angela Eagle, MP for Wallasey and one of only two out lesbian MPs; and Linda Riley, managing director of Square Peg Media (publisher of Pride London).

So, you could say that the compilers have tried to cover both bases. They've tried to acknowledge public opinion, and then narrowed that down by committee.

Subjectivities

But this is where all the usual issues of subjectivity arise.

Already this week I've seen some folks say how they feel that the committee's makeup automatically lends a kind of institutional bias to the process.

To quote some of the comments that you can see below the list,

What about the THREE openly-gay Government Ministers? What about the Deputy Mayor of London and the Prime Minister's Political Head of Media, just to mention a few?

And this...

...there are countless numbers of gay men and women across the country doing sterling work in their own community. An example is Paul Martin CEO of the LG Foundation in Manchester who was recently award an OBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours last week. His work in the north west has an impact in London to. Other people to be considered are Derek Bodell and Deborah Jack who steered and continue to steer policy and campaign on HIV and AIDS booth here in the UK and internationally. As does the work of Lance Corporal James Wharton, Household Division who visits schools to combat homophobia in an attempt to serve Queens and Country. Fantastic that Time Out is doing this and to see my old mates Paul Burston and Stella Duffy high up in the list!

And this...

...Lynette Nusbacher, former lecturer at Sandhurst and counter-terrorism advisor to the PM's department. Kate Craig-Wood, Entrepreneur and founder of one of the UK's largest IT groups... But that would be 3 Transsexual women on the list, well above quota.

The names you leave off a list like this assume much more importance than the names you include.

What counts?

Then, of course, there is a well exercised debate about the relative merits of sportspeople and celebrities versus activists, politicians and entrepreneurs.

There are many ways of wielding influence. They're not all obvious. Indeed, some of my own most influential work happens in ways that are not public. You only tease out that kind of influence by engaging genuine peers who understand that in the shortlisting process.

What kind of influence are we counting? People who are role models to the public? Role models for other (especially young) LGBT people? Or people who open doors in business and the corridors of power by leaving an indelible memory that LGBT people can be exceptional contributors, managers and leaders?

Time served?

A vast proportion of the celebrities and politicians on both the Time Out and the Independent on Sunday's lists are people who acquired their power and influence whilst in the closet.

Much of the controversy about last summer's Pink List was about awarding top ten ranking to people who had only recently revealed their sexuality. Last year's Number One was the Rugby Player Gareth Thomas, who had only come out eight months previously.

The IoS explained:

The revelation of Thomas's homosexuality in an interview with the Daily Mail last December confirmed what had been an open secret in rugby union for years after his separation from his wife, but it highlighted the taboo over gay people in professional sport. [..] From living a lie, he has taken on the role of campaigner, working with Childline to reach out to young people facing the dilemma with which he struggled from the age of 17.

Significantly, Thomas tops the Time Out list too.

Unfair advantage?

Trading off the benefits of building a career in the closet is bound to be controversial for some.

For instance, whereas it may be a choice for lesbian, gay and bisexual people it is less of an option for trans people. Given the paucity of trans people on lists like this (I'm the only one so far) this ability to judge when to come out without harming your career is bound to be a bone of contention.

Journalist and Blogger Patrick Strudwick (No. 87 on the Time Out list) has argued in Gay Times that closeted gay people in the media are shirking their responsibilities when they fail to come out. He says,

While pampered public figures indulge their closeted concerns about the effect that being open and honest might have on their career – and, to be fair, on their personal life – thousands of gay kids, every day, face taunts, abuse and violence.

With sentiments and views like this it is inevitable that people might even think it's rather unsportsmanlike to gain advantage from letting others take the public flak and then be whisked to the front of lists like these when they finally deign to announce what people were probably speculating already.

This week, for instance, I've read speculation about the sexuality of a well known TV personality. If they are ultimately forced into coming out would it be right to pour recognition their way for being a powerful or influential gay figure? Should power and influence only be counted when it has been wielded for a few years whilst out? Or is the example set by coping with coming out something to recognise in itself?

Balancing the diversity

Then there are all the issues about balance among the selection. I've already touched on the issue of choosing people for different kinds of influence. But there are other factors too.

Thirty of the top 50 in the Time Out selection are gay or bisexual men. Only twenty are lesbian or bisexual women. Whilst power differences pervade men's and women's lives, you'd expect that the compilers of lists like these could do better, given an overwhelming amount of talented and influential lesbian and trans women to choose from.

I've not done a detailed analysis but my guess is that most of the list would turn out to be white British.

Black african and asian men and women have more obstacles than their sexual orientation or gender identity on the route to power and influence. Yet their presence on lists like this has an immense influence on Black and Minority Ethnic youngsters.

Similar questions need to be asked about the representation of gay and lesbian disabled people. Over 20% of the wider population has some form of disability. Surveys on the LGBT population seem to suggest that this community is no different. Again, depending on what the criterion is for judging power and influence, you might expect a very much more diverse list.

None of this is about being tokenistic. It goes to the heart of questionning the legitimate purpose of such lists.

Who are they for? What is the intended benefit? If Gareth Thomas is a number one on both the Time Out and Pink List because of the inspiration he is supposed to offer, why is it not equally important to ensure that such lists offer inspirational role models to black, ethnic and disabled readers?

Which brings us to the elephant in the room

It is ironic that I only found out about the Time Out list because a gay friend spotted immediately the dearth of trans people. And then he discovered that my name at number 96 had increased the representation by 100 percent.

What does that say? Is there an implication that, among all the gays and lesbians, I am the only trans person with enough power or influence to count?

Flattering that may be, but remember what I said at the outset about divisiveness.

And, frankly, it's a ridiculous assertion. Quite apart from the fact that people can obviously get onto such a list for very different kinds of talents, I'm vividly aware of how many phenomenally talented peers of mine are already in the public eye.

Thrilled and flattered

I'll be clear, of course. Yes, I do deserve to be on such a list as well as some of my peers.

So, thank you Time Out. In critiquing your approach I have no desire to appear churlish.

Trans people haven't generally been popular awards fodder until now. This could be a first. And, apart from the MBE, the Burns trophy cabinet is a bit empty.

But looking at the reasons apparently cited for my being on the list wouldn't really tell a reader why I deserve to be there for something other than pure tokenism.

It says,

Christine Burns - trans activist - MBE and former Tory branch secretary and who helped pass the 2004 Gender Recognition Act

Faint praise

There's no mention of truly influential and groundbreaking work of mine chairing committees that have commissioned and developed work with important impacts for LGBT people in health and elsewhere (I am a true pioneer in that field for trans people).

There's no mention of my major leadership role in Press for Change, creating a new model for online activism that nobody had tried before, handling thousands of contacts, guiding hundreds of people to be effective activists through my prolific writing.

There's not even a mention of being a patron of LGBT History Month, a form of LGBT community recognition that I am very proud about. I could go on...

And then ... I left the Tory party famously over 14 years ago, so that's hardly a reason to be listed. And to say I helped pass the 2004 Gender Recognition Act is to reduce almost two decades of activism to a bit part. It's rather like the distinction that a hen may be involved in making breakfast but the pig is committed.

Indeed, if I only helped pass an Act of Parliament in the teeth of 35 years of establishment opposition, why are my colleagues who played crucial roles not also mentioned? How many such acts of parliament has George Michael (No. 95) forced through?

Reasons to be cynical

This is why I say that initial bemusement gave way to annoyance. An ill-researched biography like this, seen by strangers, would strongly suggest that I didn't really belong on the list for legitimate achievements, but was there purely out of someone's desperation to tick a box.

I am sure this wasn't the intention of the compilers. However a clumsy and cack-handed approach leaves the door open to such speculation. A failure to convince people that the selection committee has really thought objectively about its' selection and rankings reduces what should be an honour to something far more dubious.

I want to be on such list for sure. But I only want to be there with serious and accurately researched reasons for why I deserve to be.

Only then might any of us start to figure out why I'm supposedly more 'powerful' than "talented pantomime dame" Christopher Biggins and only marginally less influential than George Michael. (C'mon now, you're having a larf)

I suppose, in short, that like many people with a string of serious professional qualifications and genuine marks of recognition, I'd like to think that I'm on a list for some kind of objective reason. Otherwise others might construe it as insulting.

And what about the rest?

As I said in my introduction, however, annoyance ultimately gave way to embarrassment.

There are a great many talented trans people. For me to be the only person to make it onto a list like this when I am in such awe of some of those other people leaves me feeling the need to apologise to them all.

I've described the selection process for this list as appearing clumsy and cack-handed because that is the only way to read such poor research.

You don't have to look far to find long lists of influential trans people who would be candidates to give many of the Time Out list a run for their money.

Wikipedia (where I suspect the compilers got my own details) has a long and useful list of notable trans people. A further page even helpfully breaks down lists of transsexual and transgender people in areas such as law, science, entertainment, sports and the armed forces.

It's also not hard to ask around.

Spoiled for Choice

I conducted a short and unscientific survey for just half an hour on Twitter and I was amazed by the number of times the same names kept being mentioned as people whom trans people rated as having power and influence.

Often mentioned were the new breed of trans writers and mainstream journalists. People like Jane Fae (Pink Paper and various), Roz Kaveney (Guardian and others), Juliet Jacques (Guardian and New Statesman and an Orwell Prize nominee) and Jennie Kermode.

These are people who already have a significant reach in terms of mainstream readers, and they are talents that will hopefully be allowed to flourish. Looking further back for influence and inspiration there is the famous writer Jan Morris CBE.

Also mentioned were the leading lights in a new generation of activists who have increasingly come to the fore since I and my generation of campaigners moved aside for them.

These are names like Christina Alley, Louis Bailey, Jason Barker, Sarah Brown (who is also a Lib Dem councillor), veteran activist Roz Kaveney (again), writer / academic Natacha Kennedy, James Morton, and Jay Stewart.

In entertainment there are well-known figures like reality star Nadia Almada and genius singer/songwriter Adele Anderson of Fascinating Aida. There's also comedienne Bethany Black plus (very popular with the Royal Family) the brilliant magician Fay Presto .. not to mention singer and musician CN Lester.

In business there is the computer entrepreneur Kate Craig-Wood, who has been featured many times in the broadsheets as an inspiring example. Then, in public service there are people such as Lynette Nusbacher, a prime ministerial advisor on counter terrorism.

Summing up

Having already written about the dangers of divisiveness it's difficult to edit a list like this. Overall, more than 30 names were suggested to me and I've tried to be fair by picking the ones who came up most often and putting them in alphabetical order of family name.

Any of the others should certainly be on a list of people to watch out for though. That would include people such as a the founders of the influential Trans Media Watch group, including young talent Paris Lees, who I will stake money on being well known and successful before too long.

OK, so a list of 100 LGBT people that includes major media stars, politicians, sportspeople and entrepreneurs might not have room for all the people I've mentioned. Not yet, at least. And some will have to thrash it out competitively, just as the unlisted LGB hopefuls must do too. But if I qualify for a list like this then I'm damned sure there are at least half a dozen in the list above who qualify as well ... in some cases more so.

The fact that we are talking about one trans woman being alone on such a list points to problem in the LGBT community which isn't new. It just highlights it.

I know some wonderful gay, lesbian and bisexual people who would have had no problem correctly describing my own achievements or of naming most of the names above. However, maybe this experience and knowledge doesn't extend to the people who appoint each other to make lists.

Until they remedy that lack of knowledge and experience, however, they are going to continue producing lists which I, for one, feel embarrassed to be seen on.

The freedom to be equally odious

2011-06-17T11:49:00.001+01:00

It's a sad fact. Life's downtrodden aren't perfect.

Whilst they're on the wrong side of society we present the victims of discrimination as universally noble creatures who want for nothing more than to live their lives free of hassle.

If we just got off all their backs then the world would be perfect.

Yet time and again history records that some people's first act, given a sniff of acceptance and equality, is to validate that freedom by putting the boot into someone who they now perceive to be a little further down the heap.

A sign of progress?

My eye was caught today by a cutting from the Halifax Courier, picked up by the eagle eyed staff at Trans Media Watch. "Ban the Drag Acts" screamed the headline.

Oh dear. Not transphobia or homophobia in the heart of Yorkshire, surely?

According to the report Rose White, a Halifax woman, has written to councillors and organisers asking them to either ban Drag performers appearing in Calderdale's Pride celebrations or publish a disclaimer about them. She is quoted as saying:

“Drag queens – homosexuals dressed as women – and drag kings, women dressed as men, performing as stereotypical crossdressers promote, foster and reinforce the belief among the audience that any bloke in a frock must be a homosexual.”

But then there's the rub. Rose, 64, turns out to be a transsexual woman. And how long is it since trans people of any stripe felt accepted enough to be voluntarily quoted with a posed photo of themselves in a newspaper?

Much of my activist career involved helping frightened trans people avoid the press.

When there's someone lower than you

In a peculiar way there's perhaps something to celebrate here. A local newspaper is giving a voice to a transsexual woman doing something other than the usual stereotype reported for generations.

Rose's gender history has no more prominence and discussion than her age or any of the other identifying details which reporters feel obliged to print.

They've got the pronouns right. They're not lingering on salacious personal details. The story is her complaint to officials. These are all marks of mainstream acceptance, right?

Well, yes. Unfortunately, as for every other minority that has clawed its' way from the bottom of life's hierarchy of despair, it's a sad reminder of what people will do the moment they have the chance to take normal freedoms for granted.

Not alone

People like Rose are not unique.

Black and minority people may still have a long way to achieve true equality and freedom from discrimination in Britain. Yet, race and ethnicity are already sufficiently unremarkable to allow parts of minority communities to sometimes voice and practice sexism, racism and homophobia.

Christians and other religious groups teach the history of their own oppression to their children as they grow up. Yet some cannot resist attacking others.

I've met a few deeply racist and homophobic disabled people. And, of course there are some sexist and transphobic lesbian and gay people.

It's a game anyone can play. Unless you are on the very bottom of the pile. And that's where trans people were until recently ... which is why that community's potential for unpleasantness has not been a public commodity until now.

When will they ever learn?

Is this, sadly, the level of equality to which many members of minorities aspire?

Being accepted sufficiently yourself that you have a platform to advocate excluding others? Just like those with the privilege you aspire to?

It seems such a shame that so many people never learn a lasting lesson from the experience of being discriminated themselves.

However, in printing Rose White's views, the Halifax Courier is doing nothing different from when readers from other backgrounds are allowed to express sexist, racist, disablist, homophobic or transphobic views. She is just being accepted into the club.

Welcome to the mainstream, where trans people are free to be as odious as their neighbours.

It's an equality of sorts, but not quite the one that folks like me had in mind.

Launching the new guide to Sexual Orientation monitoring

2011-06-13T19:32:00.001+01:00

About three weeks ago I pre-announced how our team at NHS North West and our partners at the Lesbian and Gay Foundation were working to publish an innovative new 'how to' guide on how to carry out monitoring for sexual orientation among staff and service users in organisations like the NHS.

As I explained on the blog back then, monitoring is an essential way of getting information about who is using a provider's services and the demographics of who they employ. Sensible organisations can use this information to improve and fine tune services to better meet peoples' needs. They can also ensure that their staff profile reflects the diversity of the population, and that particular kinds of staff (eg LGBT people) are not getting a disproportionately bad deal.

Today we launched the completed 48 page colour booklet at a lunchtime event at the Lesbian and Gay Foundation's community resource centre in the heart of Manchester's Gay Village.

Read LGF's release here and NHS North West's release here.

Produced by experts

The new guide has been designed by LGF with the aid of a steering group made up of equality experts. The panel included representatives from

Cheshire Constabulary
Manchester City Council
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
NHS Trafford
NHS North West and
LGF

Designed to be practical

The guide recognises that many people need help both to build a case for monitoring sexual orientation, and to decide how they are going to go about it. So, the text includes plenty of real life examples of how other organisations like theirs have successfully achieved each of the steps. The guide covers:

An introduction to the terminology
Background on the policy context
A discussion of why we need to monitor
What we are monitoring
Who we are asking
How to prepare the ground in advance
How to actually collect the information
How to analyse it and
How to use it

Accessible

Attendees at today's launch were able to take away copies of the full guide from a proof run of 100. This is so that we can continue obtaining feedback from a wider audience before we go ahead and do a full print run in early July.

We also demonstrated how an online version of the content will appear when it is added to NHS North West's Health Equality Library Portal (HELP). Again, the online version will be released in early July once we've had pilot feedback. I'll blog again, and both NHS North West and LGF will announce when the resource is fully available for everyone.

Welcomed

The feedback today was extremely encouraging though, so we can't wait to be able to get the guide out for the whole world to access.

New resource makes LGBT History interactive

2011-06-13T18:26:00.001+01:00

A few months ago, back in February, I reported on how our team at NHS North West had launched a new travelling exhibition charting the history of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans people, especially in England's North West region.

The exhibition, which is well over thirty feet long and occupies 20 display panels, was launched in time to celebrate the beginning of LGBT History Month (of which I'm a patron).

It is now heavily booked to tour NHS and other institutions around the North West.

I promised at the time that we would be following up with an interactive resource that everyone could access. Today it went live.

History you can interact with

Like the touring exhibition, the online version of the timeline has been funded and produced by NHS North West in partnership with the Lesbian and Gay Foundation (LGF) and the Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre (TREC) -- who together carried out most of the research.

The timeline celebrates the history and achievements of LGB&T people, particularly those that have contributed to healthcare over the years, and the development of a vibrant and active community in the North West.

The timeline also documents the way in which the medical view of sexual orientation and gender identity have altered through the ages, showing the landmark decision points where changes occurred.

The interactive resource can be accessed here at http://www.help.northwest.nhs.uk/lgbt_timeline/

Several ways to use it

There are several ways in which you can use the resource:

You can just scroll through the whole timeline from left to right, covering three millennia. This is designed to mimic the experience of walking round the physical exhibition
You can open up a so-called flash book and just turn the pages. This mimics the 34 page booklet which visitors to the exhibition can take away. The booklet contains a lot more material than we could possible get onto the exhibition panels and is therefore a richer experience
You can also download the full booklet in PDF form. This means you can print your own copies to give to people.
Finally, you can also watch the accompanying film, which features many LGBT NHS staff talking about their careers and the experience of working in the health service.

We hope that with the input from specialists at LGF and TREC we have produced the most comprehensive history to date. It's certainly one of the most interactive.

A conflict of loyalties

2011-06-12T14:37:00.001+01:00

Have you ever felt compromised between something that would benefit your community but is bad for everyone else?

Have you struggled with loyalties towards someone who has helped your cause but is now on the 'other side'?

These are moral questions which advocates for equality can find themselves having to ask.

I'm not sure I know the answers. Are you?

Black, white and all the shades between

Politics always used to seem so much easier than this.

In the good old days (before May 2010), we who aim for greater equality and fairness knew where we stood.

Whichever party was in power, Labour or Conservative, our friends might seem to have been mostly on the right side of the fence with us.

Policies were normally, quite obligingly, black or white. Even if the subject was outside of our speciality, we had sufficient confidence in what we thought we knew of the party putting a policy forward to care or not care without too much introspection.

More to the point, in the tribal politics that we have all been reared on in the UK, friends were supposed to be all on one side, and the baddies were on the other.

Sleeping with the enemy

Of course, everyone knows that I have a compromising personal history where tribalism is concerned. I've never made any secret that I was brought up by shopkeeper parents as a Tory. It's only in the last year that I've become a paying (if inactive) member of the Labour Party.

I grew up without really challenging the messages around me. The way that the left branch of UK politics behaved and was portrayed in the 1970's, when I was a young adult, didn't encourage me to ever think of changing my stripes.

In 1992 I formally joined my local Conservative Party in the Cheshire village where I lived. Admittedly, the motive was partly to piss off my vocally socialist boyfriend at the time. Still, being the only young woman's face in the branch for years, I was instantly taken to their bosom.

Within a week of timidly volunteering to go canvassing in my village the branch secretary died from a heart attack. To my disbelief they asked me to step into his shoes. Cautiously, I agreed.

Counterintuitive

The warm embrace of the local establishment went on.

Soon, the formidable ladies of the Cheshire lunching set asked me to chair the constituency's "Younger Women's Supper Group" (ages 40-60). I went on to become both the treasurer and vice chair of the branch, and one of the organisers of a new candidate's election team. I even set up the constituency's first computer.

My popularity within what everyone considered to be the "nasty party" was counterintuitive, given that I now realise how left-of-centre my views had tended to be when we debated policy. That popularity even survived my well-documented coming out to them in the summer of 1995.

I only left the Conservatives in 1997. By that time, as I've famously joked to audiences, I realised it had become more embarrassing to tell people I was a Conservative than to say I was a trans woman. (Cue guaranteed belly laugh from the crowd).

Leaving was easy politically. By that time the discipline of debating policies, and the excruciating sight of the party's public stance on so many matters, made me realise that I was genuinely in the wrong place for my values and beliefs.

I voted Labour in the landslide election. All my campaigner friends let out a collective sigh of relief.

But leaving took a bigger toll on a personal level. Being a party figure wasn't just about beliefs (whose differences could be accepted) but about friendships. I realised that those two were inseparable once you get past the crude advertising of party lines.

Friends where you may not expect them

Those experiences taught me that simplistic political labels are often not helpful, and that the character of a party's grass roots can be much more of an open church than the official dogmatic lines expressed by parties on either side of the House in Westminster.

I began to see how politicians could be intellectually opposed in terms of methods, and yet share the desire to solve a particular problem.

That understanding prepared me to be able to relate to individual Conservative MPs as surprisingly constructive allies when we were building cross party support for the Gender Recognition Bill in 2003/4.

The Conservative opposition leader at the time was Michael Howard. He already knew me well. He sometimes even crossed the road specially to say hello. He quickly signalled that his party supported the legislation in principle, and that MPs could follow their consciences on the matter.

Though he never discussed it with me I suspect that, in spite of his political reputation, his own family background and experience as a barrister informed his understanding of people seeking to establish their identity and be accepted in society.

All this means that you can't always predict from the colour of the rosette who your allies may be.

Like they say of relationships on Facebook, "it's complicated".

Crossing to the dark side

The formation of a coalition government has meant that perhaps more people are now finding themselves dealing with people in a different tribe.

Until now most people would probably have thought of Liberal Democrats in the same mental compartment as Labour.

Indeed, the Social Democrats, who first formed an electoral pact with the Liberal Party between 1981-88, were disaffected former members of the Labour Party anyway. As a merged 'Liberal Democrat' party after 1988, the only difference in many minds seemed to be that LibDem policy was less likely to have to be tested by the realities of government.

It was entirely natural, therefore, the people campaigning for social change would find Liberal Democrat parliamentarians to be useful allies, and acquire debts of gratitude for services rendered.

Discussing one of my recent articles about the Coalition's 'Red Tape Challenge' on the Equality Act, a trans campaigner expressed it thus:

I don't want to implicate Lynne Featherstone in my criticisms ... She has been so supportive of trans equality over the years.

And this is what suddenly struck me about the conflict of loyalties that is now opened up by finding former allies supporting or implicated with the policies of what has generally thought of as "the enemy".

My own reply on this was clear.

There is a danger that if people [Lynne Featherstone] has supported fail to honestly critique her in other areas where she is performing less well then their own integrity starts coming into question. People could point and say that maybe they've been bought off. ... I feel that if I made the defence of everyone's equality a second priority to (say) trans peoples' concerns then that would make us no better than those who turn a blind eye to wrong in exchange for other kinds of favours.

Bluntly, is there a point where maintaining historical loyalties as a result of past favours could be no different to someone who takes a bribe?

Not just loyalties but interests

The more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that it wasn't just conflicts of loyalties we should worry about but conflicts of interest too.

Many people are concerned about the current proposed changes to the NHS. One area of concern is that the concept of competition embodied in the idea of "any willing provider" can seriously destabilise the whole system by allowing private sector providers to "cherry pick" the low hanging fruit in the system. It is feared this could leave NHS hospitals with complex cases that cannot be profitable on their own.

Yet, if we take another example from the trans community, campaigners have begged for years to be able to access popular private-run gender identity clinics with NHS funding.

Choice, for that community, is very welcome. I suspect it is for many other single issue campaigners too.

The previous government's limited foray into allowing private sector provision in the NHS was sold to the public precisely because it enabled long waiting lists for specific surgeries like hip replacements and hernia repairs to be cleared.

So, if you're a campaigner for a particular group like trans people how are you to resolve the tempting conflict of interest?

Twixt the devil and the deep blue sea

If you're true to your political principles and are concerned about the long term impacts of significant strategic change in the finances of the health economy then the wider good is served by opposing such changes. Besides, people in your community will be hurt just as badly when they or their families want to use NHS services for other needs in the future.

Yet, the opportunist in you might also be tempted by the solution sitting on the plate to fix a problem which your community has been fighting to solve for years.

Which is it to be? Principles or interests?

We live in times that pose devilish questions.

Russell Howard - The signs of a flawed character

2011-06-11T14:18:00.001+01:00

When a TV star fouls up then it is usually other people who carry the can ... their producer, the production company, the commissioning editor.

It is also other people who end up with the mess to investigate and explain ... the regulators and the broadcaster.

And, where expensive productions are concerned, nobody wants to admit fault. That would mean a show they can't repeat or sell on elsewhere.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility though?

For there is a way of saying sorry even when the system demands you can't admit doing wrong.

