The demands of campaigning meant I did not have time to prepare a pre-election post on trans* candidates prior to the election, but now that I am no longer delivering leaflets or knocking on doors, we can have a look at both who was standing and how people fared.

Prior to the elections, there were no full-time openly trans politicians in the UK at a District Council level or higher – May 2014 having been the first time in at least 14 years that this has been the case. We now have (at least) two elected trans politicians, back up to the pre-May-2010 peak.

As with last year, I have not produced a list of Town/Parish council election candidates, nor anyone not “full-time”. This predominantly because at that level, events are hard to track. Parish elections usually receive little media attention, are not well-publicised even on council web sites and are generally run on a non-partisan basis, even if candidates are actually party members.

Parliamentary Candidates – Listed in order of selection, none successful
Charlie Kiss Green Party Charlie Kiss
Islington South and Finsbury
8% – 5th place
Stella Gardiner Green Party Stella Gardiner
Bexleyheath and Crayford
2.2% – 5th place
Labour Emily Brothers
Sutton and Cheam
11.1% – 3rd place
Zoe OConnell Liberal Democrats Zoe O’Connell
4.5% – 5th place
District Council Elections – Successful Candidates
Zoe Kirk-Robinson Conservatives Zoe Kirk-Robinson
Bolton Council – Westhoughton North and Chew Moor.
41.3%, majority 2.7% (Simultaneous by-election)
Zoe OConnell Liberal Democrats Zoe O’Connell
Cambridge City Council – Trumpington Ward
29.9%, majority 2.6%
District Council Election Candidates – Unsuccessful Candidates
Labour Anna Booth
Trafford Council – Davyhulme East Ward
2nd – 41.4%. (Majority of winner: 1.1%)
Alice Chapman Liberal Democrats Alice Chapman
Cheshire West and Chester Council – Winnington and Castle Ward
7th – 4.21% (All-up elections: 2 places)
Anwen Muston Labour Anwen Muston
Wolverhampton City Council – Penn Ward
2nd – 37.6% (Majority of winner: 5.25%)

In some welcome news, it has been announced today that the General Medical Council (GMC) have dismissed a long-running case against Richard Curtis, a London-based doctor specialising in trans healthcare.

The case had been due to be heard next month, but the GMC have decided that it does not even warrant a hearing. The final case, before it was dismissed, had been reduced to two allegations failing to follow an older version of the WPATH Standards of Care that was out of date by the time of the complaint and two of providing “misleading” information when referring for surgery that may have been related to patients giving inaccurate information about when they updated their name.

This hopefully brings to an end a long-running campaign against doctors trying to provide progressive treatment in the best interest of trans people which started with the case against Dr Russell Reid nearly a decade ago.

Dr. Curtis’s full statement is below.

It is with much relief that I announce the conclusion of the GMC investigation which has now been in process for nearly four years.

In short the GMC have entirely dismissed the case. There was no Fitness to Practice hearing and no sanctions.

The conditions which were imposed over three years ago, as it turns out, inappropriately, will be removed when the process for that to occur is administered by the GMC and should be a formality.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for all those who have given their support during this very difficult time.

Dr Richard James Curtis

In the latest twist in the saga of Inhouse Pharmacy, two of their web sites ( and unexpectedly disappeared from the internet some time in the last 48 hours. Yesterday morning, users started receiving the email reproduced below in which IHP cite “anti-competitive action in the USA” as the reason for the domains being unavailable.

Blocking domain names seems to be a relatively new tactic in the campaign – presumably orchestrated by big pharma – to try to shut down online pharmacies, which are the only source of HRT for many trans women. Previous efforts have concentrated on payment providers instead.

Fortunately, other similar sites appear unaffected.

We have changed our website name

Today due to anti-competitive action in the USA it is necessary for us to become:

We have done this to ensure you can continue to access our affordable medications from us in the same reliable manner you have grown to trust.