The Russell Howard Affair

For those who don't know, the story goes like this....

Russell Howard is a young, baby-faced, new generation entertainer, supposedly appealing to a certain kind of young viewer demographic.

He has a show that's screened on BBC TV. It's called "Russell Howard's Good News".

The format is based on taking items from recent news and making jokes about the subjects involved. In that sense it is a one man stand up derivative of established shows such as 'Have I Got News for You' ... except that the latter is designed for more mature mainstream audiences.

On April 1st, Howard's show picked up on news that a Thai charter airline, PC Air, was recruiting Kathoey flight attendants in a novel employment initiative.

Titillation

This was never going to be a story that was intelligently examined. Far too much titillation value. Reuters, for instance, misspelled 'Kathoey' and employed the demeaning term 'ladyboy' in their syndicated headline.

Some versions of the story, repeated widely around the world, at least acknowledged that in any western country's language kathoey would be described as transsexual or transgender, and that the initiative was addressing a serious employment need.

In Thailand, the job roles open to kathoey are severely restricted. Many are often ejected from public spaces such as bars. For some there are limited openings as beauticians. For the rest, street work becomes a necessity for survival. Western eyes see the street work without questioning the social back story.

However, Russell Howard and his writers had no interest in that. They spotted a cheap visual gag, playing on the received idea that ... well, you can guess.

Gross

Their treatment of the story can be seen here on You Tube. It portrays large men with stubble in stewardess costumes; women passengers being sick at the sight of them; the men exposing their bras; and finally grotesque scrotal sacs viewed between their legs from behind.

I'm linking direct to the video page rather than embedding the video, as the comments under the video form part of understanding the horror of many parts of the trans community.

A complaint

Trans Media Watch were among the first to be on the case. Their press release about the programme was picked up and reported by Pink News.

Again, the 300+ comments under the story form part of judging peoples' reaction.

I'm sure Russell Howard would have no difficulty finding feedback like this. He would also be able to pick up on how people were reacting to the video on You Tube as well. The concern was widely discussed.

Initially there was confusion over who would handle the complaint. First, complainants to the media regulator OFCOM were told that they should contact the BBC. Then that line was reversed and OFCOM decided that would adjudicate the complaint themselves.

In a nutshell, the BBC defence was that the video sketch was not about trans women but about what a British budget airline would do if they tried to implement the same thing. The joke, we are supposed to believe, would be that they would employ these grotesques.

On Friday 10th June, OFCOM sent copies of its' judgement to those who had complained directly. A copy is available here, along with more background.

Accepting the BBC's claim that the sketch was about budget airlines and not intended to denigrate trans people, OFCOM said:

"It is Ofcom's view that the sketch was not likely to encourage transphobia as there was no intention to denigrate or demonstrate hostility towards the transgender community"

Reaction

Although it is early days, and most reaction has been confined to the Trans Media Watch group and a few blogs, the reaction of trans people has been predictable dismay and disbelief at the OFCOM decision. "Whose side are they on?" said one correspondent.

Journalist and Trans Media Watch activist Paris Lees, approached the news by blogging a photo of Russell Howard and, beneath it, telling the very sad story of how programmes like this create the climate in which vulnerable trans people can be literally terrified to death.

And the OFCOM decision certainly seems strange.

If this was a sketch that was supposed to be picking fun at shoddy budget airlines, then there was a conspicuous absence of easy laughter cues about the well known shortcomings of the business approach. The 'stewardesses' were pictured serving meals and giving other at-seat services ... definitely not the hallmark of any modern budget airline in Britain. All the gags were about the grotesques, around which the laughs were milked.

But lots of people are doubtless going to write about that. Personally I just want to focus back in on the performer whose name is on the programme.

The days when gags didn't need victims

I'm old enough to have watched many generations of comedians. I admit the ones that stay in the mind are the real entertainers. The ones who learned their craft the hard way, and who got their well deserved laughs from the care with which they crafted their scripts. They created comedy that stands the test of time. It's as funny today as 40 years ago, in spite of massive changes in society.

What I noted about those entertainers was that they were aware of the relationship with their audience, and the responsibilities that came with that.

There is no avoiding the fact that a complaint to a regulator or the broadcaster becomes something that is out of the original performer's hands. Money is at stake.

The consequences of an adverse adjudication could mean scrapping a show, or at least having to remove the 90 second segment occupied by the offending sketch. For a topical show recorded in front of an audience it may not even be feasible to shoot a replacement to fill the gap.

Ultimately the prospects of repeating the series, marketing a DVD or selling the show abroad are affected by whether the offending part is judged acceptable or not.

Yet that doesn't wholly constrain an entertainer from acknowledging concerns.

The signs of a flawed character

If Russell Howard wanted to show he was a principled man then there would be no problem for him in acknowledging that a section of his audience were concerned enough to complain about something he created.

He could say that the decision on whether it was right or wrong was now out of his hands. But that would not stop him from saying in public that he is sorry to hear that people were upset, and assure them it wasn't his personal intention to cause offence.

A man of integrity would find that kind of way to acknowledge hurt without necessarily admitting liability. If he's done that and I missed it then I'll come back and make a note of that.

However, I'm not sure whether a man who could dream up that kind of 'point and laugh' humour would have that kind of integrity.

Regardless of OFCOM's disappointing (and frankly astonishing) decision, we are left wondering about the flaws in Russell Howard's character.

The perils of a transneologism

2011-06-10T10:53:00.001+01:00

I confess I've never felt altogether comfortable with some usage of the word transphobia.

That's not to say I don't understand the rationale behind its' construction, or what it technically stands for.

There are plenty of times when such a word is genuinely needed to describe a whole range of aggressively negative behaviours.

However, I worry that indiscriminate use of the word can not only dilute the meaning but can also diminish support for campaigners on the occasions when such a term is genuinely valid.

Behaviour that stems from fear

As a young adult in the late 1960's and early 70's I witnessed the emergence of modern LGB activism. This was the period when transphobia's antecedent "homophobia" was first coined.

Homophobia seemed then, and now, a usefully descriptive term. It not only works as a shorthand for a set of aggressively negative behaviours which most people recognise, but (in its etymology) it postulates a psychological motivation for why people behave that way.

The etymology is, of course, easily understood:

Homo- (besides the linguistic origins of the stem) is an obvious reference to "homosexual". "Homo" has even been used itself as a term of abuse, in the same way that racists in the 1950's and 60's reduced "Pakistani" to "Paki"
-phobia (which also has detailed linguistic origins) alludes to a string of popularly understood clinical terms for what are perceived to be excessive and irrational fear reactions. There is a wealth of cultural understanding bound up in terms like arachnophobia, triskaidekaphobia, and (perhaps most relevant) xenophobia. The latter is defined as the "hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture".

Putting hostility in a box

Creating a word like homophobia, which has a pseudo-clinical association, has a political as well as a purely descriptive function.

There is no clinical diagnosis of homophobia. At least, not in the way that scientists have sought to study (and sometimes treat) traditionally described phobias.

I have yet to hear of any homophobe seeking treatment for the negative effects of their behaviours. Neither do their friends gather round and recommend they get help.

Whereas someone with a fear of spiders might recognise that this is problem for them, homophobes are unlikely to think their behaviours are at all problematic, unless they end up on the wrong side of the law or public opinion.

Even then they may think their behaviour completely rational and blame the world for being out of step with them.

However the implication is clear. When you label someone's behaviour as homophobic you are transferring attention back onto them. You are attributing their actions to an out-of-control pathology that they should take responsibility for curbing.

Drawing political parallels

The term also makes a political connection with other forms of discrimination which have been studied for irrational behavioural drivers.

The attacks, abuse and discrimination in racism can be understood in terms associated with xenophobia. Negative beliefs and behaviours towards women can be linked to the concept of misogyny.

When the term homophobia was coined it was therefore readily understood. It tapped into a wealth of cultural history and analysis.

This simple association saved a wealth of explanation. People could figure it out for themselves.

Furthermore, because the term "-phobia" is associated with a mental health diagnosis, it carries the stigma that all such conditions unfortunately attract.

So, the act of describing anyone's behaviour as in some way phobic is not just a passive act of labelling. It aims to throw a little harm the aggressor's way. It casts them in a negative light which they have to defend or refute.

That's why people called out as homophobic can't just ignore the epithet. They have to actively deny it.

In a war of words calling someone a homophobe is a return salvo.

A homologue is born

The usage of the word homophobia had already been established for over twenty years when modern trans activism began to coalesce into an organised movement in the 1990's.

Unlike homophobia (which is attributed to an article by psychologist George Weinberg in 1969), I'm not sure it's easy to pin down exactly when the word transphobia was first coined.

The etymology hardly needs explaining. If homophobia drew on allusions to clinical phobias then transphobia simply took the family name of its' obvious political parent. It came out of trans people working alongside LGB allies or studying their methods.

Not a term we needed

Personally I can't remember it being part of any important discussions which we held as UK trans activists in the early years of the Press for Change campaign.

As one of the campaign's principal writers I thought hard about using any neologisms if I came across them. We realised how important language was.

I have a clear recollection of how we formulated a line on using terms like 'transsexual' as an adjective, and how 'trans' was consciously discussed and introduced to our informal style guide. However, I have no recall of us talking about transphobia.

Looking back, I think we tended not to resort to such a word because, as campaigners, we were focussed on describing outcomes.

A word like transphobia has always seemed to me about apportioning blame and explaining the irrational behaviour that trans people describe seeing in others.

As a campaign heavily invested in using judicial means to bring about legislative and social change, we preferred to describe events technically. We saw cases in terms of legal expressions like discrimination, bullying, harassment, and victimisation.

The cases that came to us could also sometimes be described as extreme examples of bad manners or people behaving badly. A term like 'transphobia' would only have served to provide a spurious justification for the inexcusable. "I couldn't help myself m'lud. It was the transphobia. It's incurable".

Nevertheless at some point the word entered our language. I suspect it came in through the increasing levels of online communications which we had with US activists towards the back end of the 1990's. And, as more trans people came out and started becoming politically active in the noughties, the word seems to have become just a convenient shorthand which people assumed could be understood.

A definition?

I could be wrong of course, but I think that this is a case where the word came first and then people attempted, retrospectively, to define it.

My impression is that the word gained currency because it felt right as a shorthand for a whole bundle of experiences. It would be interesting if anyone could investigate the editorial history of how Wikipedia contributors managed to come up with the current stab at a definition:

Transphobia (or less commonly cissexism, transprejudice, and trans-misogyny, referring to transphobia directed toward trans women, or trans-misandry, referring to transphobia directed toward trans men) is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards transsexualism and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – terms indicating prejudice or class discrimination). Whether intentional or not, transphobia can have severe consequences for the target of the negative attitude.

One thing that has caught my eye in that definition is the expression "whether intentional or not". This would seem to me to be one of the problems in its' use.

What kind of "unintentional" are we meaning here? Do we mean an innocent gaffe which the perpetrator would be happy to correct with a friendly explanation? Or do we mean an action arising from that person's unconscious, like an irrational fear of feathers, which they are not even aware of?

The other problem that I perceive is that the word seems to have to engage a number of other pseudo-pathological neologisms to define itself ... opening up a potential gulf in understanding between those who choose to use it and those who find themselves having it applied to them.

All this, it seems to me, moves away from the simplicity of understanding the word homophobia in 1969.

Use with care and restraint

If I have ever used the shorthand of transphobia (and I admit I do so only with extreme caution) then I tend to be careful to restrict it to cases where it seems to me that all rational explanations for someone's behaviour have been exhausted and pathology is the only likely explanation left.

Before I get there, however, I run through all the other possibilities.

Was the person just unaware that certain behaviour offends or harms trans people?
If so, will they respond to polite explanation?
Was their behaviour simply accidental?
If that's pointed out politely are they motivated to apologise?
Are they an actual or potential ally who thought they were doing right but failed to understand the complexity of trans experiences, language or politics?
Are they just socially inept or bad mannered in general?

Part of my rationale is that, as a diversity specialist, I'm painfully aware of the potential for unintended offence which I may give to other communities, regardless of how well-intentioned I may be. And if people react straight away to my innocent blundering with a term that suggests I may have an unmoderated mental illness or a seriously unpleasant motive, then I know I would feel hurt and defensive.

I may be able to understand their impatience and annoyance when my blunder is explained to me. I'm likely to apologise as well. However, I also know that it is a perfectly human reaction to attempt to defend oneself if the initial response is unduly harsh and doesn't leave open the possibility for explanation.

And this is where I feel the problem can lie in trigger happy use of such a potentially powerful, accusatory and stigmatising term as transphobia.

Do we need a new word?

So, if transphobia can be problematic should we ditch it and find another one?

No. Personally I don't think so. Not if we don't address the underlying problem of people rushing to diagnose a malicious or fear-driven motive when simpler explanations would do. Besides we already seem to have too many words that serve as potential barriers to outsiders.

Overuse of a word in inappropriate circumstances simply dilutes the meaning. It also harms the cause, as others see over reaction in the trans community and can assume that every time someone cries Transphobia! another innocent commentator is being hauled over the coals by a community that takes no prisoners.

Or do we need a new attitude?

Interestingly, when I discussed writing this article, I realised that I myself wasn't alone in the fear of incurring the wrath of a powerfully vocal trans community if I accidentally said a word out of place.

I haven't yet experienced the ultimate irony of being labelled transphobic, though I figure it could only be a matter of time.

When it gets to that stage then a community has a problem. It's time to draw back and wonder seriously whether too much use of the linguistic nuclear option can deter otherwise useful allies.

Yesterday, for instance, I witnessed a young and politically aware rising star journalist, Laurie Penny, coming close to this experience on her own Facebook page. A commenter said that she "stopped just short of then (sic) line of transphobia".

Laurie's crime? She's a colourful and emotive writer. She draws word pictures. And, in an article for the Independent she had used both the word 'drag' and a reference to pantomine dames as a way of describing the approach of a certain reality TV show and its' star.

Laurie strikes me as a very conscientious writer -- a woman who is well aware of the strongly polarised responses her words can invoke.

She knew about trans sensitivities, so she tried to contact not one but three separate trans activists, prior to publication, to discuss the way she had borrowed and repurposed some well established words that far pre-date modern trans identity and language.

Pantomime Dames are a long established part of our culture and (in my view) a fair concept to use for a critical simile. Drag also has a long history. Neither concept is owned by trans people, nor is there any evidence of harm to trans people by discussing these things.

All three of us told her that we weren't personally troubled given the context, but to be aware that there was always the probability that someone, somewhere out there, could take her to task. And they did.

Giving the abuser an excuse

The complainant's case was that using these terms encouraged commenters on her article in the Independent to use genuinely offensive language ("tranny") in remarks below the line.

This is rather like suggesting we accept a rapist or domestic abuser's argument that their victim was in some way responsible for provoking what happened to them by wearing particular clothes or just being in the way.

That doesn't wash. Journalists can't be held accountable for what their readers do, unless they are directly inciting action. By all means tackle the commenter, but don't lump blame on someone just for using words which they've been careful to check beforehand.

The commenter themselves may have been transphobic. Again, they may not. One wisecrack comment is not necessarily enough to diagnose and accuse someone of a serious pattern of behaviour.

How to lose friends

Laurie is actually a trans ally. So it pained me to see someone come close to labelling her with a term which (as I've explained) denotes deliberate actions of hatred and possibly an out of control mental health problem.

She might understand that these things come out of a community with a lot of pent up anger for the abuse of decades. But what does it look like to the bystander?

Do trans people look like folks you would want to get involved in supporting if, when you put an innocent foot out of place, you could be instantly denounced on the internet as a hater?

In summary

As I said at the outset, I believe in using the term transphobia with care and restraint.

I'm not against the term altogether. When all other explanations for someone's bad behaviour have been discounted then it has its place.

And, when usage is constrained to those clear circumstances, everyone can be clear what it means. The word stands to grow in power by association with clear cases of egregious hatred which look as though the perpetrator can't rationally control themselves.

Used indiscriminately, however, the word loses both power and meaning. It becomes just a cheap shot, poorly aimed. It can also lose friends.

So there you have it. I'm aware that this viewpoint may itself provoke strong reactions. It won't be the first time I've experienced being on the wrong side of trans opinion if so.

But mark my words. If we cheapen the language then everyone loses.

Lynne Featherstone clarifies the government's intent

2011-06-09T12:43:00.001+01:00

Yesterday I blogged about the coalition government's plan to invite further discussion about the Equality Act on their 'Red Tape' web site. That will be happening from today, 9th June and the spotlight on this area of legislation will continue till the end of the month.

My advice would be for people to continue posting their views on the site (click here). However, rather than simply indicating support for the principle of the legislation, it would be constructive if people indicated specifically

What aspects of the legislation they think are best
What aspects of the legislation could still be improved
The reasons why they support or disagree with any particular proposals made by other contributors

The site now has the facility for people to indicate support for particular comments by tweeting or posting them to Facebook. It would be helpful if especially relevant comments were promoted in this way.

The Minister for Equalities has now issued the following statement to stakeholders, clarifying the government's intent.

A message from Lynne Featherstone, Minister for Equalities

The Red Tape Challenge aims to tackle the burden of excessive red tape, both to free businesses to compete and create jobs and to give people greater freedom and personal responsibility.

However, the presence of the Equality Act 2010 on the Red Tape Challenge Website has raised some concern amongst some stakeholders. I’m therefore writing to clarify the Government’s position.

Firstly, I would like to assure you of this Government’s strong commitment to equality. We are not changing direction on this. We set out our commitment in the Coalition Programme and Theresa May, the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, set out the Government’s approach in more detail in the Equality Strategy published last December.

Secondly, as the website now makes clear, a particular regulation being featured on the Red Tape Challenge website should not be read as implying any intention on the part of the Government to remove that regulation.

Indeed, the Home Secretary stated in Parliament on 5 May, in reference to the Equality Act’s inclusion on the Red Tape Challenge website, that "it is not the Government’s intention to abolish the Equality Act.’

Instead, the Government wants to hear from members of the public, businesses and voluntary and community organisations about how the Act is working in practice. We want to know whether the Act could be simplified, better implemented, or if certain provisions should be dropped or amended, or whether it should be kept exactly as it is.

From June 9 until June 30, the Red Tape Challenge will have a spotlight on the Equalities theme, which will be facilitated by Caroline Waters, Head of HR, at BT. During this period, I would like to invite you to visit www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk and participate in an informed debate on how we can deliver better regulation.

Any proposals for change would receive careful consideration as to whether they were proportionate, practical, beneficial and in keeping with our wider commitments and EU or domestic legal obligations. Any proposals that passed that test would need to go through the appropriate consultation and Parliamentary process.

I hope this helps to reassure you and clarifies what we are aiming to do. We welcome your input to the Red Tape Challenge website and all relevant consultations.

The price of equality under a Tory-led government is eternal vigilance

2011-06-08T10:54:00.001+01:00

The coalition government are rumoured to be at it again

I'm getting indications from several quarters that, in spite of receiving over 5,300 responses to their 'Red Tape Challenge' consultation site a couple of months ago regarding the Equality Act, the coalition still wants to keep up the pressure for any excuse to emasculate the legislation that protects our rights.

This is a government that is never put off by getting a message they don't like. They just keep coming back and asking the question again until the answer suits their ideological agenda.

I've blogged about the insidious threats to our hard won and precious equality protections before.

During April 2011, a massive social network campaign by organisations and individuals who care about equality led to the thousands of responses to the web site that I mentioned above ... hundreds of times more responses than the average for other 'Red Tape' questions on the web site, and almost unequivocally supportive of either keeping the legislation intact, or even strengthening it.

These are some typical calls to action back then:

Mental Health Charity MIND
The Equality Trust
Inclusion London

The Guardian described the 'Red Tape Challenge' as "Hardly a paragon of e-Democracy"

For more, just Google for "red tape challenge equality act".

DEFCON Three

To use the jargon of US Military Defence, it is time to go to DEFCON 3 again.

I believe we can expect, from tomorrow evening (Thursday 9th June), a renewed focus on the question which the site poses. And I believe that right-leaning businesses are being prepped behind the scenes to post negative comments on what a costly nuisance such regulation is.

I'm not alone in sounding this warning. It looks as though the Equality and Diversity Forum has been hearing the same rumours, as has the Scottish Rural Equality Network.

Spin, spin, spin till the message is right

In the manner of how these things are spun, all that effort that people previously made to post pro legislation messages could be buried under a few pages of fresh negativity on the site. This would then give the Government a license to say that it wants to act in response to 'demand' to cull such red tape.

I'm posting this advance warning to say that we must all be on standby with our networks to fight back on this.

You have been warned

Rumour has it that the spotlight will be turned on this topic from tomorrow evening and could go on for the rest of June. During that time we must use all the tools at our disposal to persuade people we know, and who care about equalities, to ensure the coalition don't get away with this.

First we need to be on the lookout for evidence that it is occurring. Then we need to get communicating, using email, blogs and social media as before to stoke up awareness and drive defensive action.

We've been warned. The price of equality under a Tory-led government is eternal vigilance.

One of our finest hours

2011-06-05T18:00:00.001+01:00

In the last few months I've dusted off some of my first person accounts of a selection of trans campaigning milestones.

There was the reading of a Private Members Bill in Parliament in February 1996, delivering a petition to 10 Downing Street in October 1997 and, long before those events, a significant conference in Amsterdam in April 1993.

To continue that series of retrospectives I now want to move to an event that took place in early 1998, and which put us on the map as a campaign to be reckoned with by Government.

More to the point, I think it was one of the whole British trans community's finest hours

Remembering the trans community's successes

To put the events that I'm writing about into context, it's important to recall that although people mostly now remember the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, the campaign for transsexual peoples' rights in the UK had achieved a number of milestones long before reaching that point.

This was mostly down to some truly heroic individuals prepared to use their personal experiences of discrimination to win big changes through the courts.

In the Spring of 1996, not long after Alex Carlile's Private Members' Bill had been talked out in Parliament, a trans woman known only as "P" won a significant employment discrimination judgement in the European Court of Justice. P's success (besides the milestone of securing her anonymity in the proceedings) confirmed that the European Community's Equal Treatment Directive applied to people who were planning to change, were in the process of changing, or had changed, their gender. This was significant not only to "P", but also meant that the UK's Sex Discrimination Act had to be interpreted in the same light for everyone in Europe. Indeed, for the UK, that interpretation could be applied historically, all the way back to the date that Britain had joined (what was then) the European Economic Community in 1972. More on this in a moment.
In the Summer of 1998 three Lancashire trans women (known only as A, D and G) won a case in the High Court against (what was then) North West Lancashire Health Authority, contesting administrative decisions not to fund referrals for their treatment under the NHS. The Health Authority insisted on appealing the decision and were defeated again the following year at the Court of Appeal, establishing a firm legal precedent in the process. The case established that it was unlawful for NHS commissioners to operate anything amounting to a blanket ban on funding for gender reassignment treatment. Ironically, it is estimated that the full cost of those actions, which fell on the Health Authority, would have easily funded around 50 full gender reassignment treatments.
Then, of course, on 11th July 2002, two transsexual women won the very aptly named "Goodwin & I vs UK" case at the European Court of Human Rights. They were the fourth in a succession of British applicants to the human rights court in Strasbourg, claiming abuses of the right to private and family life, and to marriage. Their success laid the foundations for the Gender Recognition Act.

For those with a more technical interest, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a very useful list of transgender case decisions on their website.

No plain sailing

Success didn't come without some temporary setbacks on the way.

In terms of employment rights, the Police proved to be a particularly hard nut to crack. A transsexual woman "M" lost an Industrial tribunal against West Midlands Police in 1996, in spite of the European Court of Justice ruling. Then a similar case against West Yorkshire Police took over six years to reach a successful conclusion, and went through the entire UK legal system before being resolved successfully at the House of Lords in 2004.

The transsexual woman behind "A vs West Yorkshire Police" had incredible stamina to pursue a case that far. One of my colleagues at the time deserves particular praise for the moral support she offered to help her through.

However, "A" 's case superbly illustrates the trench war nature of changing a system that doesn't want to change. As in the NHS case I mentioned above, the costs to the public purse in losing the case were horrendous. It has been estimated that the Police could have bought two new helicopters with the money spent trying to prevent one young transsexual woman from training to be a police officer. Ironically, the case also emphasised what an excellent officer she was capable of being.

Strength in numbers

Whilst these cases were about heroic individuals stepping up to the plate and being supported by a community of equally remarkable lawyers, the Press for Change campaign was based on the vision that everyone should have the opportunity to contribute as much as they felt comfortable. It was our job to equip them.

We had first put this philosophy to the test in the autumn of 1995, as we laid the ground for Parliament to hear Alex Carlile's personal attempt at a gender recognition bill. Over the course of that autumn (and before all that many trans people were accessible online via email) we used the old fashioned medium of a printed newsletter to encourage individuals to visit and write to their own MPs, and for them to ask for support for the measure.

One thing we resolved never to do was to produce standard letters. Politicians can spot those a mile away. They get them all the time, and know how to deal with them.

Instead, we explained the arguments to people, and then we asked them to put the case into their own words ... to tell it personally.

The result was significant, although it didn't affect the Parliamentary outcome at the time. The politicians supporting us told us it was one of the most impressive lobbies they had seen in recent time. MPs everywhere were telling colleagues how that had met a transsexual woman or man in their constituency surgeries ... and then discovering that their associates had had similar experiences.