Our old domain is no longer operating, but we are, just with our .VU domain name which stands for Vanuatu, the country where we are based in the tropical South Pacific.

Business is normal, the site and prices are just the same. We are the same people you have grown to trust and when you phone us you will be talking to the same customer service team. Please come on over to our new site at Please remember USA shoppers right now get a 10% additional discount if paying by eCheck – give it a try.

10% Special eCheck Discount

Website Login

Unfortunately we were not able to move your old account on over to our site. When you shop on it may not recognise your email address so please kindly complete your purchase and choose the option at the end to save your details for next time.

Once your order is placed, our team will recognise it’s you.

Trans politicians were briefly in the news today, when it was claimed that the Labour candidate for Sutton and Cheam was the “first transgender candidate for Parliament”.

After a short session of fact-checking supplied by twitter, that’s now been reduced to “first openly transgender candidate for Labour” – but as this mistake keeps cropping up it appears that a brief history lesson might be useful.

The first openly trans candidate in current political memory appears to have been Alexandra (Sandra) MacRae, who stood in Glasgow Provan for the SNP back in 1992. Twenty three years isn’t just a long time in politics – it’s a lifetime, meaning the story of her candidature is now unclear. It was certainly known that she was trans by the date of the election, and it seems likely that it was known prior to her selection, as she had previously stood at least once before transitioning (in 1996) and possibly, according to some sources, as many as three times.

Arguably, she remains the best parliamentary record of a trans person to date, securing 21.7% of the vote and coming second to Labour. But don’t expect her to stand again any time soon following her conviction and jail sentence for fraud.

Second, if we are going by coming-out date, would be Stephanie Dearden.

There is a version of events that has Stephanie being “outed” Daily Mail in 2005, but there are earlier Guardian stories which mention her in connection with the July 2004 Leicester South by-election. The attack leaflets distributed at that time, showing the Liberal Democrat candidate shaking Stephanie’s hand, include a quote from her clearly revealing her trans status – suggesting she may have never been stealth.

Either way, she certainly was not stealth by the time of her selection for Tooting constituency for the Liberal Democrats on the 4th November, 2004 and she went on to come third with 19.5% of the vote.

Next up is Nikki Sinclair, who was an MEP until earlier this year and whose background is better known. She has stood four times post-transition and as an open lesbian but before coming out as trans – for UKIP in 2001 and 2005 for Westminster, in 2009 for the European Parliament when she was successfully elected as a UKIP MEP and again for Westminster as an independent in 2010, following her departure from UKIP.

She came out as trans in 2013, but lost her MEP re-election bid as part of the “We Demand a Referendum Party”.

Fourth and fifth are the Green Prospective Parliamentary Candidates Charlie Kiss – the first trans man anyone knows of – and Stella Gardiner, who has been a Green party member since 1993 and who transitioned in 2013.

Both Stella and Charlie have been selected for seats in London in May 2015, with Stella adding that she “took the decision from the start to be out and open about being trans“.

This puts the latest announcement sixth on the list – and with just under six months to run until the general election, I’m expecting that we’ll see at least one more trans candidate announced for May 2015. There were eight openly trans politicians who stood this May, and I would expect the total to be higher in a General Election year.

This post was updated on 10th December 2014 with links showing the date of Stephanie Dearden’s selection. Thanks to Jon Ball for finding this information.

News emerged yesterday* that the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) is delaying and possibly denying legal gender recognition because a trans person has had children whilst living in their new gender – an act which is completely unjustified, given that the Gender Recognition Act does not require someone who has transitioned to refrain from sex that may get them or their partner pregnant.

At best, this delay is of questionable legality and reveals a dangerous element of (hopefully inadvertent) transphobia in the decision making process of the panel, likely fueled by ill-informed and sensationalist media coverage.