It was obvious all these visits had been coordinated in some way, but less obvious how. A campaign that can mobilise hundreds of people all over the country is automatically assumed to be larger than it really is. The fact it was coordinated by a handful of people in their bedrooms was far from obvious.

Forcing open Westminster's doors

In May 1997 the Labour Government swept to power by a landslide majority. It was time to collect on promises made in opposition. And there were new ways of working too ... this Government was keen on consultation, even though the civil servants had no idea yet how to implement it.

Sure enough, in the Autumn of that year (when Press for Change had received a surprise invitation to buy a stand at the Labour Party Conference exhibition) we received a promise from Ministers that they would look at how to implement the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision in P vs S and Cornwall County Council.

A consultation was organised for February 1998, but it was a mess.

Although the ECJ's decision had been straightforward and unequivocal, the questions posed by the Department of Education and Employment in its' discussion of the legislative options were terrifyingly prescriptive. Should there be restrictions on transsexual people having a right to work with children and vulnerable adults, for instance?

Very little time was allowed for responses either. If the success of P's ECJ win was not to turn into a car crash we were all going to have to move very fast.

Mercifully we were ready for this challenge. We knew already how to ask for people to do specific things. And we now had the means to distribute information very quickly. (Mind you, in 1998 we were still a hybrid of old (postal) and new (email/web) communications.)

The story is told in the article below, which I wrote to thank people once the panic was over. I've always believed that if you ask people to do things then you should also tell them what they've achieved, and then ask for more.

And our professional relations with civil servants began in the fallout from this event, in a climate set by the respect that PFC and the entire community had earned by bringing them to the table.

Nothing was ever the same again. We'd established that though we were tiny, we were capable of mobilising hundreds of articulate people.

Looking back on how I documented it at the time, I truly believe it was one of the whole community's finest hours...

Consultation Deluge brings Employment Minister to the discussion table
(Written for GEMS News, 29th April 1998)

Hansard, 30th March 1998: Written answer to a question tabled by Paul Keetch MP, Hereford (Lib Dem).

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses were received to the Department for Education and Employment consultation paper, Legislation Regarding Discrimination on Grounds of Transsexualism in Employment; how many responses were (a) in favour and (b) opposed to the proposals; and if he will make a statement. [36865]

Mr. Alan Howarth: Nearly three hundred responses have been received by the Department. The responses are from a range of individuals and groups, and contain a large number of views, not all of which concern matters within the responsibility of the Department. Analysis of the responses is now underway, and I shall make a further statement in the light of that analysis.

Anyone with the remotest of connections with the UK’s transsexual community can’t have failed to be aware of the number one topic for concern and debate for most of February and March this year.

Readers of a hurriedly published Gems News 31 will have read about it there. Members of the FtM Network, Change and other support groups will have received copies through their newsletters at the same time. Press for Change volunteers spent a night stuffing and licking two thousand envelopes to notify our own supporter list. And the world at large downloaded over four hundred and fifty copies of it from the Press for Change website in the busiest six week campaign we’ve ever organised.

The Department for Education and Employment’s “consultation” paper, “Legislation Regarding Discrimination On Grounds Of Transsexualism In Employment” could not have been more ironically titled of course.

It slid through the Press for Change letterbox on the morning of Monday 2nd February, and produced the same astonished reaction from everyone who read it.

Instead of suggesting useful ways in which people could sensibly avoid discriminating against trans people in employment, and solve problems harmoniously, the government ministry responsible for outlawing discrimination at work appeared to have produced a manual which practically encouraged it. They even proposed changes in the law to make it easier !

It’s not surprising that many trans people were deeply upset by what they read, and by how they saw themselves described between the lines.

When you read people seriously suggesting that perhaps it’s not appropriate for you to work with children and getting in a tizzy over which toilets you should be allowed to use, there’s no mistaking the message.

Several people who wrote to us at Press for Change expressed feelings of despair and described episodes of depression, brought on by the challenge to their self esteem. There was a very real fear that the party which many hoped would liberate them was going to legislate them into some form of legally prescribed ghetto.

Understandably, the lack of information following the end of the consultation period will have frightened many people too. Many of those who subscribe to PFC’s online campaigners forum, where people are at least in touch with what’s going on day by day, were frightened enough. I can only try and imagine what it’s been like if you’ve not had that lifeline.

In a moment, I’ll explain what’s happened since the DfEE’s consultation deadline passed. It’s actually good news, and I cannot stress enough that important lessons have been learned on the government side as a result of the exceptional response you helped us to organise.

Doors have been opened. Press for Change, through the Parliamentary Forum we help to organise, has been invited by the equal opportunities minister himself, Alan Howarth MP, to draft alternative, constructive and fair proposals to really tackle workplace issues involving trans people. We are working on that even as I write, and contributing in parallel to other relevant consultation processes too.

Before I explain what happened though, it’s worth reflecting on this latest example of how powerful we become by communicating well, organising ourselves to act as one, and by developing the self regard to stand up and complain when the behaviour of others threatens our right to be treated with as much respect and regard as anyone else.

The UK trans community’s response to this latest threat was undoubtedly the biggest and most tangible that we’ve yet organised. And we had barely six weeks in which to do it too.

We only received the document to read ourselves on February 2nd. Groups like the Gender Trust received their copies at the same time as well. The ministry evidently wanted to keep this very low key though .. ironically (I suspect) because they were afraid of press reaction interfering with what I think they honestly thought to be legislation we’d welcome !

Our first response was to contact our associates in all the main support organisations, like the Gender Trust, to organise a joint operation to make sure that as many people as possible could see the document for themselves and have a chance to reply before the March 13th deadline.

Within 24 hours, the Press for Change web site had copies of the DfEE’s paper, and our commentary alongside it. Within just 48 hours, we’d added the Gender Trust’s own response, and page upon page of supporting information too.

We circulated the paper to our online email distribution list too, reaching almost 200 people in one go .. and called for volunteers to help us do a mass mailing to our own postal contact list of about 1200 supporters and activists, and the FtM Network’s members too.

As the news we circulated worked its way around the internet, accesses to the Press for Change web site doubled and then doubled again.

We printed 2000 copies of the ministry’s document, along with instructions on what to do about it, and meanwhile liased to ensure that everyone else contacted their own distribution lists without delay. Delays in the ministry sending the consultation out, meant that we had less than six weeks for people to respond.

By the end of the first week, less than seven days after we’d begun, the operation was well underway, and when we gathered early the following week to fill envelopes, the first responses from the online community were already being copied to us. Many activists were reporting on the efforts they’d been making to encourage other people to respond too.

And we weren’t just looking for trans people to voice their opinion.

Employers and Trade Unionists expressed concerns at the damage the proposed legislation would do, and how it would hinder rather than help.

One teacher’s union was furious that they’d only received a copy of the paper through a trans teacher, concerned for their job. The ineptitude of the ministry responsible for education seemed to know no bounds!

Partners, parents, co-workers and friends added their contributions as well. We asked people to copy their responses to us, by post or electronically, so that we had an idea of the scale and flavour of what was being sent.

As we entered the last week for posting, the number of copies we received crept up to around 150, encouraging us to cautiously speculate that perhaps 200 responses had been sent overall.

In our wildest flights of wishful thinking none of us would have dreamed that the eventual total would come closer to 300 though. Thank you everyone who made a contribution to the pile.

We tried not to tell people what to write in their responses, or how to frame them .. although online activists had the benefit of being able to discuss this a lot.

What we hoped people would stress, in their own words, was that special legislation was unnecessary, and could only diminish the protection conveyed already by the European Court of Justice ruling, P vs S and Cornwall County Council. The examples the ministry themselves had provided underlined this, in fact.

Indeed, the only case in which a trans person had failed to press their case in court using “P” merely demonstrated that if any legislation is needed at all, then it is should be to facilitate legal recognition of the actuality of a trans person’s socially recognised gender. (In the case of M v West Midlands Police the plaintiff, a trans woman, was not employable as a police officer because her legal gender created barriers to her ability to perform intimate searches on suspects).

Some people wrote letters addressing the generality of the proposals, and citing a few specific areas of concern. Others submitted a full scale critique of each proposal, often brilliantly exposing the false assumptions the document contained, and showing the absurdities it would lead to. Many examples were provided to show how unworkable the proposed legislation would be to either define or apply.

One aspect struck us more than any other though. Almost every submission we read was immaculately produced and argued its’ case intelligently and consistently.

The impression, overall, was of a well educated and informed community of people expressing genuine dismay at proposals which would turn them into third class citizens. When non trans people wrote, the message was universally supportive too. Everyone seemed to understand the issues very well, in fact .. except the civil servants we pay to know better !

The one positive thing about the UK Government’s first attempt to draft trans-related legislation, as many journalists and observers agreed with us over the weeks that followed, was that you didn’t have to understand or even sympathise with trans issues to be able to see straight away how crudely discriminatory the proposals would be.

All you had to do was substitute some other adjective in place of “transsexual”; then the truly exceptional nature of the Government’s proposals was obvious.

It was as though someone had switched on a very bright light, because suddenly the ignorance of the government’s civil servants could be seen as clear as day. Indeed, from now on, if you get another of those ministerial replies, which civil servants write and politicians have been trustingly signing for a quarter of a century, remember to look at it in a wholly new light.

When they prattle that, “transsexuality raises complex issues”, you now know what that means. It means, “We haven’t really got a clue what we’re talking about, so we’ll pretend there’s something we know and you don’t understand”.

Make sure your MP knows this. Explain the crass, elementary errors of fact and the lack of research in a paper produced by those entrusted to govern. And then demand better.

Returning to the plot though ...

Once we’d got the paper successfully circulated, we didn’t sit still. Long before the consultation deadline arrived, Press for Change was liasing through several MP’s, led by Dr Lynne Jones, to bring about a meeting with the minister responsible, whom we quickly identified to be Alan Howarth, a Labour minister with the interesting qualification of having worked, till very recently, as a Conservative minister, in the same ministry!

Indeed, we speculated a great deal on whether the entire paper wasn’t something that had been drafted by the previous administration.

The sheer torrent of consistent criticism from all quarters certainly took the ministry by surprise. Less than ten days after the closing date for responses a meeting took place at Westminster, involving the minister himself, Dr Lynne Jones MP, Dr Russell Reid, one of PFC’s Parliamentary Forum representatives and the civil servants who drafted the consultation paper. The meeting was also attended by Frank Cook MP and one of his constituents.

The meeting was very constructive. The civil servants had learned a lot from your educative responses, although the “civil service mind” takes a lot of persuading that the Sex Discrimination Act (which courts can now interpret in the light of P vs S) doesn’t need to be “helped” by adding extra regulations.

Faced with the obligation to fulfil the ruling of the European Court, the government’s advisors still need to understand more about the diversity of trans people’s lives before we will have finally convinced them that legislation is not just bad, but unworkable too. “We know best”, is an article of faith for public servants. Our job, paradoxically, is to make sure that they really do.

Nobody should be in any doubt, however, that the willingness is there to get it right, which is why you really can rest assured that the government is not about to suddenly turn round and enact legislation which would be widely condemned as agressively repressive.

The thing to remember, too, is that the present proposals, if implemented would directly contravene European Law. As published they would, for instance, take away the very protection that “P” herself earned in her landmark case.

Recognising the need to come at the entire issue from another angle the minister therefore very wisely took up our suggestion that the Parliamentary Forum should draft an alternative paper, drawing upon the knowledge and expertise of Press for Change, and the lawyers and medical specialists which the forum has assembled. Press for Change is coordinating this exercise with Dr Lynne Jones.

Our objective is to highlight the real issues which trans people face in employment, and to amplify the argument that if there are any gaps at all in the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) for trans people, then they arise because of the anomalous legal and social status of trans people in the UK.

We were very encouraged to see that the minister understood this point, and the greatest benefit of this entire episode has been to really highlight that fact.

It is a lesson which is now being digested in other ministries as a result, and the minister undertook to have discussions with his cabinet colleagues about the problems their policies create.

One thing we must stress, however, is that negotiation like this takes time and patience.

Personal relationships of trust are being formed. People are having to learn things they never appreciated about the complexity of trans existence, and the real problems people face. Government will take a long time, too, to come up with everything we’re seeking.

Some of it will at first seem ambitious, but that isn’t a reason to back off and ask for less than a better educated mind can appreciate to be reasonable.

You only have to think about the immense shift in public and media perceptions and sympathy for trans people in the last two years to see that if something is right, then you just have to keep putting the message across patiently till others have acquired the sophistication to see what you mean.

And the world is certainly changing whilst the civil servants and politicians run to catch up.

Before the end of June, for instance, the Coronation Street character Hayley Patterson will have returned to our screens as a permanent cast member (whose development we are now actively helping to shape behind the scenes).

Hayley’s return, and “promotion” comes as a result of audience survey work which showed, to many people’s surprise, that she is a very popular character, whom viewers want to get to know some more. Try reconciling that with a government proposal which would, for instance, stop her working as a beautician in the Street’s hair salon.

We do need you to help keep up the pressure in Parliament though.

The effect of several dozen people using their MP’s to object to the DfEE paper has elevated the profile of the campaign immeasurably among MPs, and means that legislators are not just talking about the issues, but understanding that we have a valid and serious case.

By acting en masse you have made people aware that we are an organised body of people, with a well organised and effective campaign behind them.

The fact that almost three hundred people (out of an estimated 5,000 UK transsexual people) answered our call so effectively in a matter of days means that no-one is in any doubt of the Press for Change mandate. When we negotiate with government ministers that is important. Respect for Press for Change translates into respect for your case.

We’d like you to continue to lobby your Member of Parliament, although now it is becoming more important for us to co-ordinate the opportunities created by each contact.

If you plan to visit your MP soon for instance, or if you’ve already been once and feel able to build a constructive relationship further, we’d like you to get in touch with us beforehand.

The reason for doing this is to see if there’s a parliamentary question (PQ) you could get them to table on your behalf. We have a carefully planned stock of PQ’s we’d like answered (like the one which began this report) and getting your MP to commit to this is a very useful way of measuring the real nature of their support. The other advantage of contacting us first is that we can also tell you what other contacts people in your area have made.

As I said before, it is a very long road we are treading, which demands patience and all the professionalism we can muster to reach our target.

Along the way there will be challenges and scares, like the one we’ve just met. At times like that we’ll doubtless turn to the community again, knowing that together we can transform a challenge into an opportunity.

And with each challenge we grow bigger, stronger. We become more self-aware as a community, and more respected and better understood by the people we deal with.

This is a campaign which used to be characterised by a succession of firsts. We’ve won our first case and gone on to win many more. We’ve had our first parliamentary debate. We’ve had our first press conference in the palace of Westminster. We’ve even got our first regular soap character.

Now we look forward to the last’s .. such as the last time we need to repeat very basic education for a civil servant.

We’re not there yet. But with each opportunity to raise our case we move one step closer. And with your help we’ll get there even faster.

When Sally met Harry

2011-05-31T20:25:00.001+01:00

When Sally, a 35 year old trans woman, found herself in a sudden and unplanned relationship with a man she met by accident, she was reminded of the problems which others have with her mere existence – problems of theirs which influenced her own approach to relationships and sex.

Sally and Harry are fictional people, but their stories are real – composed from a mosaic of real people’s lives and experiences.

They are a device to explore the trials of dating and loving when your sex, and the consequent interpretation of your sexuality, is a regarded as a matter of opinion, rather than matter of fact.

(First published by the author, May 2003)

Just shopping

Sally wasn’t thinking about sex that day in the supermarket car park. In fact, compared with the daily banter of the other women in her office at work, it would be fair to say that Sally didn’t think much about sex at all.

The whole world but her seemed to be obsessed with sex though. Not getting it. Getting it. Liking it. Hating it. Having too much, talking about other people having it – and paying the price of letting it be the motivation for bigger decisions about life.

As a not very sexual person she noticed this a lot. People married out of sexual desire. They deserted others for it. They lied. They stabbed friends in the back. Sometimes they even committed crimes.

Looked at from her rather more detached perspective Sally could see that sex was a pretty poor motivation for doing anything. Joking aside, it was usually over in minutes. Even the desire which kept couples coming back for more seemed a pretty ephemeral thing.

Some said this was nature’s programming in fact – a device to keep human couples together for long enough to nest, and to see their offspring old enough to fend for themselves, but then designed to send one or other off in the pursuit of fresh novelty.

Who would plan major life decisions of any kind on something so ephemeral?

And when your thinking is not confused by lust Sally reckoned that it was rather easier to understand what “love” meant.

Love was not on Sally’s mind as she wheeled her bachelor girl trolley back to her car from the weekly shopping expedition though. Her mind at that moment was focussed on nothing more important than getting home, lighting a scented candle and flopping onto the settee to read her book.

Being single

That was an advantage of single life of course – it could be as simple and self indulgent as you liked, whilst having no less space for other people when it mattered. And having had more than her fair share of problems in 35 crowded years, Sally was well aware of the importance of having one’s own personal space and knowing when to shut the door on the world.

You see, the problems weren’t her’s but other people’s. And when she shut the door they miraculously disappeared.

Sally had had a rather different life experience to the average woman though. She had been born with a penis and, so far as she knew, all the other paraphernalia which are associated with the expectation that you’ll grow up to be a man.

For all that apparent evidence though, Sally wasn’t a man. She wasn’t back then. And she most certainly wasn’t any more.

This isn’t to say that Sally could find it all that easy to “prove” incontrovertibly that she was a woman. But now she knew. Just as everyone she met “knew” as well.

A conundrum

She hadn’t always “known” of course. Maybe that happens for some trans women. More “ordinary” people she met and had talked-to about this curious question said that, when pressed, “they just knew” what they were too. All Sally had known however was that she wasn’t the things other people expected her to be.

It was a really peculiar question to dissect. After all, it’s something most people take so much for granted that they never questioned – either about themselves or others.

She had worked out that it was not simply a case of what you’ve been brought up to believe by others.

After all, that hadn’t happened to her and, in talking to friends who had had children, it was quite apparent that there was perhaps something essential about a child’s self knowledge and behaviour that came before the real onslaught of cultural indoctrination began. She’d read too of children who had been brought up in the wrong gender and “just knew”.

For Sally it had been easy to simply know what she wasn’t, but harder to decide what she was.

If you can only imagine two axiomatic states of being then the question is both obvious and overwhelming in its implications. It is one-dimensional. “If you’re not a man then you must be a woman”.

But if you already know that it’s not that simple then it becomes possible to see into another dimension of possibilities – a two dimensional world in which you could be somewhere defined by a combination of both genders, or a three dimensional one where you might be something else entirely.

Exploring these possibilities is far less terrifying than the prospect of telling the world that you’re a girl. Call it avoidance. Call it philosophy. But intelligent trans women can find lots of ways of putting off the unpalatable. So Sally knew all about exploring the possibilities of who or what she really was.

Just a regular guy

Harry’s life had meanwhile been rather simpler.

Harry was three years older than the attractive woman he was appreciatively following past the line of cars. He had never ever thought for a moment about the question of being a man. He was one of those people who “just knew” – helped, of course, by parents, relatives and friends who knew this as well.

Some had the “proof” of course. His parents and grandparents had cooed over the baby Harry’s cute little willy when changing his nappies and bathing him. And Harry delighted them in being everything they expected of a boy child in the family.

He never stopped to think about it but others relied on different cues when he started going out into the world. So did he. In fact, if any of us were to stop to think about it, we’ve probably never seen most of the people we know unclothed.

It would be difficult to say with certainty whether the man next door had a penis or whether the woman at the checkout definitely didn’t have one. Genitals are the things which midwives look at to tell you what to put on the birth certificate. They’re what you expect to find when you pursue another person with sex in mind. Society doesn’t actually pay much attention to them the rest of the time though.

Like everyone else Harry was used to “sexing people” on a whole variety of other alternative clues. And when it came to women Harry had plenty of experience.

Red blooded

Harry had definitely always been a red-blooded male. He liked women. He liked looking at them. He liked the way they moved. He liked talking to them. And he certainly liked sex with them.

Harry knew where he stood with men too. He wasn’t hung up about homosexuality. A couple of his mates were Gay in fact – and he was confident enough about his own sexuality not to let other people’s worry him.

Harry simply enjoyed being heterosexual, in the way that he also enjoyed being a man. He didn’t think about either question because he “just was” – and nothing had ever come along to challenge the simple fact of either proposition. Besides – Harry’s attention was focussed on Sally’s long, smooth, elegant legs.

Collision!

Looking back now he claims that it was an accident. Sally, with a cynical grin, still thinks it may have been less innocent. She had reached her car and stopped to unlock it. He – with his mind nearer the road – carried on going. And Sally’s first impression of Harry was formed face down on the tarmac.

It’s a well-worn love story cliché of course. Two strangers bump into each other by chance. Their eyes meet, a celestial choir sings, and the camera unaccountably cuts to waves rushing up the shoreline. It’s that sex thing again. Speeding things up.

For Harry and Sally it wasn’t quite so clichéd.

Their eyes certainly met. Hers glowering in hurt anger – his genuinely worried. Then he laughed at the absurdity. And so did she. Not because it was funny. No. But because his laugh was infectious.

She recognised in that instant a likeable and kindred spirit. Her instincts said that this was a person with a similar sense of humour. More than that there was his smile – his gorgeous boyish smile and the twinkle of something in his eye. And she was genuinely surprised by the effect which that brief glimpse of the strange man’s personality had on her.

As Sally’s face cracked from a scowl into a big open smile Harry also realised that there was more to this woman besides her legs or any other physical assets. For one of those rare occasions in his life he saw more than just the young woman’s body – though sure enough there was plenty to like about that too.

That smile of hers tended to blot out everything else and connected directly with his inner thoughts though. Her eyes were bright and laughing too. In fact her entire face participated in the laugh. Young as she was, she already had those characteristic lines around her eyes and mouth – the tell-tale signs of someone who laughs a lot and does so without a trace of inhibition. A woman whose personality shone through her body.

Love at first sight

Sally did not realise it till later but, in that instant, Harry was hooked. He was already in the early stages of love.

He helped her to her feet, helped put her groceries in the back of the car, and then offered to escort her back to the supermarket and to buy her a coffee whilst she washed her hands.

Afterwards they talked. They laughed. They discovered they had similar interests in films and politics. They began to find that they finished each other’s sentences.

Time flew. The café staff went home. The supermarket began to close. Harry asked for Sally’s phone number. And Sally, for one rare time in her life, gave this strange yet familiar and likeable man the key to enable them to continue this exciting new experience another day.

Blossoming

Over the weeks and months that followed Sally and Harry saw more and more of each other.

Harry thought Sally more beautiful the more he saw of her. She was his height. Slim built. Dark blonde. Clear skinned. She wore very little makeup and he liked that in a woman. She dressed well too – simple but elegant in tailored trousers and pastel-coloured tops.

Sally meanwhile had never dressed for others. She simply dressed to please herself.

For sure it had taken her a while to find her style as a woman. For one thing she had missed the opportunity, which teenage girls take for granted, to experiment in clothes and makeup with her friends. Puberty is the one time in life when women are allowed to get it wrong and to learn from their mistakes.

Nevertheless, she also learned that with the right friends and advice it doesn’t take long to catch up – and she also noticed that all that teenage training wasn’t a sure fire guarantee that other women of her age would go on to be perfect masters of their own style.

Now, fifteen years after she had taken the huge life altering step to be a woman, she had learned how to be comfortable in her dress, and to use clothes as a way of helping to express her overall personality. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having fun together

At first they stuck to neutral venues – the theatre, cinemas, meals in restaurants and day trips in Harry’s car. This all suited Sally very well because it allowed her to keep the relationship at a level where she felt comfortable, whilst she wondered where it would go next. She wasn’t thinking about sex in a speculative way; nevertheless she was a big girl and understood in today’s world what men expect after a few preliminary encounters.

As she got to know more of Harry she found herself liking him more and more too. So when she pondered the very likely thoughts running through Harry’s head it was from the perspective of wanting it to go right. Not just the sex which he was bound to start to press for before too long, but the whole relationship.

She began to realise something new about herself that she’d not appreciated before. She had always known that she wasn’t all that interested in sex at all. It certainly wasn’t a driving force in her life.

Her girlfriends salivated over pictures in the glossy magazines, but that kind of animal desire was a complete mystery to her from either angle.

She had always liked looking at beautiful people – men or women. But she didn’t lust for either. Now she was planning how to go about having sex with this man she had met.

Again it wasn’t for lust. She simply wanted to please him, and to be closer to him too. And, as she touched that thought she could smell his smell and picture herself curled up against his chest and with his arm around her.

Sally knew that sex for her wasn’t problematic, but then she knew that in another way it was.

Fully functional

On a purely technical level she knew that she was capable of having sexual intercourse with a man if she wanted. To put it bluntly “it all worked down there”, although she knew from experience that she needed to have a very high level of trust in the man concerned before going through any of the stages of intimacy beyond outer clothing.

It wasn’t any fear of being “found out” as some people assumed. It had certainly taken a long time to develop confidence in her body image. After all, if you’d started out with a male body you’d probably have trouble accepting it was now unambiguously female-looking as well.

Lots of trans women have body image concerns of that kind in fact – a point to be noted by any fool who might think that people change their bodies in order to be aroused by their image as women. Sally had never thought or felt that way. Lust for herself was a laughable idea. Indeed until she’d experienced enough men telling her how great she looked, she was convinced she looked awful.

And, though it might sound awful to express it this way, the only way that Sally could convince herself to trust what her admirers were saying was to be sure they knew nothing of her past. She had to be sure they weren’t just saying things to be kind or that they were seeing her in any way other than as a woman.

All of which raises that unique ethical problem which trans people have to negotiate with their intimate partners. When to tell them.

An ethical dilemma

Having spent many years pondering what others thought about people like herself Sally was pretty sure that her life was generally problem-free. At least, it was problem free from her own perspective and once she had solved the issue of how to feel comfortable in her own skin.

The problems all tended to be other people’s. This was especially true of so-called “professionals”, who all seemed to see her life as a problem through the lens of their own preoccupations.

Lawyers saw Sally’s life in terms of legal problems. Her existence regularly made the law into an ass. Medical professionals saw her identity as an illness. Politicians saw her as a set of political problems. Sociologists saw a brainteaser in gender constructivism. Religious leaders saw theological and ethical problems. Sex researchers thought of her in the only way they could – as a sexually motivated problem child.

All these people tended to see the lives of people like Sally from the perspective of their own interests and advancement. They all had a stake in seeing a problem to write about – to be famous for describing – or to charge people to solve.

Only her close friends and family saw her as something other than a problem – a complex and complete human being you could simply love.

Nevertheless, Sally had to acknowledge that deciding if, when and how to tell someone about your transsexual past is a problem which the individual needs to take ownership of themselves. And there are no easy answers.

Should you tell someone the moment you met them? Should you ever tell them at all?

Being realistic

Neither of these ever seemed realistic or reasonable to Sally. Friends who did share her secret pointed out that everyone has things which they keep back before they know someone well-enough.

When do you mention the divorce for instance? Or the children of that marriage? When do you own up about the second cousin who is in prison? And when do you mention the genetic defect which you have a 50/50 chance of passing to your new partner’s progeny?

Sally had theoretical trigger points which she had faithfully promised herself she would adhere to. At first she had decided that she would always tell a man before they had intercourse. Experience soon taught her that that wasn’t as practical as it sounded; so then she raised the bar. She was absolutely certain of the ethical necessity of telling someone before things got serious-enough for people to be thinking of marriage. But what were the milestones in- between?

One thing was absolutely certain. The longer you left it, the more there was at stake. And, as Sally and Harry grew closer, the inevitability of what she would need to do weighed heavier on her mind. What would he think?

Dangerous truth

She knew the full range of possibilities of course. They ranged from rapid assurances of continued and undying love to murder – quite literally.

Trans women have been beaten and strangled for telling an insecure lover that he’s been dating someone with a past like Sally’s. The uncertainty of what the attraction makes of them can drive sexually insecure men into a frenzy of anger at the perception of being “tricked” or “deceived”.

Yet where is the deception in being who you feel yourself to be?

Sally knew that the confusion for some men stemmed from being unable to recognise what they had been attracted to in a woman like herself, and what that meant about their sexuality.

It also depended on how people rationalised her own existence. Was she still the same woman in people’s eyes once they knew her past? Or were all their perceptions swamped by the irrelevancy of factors which were mostly long gone and forgotten? Did it also depend on why people thought she had “changed her sex” in the first place?

The woman inside

To Sally, of course, it had never seemed like a change to her. Once she knew that no part of her identified with being a man, and that she could better understand and explain her experiences as a woman, the rest had all been about helping other people to see that clearly.

Changing her body was as much about making it easier for people to see “the real Sally” as it was about feeling comfortable in her own skin too. It just felt right. And the more relaxed she became about the completeness of her physical transformation, the more she found herself at peace and able to fully express herself. That was when she started to smile in that whole- body way that Harry first noticed in the supermarket car park.

But did it matter that she didn’t have a uterus or ovaries? Was the fact that parts of her body weren’t completely female a problem? What was happening if she fancied a man? Was that attraction between them homosexual because her chromosomes were still those she was born with? Or was it heterosexual because she fancied the man as another woman would fancy him?

More to the point, what did it mean when seen from the other perspective?

In the eye of the beholder

Harry was heterosexual. Of that there could be no doubt. He was a man and he only fancied women. He had been attracted to Sally precisely because he saw and liked her as a woman. Did the fact that someone else might define her differently alter his own sexual orientation?

Was Harry and Sally’s relationship homosexual on a technicality which it required a microscope to detect?

Was Sally a Gay Man because of her physical past and some people’s mistaken ideas about what it said about her mind?

Was she defined by what had once been between her legs or by what was between her ears, and which had led her to be so recognisable as an attractive woman? If so how on earth did one define the sexualities of the many people born with ambiguous genitalia?

More to the point, however, was Harry already a Gay Man without knowing it? Were all those other men who looked at Sally with admiring eyes? Would he have to dump her the moment he knew of her unusual past, just to redeem himself as a heterosexual man? Or was he heterosexual still, because he had only ever been able to see and think of Sally as the woman she appeared to be?

Last but not least – if one came to different conclusions about Harry and Sally would that be at all logical? Can there be a heterosexual or a homosexual relationship in which one half is Gay and the other half Straight.

Which ending?

Sally and Harry are fictional characters of course, assembled from the spoken experiences of all the real transsexual people and their partners whom the author has met over the course of years. The questions and dilemmas are real though.

You can speculate how and when Sally told Harry about her past, and what that would mean if you were Harry.

Some Harry’s run away. Some commit violence. Where there is love, however, there are lots of Harry’s (and their woman equivalents) who realise that it was a human being who they were first attracted towards – and what sort of human being that was.

As a romantic I hope for my fictional characters’ sake that Harry would fall into the latter category. I made him a sexually secure man for a reason – just as I emphasised the emotional as well as physical plane on which their hearts first met.

Sex happens between the legs, but love takes place between the ears and in the heart.

Harry would need to realise the enormous vulnerability opened up by Sally in telling him about her most personal and intimate of secrets. He would need to realise that she might always live in fear of him one day levelling the accusation that “she wasn’t a REAL woman”.

A real woman

But what is a real woman? It seems such an obvious question because few are ever called to think about it. Take away the reassurance of other people’s agreement, however, and each of us is on far shakier ground – required to scratch around and ultimately agree that we “just know”

Does it depend on reproductive capacity? If so, how does one define the status of women after hysterectomy or menopause – or those whose bodies were simply never quite as unambiguous to begin with?

Does it depend on how you are brought up? If so, where would you place a Sally who was born female-bodied but whose parents socialised her as a boy for some reason?

Or does it depend on how you think – and how others find it easiest to think about you?

Do you – like Sally – “just know”?

Revisited: A most memorable and inspiring speech

2011-05-30T10:19:00.001+01:00

A few weeks ago I dusted off a report that I had written back in 1993 about the seminal Council of Europe colloquy entitled "Transsexualism, Medicine and the Law"

In that last blog I described how the whole conference represented an epiphany for me, and how moved I was at the end.

Part of the reason for feeling so emotional at the conference close was this final contribution from the endocrinologist, Professor Louis Gooren (pictured right).

Here is that speech in full. It remains as relevant for campaigners today as it felt when hearing it for the very first time. You just have to wonder why, 18 years on, the same arguments are still necessary in some quarters.

The transcript is taken from the official proceedings, published by the Council of Europe.ISBN 92-871-2805-7

Closing address by Professor L.J.G. Gooren University Hospital, Amsterdam

Ladies and Gentlemen

When I address this audience as ladies and gentlemen, it is not my first association that I am addressing a group of human beings with vulvas and vaginas on the one hand, and a group with penises on the other hand. This introduction, this approach, might sound abrupt or even odd to you, but it brings us right to the core of the matter.

When I address you as ladies and gentlemen, I am referring to the kind of person - woman or man - that you became after your birth, when your sex was determined by the criterion of the external genitalia. This being established, your boyhood or girlhood, your manhood or womanhood, became a matter of indirect evidence.

Your genitalia are normally not apparent or obvious in your social environment. Clues as to your being a man or a woman come from indirect sources. When we grow up, we develop a sense of being a man or a woman, on which we hardly ever reflect. We are what we are, either a man or a woman. For this sense of belonging to one sex of the other the term gender identity has been coined. We communicate this sense of belonging to the one sex and not to the other to the outside world in our gender role.

At the roots of this gender identity/role development lies the criterion of the external genitalia, as determined immediately after birth, but along the course of development of the gender identity/role, the genital criterion is not the first association when we talk about men and women in daily life. The reason why I am so elaborate on this subject is that most legal systems pertaining to the determination of sex pay absolute reverence to this one criterion of external genitalia, while there are several criteria or characteristics of sex, such as the genetic and the gonadal ones, the criteria of the internal and external genitals and of the sexual differentiation of the brain.

The latter one, the sexual differentiation of the brain, is a rather new issue. I cannot say we have a complete picture, but the scientific information can no longer be ignored, and it goes without saying that it has relevance for the subject of transsexualism.

What I said earlier about the relatively loose connection between the genital criterion of sex on the one hand and the gender identity on the other, is not at all new information. Let us have a look at a very nice piece of tapestry made in Alsace (presently France) in the 16th century. It is now in The Cloisters Museum in New York City. It depicts the wise King Solomon. The lady in the picture has decided to put his wisdom to the test. She has two flowers in her hand, one a false, artificial one, the other a true flower. They look very much alike. The King is asked whether he is able to tell which is the true one and which is the false one. He says: "Wait and see to which one a bee will go. That is the true one".

The next question pertains to the sex of two children, a pair of twins, one male, one female. They are dressed exactly the same. Can the King distinguish the male twin from the female twin? He can, he throws an apple at each of them. The girl twin will catch the apple with her knees together leaning slightly backwards, whereas the boy twin will move his knees apart, and move slightly forward to the King. Next they are asked to throw the apple back to the King. The girl twin will throw the apple back moving her arm in the lower half of a circle, whereas the boy will hurl the apple back moving his arm in the upper half of a circle.

The lesson to be learnt here is that the wise King Solomon, in order to determine the sex of the two twins, did not use the criterion of the genitalia. He could easily have asked the children to lift their skirts. He did not! He relied on the indirect information of the body language of both twins. Which is what we do in our daily lives. Nothing new under the sun.

Let us now pay some attention to the biology of becoming a man or a woman, or sometimes, and this is unfortunate, becoming something in between. This slide shows the entrance of the cathedral of San Gimignaiano in Tuscany (Italy), and God taking a rib out of Adam, this creating Eve. This story undoubtedly applies to the first lady on earth, but you in the audience have a different history of becoming men or women.

At conception it was decided - let us assume by the laws of chance - that your chromosomal pattern was 46,XY or 46,XX. Except for the chromosomes, there is no distinguishable difference between a future boy and a girl in the first 6 weeks of development. After the first 6 weeks, the indifferent gonad becomes a testis in the case of a 46, XY pattern, and an ovary in case of a 46, XX pattern.

All the following steps in the differentiation process are dependent on the hormones produced by the testis before birth. The next step in the differentiation process is that of the formation of the internal genitalia. These are completely identical ducts in boys and girls. In the presence of testicular hormones produced by the boy foetus, one pair of ducts will become prostate and deferential duct, while the other pair goes into regression. In a girl foetus, the development is the contrary: there are no testicular hormones, so one pair does not develop, the other pair becomes the uterus and oviducts. A couple of weeks later, the external genitalia develop from a common principle. In the presence of testosterone, as is normal in a boy, the external genitalia become a penis and a scrotum in a boy. In girls there is no testosterone around, and the external genitalia develop into a vulva and vagina.

It has always been assumed that the sexual differentiation was completed with the formation of the external genitalia. But it is NOT. Since the beginning of this century we have known that the brain, too, undergoes a sexual differentiation. This has been firmly established scientifically in lower animals, and it occurs relatively late in development, in most species just before or shortly after birth.

Let us take the example of a rat. If a normally developed male rat is castrated on the first day after his birth, his brain will have a female sexual differentiation; if, by contrast, a female rat is given testosterone immediately after birth, she will have a male sexual differentiation of her brain. This implies that the female rat with her female genitalia will copulate in the pattern of a male rate, and conversely, the male rat, deprived of testosterone after birth, will assume the typical copulation position.

What we see here is that male animals, through hormonal manipulation, can be led towards female sexual patterns, and conversely, female animals towards male sexual patterns. Again, this is firmly established sexology of lower mammals such as the rat and the guinea pig.

What do we know about man, the human species? We know that the human brain, too, undergoes a degree of sexual differentiation. Three areas of the brain have now been documented as being sex-dimorphic. One of them is the so-called sex- dimorphic nucleus in the lower part of the brain, the hypothalamus. Surprisingly, the sex difference becomes manifest only 3 to 4 years after birth. This is amazing information.

Long after you were born and after your sex had been determined by the criterion of the external genitalia, your brain still had a long way to go to become sexually differentiated; it does not do so not before the age of 3 to 4 years. These scientific findings may shed light on the problem of transsexualism where we find a contradiction between the genital sex on the one hand and the gender identity on the other hand.

The process of sexual differentiation is characterised by the following:

Sexual differentiation is a multi-step process, not a one point decision
Each step is characterised by a bi-potentiality; each time the developing organism is at a bifurcation of the male or female development
Each step has a critical period in the course of development. Only during a window of time can this particular step take place. No backtracking
The sexual differentiation process has not been completed at birth: the sexual differentiation of the brain occurs between the age of 3 to 4 years.

So far I have described the orderly normal sexual differentiation of becoming a boy or a girl, a man or a woman. It is unfortunate that this process is liable to errors. In about 5 in every 1000 individuals this process has shown some errors. It is also a bit of an admonition to those who always state: so God created man in His own image: male and female created He them. Doctors can testify: in the vast majority of cases with impeccable result, in about 5 in every 1000 individuals there are sex errors. The sexual differentiation has not followed its normal course.

I will now show some of these sex errors, and the list is by no means exhaustive. It can be concluded that there may be contradictions between the genetic sex on the one hand and the other criteria of sex on the other hand.

In the clinical syndrome of androgen insensitivity, for instance, all the cells of the body are insensitive to the action of testosterone. While the first two steps of sexual differentiation are normal (the chromosomes, the formation of the gonads) the other steps follow the path of the other sex. These subjects are identified as girls at birth and are raised as girls. They are infertile, they have no ovaries, they have no uterus; but they do have testes. They are legally registered as female and almost always engage in a marriage with a man.

Another example is the clinical syndrome of the congenital virilising adrenal hyperplasia. If this occurs, the first steps of sexual differentiation follow the pattern of a girl: a 46,XX chromosomal pattern and ovaries, but due to abnormal production of androgens by the adrenal, the external genitalia virilise, become more or less male, depending on the degree of the severity of the disease. In severe cases, these children are taken for boys at birth and raised as boys. They marry women, but cannot become fathers because they have no testes. Instead, they have ovaries.

Now back to transsexualism. It is likely from the available evidence that in transsexuals the pattern of sexual differentiation of the brain has not followed the pattern typical of that sex: in other words, the nature of the chromosomes, the gonadal and genital development are in contradiction with the brain sex; at least with the sexual self-image of which we assume the substrate to be in the brain.

There is some evidence to confirm this assumption. In a collaborative study with the Dutch Brain Research Institute, Professor Swaab could demonstrate in postmortem investigations that in two male-to-female transsexuals the sexual-dimorphic nucleus of the brain showed a similarity with the female pattern. This was not the case in a third transsexual. The suprachiasmatic nucleus was unusually large and showed a similarity with the pattern found in homosexual men.

There are some interesting findings with regards to brain functions. Women do better on verbal tasks than men; and men, by contrast, do better than women on spatial ability. Men are better at findng the way than the average women. Several studies indicate that transsexuals show similarities in verbal and spatial performance with the sex they view as their own.

In conclusion, there is now evidence which needs further corroboration that in male- to-female transsexuals the sexual differentiation of the brain is cross-sex to the other characteristics of sex, and vice versa in female-to-male transsexuals.

Transsexualism manifests itself early in life. On this slide you see two brothers of the same family. The younger boy feels and presents himself to the world as a young man. His brother, a future candidate for a sex change, is showing clear signs of cross sex behaviour, look at the body angle. The next slide shows that this cross-sex behaviour persists in time. Here you see the same person a couple of years later, persisting in cross-sex behaviour.

I come to the end of my talk. As a biomedical expert I arrive at certain conclusions and I arrive at certain recommendations for legislators.In summary, legal and sex assignment by the criterion of the morphology of the external genitalia:

Is based on only one of the five criteria of sex presently known; the other criteria are gonadal, genital and brain sex
The criterion of the external genitalia does not imply that chromosomal sex or the sex of the internal genitalia are concordant
Sexual differentiation of the brain is not completed at the moment of birth. This takes place between the ages of 3 to 4 years, well after birth
Assignment to sex on the criterion of external genitalia is an act of faith, but well founded and time-honoured. Only 1 in 10,000-30,000 will be a false prognostication
Such an expedient practise does not require a change It works extremely well in daily life

In order to do justice to the rare individuals in whom sexual differentiation of the brain postnatally has not followed the path prognosticated, for example, by the external genitalia, the law must make provisions. If we have the constitutional right to be treated equally and the same by the law, the law must do justice to the rare individuals in whom sex errors of the body occur. This is a personal misfortune, but no ground for unfair treatment.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

I hope I have been able to communicate to you that transsexualism is not an isolated phenomenon in the area of sex errors of the body. It is one on a sliding scale.

In some people you will find contradiction between their genetic sex and the other variables of sex. In other people between their genetic sex and gonadal sex on the one hand, and their genital and brain sex on the other. Finally in transsexuals there is a contradiction between the genetic, gonadal and genital sex on the one hand, and the brain sex on the other.

For all these people who have had the misfortune to incur a sex error of the body in their development, solutions have to be found.

It is part of our anthropology, and of our human existence, that we recognise only men and women in our social system, which reflects on our personal status. In other words, there is no room for intersexes, socially, legally and psychologically.

Medical experience teaches that being intersex makes a person subject to social abuse; such a person becomes a freak. It would be absolute medical ignorance, medical incompetence, even abuse NOT to rehabilitate a person with a sex error of the body. Sex errors of the body cannot be corrected in the true sense of the word. The only option is a rehabilitation to one sex or the other. Rehabilitation does not pretend to be a cure. It is exactly what the word says: rehabilitation makes the bestof a condition that cannot be corrected essentially and fundamentally.

The guiding principle in this rehabilitation process is to assign a person with sex errors of the body to the sex in which he/she will function best, psychologically, socially, erotically, sexually.

Again, I want to stress that reassignment of transsexuals is a medical intervention on a sliding scale. It is not essentially different from procedures in other sex errors of the body. The same interventions including genital surgery are done in other cases of sex errors of the body.

This brings me to the issue raised in some of the legal material I have been reading in this context: Can it really be done? Sex reassignment in transsexuals? In other words: is the feminisation of the body by hormones and the construction of a neovagina, a true authentic sex change or is it a construct, an artefact, a modification only of the body? My answer would be that it is as much a sex change as it is in other cases of intersex. Many of the intersex cases will have contradictions between the variable, the criteria of sex. Many will be unable to produce children; it is a rehabilitation to the best of our ability, not a cure.

There can be no psychomedical ground not to treat these people respectfully; we must provide them with reassignment treatment which meets their needs. In the cases of intersex, and this is particularly true oftranssexualism, medical treatment does not bring resurrection from one's ashes; it is not a cure. It is not a completely new start, it is a rehabilitation process. We must accept the given fact of sex errors of the body and continue from there. We must create the conditions for successful rehabilitation to the male or female sex as much in cases of transsexualism as in other cases of intersex subject.

We're all in this together. No... Seriously!

2011-05-29T17:21:00.001+01:00

David Cameron and George Osborne may have turned the phrase into a cause for cynical mirth. Yet, when it comes to diverse communities working in each other's interests, the words 'We're all in this together' really have to mean something

A few years ago, when I was first elected for what was to be a three year term as chair of the North West Equality and Diversity Group (NWEDG), I made a little speech about the responsibility I felt I would be taking on.

The North West Equality and Diversity Group

The NWEDG was originally set up in 2005 to help the North West Development Agency (NWDA) research and consult upon its' first ever regional equality and diversity strategy.

NWEDG subsequently went on to be jointly supported by Government Office North West and what was then called the North West Regional Assembly. These three public agency sponsors were followed later by the strategic health authority (NHS North West) and the new Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The group brought together many dozens of stakeholders from every equality strand, along with organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors. It functioned as a critical friend to the public sector agencies, but also grew into the most comprehensive locus for discussing equality and diversity in the region.

By the time I decided to step down as Chair in April 2010 the NWEDG had over 100 members. I was succeeded by two joint chairs, Paul Martin (of the Lesbian and Gay Foundation) and Louise Barry (of Merseyside Disability Federation).

Following the announcement of the NWDA's intended demise, just after the May 2010 general election, Paul and Louise now have the unenviable task of repositioning the group to survive in the new world under the coalition.

However, I digress...

A philosophy of mutual advocacy

My little candidate speech concerned the inevitable question in peoples' minds whenever someone seen as a single issue advocate takes on the responsibility of leading and representing people from different communities.

To my colleagues at the time I was perhaps best known for having been a very successful advocate for the rights and needs of transsexual people. It was inevitable that, because I was there initially to make that voice heard, people might think that was my sole interest or the limit of my capability. However, as chair I would have duties to represent everyone.

The viewpoint I spelled out wasn't just a ruse to get elected though. It was something I had always believed in and tried to practice.

I explained that, as their chair, I considered it would be my duty to learn continuously about the needs and agenda of all the equality groups who belonged to the group, as well as the concerns and limitations of the public sector sponsors.

Our intersecting interests

As I explained to my colleagues, I never considered myself to have a single set of issues to begin with.

As a trans woman whose background wasn't apparent to strangers, I had plenty of experience of many of the concerns faced routinely by other women. I had met glass ceilings and pay differentials. I knew when I was being patronised. I knew the fear of deciding whether places were safe for me to go at night. I was a carer. And I had a personal experience of how and when public services hadn't taken my needs into account.
Having a mother in the terminal stages of Alzheimers, and having worked for five years helping to manage a medium size social care provider, meant that I also had a position from which to appreciate how disability affected people directly, and as carers or relations. I understood why the social model of disability and our use of language and presumptions mattered, for instance.
I couldn't do anything about the colour of my skin. I'm white, British. Yet when my friends and associates from other backgrounds told me of their experiences I had the empathy and consideration to listen and be aware of my privilege. I also knew what it was like to be a stranger abroad, when you find yourself as a minority in another culture.
Then, of course, all those years of working with other members of the LGBT communities meant I had a start in understanding the issues which were at the top of the agenda for gay, lesbian and bisexual people ... plus an encyclopaedic knowledge of the different kinds of trans people.
Lastly, being in my mid fifties at that time, and seeing how my parents coped in their eighties, I also had a stake in the issues of ageing.

Excepting individual variations, I reckon this isn't a unique experience of mine. In Equality and Diversity jargon we call it 'intersection'. It's the fact that most peoples' opportunities and limitations are a combination of factors relating to their direct or indirect experiences of gender, race or ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, age, economic position, and status as carers, parents, spouses, etc... Few, if any of us, are just one thing.

Where we don't have these experiences ourselves, we know or care for people who do. And, in some cases, age will bring more our way. I may not have any serious impairments today but I accept I may become disabled in one or more ways before I die.

So, I wasn't setting myself up as unique in having a knowledge or interest in all these other strands of diversity besides the obvious one. I was just reminding people that we all have this ability if we stop to think.

Speaking in support but knowing our limitations

As I explained to my colleagues, I had also kept my ears and eyes open enough to be aware of my own limitations - to have an idea of how much I didn't know, and to want to try and narrow the gap.

I'm also aware of the risks of being arrogant. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Or, as I often express it: "None of us knows what we don't know we don't know"

Yet, within those limitations it had struck me that there are all things we can do for each other. As their chair there would be times when I had the opportunity to try and convey important aspects of everyone's individual concerns and agendas. Being a good chair would mean working to increase my knowledge continually so as to do this better.

I would always try to create the opening for experts on disability to talk for disabled people, or for lesbian women to talk expertly about their concerns. It's one thing to spot the opportunities. It's a different thing to think you can replace the true experts.

Something everyone can do

But I was clear this wasn't just something the chair ought to do. I invited my colleagues to consider how they could do it too.

Why shouldn't stakeholder experts from (say) the disability organisations talk more often about sex, race and LGBT issues when they had an audience, for instance? Disabled people face these issues too. There really are old and young disabled black lesbian trans women. If they were caring about the whole of their communities then it meant thinking about having a care narrative that's fully inclusive.

If we all did this then the biggest beneficiaries would be some of the smallest communities, who would gain from many more people talking about their issues. So, yes, I admitted that it would be rather nice if everyone talked more about trans issues too.

But it also meant something for our engagement as a group. It meant that people around our table should not begin to think of tuning out and checking their Blackberry if the next item on the agenda should be something they imagined didn't concern them. I was setting out my leadership approach.

That means you

This philosophy of mine is something I've tried hard to stick to, albeit not always perfectly.

As an equality and diversity consultant it's something I'm bound to do of course. We all do. Those of us who purport to be able to teach the subject need at least a working knowledge of every community's needs and issues, along with the humility to want to keep learning and avoid repeating mistakes.

Yet I'm not sure that everyone shares that vision.