But at worst, the panel are willfully intruding into the area of reproductive justice. Coercive sterilisation of trans people has long been a major concern, but one that was until yesterday limited to countries other than the UK. Questioning the commitment of any trans person who has the audacity to exercise their reproductive rights is simply an attempt to force de-facto sterilisation via the back door, something considered a human rights abuse by the Council of Europe.

What is also of concern is that the panel based the decision to request more information on the publication of a newspaper article. This has the effect of penalising those who engage with the media as part of a campaign for equality. It will also hinder people who, as is often the case with members of the trans community, have been outed without their consent and have had deliberately misleading or inaccurate information about them distributed in order to sensationalise a story.

In an older case, the panel delayed an application because a doctor correctly decided that the information that a trans person had a wife and children was of no relevance and did not include it in their report. Another doctor did mention it, and thus the panel decided it should investigate further to ensure the first doctor was giving his opinion “in light of the correct factual situation”.

It is entirely possible that the Gender Recognition Panel does not realise the gross errors it is making, as having any experience of trans matters is not a requirement to sit on the panel. According to the Gender Recognition Act, “the only persons who may be appointed to the [panel] are persons who have a relevant legal qualification (“legal members”), or are registered medical practitioners or registered psychologists“. There is no further requirement given, beyond specifying exactly what legal qualifications legal members needs.

That means that being a doctor or lawyer in any field whatsoever is a more necessary qualification for determining someone’s gender than having any first hand experience of the topic whatsoever.

PS. If you have had a similar experience with the Gender Recognition Panel delaying an application because you have had a child, UK Trans Info would like to hear from you – email

The original tweet, although anonymous and not made by the original applicant, was removed the following day as the person to whom this happened is worried that publicity may affect their GRC application

Equalities Speech

For the last year I’ve had the good fortune to be able to serve as a member of the Liberal Democrat Equality Policy Working Group, and yesterday conference accepted the motion that came out of that, making it official party policy.

Equalities SpeechThere is lots of good stuff in there, but I did want to highlight the LGBT and marriage sections in particular. We heard much evidence from other groups too, and some of the awful statistics relating to education and stop-and-search for young Afro-Caribbean men in particular stick in my mind – but others deserve the credit for campaigning on those areas, so I’ll let them talk about them.

Remember, these are now official party policy. They are not just policy of the LGBT group or aspirational aims of a subgroup. Actual official party policy. (Some of these items were already party policy, but were restated in the policy document for clarity)

LGB and LGBT issues

  • Review the Blood Ban. We’re currently in the ridiculous situation where a man who has sex with other men, even safe sex, is banned from giving blood for 12 months. However, it doesn’t matter how many unsafe sexual relationships anyone else has as they can still give blood. Even more confusingly, if you are a woman married to (And having sex with) a bisexual man who has ever had sex with another man, you can not give blood ever. Even if your husband can.
  • An evidence-based approach to tackling *phobic bullying in schools. There is an evidence-gathering programme, started by LibDem Equalities Minister Jo Swinson MP, that will report back on how we can bet do this.
  • …mainstream discourses should consider more authentic ‘inclusive sexualities’ in advertising, media, and sport to help break down prejudice. and more specifically later on positive images of transgender individuals in central government publications. Hopefully self-explanatory!

Trans issues

  • ‘X’ (Unspecified) gender markers on passports. A big benefit for the non-binary community if we can make it a reality, but this is good for all trans and intersex people and society in general. There is no particular reason the state needs to concern itself with gender in the vasy majority of situations, especially when it comes to official ID. For example, did you know about the very patriarchal approach of the DVLA, which includes titles on women’s driving licenses but not men’s?
  • Ending the Spousal Veto. If you don’t know what the Spousal Veto is, Sarah Brown has an excellent primer here. In short, the veto was introduced by the Same-Sex Marriage Act and allows a partner to block legal gender recognition of a spouse who has transitioned and prevent them obtaining potection from employment discrimination, even after the two year wait required for the legal process.
  • Restoring stolen trans marriages. Under the pre-same-sex-marriage regime, even if a couple stayed together they were required to have their marriage annulled if one partner wanted to fully transition.
  • Removing the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to obtain legal gender recognition. This would further reduce unwelcome medical gatekeeping when it comes to people’s identities, and also fix the mess that intersex people find themselves in. Currently, if you have an intersex condition and potentially had your legal gender assigned arbitrarily by a doctor at birth, you are unable to obtain a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (It’s a different diagnosis) and thus can not obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Non-LGBT marriage issues