When I use facebook or twitter to write or 'retweet' news about some equality issues then I can spot the different ways in which my different audiences react. Some will pass on the items about women's rights, racial discrimination, mental health or physical disabilities, sexual orientation, age and so forth. But it's interesting how often they don't. Especially when the news is about trans issues.

But just imagine if they did. Just imagine if everyone tried my approach more often and widened the scope of what they told their own followers. Think how much more diverse and aware all our conversations would be.

After all, we are all in this together.

Meet the Team

2011-05-26T16:04:00.001+01:00

Over the last few months I've written a lot about my colleagues in the Equality, Diversity and Human Rights team at NHS North West.

Now there's a chance for you to see them.

This photo was taken recently as part of a professional shoot for a new publication, and because we are forever needing new and original photos for things like our newsletters and blog.

Who's who

On the back row, standing at the right is Shahnaz Ali. Shahnaz is the SHA's Associate Director for Equality, Diversity and Human Rights and is therefore our boss and, technically, my client.

Shahnaz has public sector experience going back decades, along with a history of black and minority ethnic community activism in her youth. She is best described as a visionary and a consummate networker and influencer.

Her ideas (which it's my job to help deliver) take E&D strategy to levels which few (if any) other people have gone in the UK. She's a pleasure to work with. Our talents are complementary and we often drive each other on by bouncing ideas around.

Standing on Shahnaz's left is Loren Grant, Assistant Director of Communications. She is responsible for all of our team's publications, news and engagement. She produces our monthly newsletter, writes content for our HELP portal, organises all our events, runs our Health Equality Stakeholder Engagement (HESE) consultations, and takes charge of publishing all our resources such as the LGBT History Timeline and our forthcoming guide to Sexual Orientation Monitoring. She sits opposite me and shares my interest in cycling. Again, it's always so much a pleasure to work with Loren as we can bounce ideas off each other.

Sitting next to me on the right of the picture is the newest recruit to our team, Annette Donegani, who is Shahnaz's new PA. Annette comes to us with experience from working in a local Foundation Trust and her title belies her experience. She's only been with us a couple of weeks as I write this and yet it feels already as though she's a full part of the team. As we're such a small group, Annette is also rapidly learning how to do things such as updating HELP, organising events, and so forth.

And lastly, seated on the left of the picture is myself. My role as programme manager is to make sure all our threads of work run smoothly and are completed on time. As an equality and diversity consultant, I have a big input into Shahnaz's vision and look after the detail work on our major developments like the Equality Performance Improvement Toolkit (EPIT) and the forthcoming E&D Competency Framework.

I like this new photo of our team as it really captures how we are together.

Coming Soon .. A new 'how to' guide for monitoring sexual orientation

2011-05-24T19:59:00.001+01:00

Everything you always wanted to know about Sexual Orientation Monitoring ... but were afraid to ask

One of the nicest things about working where I do, as the programme manager for Equality and Diversity in one of England's Strategic Health Authorities, is the ability to have a hand in commissioning and influencing some really useful tools, resources and good practice to advance LGB and T equality outcomes.

I've written a lot this year about our programme of work and why it matters.

Things we do

Earlier this year my colleagues and I at NHS North West launched a brand new timeline exhibition to educate NHS staff about lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people's history, their challenges and their contributions to medicine and healthcare. The exhibition went on the road in February and has been receiving great feedback. Very soon we'll also be launching the online interactive version, which features a more detailed booklet and this film as well.

We've also invested in initiatives to promote sexual health for lesbian women, and to foster the creation of a more LGB friendly environment in GP Surgeries, piloted in the Greater Manchester area.

We spend on these projects to lead by example and establish best practice where it doesn't already exist. In that way we help create the case for local NHS organisations to then follow-on by funding such things more routinely themselves. (Admittedly the latter is difficult in the current climate).

Of course, we also invest around other diversity areas too.

For instance, we are currently promoting research into how breast cancer and screening particularly affects South Asian women. We also sponsor events such as the annual Disability Living Awards and Disability Awareness Day, and we engage closely with partners from all the equality strands to consult and obtain advice on a wide range of issues through our Health Equality Stakeholder Engagement (HESE) approach. We also work in less visible ways behind the scenes in areas such as gender identity.

And all this is on top of our cross-cutting activities, such as developing a national competency framework for NHS E&D leads and operating the ground-breaking Equality Performance Improvement Toolkit (EPIT) which we pioneered.

So, our recent work on sexual orientation and gender identity projects is only a small part of what we do as a whole. However, as work around race or ethnicity, gender and disability has been underway for more time, and people are less familiar with areas such as sexual orientation, there's a genuine case to invest in playing catch up in specific ways.

The need for monitoring

Monitoring is the term to describe any kinds of data collection which contribute to understanding the detailed demographics of service users and the workforce. When done well, this data helps employers, commissioners and providers to improve what they do -- whether that's improving the diversity of the workforce to more accurately reflect the population, or configuring services so that they work better for the people who use them.

Most people are familiar with being asked for this kind of information -- when applying for a job, for instance, or when registering with a new GP.

Asking people for information about their age, sex, race / ethnicity, disabilities or religion is generally not very contentious. It's familiar and people are relaxed about asking for and giving this kind of information about themselves.

Some organisations have also experimented with collecting this kind of information on sexual orientation.

Until the new Public Sector Equality Duty came into effect there was no formal impetus to do this and most organisations shied away from the prospect. Now that the new public sector equality duty is in effect, however, they now need to think more seriously about doing it.

As in any other area, if the organisation doesn't collect such information it cannot possibly claim to know whether it is meeting peoples' needs and not unintentionally discriminating.

What, where, when, why ... and HOW

The prospect of monitoring for sexual orientation is met with fear by some organisations -- mainly fear of the unknown.

To rationalise those fears managers often come up with lots of suggested barriers. One of the most popular is the notion that patients or staff will be offended by being presented with questions about their sexual orientation.

This is odd, given that medical professionals are trained to routinely ask far more intimate questions about every conceivable bodily function and to poke around our orifices and excretions. Asking someone's orientation is not as though you are asking them when and how they last had sex. You're just asking about the kind of life they lead and who they are likely to share it with. For Doctors and nursing staff that should be a fundamental of building a picture about their patient.

Other suggested barriers include complaints that computer systems aren't built to collect this data, or that staff would be embarrassed or feel it inappropriate to ask some categories of patient.

In keeping with our philosophy of using our resources and influence to break new ground and establish best practice for others to copy we realised that there was a serious need for a matter of fact guide answering all the usual questions and fears about sexual orientation monitoring. Better still we wanted to provide some practical examples where people are already getting things right.

Asking the experts

We commissioned a team from the Lesbian and Gay Foundation to do all the detailed research and writing for us. In turn, they recruited a steering group of experts from across the public sector (not just health) to ensure the final guide would cover every aspect of the topic and provide the best advice and case histories.

The guide is now in the advanced stages of layout and production. We all had our photos taken for it today, for instance. We plan to launch it at LGF's resource centre in Manchester's gay village on Monday 12th June. (If you'd like to be there contact LGF for places).

It's just another resource to add to the arsenal of tools which NHS staff need in order to ensure they meet the needs of all of the population they serve, rather than only a part.

Many more tools like this are still needed, of course. As I said at the outset, filling those gaps is a great part of what we do. It's just a shame that we soon won't be around any more in the present form to do much more.

A new film about LGBT history and involvement with medicine and the NHS

2011-05-10T19:21:00.001+01:00

A few months ago I blogged about the launch of a new timeline exhibition which my colleagues and I at NHS North West had produced with technical input from our partners, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation and the Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre.

The LGBT Timeline, spread across twenty large display panels, charts significant historical milestones involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people from ancient history to the current day, with particular attention to those people and events which connect with the development of medicine, health care and the NHS.

It complements a similar timeline of Black and Minority Ethnic peoples' contributions to the NHS which we produced for the NHS's 60th anniversary in 2008.

I explained at the time that the bookable LGBT exhibition was only the first component of this major new development, which also includes a printed booklet, an interactive online resource and a film in DVD and online form.

The interactive resource will be accessible by anyone and will be launched shortly. In the meantime the film is ready and you can view this below.

For details of how to book the exhibition and how much it will cost please email equalityanddiversity@northwest.nhs.uk

Trans Media Watch condemns BBC failure to take responsibility for transphobic broadcast

2011-04-14T15:11:00.001+01:00

This post is based entirely on a press release issued by Trans Media Watch. For further commentary see this article

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Trans Media Watch
transmediawatch@googlemail.com
www.transmediawatch.org.uk
BM TMW, London, WC1N 3XX

Trans Media Watch, the organisation that campaigns for transgender people to be treated in the media with accuracy, dignity and respect, has condemned the BBC's response to complaints about a recent episode of Russell Howard's Good News. The episode contained a sketch based on the real life decision by a Thai airline to provide employment to kathoey (transsexual) women. It featured two highly sexualised trans characters who at one point revealed their male genitals to customers. It also showed a passenger being physically sick in response to the sight of these characters.

The BBC has argued that these characters were not intended to represent real transsexual women and that they were instead intended to "poke fun at the age old tradition of men dressing as women for laughs". This ignores the fact that specific mention of the real life news story was made when the sketch was introduced. It also misrepresents British comedy traditions in which comedians have spoofed certain female stereotypes rather than spoofing cross-dressing itself. Characters presented by the likes of Kenny Everett and Les Dawson would never have been revealed to have male genitals. Furthermore, they were affectionate caricatures, not objects of ridicule or physical disgust.

It is unclear on what basis the BBC thinks its viewers will be able to distinguish the characters in this sketch from real trans people, especially as the public is generally poorly informed about trans people.

It is difficult to imagine the BBC justifying a similar comedy sketch whose subject was another minority group, such as Jewish people or black people.

Last month the BBC asserted that its own constitution provides protection for transgender people equivalent to that provided by Trans Media Watch's Memorandum of Understanding. It is evident from this sketch and from the response to complaints that this is not the case.

Trans Media Watch has produced widely respected research which demonstrates that the ridicule of trans characters on television harms real trans people in real life. Over a fifth of trans people have experienced verbal abuse inspired by material of this type, with many suffering it on a daily basis. Almost one in ten has been subjected to physical violence which they believe to have been related to an item or items in the media. Media misrepresentation and ridicule is also a significant factor in family breakdown.

The decision to employ kathoey women as flight attendants has been widely recognised as a positive social move, receiving praise from publications such as The Telegraph. Kathoey women are subject to prejudice in Thailand and often find it difficult to secure employment.

The BBC must take immediate steps to improve its approach to the representation of this vulnerable minority group

Why I am withdrawing from the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity

2011-04-13T15:14:00.001+01:00

The Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity has been in existence since 1994 and I have been a member since 1995. The Forum brings together trans stakeholders, parliamentarians, clinical specialists, regulators, departmental officials and other significant contributors to work on influencing policies affecting trans people's lives in Britain. Until 2010 the Forum had been chaired very successfully by the Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, Dr Lynne Jones. You can hear me interview Lynne about her work and the Forum in this Podcast.

Today, however, I have officially withdrawn from the Forum. I set out my reasons in an open letter to the new chair which is reproduced below.

An OPEN LETTER to the Chair and members of the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity

To: Baroness Joyce Gould
cc: Revised membership convened for meeting on 26th April 2011

Dear Baroness Gould

First of all may I take the belated opportunity to welcome you to your new position as Chair of the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity.

As a member of the forum since shortly after it began (I came on board in 1995) I know very well the important history of this group, and the potential which it has to influence matters concerning the lives of trans people.

I know at first hand what an amazing job your predecessor Lynne Jones achieved. After looking at your public record I was happy to endorse the proposal that you should succeed her.

Sadly, however, it is with immense sadness that I must write to inform you and the membership of my decision to withdraw from the Forum.

I do not take this decision lightly. However, events of the last few days have led me to question the validity of the organisation going forwards, with its' mysteriously altered membership excluding some major stakeholders and the remainder looking oddly unrepresentative.

I value my personal reputation far to highly to allow my name to give implied endorsement to the organisation in the form it appears to be taking.

I wrote to the Forum's new secretary (and cc'd you) last week, to express the concern that the Forum was being reconvened without representation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission or Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic. The only acknowledgement I received was to indicate that my communication was being passed on to another member of the Forum, Zoe-Jane Playdon.

So far I have received no reply to my concern about membership, although I see that the suggestion to include EHRC was subsequently made to the group by Terry Reed and appears as though it will be acted upon after she mentioned it.

Had I thought to expand my letter last week I could have added the concern that the revised membership also appears to omit any representation by the Gender Trust - the country's largest charity supporting trans people. It also seems to omit any representation of trans youth. None of the community stakeholders on this list appears to be much younger than 50. Many are retired.

I could also have added the concern that few if any of the membership (myself included) have any present day connection with real grassroots trans opinion. GIRES could claim that to a limited extent, and I certainly welcome the inclusion of a representative of the Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre, which I strongly support.

However, I am amazed that nobody appears to have thought that it would have been appropriate to refresh the group with present day activists from groups such as Trans Media Watch or an FTM group or Trans London -- people who have an up to date mandate to be able to describe what trans people actually want and need and are out there campaigning actively.

The Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is currently running a programme to improve trans rights, so why is a representative of the Government Equalities Office not included? EHRC is about to publish the results of an investigation around NHS provision, so why were they omitted from the list until someone thought they might be relevant?

Without meaning any personal offence to any erstwhile colleagues, many of the names I see here look decidedly 'tired' and out of touch. It would seem that the Forum has sought to perpetuate the past glories of people whose membership was once unquestionably valid, but who now look like an exclusive club for a group with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

This is a dangerous state of affairs. The Parliamentary Forum has the potential for immense influence. However that influence can be damaging if half of the committee aren't in regular communication with the present day cohort of trans people; if they only represent one part of the community in particular (transsexual people who transitioned years ago); and when they may be out of touch with the way services have developed or are developing.

I don't say this applies to everyone; however, I would urge members to look at themselves critically from that perspective. In particular, they should ask themselves whether the present generation of active campaigners have clue who they are or whether they would consider you equipped to advise on what they need.

These are matters which I would have been content to bring to the table. After all, I've worked in this field for many years; I've been a forum member for 16 years; I've been heavily involved in the design of NHS Commissioning and Designation Policy; I chaired the working group set up by the Department of Health which commissioned most of the officially branded literature on health-related issues; I wrote the definitive NHS guide; I worked on passage of two of the most significant pieces of legislation; I'm a nationally respected Equality and Diversity specialist; and I work at senior management level on NHS equalities strategy... I might have something to contribute.

The main reason I am withdrawing, however, is the wholly inappropriate way in which members of your committee have, behind the scenes, gone seemingly out of their way to exclude the largest and most expert clinical stakeholder body of all, Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic.

I won't rehearse the reasons why that is so spectacularly wrongheaded. The fact that Charing Cross treats 85% of NHS referrals every year, however, would give a clue. The fact that they have significantly modernised their approach and have been very impressively engaging with their patient base is another.

I won't seek to apportion motives. However, I have seen enough of the correspondence that has been bouncing back and forth behind the scenes to feel that the Parliamentary Forum is not an organisation I wish to be associated with.

I do hope you sort it out. However, that will have to be without me.

Yours sincerely

Christine Burns MBE
Equality and Diversity Specialist
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/christineburns

Revisited: The end of a chapter

2011-04-11T19:43:00.001+01:00

In the past couple of weeks I've been revisiting on the spot news accounts that I wrote during the 1990's to support an earlier contention about one-sided reporting and distortion of trans experiences. Here is the third and final example.

The story so far

Each of the accounts that I've showcased illustrates quite major milestone events which needed an amateur journalist like myself to record them because the mainstream media had no interest.

Dusting off these accounts has acquired an added importance now, as the original web site on which they were published and stood for 15+ years has now disappeared. The only hope you have of finding them in their original form is the Internet Archive.

It wasn't that mainstream newspapers didn't want to write about trans people at all. This recently remembered article is typical of the material which they were quite happy to print regularly, at the drop of a hat.

When you read Nigella Lawson's article take a look at the date on it (Feb 6th 1996) and notice how close it was to these events in Parliament (Feb 2nd 1996) that were otherwise not mentioned by the mainstream press at all. That's what 'erasure' means.

And, of course, negative articles in the Times would have to have been framed rather differently if they were to have acknowledged the existence of a major international conference like this.

This is why it can be galling for trans campaigners to be accused of attempted censorship the moment they ask for a little of the space routinely given to detractors to be handed over to them.

The end of a chapter

The events I've so far revisited took place in 1993 and 1996 respectively. For my final example we move ahead just another eighteen months to October 1997.

The Government had changed -- Tony Blair's Labour administration romped into office with a massive landslide in May of that year.

There were signs of hope for us as a tiny campaign too -- the events below took place in the same month that we were suddenly offered exhibition stand space inside the Labour Party conference in Brighton.

The press even appeared to be interested in what we were doing. However, as you'll see, 'interest' was as far as it would go...

Presenting the Press for Change Petition

Posted Saturday 1st November, 1997 to the press for change email list server "UKPFC-News"

When a technical glitch on the Australian computer running this service threatened to put UKPFC-News out of action this weekend, it seemed almost fitting in a way.

There are times when silence can be deafening; Times when a vacuum can be full of meaning.

If you'd logged on today for the anticipated account of our petition delivery and press conference, and found it wasn't there though ... If you'd gone down to the library and checked diligently through Wednesday, Thursday and Friday's national papers and found nothing reported ... If you'd watched all the day's news reports and seen nothing more topical than the Spice Girls mouthing some meaningless platitudes about people who died for our freedom ... THEN you might have felt a frisson of intrigue, or wondered what dark and evil event had occurred on Whitehall this week to obliterate the actions of fifty UK citizens from the news.

There are, as you know, some places on this earth where such things happen.

Almost as quickly as it went down however, Kym Kovan's computer was back up again today ... stealing the opportunity to turn a computer hiccup into a statement ... and turning the responsibility for what to write about the week's events back into an editorial one.

So, robbed of my excuse for a quiet night away from the keyboard ... and powered by a different set of editorial values and imperatives than those who shape the news that makes our world, here IS the world's only historic account of the week when fifty UK citizens went up to London to do something their kind had never done before.

It was the day when transsexual people came out on the streets to protest ... and the day they disappeared from every newspaper and television in the country.

Curious coincidence.

Nice day for a protest

If you're GOING to have a rally, of course, it's much nicer to have one in the sun. Walking round Parliament Square and down the sunny south side of Whitehall on Wednesday lunchtime I couldn't help commenting to Alex Whinnom (who organised it all) that maybe the sun shines on the righteous. It was certainly one less factor to worry about, as we both wondered, perhaps, whether we were about to preside over the biggest flop in our campaigning history.

Wind or rain might have gauranteed it. Even on a bright, pleasant autumnal afternoon, however, who would have liked to lay odds on how many traditionally media-shy transsexual people were prepared to come and stand under a banner in public, proclaiming their status ?

As we crossed the road by the Cenotaph, towards the gates that bar the entrance to Downing Street, I have to admit I had a moment's panic though. There were certainly people in abundance there ... it's a popular tourist venue .. but where were "ours" ?

I'd missed the point, of course. How DO you spot a crowd of transsexual people in their natural habitat, lost in a sea of humanity milling around on the pavement ? It's not as easy as people think. Only as we got closer, and as friendly and familiar faces turned to greet us, did I realise that we DID have a real live protest rally and that, more to the point, it was in full swing and we were the last to get there !

Mind you, it was still difficult to work out where WE ended and the general public began in the mele. Two television crews were there ... the BBC from Bristol, following Ros Mitchell for the day, and Central Television, covering for ITN News because Dr Lynne Jones MP is on their patch. Both crews were busy interviewing little groups when we arrived. A rookie reporter was there too. As far as media coverage was concerned that was it though !

This isn't to say that the media hadn't shown interest, mind you.

The press release went out from Lynne Jones's office on Monday morning to all the normal agencies and news desks. A release on Westminster letterhead, from the office of a sitting MP, is usually expected to attract a bit more attention than one sent by a pressure group on its' own. Sure enough, by Monday afternoon, I got a couple of calls at work too. The fact that it WAS just two calls didn't surprise me as I expected the main interest to begin in the evening, or or Tuesday.

There are calls ... and there are CALLS though ..

The first was from a cockey sounding Sky News reporter, who cheerfully assured me that he could do a lot for our campaign, but only if they could do it THAT afternoon ! He had it all planned. "We want to come and film you at work ... talk to the people you work with ... or how about visiting your home ?" When I informed him that I was working for my employer's clients, in a secure area of an Investment bank, and that I was available to talk about serious rights issues as a campaign representative OUTSIDE of working hours, and that I live in Cheshire, not the City, all the chirpiness evaporated though. Besides, we wanted coverage for what we were doing on Wednesday, not a probe into my working life.

Wednesday wasn't any good for him of course. Neither was Tuesday ... inside or outside of working hours. It dawned on me that we were the man's way of filling a gap. We could have been protesting the price of Pilchards for all he cared ... just so long as he could film me eating them that night. I passed him on to Susan Marshall (wondering whether this was a friendly thing to do to her) and then got back to my work. Later, Susan's secretary confirmed my impressions. "What a nasty little character !", she said. (Well, actually, she didn't say "character"). Needless to say, he got the same reception in Oxford as he got in London.

Sky News wasn't going to be reporting us on Wednesday, therefore. Good riddance.

The next call was from a researcher on Nicky Campbell's Radio Five show ... very pleasant and friendly, if you discount the essential lack of manners in the short dialogue we had ...

"Um, I'm from Nicky Campbell's programme on Radio Five ... I understand you're from Press for Change and you're presenting a petition at Downing Street on Wednesday".

"Yes, that's right.. "

"Have you got anyone FAMOUS taking part ?"

"Well, no actually ... the point is that this is a group of transsexual people taking a protest along on their own behalf".

"Oh, sorry ... you see, the programme format's really about celebrities talking to Nicky"

"So, you don't want to talk to US then ?"

"Well, UM ... er ... no ... sorry !"

Well, she did say sorry ..

Meanwhile, back on Whitehall we were at last beginning to arouse the curiosity of the sightseers, as we unfurled the Press for Change banner, and stood under it ... feeling like lemons. When the police came and pushed us gently away from the kerb though it started to feel a bit more like a REAL rally and I pondered whether I ought to try and say something to the assembled group. On the other hand, as I'd already discovered, my voice seemed tiny and ineffective against the noise of the passing traffic ... even when I strained to shout above the heads around me ... so in the end I decided to save the rhetoric for the press conference.

When Lynne Jones arrived, the police came and asked who was going to make the walk up Downing Street ... and then half a dozen of us were allowed through the gate, and ordered to an exact spot on the pavement beyond, to await our moment.

You really begin to appreciate the clever way in which any semblance of democratic empowerment is snuffed out by authority at times like this. The policeman explained EXACTLY how we were going to proceed and stated, flatly and with no room for compromise, that there WOULD BE NO speeches or interviews outside the door of Number Ten.

So, with our police guard making sure we didn't stray from our permitted course, we marched up Downing Street, into the lenses of the TV cameras awaiting our arrival and stopped on that famous step, in front of an impossibly glossy black door. We got out a few petition sheets for the cameras. Smiled. Put the sheets back in their boxes again (just over nine and a half thousand signatures at the final count) and knocked on the door.

The door opened. The doorman beamed and behind him I got a tantalising glimpse of red sumptuousness. I just wish I'd known THEN that the man was due to retire the next day. Maybe we could have made it a more human occasion than simply handing over two large box files and smiling. Maybe we could have got some tips from him too ... because the next day HE was all over every evening bulletin !

Everybody, it seems, gets on the news except ...

No time for thought though. The policeman was marching us back down the street almost as soon as we'd handed the boxes over and, seconds later, we were back on Whitehall.

Five years effort. Almost ten thousand hard won and thoughtfully contributed wishes of goodwill. Delivered, gobbled up by the system and forgotten in under five minutes.

This wasn't the end though.

Marching into the arms of democracy

The next bit was to march as a group, under the Press for Change banner, up Whitehall and into the Houses of Parliament, for our press conference at 2pm.

Oh ... but I'm not to call it a "March". Marches aren't allowed. One can walk. One can move. One can't "March" without permission though. And you have to do your "walking" or "moving" on the pavement, with hundreds of sightseers and passers-by going both ways at the same time ... and being careful not to get your banner wrapped round a lampost, or leave half your party behind at the traffic lights on Westminster Bridge Approach.

Just what Oliver Cromwell thought as we struggled past the world's holidaymakers, past Big Ben and along the narrow paving, I don't know. The policeman who confronted us, as we neared the public entrance was in no doubt though...

"I'm sorry, you can't carry that banner when Parliament is sitting, who's in charge ?"

It seems we were breaking a very ancient law that prohibits protests outside of Parliament when the people you want to protest to are inside. (Quite why you'd WANT to protest outside at any other time is beyond me).

The Angry man in a helmet was unimpressed when I offered myself as the nearest thing he was going to get for a leader. Alex was some way further back down the line. What surprised me more, however, was that for the second time that day our host, Lynne Jones, who was walking beside me, had almost as much trouble getting the respect of the local police too ... at least until she produced her Commons ID card, when the tone suddenly turned to "M'am". I never quite graduated past "You stand there !".

The BBC rushed up gleefully at this point.

"Have you been banned from going inside ?" asked the reporter ? You could see the disappointment on her face, when we explained that we hadn't.

For somebody like me ... frightfully middle class, not used to marches and demos, and accustomed to a very different reception from the police under any other circumstances, it was an object lesson in what happens when you march under a banner, and become a "threat".

Satisfied that we weren't going to blow the place up though, the police stood us in the little coral between the fence and the arched public entrance, awaiting our chance to go inside. Parliament was busy that day. Several groups were booked into the Jubilee Room, where we planned our press conference ... and only one, it seems, was to be allowed in the building at any time.

The depersonalisation didn't end there, either ... when I was ordered (not asked, but ordered), to stay back and identify any members of our party who strayed up the wrong steps towards the central lobby, rather than down into Westminster Hall, where we were headed. (I didn't like to point out that I had no more idea of who belonged in our party than them !)

It's odd, because on the half dozen or so occasions when I've come to the same place, and jumped the public queue outside, armed with my invitation to parliamentary forum meetings, the reception's been very different. It wasn't like that either when I passed the same way, a couple of years ago, in a party of 30 "Conservative Ladies", on a day out to see the workings of Parliament. Policemen like to flirt ... and I'm certainly not averse to innocently flirting back. My entrances to the Palace of Westminster have always usually been pleasant, polite, smiling affairs. On this occasion, however, I found the contrast rather chilling. Today I was not a person under that banner ... I was not me, but someTHING else.

Press, what press ?

The press conference itself, reminded me of our fringe meeting in Brighton, three weeks previously. Seats stuffed with transsexual people ... but not a lot of press ... or MPs for that matter.

To her credit, Lynne Jones had rushed into the building ahead of us, and managed to drag three colleagues from the tearoom to join her. And note that I said the TEA ROOM ... not another meeting. Plenty of MPs ... all of whom had been sent a letter announcing the conference, weeks beforehand ... found it more important to drink tea than come and see us.

The press coverage had diminished a bit by this point too, with the two television cameras down to one ... albeit now supplemented by a stills photographer from the Press Association.

So we said our pieces to an audience of the converted, and then adjourned outside for a few photos to be taken, before urgently seeking a coffee shop in which to warm up and get a drink.

The sun may have been out, but the air was chill. Or was it the air ?

The end of a chapter

I paint a gloomy picture, perhaps ... though that's deliberate. And I've recorded the occasion as a set of impressions, rather than a more impersonal report, in order to try and better convey the sense of being there, rather than to lose what personal record there is behind a speech of self-congratulation for the campaign.

After all, if I portrayed the day as a huge unmitigated success then I wouldn't be telling the story of something which, when all's said and done, was hugely historic ... and certainly significant.

It was the first time ever that Press for Change brought out a crowd of people, in the United Kingdom, to protest for civil rights.

It wasn't just a handful of people either, but FIFTY.

It doesn't SOUND a lot, by the measure of most public lobbies, of course.

Whichever way you look at the number, however, it's about 45 more people than we might have hoped to muster in public a couple of years ago ... and in the press conference, I reminded the audience that when the PFC petition began, about six years ago, it was a struggle just to get people to SIGN the form, let alone go out in the expectation of meeting the cameras and press.

Fifty, whichever way you look at it, is an amazing figure ... and it means that NEXT time we take to the streets, we should be able to manage far more. For if there was ever a proof needed that we've made the streets safe for folk to protest on, then this week produced it.

IT WAS ALSO YET ANOTHER OCCASION when the press proved that a mere gathering of transsexual people is no longer newsworthy in its own right. What's more, on THIS occasion, even though the cameras CAME, news editors decided not to use the material they'd obtained.

More than that however ...

The occasion was symbolic of a change in the nature of the campaign ... a change that has crept up on us over the last eighteen months or so, as the press and public alike have worked "shock, horror" out of their system, and are just beginning to realise that there's maybe something to listen to and learn.

The Press for Change Petition belongs to a different era. It originated at a time when a petition was about the only form of public affirmation we COULD seek.

Petitions ... even when they have fifty thousand or five hundred thousand signatures are not very potent instruments. The very concept of a petition ... scratching around for proof that people support your case enough to sign a piece of paper ... is a symbol of a campaign that's looking for endorsement by its peers. Petitions don't make things happen ... they're what you do when you need to start by proving that people support your case.. We've passed that point already though.

Even as we carried the petition boxes along Downing Street, I was aware that the act of delivering it was no longer a fundamental part of the campaign strategy. Other than underlining that we'd been working hard for all those years to do OUR bit to bring transsexual treatment in from the political cold, the petition didn't ADD anything to what we are now already doing. It merely shows we have support ... to people who, when all's said and done, tacitly support us.

The real messages were in the fact that we can now bring people out in numbers to campaign ... and in what you can deduce from the media's assessment that fifty transsexual people at the gates of government are not newsworthy.

Of course, it was a neat end to an autumn campaign in which FAR more significant advances had been made, and it was a recognition of the belief and support people have given us over the years we've worked. By the time this Wednesday had arrived however, our campaign had moved beyond the point where a petition was an ESSENTIAL..

Delivering it, therefore, was like reaching the end of an important chapter in the campaign's development. Putting our affairs straight before we move on.

What lies ahead now is a different SORT of campaign. A time when we consolidate and assess the various openings we've got, and build more of the same. A time when we stop spending all of our time justifying WHY we should be listened to, and start to spend more time on WHAT we need to say. A time when transsexual people move from being objects of ridicule and fear, into subjects of interest and respect ... people with an experience and lessons which are of wider benefit.

A new chapter, in fact.

Christine Burns

What will be left soon of the Public Sector Equality Duty?

2011-04-03T16:49:00.001+01:00

Last autumn most of the provisions of the the Equality Act 2010 came into force, replacing a patchwork of over hundred separate Acts of Parliament and regulations enacted over the last 40 years. This week, from April 5th, a new integrated Public Sector Equality Duty comes into force as well -- or, at least, parts of it.

The simplification of all this law is welcome. It is easier to understand and covers more 'protected characteristics' in a largely consistent fashion. Yet, the provisions are also a shaddow of what the last Parliament debated and passed. Bit by bit, the new Government has chipped away parts and seems intent on continuing to do so. Where does this stop? And does what's left have any teeth?

First the good news

Time flies. Just over two years ago we were still only able to talk about the theory of rationalising equality legislation in Britain and what we expected to see.

One year ago this week, April 7th, in the nail biting final days of the Labour administration, the legislation was passed into law by Parliament.

It was, literally, one of the last gasps from the administration, completing the steps needed to go onto the statute book just before Parliament was dissolved for the election. And it only got through because the Conservatives (not wishing to frighten the horses) let it just pass by, with only token opposition.

That was April 2010.

Once in power...

Once elected, and after all the focus on setting up a coalition with the Liberal Democrats had filled much of the first few weeks, the new administration started flexing its' new power though.

First to go was the portion of the legislation concerning the Socio Economic Duty.

A review of this and other provisions of the Act was announced by Theresa May shortly after she came into post as Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. It took the form of a quick consultation, published in August.. The axe fell in November.

The socioeconomic duty would have required all public bodies to assess whether they were addressing inequalities caused by class factors, encouraging them to improve, for example, health and education outcomes in more deprived areas. May described this as 'ridiculous'.

Indeed, it is the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) where most tinkering has occurred. By contrast, the actual prescriptive part of the legislation (who is protected, what types of discrimination they are protected from, and in which circumstances) was relatively unscathed.

This is probably because the latter provisions are at the core of the main legislation and, to change most of them would have required Parliamentary debate. Besides, the Conservatives had just been seen to allow it through the last Parliament with only token opposition. So, it would seem mightily strange to backtrack almost immediately.

As I'll discuss in moment, this Government can also afford to be relaxed about the Act's main provisions enabling people to seek justice after discrimination experiences, because it is going to become a whole lot harder for the average citizen to use them.

Regulations, regulations

By contrast, detailed decision making about which parts of the Public Sector Equality Duty should come into force, and when, were left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to set out in secondary legislation -- so-called Statutory Instruments (or Regulations) which are usually laid before the house without debate, and typically pass into effect 30 days later.

The socio-economic duty is not the only probable casualty.

Whither the Specific Duties?

Although, the main part of the PSED (the General Duty) comes into force this week, the Government announced an eleventh hour decision to rethink and consult upon the Specific Duties, and thereby delay their introduction.

In a Ministerial Statement published on 17 March 2011, Theresa May, as Minister for Women and Equalities, announced to Parliament the publication of a policy review paper seeking views on new draft specific duties regulations. She said that,

“the proposals are designed to deliver a clear focus on transparency, freeing up public bodies to take responsibility for their own performance in delivering equality improvements and to publish the right information so that the public can hold them to account. This approach will be better for equality because it will focus on the delivery of results, not the performance of bureaucratic processes.”

Responses to the consultation have to be submitted to the Government Equalities Office by 21st April, leaving little time for many stakeholders to get their act together. You can find out more about this at the GEO's web site.

What are the General and Specific Duties?

Before going further, I ought to explain what these terms mean.

Firstly, the idea of Public Sector Equality Duties as a whole first came about in 1999, as a result of the McPherson Enquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence.

McPherson concluded that there was a culture of institutional racism at that time in the Metropolitan Police force and that existing legislation, such as the Race Relations Act, had failed to dent this.

The problem was that any actions had to be brought by the victims of discrimination and there was no obligation on public authorities like the police to do anything about the systemic problems which such cases revealed.

These recommendations were taken up in the new Race Relations Act (2000), which included a positive duty for public sector bodies to fulfil. After allowing time for people to prepare for this, the original Race Equality Duty came into effect in April 2002. This was followed by similar provisions for Disability (Dec 2006) and Gender, including gender reassignment (April 2007).

The Equality Act took these three established provisions to the next level by adding similar obligations in respect of Sexual Orientation, Religion or Belief and Age (although the age provisions are also still subject to consultation and ministerial decision). The duty relating to gender reassignment has also been strengthened and clarified.

This is why, although not perfect, the new PSED coming into force this week does represent an advance of kinds for many. The question is whether it has any practical teeth.

The General Duty

The general duty is explained in detail in a series of non-statutory guidance documents published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

In summary, those subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to:

Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.
Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

These are sometimes referred to as the three aims or arms of the general equality duty. The Act helpfully explains that having due regard for advancing equality involves:

Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics.
Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people.
Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

All that sounds fine, but here's the rub: The whole point about these duties is that it is the responsibility of the public sector bodies involved to carry them out. The duty can only be effective if there is some form of scrutiny to assure that they do.

The scrutiny is underpinned by the Specific Duties, which set out what organisations must do and publish to show how they are complying with the general duty, and by the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is one of the few players with sufficient power to bring non-performing bodies to Judicial Review in the worst case scenario.

Take away or inhibit either of those arms of governance and the general duty becomes just words.

The Specific Duty

The Specific Duties vary a little bit between public sector bodies but the essence is that a public authority covered by the specific duties (listed body) is required to:

Publish sufficient information to demonstrate its compliance with the general equality duty across its functions. This must be done by 31st July 2011 (and by 31st December 2011 for schools), and at least annually after that, from the first date of publication.

This information must include, in particular:

Information on the effect that its policies and practices have had on people who share a relevant protected characteristic, to demonstrate the extent to which it furthered the aims of the general equality duty for its employees and for others with an interest in the way it performs its functions.

Public authorities with fewer than 150 employees are exempt from the requirement to publish data on their effects on their employees (which will probably therefore exempt most GP Commissioning Consortia), but all public authorities have to publish the following information:

Evidence of analysis that they have undertaken to establish whether their policies and practices have (or would) further the aims of the general equality duty.
Details of the information that they considered in carrying out this analysis.
Details of engagement that they undertook with people whom they consider to have an interest in furthering the aims of the general equality duty

It is these parts of the PSED that the Government now wants to have a further think about -- given that it is in general ideologically opposed to anything that places an administrative burden on either public sector bodies or business.

The concern, of course, is that if you take away these obligations for a public sector body to publish evidence of how it is fulfilling the general duty, how is anyone to know whether they are?

The role of the regulator

In theory, of course, that's where we would turn to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The Commission, which started work in October 2008 has several roles. One is that it has strong investigatory powers. Another is that it has had significant resources to pursue litigation if necessary. When used effectively, the combination of these powers can produce very significant outcomes, as illustrated by the famous Sharon Coleman case.

The EHRC's ability to both investigate compliance and pose a credible threat of legal action is a major underpinning to the Public Sector Equality Duty, because few other organisations have the capacity or capability to conduct the first and the resources to risk the second.

It is a sad fact that many legal protections, whilst theoretically present, are inaccessible to individuals and NGOs because of the resources involved, and the risk of punitive costs if they lose.

Indeed, the ability for ordinary people to use even the most basic provisions of the Equality Act is coming under threat from another quarter, as the Government seeks to put a further squeeze on legal aid.

And now, by a strange coincidence, the Home Secretary (whom you'll remember is also the minister for women and equalities) has announced a separate consultation as a prelude to 'reforming' the EHRC. More details on that here.

A pincer movement

Take a note of what is happening therefore.

First, the Government cuts away whole protections, which Theresa May describes as 'ludicrous' after a cursory consultation
Then it is proposed to strip away the part of the Specific Duties that allow anyone to readily check that public sector bodies are complying with the rest of the public duty
Simultaneously, another consultation prefaces moves to emasculate the only body with the powers and capacity to enforce the public sector duty
And changes in legal aid remove the chance for the rest of us to stand up to any organisation which discriminates against us

And that's not all

The Government is not content to stop there.

Ministers have already (separately) decided that they won't be implementing the combined discrimination provisions within Equality Act (section 14). This was one of the big advances promised by the new legislation, which would have opened the way for some of the most vulnerable groups to challenge the discrimination they face.

The Treasury's report "The Plan for Growth", published last week with the budget, not only confirms that but also says that the Government will:

"... consult to remove the unworkable requirement in the Equality Act for businesses to take reasonable steps to prevent persistent harassment of their staff by third parties as they have no direct control over it, which would save £0.3 million" (page 53)

Note that both of these proposals to chip away at legislative rights passed just a year ago have been buried deep in a Treasury report rather than being announced yet by Theresa May, Lynne Featherstone or their teams. I only know about this myself as I have contacts with very sharp eyes for detail, and preparedness to actually read fiscal plans.

As the sun sets...

We can probably expect more in this vein, as the Government clearly regards equality protections as a cost not worth paying.

The lesson, however, is that the whittling away of what we had won't always be in obvious chunks around which anyone can rally.

The cuts are stealthy. They're usually dressed up under the guise of 'consultation' when, in fact, the decision has already been made (as in the Treasury's plans). And they will be designed to have combined effects - such as stripping away publication requirements at the same time as crippling regulatory scrutiny.

And, in five years time, we will look back and realise how, truly for a brief point in time, we had never had it so good

Revisited: Transsexualism and the Law - The Amsterdam Colloquy of 1993

2011-04-01T10:54:00.001+01:00

Yesterday I dug into my archives to dust off a report I wrote for the Press for Change web site in 1996 - as an illustration of the endangered early history of trans rights campaigning in Britain.

I created the prototype of the campaign's web site over the Christmas holidays in 1995, realising how desperately we needed to be able to communicate with a geographically dispersed and isolated trans community to get them on board.

We wanted a coordinated volunteer force, willing to advocate on their own behalf and to support our work. To achieve that would require a mix of education (telling them what we knew) -- and encouragement (convincing people that our cause, though a difficult long haul, was not a futile one).

But, long before the web site, I had been writing about and explaining events.

The 23rd Colloquy of the Council of Europe in Amsterdam, April 1993

One of the most significant events I have ever attended took place in April 1993. I was persuaded to go by my friend, Alice Purnell, the founder of the Gender Trust.

I say significant because it represented a lightbulb moment - an epiphany - for me.

The event was a major conference organised by the Council of Europe. It was a multii-disciplinary gathering, intended principally for lawyers and doctors to come together to talk about the difficult status of transsexual people.

The colloquy, "Transsexualism, Medicine and the Law", lasted three days and changed me profoundly.

From the sessions I attended I learned that there was a medical understanding of people like myself that simply wasn't part of any discourse about our rights in Britain. There was also a liberal rights-based legal discourse too. It revealed stuff which meant that what we were seeking shouldn't be a call for tolerance, but a call for justice.

I remember finding the passion to stand up at the floor mic and argue at one point, in French, against one of the few intolerant contributors. If you have any idea how weak my spoken french is, you'll understand what kind of inspiration that required.

I also remember crying all the way through the closing session. It was that significant.

Flying home the next day I also realised it had planted a seed. If learning all this stuff changed my whole understanding, what would happen if everyone else could be helped to know the same? It took a while to assemble the means, but this is genuinely where my own arc as an activist began, as it was one of the events that brought Stephen Whittle and myself together and led him to invite me to join the fledgling Press for Change.

This account was written shortly after the colloquy and published in the Gender Trust's magazine.

Report on the 23rd Colloquy of the Council of Europe, April 1993

It was, in the summing up words of one contributor a "..most unusual and memorable occasion ..." a gathering where not only lawyers and medical experts but their client group too had come together for three days and achieved an uncommon level of agreement and understanding.

Margaret Killerby, the head of the Council of Europe's Civil and Commercial Law division was speaking in the closing ceremony of the Council's Colloquy on "Transsexualism, Medicine and Law" at the Free University of Amsterdam and her words reflected the feeling of everyone who had taken part. Speaker after speaker had echoed the same theme, paying particular note to the contribution made by the Transsexuals themselves, whose voices had frequently been raised to challenge inaccuracies, prejudice, and sloppy reasoning ... helping to ensure that the conclusions to be drawn were fair and representative of their experience.

The Colloquy was hosted by the University on behalf of the Council of Europe, it having the distinction of being the only institution in the world to have appointed a professor of transsexology. The event drew legal and medical experts not just from the 26 European member states but from across the globe. This meant that not only could psychiatrists, psychologists, endocrinologists and surgeons trade their research findings from across the world but international law makers were present too to learn that transsexuality is more and more regarded as a real phenomenon, worthy of serious research and compassionate treatment.

Although a lot of medical and psychiatric information was exchanged, undoubtedly the most fascinating aspect of the conference was the legal discussion, since a resolution of the many conflicts and anomalies which exist in dealing with this group of people are of interest not only to the transsexuals themselves, but to everyone.

First, before the hopes of Britain's Transsexuals are raised too soon, it has to be borne in mind that neither the Colloquy nor the Council of Europe will have a direct effect on the immediate situation in law for them either now or in the immediate future. This situation, it was quite quickly apparent, is nothing short of a catastrophic farce. Since Sweden became the first to do so in 1972, only a further four European states have enacted specific legislation concerning the status of Transsexuals in society (Germany in 1980, Italy in 1982, The Netherlands in 1985 and finally Turkey in 1988). Other states have been reputed to have statutes (eg Denmark, Finland, Luxemburg and Spain) but, according to Professor Michael Will from the Faculty of Law in the University of Geneva, it is not clear in which direction and to what extent. Nor, according to Don Bradley a senior lecturer in law at the London School of Economics, was the justification or achievement of such legislation a cut and dried process.... involving, as it does, issues of ideology, complications with existing statutes and definitions, political culture and institutions.

Both speakers' contributions to the colloquy were too detailed and well presented to do proper justice to their arguments in a short article. However, Don Bradley's paper represented perhaps the best summary and explanation to date as to why there should be such resistance to change and Michael Will's went on to ennumerate some of the many issues that arise when a state does consider enacting a law.

According to Bradley, the first impediment to legislation is the many and varied ideological arguments that are ranged against a liberal line of thought, not only from religious commentators but from other viewpoints, such as that espoused by the feminist writer Janice Raymond. In her book, The Transsexual Empire, she sees male to female Transsexuals as something amounting to a fifth column. Many of the research findings coming out of the colloquy as a whole tend counter, head on, the central tenet of many viewpoints such as these... The idea, in its' various forms, that Transsexualism is an optional state of existence (whose only cause is whimsy) and the assumption that apparent birth sex and gender are inseparable is simply not representative of the facts.

The inconsistency of these commentator's arguments when applied across the whole spectrum of sex and gender variations and a range of cultures is only really apparent when the holes are exposed in a forum which has access to factual research from every perspective. This was why the meeting of minds in this colloquy was so valuable. If genital appearance at birth defines one as a "man" or a "woman" where is one to place the many hermaphrodites born with complete sets of both genitals, or those "boys" who later turn out to be "females" when a childhood penis turns out to be an enlarged clitoris? And if one opts, instead, for a rigid chromosonal definition, how do you then regard a normal looking "woman" who even after developing breasts and a feminine body shape at puberty turns out to be (on gynaecological examinination) an "XY" male with a complete insensitivity to the testosterone welling from "his" undescended testes?

Looking around the conference hall as these commonplace and long-since documented birth variations were explained by Amsterdam University's Professor Louis Gooren, it was apparent to what extent whole systems of thought were being shaken, as many delegates learned (perhaps for the first time) that there's more to life than X and Y, vagina and penis. When the Professor then went on to discuss tentative (and albeit as yet unsubstantiated) findings that suggest brain differentiation may not be completed until the age of 4 years (and that this can, like everything else, go the "wrong" way) a new picture began to emerge in which physically "normal" but dysphoric males and females could be viewed as parts of the same group of people as those who have more obvious physical ambiguities to their status.

However to return to Don Bradley's lecture.. He then went on to explain the problems which transsexuality poses for the mass of existing laws and provisions drafted and intended to serve for a society in which sex status is assumed to be indisputable and unchanging. The obvious problem, and cause celebre, is of course the matter of the birth certificate ... although Transsexuals in Britain should at least be thankful that they are able to alter their name without incident. In many countries, such as France, this isn't (or wasn't until legislation) at all possible ... leaving Transsexuals in those countries with a far more embarassing and enduring day-to-day problem than their British cousins. But there are also many problems of marital and employment law, inheritance, and civil rights which aren't simply solved by appending or crossing out "wo" in front of "man" on a piece of paper. Not only is it necessary to wonder whether Transsexuals should be allowed to marry in their new status, but what should become of their former obligations (indeed marriages?) if they were married in their original role? And, for that matter, what were the prerequisites to be fulfilled before a state should permit surgery or a name change or, ultimately, a change of legal status?

It was obvious that the lawyers were in their element given the mental challenge of imagining what sort of (probably very lucrative) complications could arise from admitting the basic idea of a change of sex status into their country's laws. Indeed, left to their own devices, it was apparent that many (the French in particular) were quite happy to establish everything by resort to case law and were quite keen not to pin too much down by statute.

It is, of course, "case law" that defines the status (or non-status) of Transsexuals in every country where specific legislation has not yet been enacted. It represents a costly, unreliable and insecure means for anyone's rights to be defined, particularly as the next case to be heard can so easily reverse or restrict a previous ruling and rights can, quite literally, disappear overnight. This is a point which the Transsexuals in the audience were at regular pains to point out.

But law, as Bradley went on to explain, depends upon the flavour and cultural agenda of the state and its' institutions. A political regime founded on liberalising principles is far more likely to accept change of this sort than one whose stance is more repressive or paternalistic, and the institutions which serve or patronise the state likewise influence the setting of the political agenda.

In Britain, according to Bradley, the resistance to the development of status and rights (typified by the birth certificate issue) seemed motivated more by a principle of conservatism and bureaucratic intransigence than by any specifically identified problems. In both of the European Court cases heard in the last three years (those of Mark Rees and Caroline Cossey), the decision of the court (against their claims) had been based upon the fact that the UK birth registration process does not admit changes in any form ... thus in refusing to make a change the government was not seen to be denying either party a right they would otherwise have.

This subtlety was underlined more recently in the case brought by a French citizen "B" versus France. In France, the registration system does allow for birth registration details to be altered in some circumstances so, in denying this to "B" the french authorities were denying her a right as a citizen and the European Court thus found in her favour. However, as Bradley pointed out, the UK registration procedures have been modified to accomodate the interests of adopted and legitimated children, and this provides perhaps a precedent on which the Rees and Cossey judgements could be challenged.

Even notwithstanding the possibility that a third British Transsexual could return to the European Court of Human Rights with a challenge based on this argument, it is apparent in any case that the balance of favour in international decision making is moving steadily in the direction of the Transsexual. Indeed, the public dissent of one of the court's judges in the Caroline Cossey case (which was a narrow verdict in any case) points to this. It was therefore very relevant that Don Bradley's presentation should be followed, on days two and three, by the contributions of Michael Will and others, examining the issues to be resolved within and between countries.

Once a state has accepted the basic premise that some sort of legislation is required in order to deal with real-life gender variations, the first issue becomes that of defining the terms, the group of people affected, and where the limits lie.

One speaker raised the dangerous notion of defining some sort of third "intersex" class in law, although this was mercifully discarded by the rest. After all, the very point is to help people to become more integrated and acceptable to themselves and others, not label them for everyone to see. In fact, Professor Gooren had already remarked that the effect on Dutch Transsexuals' self esteem, confidence and perception by the public had been very marked since the Netherlands had legislated to regard them as members of their adopted sex. He had stressed that this acceptance by society was, from the point of view of rehabilitation, the last and perhaps the most significant step for an individual.

Professor Gooren's point, in many ways highlighted the lack of understanding in many peoples' minds about the direction that Transsexuals are coming from. Seen as a matter of personal identity above all else, it would seem to be obvious to any compassionate observer that public recognition of that identity (and elimination of conflicts in that area) were, if anything, more important to the Transsexual than surgery.

However, the conference demonstrated time and time again that many people were still stuck down in the foothills of understanding. Indeed, one delegate from the floor even had to berate the psychiatric profession for its' own stereotyped thinking which continues to place too much emphasis on cultural dress preferences and which confuses sexual preferences as pointers to gender identity. It had become, she said, a virtual conspiracy in which clients had learned to say what the professionals expected to hear ... and the professionals, in turn, took this at face value to confirm their way of thinking. The work of the Gender Trust, in researching and collecting the candid feelings and thoughts of Transsexuals bore out a long suspected belief that the development of understanding (and hence more appropriate help) was being held back by the failure of researchers to adequately distinguish between what are conventions and what are core prerequisites for a masculine or feminine identity. The trust's own research had shown, for instance, that over 60% of Transsexuals retain their original sex preferences after their role change. "If the majority of male to female Transsexuals ended up as lesbians", she argued, "where did this leave the 'professionals' who persisted in seeing such people as repressed gays who wanted nothing more than socially acceptable penetrative sex with a big butch he-man?"

This call for a clarification of thought was of as much relevance to the lawyers as to the care workers and their clients to whom it was directed. The state had first, for instance, to decide what constituted a valid change of role for the purposes of altering identity documents. The obvious pointer was the construction of external genitalia and the induction of appropriate secondary sexual characteristics. However this, as Michael Will pointed out, is not an appropriate measure in the case of F to M Transsexuals where the limits of current medical achievement made it unreasonable to demand phalloplasty as a prerequisite. In other cases too, there could be instances where surgery (or indeed hormone treatment) could be dangerous for the individual and it was important not to discriminate against such people with an over-simplistic definition of gender reassignment. He referred, for instance, to a case in German case law where an applicant suffered from liver trouble following a car accident and, although having undergone a mastectomy, feared the risks of hormonal treatment and the removal of their uterus and ovaries.

A line obviously has to be drawn however, as no-one wanted to raise the problems of new men becoming pregnant or new women fathering further children. The Swedish, German and Dutch laws therefore embodied the requirement that a person should be unable to procreate in a completely irreversible manner ... actual removal of the testes or uterus/ovaries being deemed necessary to prevent surgical reversal or the possibility (for instance) of an ectopic pregnancy. In the case of the German man referred to above, therefore, the courts had been sympathetic in permitting him to change his name but, since he continued to menstruate, a change of sex status was refused.

There are apparently few countries which outlaw or seek to regulate re-assignment surgery itself, probably since medical ethics provide adequate safeguards in themselves. According to Michael Will, there had been cases of a doctor in Argentina being convicted in 1966 after carrying out an operation, and another more recently in Brazil (1978). In France there had been a case involving a young surgeon who was jailed for six months. However there were other more serious factors in this case. The doctor had operated after only one meeting and without any other professional opinion in 1980 and the surgery had been very poor. Finally, after eight years of attempts to seek remedial surgery elsewhere, the patient had shot herself.

However, although countries have not sought to impose conditions such as the "real life test" as a prerequisite for surgery, some have embodied it into their conditions for a legal change of status. In Germany, for instance, the original wording of the act, which called for a "considerable period of time" living permanently in the new role, was eventually refined to "at least three years". Again though, as Mr Will pointed out, legislation this precise creates problems when surgery has been carried in an urgent attempt to mitigate a patient's self mutilation. Should that person still then have to wait out a period of three years?

It is obviously a problem for lawyers framing any new legislation to cover as many "what if?" scenarios as possible. This is in everyone's interest as it reduces the number of occasions when an individual will need to take expensive and time-consuming recourse to the courts for clarification. Given the time and thought which it takes for someone coming new to the subject to properly understand the issues raised by Transsexuals, and to correct false assumptions, it's also probably safer not to leave too much of the framework in the hands of judges, who may be pressed for time and who may have a lifetime's ideas and prejudices to up-end in order for justice to be achieved.

However, the alternative is not necessarily to adopt the excuse that all of these matters need to be fully resolved before you have any legislation, a point of view evidently much in favour with the French delegates to the conference. The fair and reasonable course probably lies somewhere in-between, as always...

The experience of the countries where legislation has been enacted has not been to see a flood of anomalous or grotesque cases, in or out of the courts. Perhaps countries that fear this are still unconsciously seeing Transsexuals as publicity-seeking anarchists, intent on making a fool of the state, rather than quiet and mostly very ordinary people who want their change of status to create as little personal and public embarassment as possible. All laws come to the statute book with flaws and omissions which the architects didn't forsee, and any country now contemplating legislation at least has the experience of five countries over the course of 13 years to draw on. As one contributor pointed out, those countries are the ones which now have reliable statistics and a clearer conception of gender dysphoria; those states haven't lost anything, public order and moral welfare have been maintained and (if anything) the Transsexuals in those countries have been better placed to live in society, pay taxes and contribute to social security than before. It was therefore suggested that the states which were sitting on the fence should put Transsexual legislation to the "real life test" as the Transsexuals themselves are obliged to do with their lives.

If making domestic legislation is a problem, however, it seems that it could be trivial compared to the problems of getting other countries to recognise what you've done and to iron out the discrepancies caused by differences in application.

It is usual for one state to recognise the identity documents and marital status conferred by another. For instance, if an Arab with six wives comes to reside in England we do our best to recognise and respect the conventions of his culture. We don't, for instance, treat the wives as unmarried for social security purposes just because our own system prescribes monogamy.

Yet this sort of problem has already begun to occur for European Transsexuals, whose identity stands to be challenged and redefined each time they cross a border. Indeed now that most European Community frontiers can be crossed at 65mph in a car without stopping it is becoming truly bizarre. Imagine your marriage being anulled for you somewhere on the M4 between London and Swansea when going West for a weekend in Wales, and the full absurdity becomes apparent.

We already have the case of Dutch residents of UK birth whose documents (after being altered legally in the Netherlands) will not be ratified by British authorities and, as more countries act, the worse and more complex it will become. (Indeed the Transsexuality issue is, according to one observer, a very real potential flashpoint between the states in the E.C.

The complexities were highlighted in a report presented just before the Colloquy's close on the third day by Dorotheé Van Iterson, a member of the International Commission of Civil Status (ICCS) at the Hague. In her opening she referred to the earlier presentation by her ICCS colleague, Henri Delvaux, who (in his paper comparing the legal approach within different countries) had highlighted the difference between cases that involve a non-retrospective change of birth certificate status and those where an amendment has taken place to correct an earlier error.

Even in the UK it is possible to alter a birth registration on the latter grounds. An early example was the case of Georgina Somerset, a hermaphrodite registered as a male in 1923 but who successfully had her birth certificate altered at the age of 34 when it was established that her development was essentially female. The fact that hers was a correction rather than an amendment to the birth certificate made the change possible and enabled her to go on and marry as a woman in 1962 in a way that would probably be recognised worldwide without much fuss.

Although she did not refer to this case herself, Dorotheé Van Iterson's paper highlighted the fact that the willingness of one country to ratify another's conventions on status changes depends on the nature of the change and the nationality of the applicant. She pointed to reports that Sweden, for instance, which carries out alteration of documents for its' own citizens (and states a willingness to recognise the new status of foreigners when their status has been changed in their own country), apparently draws the line at accepting a Dutch ruling concerning one of their own nationals. Germany, likewise, has stated that it would not recognise a foreign decision concerning an individual covered by German law.

A worse tangle concerns the willingness of states to recognise a marriage celebrated abroad where one of the parties is a Transsexual ... where the outcome depends on that state's recognition of the Transsexual his/herself and the public's attitude to Transsexual marriage. The treatment of an individual can therefore depend on whether their country of origin has completely obliterated official records of the Transsexual's former status. Luxembourg, for instance, has observed that it would be obliged to allow the marriage of a couple if a Transsexual partner had never been married before and they came from Holland, since there would be no indication of the person's former status. If, however, the person had been married in the earlier role (and there was therefore an official record of their former status) or the person came from a country whose official reclassification indicated both the old and new status, then public opinion would be against the union. In other words, there was a potential inequality stemming from the manner in which the person's change of status was recorded. (Sadly, nobody ever discusses the feelings of the other party in the matter of transsexual relationships, for they are deprived of rights too for no greater sin than loving another human being)

It is perhaps as well that Dorotheé Van Iterson's report was the last of seventeen presented in the Colloquy's three day agenda because by this point many delegates, their minds bombarded by the anomalies now in existence, were finding it hard to go on.

Some wondered whether all the intellectual effort was worthwhile. Wasn't it a lot of effort for such a statistically small number of people on the margin of normal society? When one speaker from the floor pointed out that, worldwide, that "small number" (in their various forms) added up to between fifty and sixty million people (or the entire population of France as she put it), some took the point.

Transsexuals are not in a position of their own making, but in a trap unintentionally laid for them by society's long held view that gonadal sex at birth represented the end of line for a person's gender development. Until recent research has begun to show otherwise it was reasonable to assume that, from the point of birth, there were no exceptions to nature's rules concerning personality development, other than those made by choice. Laws and conventions have been laid on the basis of this apparently self-evident observation and, although few examples of positive repression exist, Transsexuals have long experienced the de-facto repression resulting from the conflicts and ambiguities which their existence brings about.

Scientific research is, as always, ahead of the law and society in this area and many Transsexuals took away from the Colloquy the new knowledge that, if nothing else, their status is changing as more is understood about the way in which human beings develop and differentiate into male and female, man and woman.

The most significant medical observation in the three days was that it seems the brain goes on to develop on sex-dependent lines for as much as four years after birth. So, just as it has been known for many years that the development of the internal and external genitals can go irreversibly in the "wrong" direction before birth (leading to hermaphroditism and all its' variations), the development of the brain can likewise, it seems, go off on a divergent course too, for one in 11,500 "males" and one in 30,000 "females".

Conditions such as Androgen Insensitivity and Testicular Feminisation (both of which result in XY males being classified and brought up as potentially happy, well adjusted and unarguably female women) and the XX-child equivalents are all statistically quite commonplace (each syndrome appearing in 1/1000 births). "Why then", asked Professor Louis Gooren, in his closing speech, "could the sensitive and compassionate treatment afforded these cases not be extended quite simply to those whose problems have a similar basis but whose late and less-obvious onset places them in the legal position they find themselves through no fault of their own?"

There was an air of agreement and compassion in the closing speeches of the Colloquy that none could have missed and which seemed to indicate that Transsexuals could perhaps take some comfort from the wartime words of Sir Winston Churchill, "... this is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning".

The professionals paid tribute to the patience and good humour of the Transsexuals who had attended. One presenter remarked that, through organisations such as the UK's Gender Trust, they were beginning to present themselves as a coherent and self-aware group of people fully able to participate in decision making regarding their status. Indeed Dr F.W. Hondius, the deputy Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status said that he would be recommending their active involvement when the ICCS came together soon to debate the issue.

The Transsexuals, in turn, were pleased too; not just for things said in their favour, but for the opportunity to meet and socialise with the people who might be able to achieve the thing they need above all, which is for their case to be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Admittedly it's hard if you've grown up quite happy with your own genital-defined role to understand how someone might feel otherwise. Many Transsexuals describe the feeling of being "trapped" in the wrong body and go on to admit that they're as perplexed by that as an outsider. When the conviction is held so strongly and consistently that even loss of family ties, job security, and civil status pale into insignificance and a "compromise" body alteration (with all its' problems) is preferable to continuing with the "wrong" life altogether, then it is time to ask whether they are really asking that much of society to be recognised in law for what they feel themselves to be in mind and soul.

Christine Burns, April 1993

Revisited: The end of the beginning

2011-03-31T19:32:00.001+01:00

When I wrote recently about the invisibility of the historical record of the early Press for Change campaign, it set me thinking about some of the early contemporaneous reports that I wrote about those events. As far as I know, my articles (published exclusively on the original Press for Change web site) are the only formal records of those times -- and they've disappeared from the internet since that web site has gone down.

The Diary of a Conference Campaigner

The first of those accounts was presented as a diary, which not only documented the beginning of a whole new phase of trans campaigning, by taking our message to the Labour and Conservative party autumn conferences, but also reflected my experience of having 'come out' to lead on it.

The Diary of a Conference Campaigner, at 11,000 words, was never going to get published in print (though I tried to pitch it). However, a few years ago LGBT History Month (of which I'm now a patron) very kindly provided a place for it on their web site.

Nowadays you can also listen to me read it in person here and here on the Just Plain Sense podcast. In the 'talking book' version on the podcast I've tried to recreate the feeling of those days in the telling.

Accounts like this were a popular staple of the early days of our web campaigning presence. We were writing the rules for this kind of online campaigning on the hoof, inventing and refining the techniques as we went along.

Homebrew journalism and commentary were essential ways of explaining to people what was going on, given that the mainstream media couldn't be relied upon most of the time.

I always felt that telling supporters what we were doing, and explaining our strategic reasoning, was an essential part of building and keeping the trust of the community we set out to campaign for.

In retrospect I also realise that I was blogging, many years before the term had been invented. And blogging with Web 1.0 technology at that.

The end of the beginning

Although "The Diary..." was eventually reproduced elsewhere with my permission, most of my other accounts only ever existed in the one place. Therefore I thought it would be interesting to revisit a couple of them. They may have gone from their original place on the web, but I have comprehensive archives.

The end of the beginning was written in the hours immediately after the first ever debate on trans issues in Parliament. In the timeline it came about four months after the events documented in "The Diary...". That was the pace at which we were constrained to move in those days.

We knew from the outset that Alex Carlile's Bill was doomed to be talked out. Nevertheless, we also understood the significance of the politics in allowing it time in the chamber at all.

And, in glorious retrospect, I still think I was right to dub it truly the 'End of the Beginning'. We were still a very long way from the 'Beginning of the End'.

February 2nd 1996

It was, from our elevated point of view, a bizarre match. Ten transsexuals, their supporters and a bemused public looked down from the public gallery on the eleven MP's below, enacting a form of democratic ritual which is uniquely British, and never what it seems. By now, everybody knows that we lost the battle of the day .. yet in its' peculiar way, Britain's transsexuals secured a vital win on that cold Friday afternoon. Parliament debated transsexual rights for the first time in history and the wheels of change began to move. Transsexuality has been redefined in millions of minds and the entire community has begun to demand and receive public respect. The end may still be frustratingly far away but, from this point on, the script we have lived with for more than a quarter of a century is being rewritten. It may be too early to dub this the beginning of the end, but the changes wrought in a few short weeks mean, at least, that we have passed the end of the beginning.

The second reading of Alex Carlile's Gender Identity (Registration and Civil Status) bill took place in the House of Commons on Friday February, 2nd after a fortnight of unprecedented media coverage of the human rights issues, and one of the most effective constituency lobby campaigns that MPs can remember in modern times. It was a magnificent team effort by everybody involved and, though the bill didn't reach a vote in the time available, the event has projected the transsexual rights campaign from obscurity into a significant contemporary political issue almost overnight. The support and understanding generated by this bill means we can now talk of when, instead of simply if .. to both MPs and journalists who have now started to comprehend the nature of transsexuality, and the legal absurdities we all face.

It was especially poignant that the bill should be read on February 2nd, for on that date 26 years previously Lord Justice Ormerod had delivered his judgement from a spot less than a mile away, defining April Ashley as legally male, and casting a shadow over the rest of our lives for more than a quarter of a century since.

For us, in Press for Change, it was a major milestone. We may not have won just yet, but that is in no way unusual for a Private Member's Bill. What we have done though, is to prove how effective you can all be when asked too do something. All the MPs say the same : You were marvellous. Your letters have been read and admired. Your visits have changed minds. Your pushing has turned something once confidently deemed impossible into something now achievable. Of course we'll need more of your co-ordinated help before we achieve our eventual goal but before explaining what you can do next, however, it's maybe a good time to explain properly what has happened to date.

The Press for Change campaign is now in its' sixth year and, if you think that's a long time to get this far then remember that just five years ago there was only ever one way in which the media routinely treated any transsexual they came across. We've had to be both patient and subtle, co-ordinating legal and medical expertise and building friendships and contacts in the media, parliament and religious bodies (as well as in legal and medical circles). Gradually, and with all your help too, we've sown the seeds of our message.

The contribution you've all made cannot be understated either. Eighteen months ago Dr Lynne Jones (the Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak) formed the all party Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism because she'd received a personal visit from a transsexual constituent. At the Conservative Party Conference last October, we likewise gained a very significant government supporter (Roger Sims, the Conservative MP for Bromley Chislehurst) because a transsexual had been to see and explain their problems to him. The Alex Carlile bill also obtained the extent of parliamentary time that it got, because so many of you have been out to see your MPs or got people to write to them.

Steadily these activities have been coming together. At the beginning of 1995, the Parliamentary Forum published the first draft of a document entitled "Transsexualism - The Medical Viewpoint", a work that has been essential in underlining the medical legitimacy of our case. The forum also ensured that the legal group (including our own Dr Stephen Whittle) worked in a co-ordinated fashion on cases such as the now famous P vs S and Cornwall County Council, and to secure a judicial review of the birth certificate issue. On a parliamentary front, we took the campaign message to both the Labour and Conservative party conferences in October .. and made important friends in the media and among MPs who were personally lobbied inside those events.

Gradually, we've been altering our own profile too. With media contacts who've begun to really comprehend our message and support us, we've stopped being the nameless, faceless people in the shadows and we've shown the world that transsexual people have the pride of conviction. We've provided models of well-integrated and normal citizens, campaigning with justification for rights that have been taken away as the result of a medical treatment for a recognised condition. And we've watched and helped some of you do that too. In marketing-speak, we have relaunched transsexuality as a concept. We've begun to show the world that we aren't ashamed to be identified and named, and by doing that we've given the world a cause to think differently too. If you cower and act furtively it sends a negative message. If you stand tall and proud, then people see something different altogether. Proud people get listened to. Respectable citizens have rights. People whose rights are abused get coverage and sympathy.

The result is that media coverage in the last few weeks has been outstanding (with the occasional exception). Interest has obviously been propelled by the Private Members Bill, but the groundwork means journalists who've got to know and respect our cause have written fair and balanced pieces, to cover the event. Since newspapermen are notorious for getting their ideas from each other, the effect has been cumulative too .. with fact packs being faxed to new callers by Press for Change almost every day now. Channel Four gave one of our activists one of the best prime time platforms available, with a five minute film in The Slot, just before Brookside. In the same week they ran the much acclaimed film Second Serve, about the life of American Opthalmic Surgeon and Tennis star, Renée Richards (the first ever screening of this film in the UK) and that has been followed by the two part documentary made by Oliver Morse in his series The Decision. Regional BBC and Independent TV presenters have been catching up too, with cameras visiting some activists almost weekly. National and local radio has done its' share of informed programming too .. all repeating the messages we've been patiently teaching behind the scenes for so long. In short we have gone from being chased by the media to being the eager pursuers.

The spirit was summed up by one regional television reporter who said, "I'm sorry. We never realised that it [transsexuality] was a medical condition. We never knew there were these problems. We've been discussing it in the office and we all support what you're doing."

All in all the emergence of the Liberal Democrat MP Alex Carlile's name in the ballot for Private Members Bills before Christmas could not have been more timely therefore. Alex Carlile has been a supporter of the transsexual cause for over ten years, initially as a result of the failed legal challenge by Mark Rees in 1986. A QC himself, he is one of the best qualified MPs to champion such a complex legal issue. Alex had been waiting for years for the scarce opportunity to bring forward a bill and the chance finally came in the ballot just before Christmas, almost on the same day that the European Court Advocate General published his important recommendation about transsexual employment rights. Whichever angel looks over our campaign, however, you could be forgiven for thinking they have a cruel sense of humour though, for as the ninth to emerge in the draw for this session, the chances of the bill actually getting read were statistically poor. It was, literally, the luck of the draw.

The position in the ballot also meant that the bill's second reading was to be the third bill of the day on February 2nd. The time given to Private Members Bills is very strictly controlled. On Fridays they are debated in a session that starts late in the morning and ends on the dot of 2.30pm, when the house formally adjourns. Bills usually take up to ninety minutes to be chewed over by a handful of interested members, either fervently for or against an issue, or simply in love with the sound of their own voices. Consequently, whether by accident (or sometimes by design) a third bill may not even get debated if one or both of the previous two take up too much time. Once its' time has run out, the chances of a bill getting more precious time in the same session of parliament, are almost non-existent.

The first bill before ours on the order paper sought to outlaw so-called sex-tourism, a practice which Britain has been slow to clamp down on, compared to most other countries. For all its' importance, however, you might be surprised to learn that there were a mere half dozen MPs in the chamber to debate it. Nonetheless, those six were determined to explore the subject fully and so the bill only passed successfully just before 1pm .. leaving one entire bill to go before ours and the 2.30pm deadline.

The second bill concerned amendments to trading laws, intended to clamp down on the practice of pyramid selling, and here it was apparent that one MP and the junior minister opposing the motion were in no hurry to get to the end of their speeches. This is a well known practice in parliament, used to ensure that the bill that follows runs out of time, and they certainly succeeded, with the debate on dubious trading practices drawn out by dubious parliamentary practices till 1.55pm.

The only remedy for an attempt to talk out a bill, incidentally, is for an aggrieved MP to call for the proceedings to move straight to a vote on the motion. This, however, requires a majority of 100 MPs to be present in the chamber and, with just eleven seated by this time, that was not an option. This is why it was so important to mobilise as much parliamentary support as possible. In parliament, however, things are never quite what they appear. Had they wanted to do so, then the government could have ensured the bill had no time at all and this lapse, together with the "code" contained in things which the government's opposing spokesman did say, mean the event was far more of a parliamentary success than it might appear on paper.

With just thirty-five minutes left, Alex Carlile rose to his feet and explained the purpose of his bill, referring to the medical consensus about the nature and treatment of transsexuality, the world-wide legal consensus, the recent and soon-to-be-heard cases, and sketching the lives of typical transsexual people and the problems they endure at the hands of the present law. He stressed the problems inherent in simply reacting to the problems issue-by-issue, as the government looks set to lose one court case after another, and he was supported by Labour's Dr Lynne Jones, and then from the Conservative benches, by Roger Sims (who is a junior health minister). Next there was Kevin Barron, the Labour front bench spokesman whose contribution again signalled that the parliamentary Labour party supported the motion. Edwina Currie, who had altered her engagements to be present, also spoke from the Conservative back benches and Labour's Llin Golding appeared ready to speak, but forsook the opportunity as the hands of the clock passed 2.15.

The tension for those of us in the gallery was intense as the government's spokesman, John Horam (Orpington) rose to reply to the motion. The government had signalled its' opposition to the bill all along, citing particular clauses and the bill's overall approach to solving the birth certificate issue. Yet his reply was more positive than might have been expected, containing specific assurances that the government can now be pressed on by the growing band of parliamentary supporters. Furthermore, all of this dialogue is now a matter of public record, in Hansard, where it will be read and digested by many of the 640 MPs who weren't present.

At 2.30pm on the dot, however, the deputy speaker rose and called the house briskly to order .. bringing down the shutters on the debate, and snatching away the possibility of a vote. It was so near, and yet so far.

In the press conference afterwards, all three lead MPs stressed the significance of getting so far, and paid tribute again to the letter writing and personal lobbying carried out by transsexuals under the co-ordination of Press for Change. They stressed how understanding and perception of transsexuals had altered over the last few years, and reiterated the problems which transsexuals face.

And nobody intends to stand still. The politicians now have a basis on which to campaign among their colleagues, and we in Press for Change have many more contacts to pursue, and many more Television and press opportunities to take up. The medical viewpoint document, underwritten by six clinicians and researchers of world-wide repute, has just been updated to reflect the anatomical research published in the last few months and has to be circulated now as far and as wide as possible, where it matters, and that is just the start of this year's campaigning.

A little cut here, a little cut there

2011-03-28T20:14:00.001+01:00

The present government's mantra for the management of public services is that local is best. Anything remotely resembling hierarchic decision making is reviled.

Whether it's allowing local interests to set up 'free schools' or devolving NHS commissioning decisions to groups of General Practitioners, the chant is the same. "Local people are the best judges".

Yet what are the unforeseen consequences of deliberately refusing to look at the bigger picture? The mouse gnawing his way through that cable under the office floor isn't going to know that his next bite may bring down an entire network. He doesn't even realise it's his last bite of anything.

A little cut here...

Picture a scenario that's about to play out across the land...

Sunnyville Primary Care Trust needs to make financial ends meet. They look around for what they can cut.

Let's say Sunnyville have a contract with a local charity, "The Jollygood Centre" to deliver specialised preventative health services in their neighbourhood.

The managers take a cursory look at the services concerned and decide that, because they're only intended for a minority group (and frankly they don't understand the issues), it's an easy 'risk free' contract to axe.

They don't spend long on their decision because they've got a lot of such cuts to make to balance the budget. They figure they'll cover any needs through general provision. Why, after all, should they be spending specially on one group anyway?

A little cut there... and there...

Meanwhile, in another town, another Primary Care Trust is having the same kind of thoughts. And, further down the street, the local authority is also thinking about whether it can continue to fund the housing project which the folks at "Jollygood" run for them.

Each organisation sees only the decision before them. They know that "Jollygood" has many contracts. Cutting just one oughtn't to be significant.

For the charity, however, the cuts ... coming all at once ... deal a death blow to the business plan. They have no choice but to lay off expert staff they've taken months or years to train. Other staff are stretched because there is less flexibility in rostering.

Jollygood suddenly have offices too big for their operation. Their major costslike that are fixed. They can't suddenly stop renting half their office space.

The income is plumetting. They still have other contracts, yet suddenly the numbers no longer balance. The service isn't viable anymore. They're in serious deficit. More staff leave because they see the writing on the wall and are working too hard to cover for former colleagues already laid off.

Before long the lights go out at Jollygood. The service for all the other PCTs collapses. There is nothing like it to commission in place. The unique proposition of Jollygood was that its staff really understood the special needs they were commissioned to address.

Then, because the prevention strategy has failed, people in all those boroughs start presenting with serious conditions for the NHS to treat ... needing really expensive care .. which was why prevention was such a good idea in the first place.

Suddenly, in glorious hindsight, those few little cuts, which didn't seem to amount to much on their own, have led to a hundred times as much expenditure, which could have been avoided.

Taking a strategic view of the big picture

Given this kind of scenario, wouldn't it be a good idea if someone were to take a more global view? Well, actually, that's one of the things that Strategic Health Authorities were put in place to do. The clue's in the title.

Decisions about reconfiguring services (or decommissioning them altogether) are looked at from all angles to consider what the wider implications may be.

The financial case is checked. The clinical reasoning is questioned. Teams look at the safety and quality angles. In the North West we insist on seeing that a thorough, cogent, evidence-based analysis of the possible equality impacts has been completed too -- not just a box ticking exercise but a serious consideration of the potential issues, involving consultation with people who may be affected.

As part of the exercise, the wider implications are considered. What might the effects be on the viability of the service for neighbouring areas if the volumes and funding are increased or decreased?

Unintended consequences

The only problem, of course, is that that layer of sense checking is about to be removed. Exactly 12 months from now England's ten regional SHA's will close their doors. Some of their functions will be transferred temporarily to subregional 'clusters' of PCTs to take over for themselves. Other functions will be transferred to the national NHS Commissioning Board. Other functions will probably be quietly dropped.

So, for the short term, the SHAs may be able to mitigate some of the most obvious effects of blinkered cost cutting.

However, that's assuming anyone has time to look up from the jobs pages.

Changing channels, turning down the volume, but not pressing 'Mute'

2011-03-27T20:20:00.001+01:00

Yesterday on this Blog I used this week's series of transgender-themed 4thought.tv shows to explore the difference between a purely numerical approach to editorial 'balance' and a more intelligent, genuinely proportionate one -- the kind for which you need to understand the subject matter.

But what happens when broadcasters and print journalists get it wrong and groups like LGB or trans people clamour to right the imbalance? It's not long before a free speech version of Godwin's Law rears its' head and the 'C' word -- Censorship -- gets hurled into the debate.

Even in an age of seemingly limitless media bandwidth, any move to genuinely change the balance of a debate involves limiting the freedom enjoyed by the previous beneficiaries of monopoly attention in order to make room for alternative views. So is that necessarily 'censorship' with a capital 'C'? Is anyone's freedom curtailed? Or is it ... well, er... balanced?

No stranger to censorship

Before we even start down this road I think it's important to declare an interest, as a former minority rights activist who has had a privileged front seat view of how real censorship -- the total blackout kind -- really works.

I really hate censorship because I've been affected so much by it. The idea of inflicting it on anyone else is a total anathema to me.

Between 1992 and 2007 I contributed towards the campaign for legal recognition for transsexual people in the UK as a vice president of the organisation Press for Change. LGBT History Month kindly preserve a record of that involvement here and miraculously I seem to have a WikiPedia entry too.

As campaigns go Press for Change was spectacularly successful. Our work led to the introduction of regulations outlawing discrimination in employment, vocational education and (eventually) the supply of goods and services. Our legal team won a crucial case confirming the entitlement for people to receive gender identity services on the NHS. My colleagues and I watched emotionally as the Gender Recognition Bill -- our original raison d'être -- was passed into law by Parliament in July 2004.

I moved on from the organisation almost four years ago and I notice now that unfortunately the main Press for Change web site (www.pfc.org.uk) has been down for weeks. When you Google for the name of this organisation which had such a massive legislative influence, you'll find nothing.

No press reports, no analyses ... nothing.

Similarly, if you Google the names of myself and colleagues you'll find very little from the mainstream too. All you'll find are the niche web sites and blogs in which we've gone on to promote ourselves. Go down to the British Library, or search Britain's online newspaper archives and see what you find.

Go on. Try it.

The trans invisibility cloak

In September 1995 I made my 'out' debut as a campaigner, speaking at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. The room was full of journalists looking for a spectacle. What they got was a serious debating challenge. And, the next day, not one of them printed a word. Zilch.

In February 1996 Alex (now Lord) Carlile presented a Private Members Bill in the Commons, setting out something remarkably similar to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. It was the first time I was mentioned by name in Hansard. Eleven MPs debated the bill before it was talked out. The press looked on from the gallery. The next day... Oh, I must have blinked.

In October 1997 my colleagues and I delivered a 10,000 signature paper petition to 10 Downing Street, marched en-masse down Whitehall and then held a press conference in Westminster's Jubilee Room. The press were there. The cameras clicked. The next day ... nothing.

Granted, we obtained mentions by other means...

In 1996 we also won a landmark European Court of Justice case defining our right to protection against employment discrimination. That was bound to be mentioned by the press, as it was a judgement against the Government. Check it out though, and see how much trans commentary you can find.

In 1999 three trans women assisted by our formidable legal team and allies won the case defining the right to NHS treatment. Again the press could hardly avoid covering it. Yet check out the trans voices.

These are just a few examples and in fairness, by 2002, we were getting a little more traction and making some TV news and current affairs ... but only because we had the full weight of the Government's press officers forcing doors open for us to put a face to their policy announcement about planned legal recognition.

Defined by others

You could say, of course, that trans people are a tiny group of people and that maybe the news agenda was full with 'important' stuff on each of those occasions (and all the rest I've not documented). The trouble with that argument is that it's not borne out by the facts.

All that while other commentators enjoyed free rein to write in derogatory terms about trans people as objects of derision, or to set the terms for television and radio debate. I myself put in a couple of appearances on shows like 'Kilroy', before concluding that it contributed nothing to what I needed to get across.

I was once told by a BBC Radio 4 producer that her boss wouldn't allow her to do a half hour interview with me because 'we've done a transsexual show already this year'.

And, in print, hardly a week passed without the tabloids exposing the innocent lives of another poor trans person who had never sought publicity.

Media lawyer and journalist David Allen Green spoke eloquently about this phenomenon at the Channel 4 event launching Trans Media Watch's Memorandum of Understanding and wrote about the topic for the New Statesman.

Even in the supposedly intelligent and liberal broadsheets, radical lesbian and second wave feminist writers enjoyed the privilege of being able to run out another derogatory column about trans women whenever they were short of ideas. My calls to papers such as the Guardian in those days, requesting a right of reply, fell on deaf ears, though I was a bit more successful with the occasional campaign of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.

What erasure means

As I hope I've made plain, I've got a pretty good appreciation of what real censorship means. The type I'm describing is no minor question about whether someone can have another slot on TV or in a paper to repeat a dominant viewpoint which they've had a chance to voice already.

For me and my colleagues it meant that our political campaign for the rights of a hugely discriminated minority was denied practically any visibility at all. The dominant discourse against us offered virtually no right of reply.

Thank God at least for the Internet. Through sheer necessity we framed our entire campaign by creating our own media: web sites and email lists. Blogs hadn't been invented. YouTube was a decade in the future.

It meant that, although we were all thoroughly briefed and could reduce our campaign points to a three minute interview or a sentence in a newspaper, we had practically no access to those mass means to communicate with society.

It was totally disempowering. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's a testament to our ingenuity that we succeeded regardless. In another age we probably couldn't have done so.

Hopefully that explains why I feel so passionately about the right of people to have equal access to powerful media.

Censorship isn't in my vocabulary. But fairness and balance are.

Move over, it's their turn

In the years since the Gender Recognition Act was passed (and since I've moved away from activism) things have changed very markedly. There is now a very active and vocal grassroots movement within the complex web of the trans communit(ies).

More 'out and proud' advocates have emerged. Whilst we always wanted Press for Change to be democratic (and didn't fully succeed) the modern campaign ground really is open to all. Anyone who can type into a Blog or lift a camcorder can have a voice. The result is an explosion in consciousness and creativity.

Better still, trans people are now at last beginning to have a voice in some parts of the mainstream media. Some even have regular columns. There is an expectation that people shoud have a voice and be heard, plus an impatience for change. The impatience is understandable after lifetimes of oppression.

All of that is brilliant. Yet it also means conflict with people who've been used to the old ways. People who've regularly written or broadcast material that is derogatory towards trans people for instance. The challenges have long since begun and are getting louder.

What it can lead to, of course, is the demand for people to stop doing what they've always done till now, or to make space for trans voices to be heard equally well.

Is that then censorship as such? After all, the incumbents have had plenty of chance to say their piece. Repeating it could be considered greedy, especially if their occupation of a mainstream platform stifles other voices, as the treatment of trans topics has often done.

The Peter Kay affair

An example of this surfaced last week, shortly after the gala launch of the Trans Media Watch initiative with Channel 4, when it emerged that comedian Peter Kay was basing his contribution to the Comic Relief Red Nose Day telethon on a comedy character he had created before -- the fictional transsexual singer Geraldine McQueen. Geraldine was the central figure in the spoof vehicle "Britain's Got the Pop Factor... and Possibly a New Celebrity Jesus Christ Soapstar Superstar Strictly on Ice"

Kay's Red Nose Day contribution was a singing duet with the real life talent show success Susan Boyle. The two sang a version of "I know him so well".

However, even though it might have been argued that the original talent show concept derived its' comedy from an observational satire on the genre of TV talent shows, trans observers were more concerned that the singing duet seemed to rely on the proposition that it was just funny to see a transsexual woman portrayed as a competitor, especially in scenes where Kay was seen to remove his wig or talk in ways that real trans women simply don't.

One commentator made the observation (with which I sympathise) that the portrayal would actually make it harder for a real transsexual person to take part in such a competition in future, since they would be continually demeaned by references to the joke. It's all rather a far cry from this example of how the Taiwanese version of X-Factor deals with transgender contestants for real

Later there was more concern when ITV chose to feature Kay, in character as Geraldine, as the supposedly first ever transsexual panelist on the daytime show "Loose Women". Again the question posed was why it was considered funny as a proposition, and why no real trans women appeared to have the same privilege.

As Kay's wall to wall publicity coverage ramped up to present a seemingly non-stop repetition of the insult perceived by many trans people, it was then noticed that Channel 4 (who only the previous week had pledged to improve its' game) had scheduled a repeat of Kay's original show. The effect was predictable (and, let's face it, pretty understandable). This is just one of the views expressed.

Censorship or balance?

This is a textbook example of what happens when balance is lost, of course. And it's a complete cock-up. A license to broadcast a one-sided message in which the oppressed targets have no voice at all.

Whilst I might sympathise with the argument that these shows were commissioned and scheduled long before the Trans Media Watch Memorandum was a gleam in anyone's eye, and that the hope is that education will eventually prevent any more of them, the fact remains that there are still consequences to be dealt with.

Just because the same kind of misrepresentation and demeaning portrayals have been going on for decades doesn't make it OK to let another one slip by this week because the policies and education weren't ready.

You'd have thought that, when planning to sign the Memorandum, someone at Channel 4 might actually have checked their own schedules and asked the basic question, "Does my backside look exposed in this?"

Indeed, may this be an object lesson for the leaders at Channel 4 (and the other broadcasters that follow).

Decisions you make at commissioning or production level are easy to change -- you can adjust the balance in an educated way and nobody is going to debate it. I make such choices every time I make a podcast or write a blog like this.

Let such a creation get onto the schedule, however, and the fact it's there (and the decision about whether to allow it to remain) becomes rather more public and controversial.

Nobody is going to question, for instance, whether a commissioner decided in the privacy of their own office against a recreation of "Love thy Neighbour" or the "Black and White Minstrels". Such things have long since been considered unacceptable bad taste.

The same ought now to go for whether to reshow Peter Kay's transsexual travesties again.

We are all censors of sorts

But isn't that censorship I hear you cry?

No. The reality is that value based editorial decisions are made all the time. Thanks to social media even the public do this nowadays. Every time we choose who to follow or unfollow on Twitter, or which messages to retweet, we are making such decisions. When we pick which shows to watch on TV we are doing it. They're not censorious. We're not preventing anyone else's free speech.

The same goes for television broadcasting. The choice is simple. If broadcasters are really too afraid to stop making and repeating tasteless shows that hurt an oppressed minority then the least they can do is ensure there is that much treasured commodity BALANCE in that schedule. Broadcasters with a public service remit have a particular responsibility in that regard.

However, I don't personally think that the decision not to repeat a show you realise offends people is censorship. It's self restraint and responsibility.

People have seen it already. Millions more than will ever hear my side.

The owners of the rights are also free to market it on video, for as long as the public don't feel embarrassed to buy it. One day they will. And one day they will look amazed at the fact that it was ever mainstream, just as we cringe over YouTube clips of the Black and White Minstrels.

Change the channel, turn down the volume

Just to reiterate one more time, I come at this from the perspective of knowing personally what real censorship means .. of being totally denied access to the means for public debate through mainstream media. It's why I have a Podcast, a Blog and a YouTube account. At least these days I can share these thoughts to a few hundred people, even if the reality is that a greater opportunity to be heard is generally out of reach.

By contrast, the privilege I'm talking about is that of the dominant, monopoly, viewpoint. The people who have been able to behave as they do throughout the same period and are the first to cry "Censorship!" at the slightest suggestion that they cut back a bit to let other voices be heard.

In reality I don't want to stop any of the people who demean trans people from having any say at all (though one day they will probably want to edit out the record of this period in history through embarassment). All I ask, however, is that broadcasters and editors take the care to ensure those are not the only voices.

I don't want you to use the Mute button. But figuratively turning our abusers down a bit, and providing a few more channels to hop would prevent the effective censorship that has prevailed until now.

The naïve pursuit of balance

2011-03-26T19:46:00.001Z

Following the prestigious launch of the Trans Media Watch Memorandum of Understanding a fortnight ago, Channel 4 has delivered the first tangible fruits of what says it wants to do, in the form of a nightly series of short films. The seven 90 second films in the evening prime time 4Thought.tv slot are designed to provoke public debate. That is the remit of the long-running show in which they feature. But, as the full series has unfolded night by night, I've been inclined to wonder whether some aspects have been as balanced as the makers doubtless intended.

Can poorly thought out 'balance' result in distortion, the antithesis of what was being sought? And do broadcasters and journalists need to learn about a subject in depth before they can lay claim to being able to judge what's proportionate and relevant?

The background

During the week commencing Monday 21st March, Channel 4 has been screening a series of transgender-themed short films in the mid evening slot 4Thought.tv.

This tiny slot appears 365 days a year and is billed as "a space for sharing your thoughts on beliefs and ethics".

The show is no stranger to controversy. Last year some gay and lesbian commentators were angered when an early programme in the series featured Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, quoting from the Book of Revelations to support his view on that week's question, "Is Homosexuality a Sin?"

"There's something inherently destructive about the homosexual lifestyle", said Green, "because it's based on a lie – that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexual love and marriage and it can't ever be."

This week's series of shows were framed in the same way, around the question "Is it wrong to change gender?".

This is the way the program pitches its' subjects. It's a style that invites potential comparison with the issues hotly debated when the BBC recently invited readers of their web site to debate "Should homosexuals face execution?".

I do suggest you pause for a moment to read the commentaries about Stephen Green's appearance and the BBC debate question as they raise concepts that you might wish to consider when reviewing this week's transgender-themed programmes. I particularly like this line from Patrick Strudwick on the former:

Balance is achieved when the proximity of two arguments to the centre ground are roughly equal but opposing. Having Green on Channel 4 is like putting a pound of flour on one side of the scales, and dropping a house on the other.

On the balance front, this week's series appeared on the face of it to do quite well...

The show's protagonists

The series began on Monday with the Rev. Christina Beardsley, one of several religious ministers I've come across who has themselves transitioned from man to woman. Christina cited the Bible in a novel way to argue that God is pretty relaxed about people making that journey to be themselves. Her argument was directed at the Archbishop of Canterbury, calling on him to make the Church a more welcoming place.

Tuesday saw the appearance of young journalist Paris Lees (another trans woman) who believes that prejudice against trans people is one of the last taboos to be addressed in our society. Paris is a leading light in Trans Media Watch, so could be said to have a bit of a stake in this series.

Wednesday was the turn of Keith Tiller, a Christian who claims to have struggled with his gender identity for 40 years, and who asserts that he has been able to resist that through the power of his faith.

What viewers wouldn't know, is how Mr Tiller campaigned hard alongside the Evangelical Alliance to oppose the passage of the Gender Recognition Act in the years leading up to its' passage in 2004; how he is associated with the publication of the EA's widely condemned booklet, "Transsexuality" in 2000, and how his Parakaleo Ministry has been criticised for being economical with the truth about the effectiveness of faith in countering gender identity issues.

Indeed, having met with Tiller's poster protegé Marissa Dainton in 2004, as she picked up the pieces of her life after a disastrous reversion of a her gender reassignment (which had been encouraged by her local church group), I can personally bear witness that this kind of "ex-trans" philosophy can have tragic consequences, which the advocates are perhaps understandably reluctant to discuss.

For all that, I couldn't find myself objecting all that strongly to the inclusion of Keith Tiller. Looking at him against the happy and positive trans people the rest of the week (who bear no resemblance) the audience might draw their own conclusions.

Thursday featured an engaging young trans man, Benson Bell, accompanied on screen by his girlfriend and looking forward to their life ahead.

Then Friday saw a really interesting contribution from Pav Akhtar, who works with the Muslim trans community. Pav argues that Western culture could learn something from the East, where countries like India and Pakistan have long acknowledged and had a place for a 'third gender'. Judged by commentary on Twitter, the audience found this show to be one of the most thought provoking.

I'm writing this on the Saturday, before Sunday's show featuring trans woman Delia Johnston, talking about lack of support and depression as she tried to suppress her transgender feelings for decades. However, it's the Saturday show that I particularly want to highlight.

Saturday's slot featured Charles Kane -- a familiar face in the media for his story of having transitioned once from male to female in 1997; decided he didn't like it; and then having sought surgery to revert back to the man he now presents as today. His position is that many trans people are unhappy about their transition but are afraid to speak out. He advocates that gender reassignment surgery should be a lot harder to obtain.

Keeping score

Before I discuss this last case, however, let's tot up the scores

Three trans women / One trans man
Two young trans people / Two mature ones
One cis-gender (non trans) advocate / Two ex-trans / Four trans people

On the face of it, if 'balance' were only about keeping score, that would appear to be pretty creditable. Even the ratio between trans women and men is in keeping with generally known demographic data.

However, as Patrick Strudwick suggested above, balance is a much more slippery beast than that. You don't achieve balance if you mislead an audience to believe that one argument has more significance than it really has. As a viewer you'd have to know something about Christian Voice, for instance, to be able to evaluate how representative Stephen Green's views about homosexuality are in the scheme of things.

So let's discuss the inclusion of a figure like Charles Kane in 4thought.tv's sequence of shows.

The myth about widespread transsexual regret

The idea that lots of transsexual people regret their transition and are unhappy is one that has enjoyed an enormously long lease of life -- especially when you consider the evidence for how rare genuine cases of regret turn out to be.

I have a theory that the assumption that regret is common enjoys so much popularity because it seems intuitive to cis-gender (non trans) people.

Indeed, a transition for a cis-gender journalist would be a disastrous mistake. The difficulty those commentators seem to have is with understanding that a profound discomfort in the birth-assigned gender and happy embrace of transition defines what it is to be trans. That difference is what makes a genuine trans person's response to transition the reverse of anyone else's.

To be sure, post-transition life may be no bed of roses. At the recent Channel 4 event Equality Minister Lynne Featherstone MP herself acknowledged the degree of discrimination that many trans people face every day, and the morale-sapping effects that can have. Some may well be unhappy about the life they face. Some may be unhappy with the quality of surgery they received. However, that's not the same as saying that those people regret changing or would have been better off without.

The solution to unhappiness created by discrimination is to stop the discrimination. The solution to poor surgical outcomes is to train better surgeons.

What do we know about outcomes?

Although there are criticisms that can be levelled at follow-up research on post operative transsexual people in the past, all of the studies point in the same direction -- towards very low levels of regret for the change itself.

These studies are commonly cited in the evidence-based commissioning policies which NHS Primary Care Trusts have produced to justify funding such care. I've helped put them in there in a couple of cases. The NHS doesn't usually fund treatments without evidence of effectiveness.

One of the most interesting recent studies was undertaken in 2008 by the specialised commissioning group representing the whole of the Greater London region. Although this was ostensibly a study into patient satisfaction with treatment services themselves, the commissioners included some questions to find out how people felt about their transition, warts and all. The researchers said,

"In total 98% of those who had surgery felt it was a positive or mainly positive experience and were happy with their outcomes."

So, the reason why we probably see so much about Charles Kane is because journalists who've wanted to regurgitate the myth of widespread regret have had to recycle the same small number of cases which any of us know about. The good news is that it's genuinely hard to find more. You can see why Kane is the "go-to" man for anyone lazily seeking a case to feature.

A highly conservative process

Charles Kane's argument appears to be that gender reassignment treatment should be made harder for everyone because it didn't work out for him.

To decide whether that argument has any merit you need to know that gender reassignment treatment in the UK is already subject to extremely careful evaluation, designed to ensure that only appropriate candidates are recommended for surgery.

In the NHS the patient pathway typically takes at least 2 years to reach a possible referral for reconstructive surgery, during which time candidates all undertake what is called a 'real life experience'. This phase is there to ensure that the patient has full time experience of what they are committing to, and what that will mean for the whole spectrum of their life.

Although some trans people criticise the delay such a lengthy process involves for them, the result is the extremely low levels of regrets we've seen. Part of the reason these protocols are maintained is because of fear of cases like Mr Kane.

And the point is that in reality Charles Kane didn't go through this process. He used the fact that he had money to bypass it. He demanded rapid treatment, glossed over things that might have rung alarm bells for the psychiatrist evaluating him, and went abroad for many of the additional procedures he sought out, like facial feminisation surgery.

Charles Kane took full control of his situation. He spent his way around any of the checks that would have encouraged more lengthy investigation and consideration of his options. He can be argued to be the architect of his own demise. Yet he insists that the vast majority of people who aren't like him should be constrained disproportionately.

Numbers, numbers

But surely we still need to talk about this for 'balance' I hear you say...

Well, let's consider the numbers.

1500 patients a year enter the treatment pathway for gender identity issues in the UK and roughly 300 a year progress to the extent of qualifying for legal recognition of their acquired gender. That disparity alone points to the extent of filtering that occurs. Nevertheless, overall, there are at least 5-10,000 people who have completed such a permanent transition over the course of the last 50-60 years.

By contrast, we can find only a handful of people who have gone on record to express regrets, and even fewer who have sought reversal of surgeries. In six years since the gender recognition process came into effect, over 3,000 people have applied for legal recognition and none has ever applied for reversal of that.

To be fair, a caption in Charles Kane's short film did say that reversal surgery is "extremely rare". But, if so, how does the repetition of a rare case example that's been aired many times already contribute to balancing the week? Especially when trans people generally face so much ignorance already?

The documented regret cases (about a dozen) represent a fraction of one percent of all trans people who have undergone gender transition. Furthermore, the number appears to have been static for over a decade .. suggesting that even cases like Charles Kane wouldn't get through the system today (unless, like him, they bought their way past the checks and balances).

I've laboured the point, but for an obvious reason: Regret cases are rare. And, if we were to discuss them on television then Charles Kane would not be the person to present the case. You'd need more than a 90 second TV slot. And you'd need to objectively examine all the kinds of evidence and reasoning I've advanced above.

Distortion in the pursuit of cosmetic balance

Giving Charles Kane air time to present his position as though it were on a par with the other experiences shown is therefore not achieving balance in my view. On the contrary, it achieves precisely the opposite effect. It feeds the prevailing falsehood that regrets are a significant issue and that we should put even more obstacles in the way of patients than they already face.

There's a difference, as I've tried to show, between a naïve numerical concept of balance in broadcasting, and the genuine and intellectually sound variety. The latter requires more knowledge on the part of programme makers before making decisions about what to include and what to omit -- what's proportionate, and what's misleadingly disproportionate.

I have no objection to Channel 4 looking into regrets; however the responsible way to do that would be via a thorough documentary investigation considering the available evidence. Such a complex topic can't be explored in 90 seconds, and it is irresponsible to even try.

The long road ahead

At the end of the day, however, this maybe just emphasises the enormity of the hill that broadcasters have to climb.

One day we could hope that an independent producer of a show like 4thought.tv would know enough about trans people's lives to be able to recognise what's valid to include for balance and what isn't. After all, we don't see the BNP routinely included into programmes about racial discrimination. Directors and commissioners both understand that that would be disproportionate and damaging.

On balance, therefore, it's seems clear to me that Channel 4's heart was in the right place and the makers of 4thought.tv probably thought they were doing their very best.

However, on this occasion I think I'll have to withhold a point and have them settle for 9 out of 10.