  • Allow the Church of England to decide itself if it wants to carry out same-sex marriage. At the moment, the Church of England is prohibited by law from carrying out same-sex marriage, but with the way things are going I can well see that changing in the not too distant future.
  • Allow Non-religious (Humanist) marriage ceremonies. Already permitted in Scotland, we would like to see this introduced in the rest of the UK.
  • Include both parent’s names on marriage certificates. Current certificates only list the father, which is a very outdated patriarchal approach.

You can download the full policy paper, in .docx format, here.

Yesterday, Saturday, was the day of the big Stonewall-Trans meeting in London. The briefest bit of background is in order for those who are not engaged in LGBT politics, or who are reading this in ten years time and don’t know what the fuss is about: Stonewall UK are an LGB organisation, not an LGBT organisation.

Historically, this has caused problems.

But Stonewall is under new management in the form of Chief Executive Ruth Hunt, who is keen to work with the trans communities and build bridges. A few of us have worked with Ruth from when she was the number two at Stonewall, and knew her to be approachable and someone we could work with so we were not walking into this completely blind.

What the meeting was not

One point that is quite clear from all that has been said is that the meeting itself is not definitive. It has certainly been influential, not least as a rare gathering of so may trans people who agreed if not on the detail, at least on the general direction we’d like this to go in. But Ruth is keen to hear from as many people as possible and Stonewall are still looking for feedback from trans people. (As an aside, please don’t think Stonewall can solve every niche issue faced by every trans person any more than they can do the same for the LGB community. Such expectations can only lead to disappointment. What working with Stonewall will give is better trans activism overall, not perfection.)

Any closer working with Stonewall is also not about services. Stonewall do not provide individual support and do not pursue legal actions on behalf of individuals, except as part of a more strategic outcome. Stonewall’s modus operandi is strategic, UK-wide lobbying, research and education/training.

Finally, the meeting was not about cis people. The only non-trans people present were Ruth Hunt herself, Stonewall’s chair Jan Gooding and the facilitator, Caroline. A number of cis people who were involved in (LGB)T organisations did ask to turn up but were told this was a meeting for trans folk only.

Concerns have been raised over the inclusivity of the meeting. Whilst no group can ever be perfect, I can certainly say it wasn’t awful: About a two-to-one trans feminine vs masculine split, (Which is roughly representative of the trans communities in the UK) clear non-binary representation, a spread of religious beliefs and not excessively London-centric or exclusively white. There was certainly also some representation from people with disabilities and I believe intersex people, but being invisible traits I can’t say how numerous that representation was.

Stonewall does also intend to hold separate meetings with PoC and other groups.

The options

The day was mostly about the how, rather than the what. What’s needed is something we all had experience of and Ruth outlined three options on the how, which formed the focus of the day. These were:

1. Stonewall becomes fully LGBT. All Stonewall’s output is LGBT-inclusive, as is all their fundraising.

2. Stonewall does “a bit” of LGBT, but also supports the community in setting up a sibling organisation. For the first year or two, this would involve mentoring, initial fundraising and shared back-office (HR, IT) resources.

3. Stonewall does not do T. Instead, they gives grants to trans organisations.

There was also a number 4 on the list, which is simply “Stonewall is a better ally”. This wasn’t discussed because Stonewall have committed to do this anyway, as they feel comfortable that they don’t need a mandate just to Do The Right Thing.

Where the meeting went

I shall skip several hours of discussions, in which many excellent points were raised in the various smaller groups. The quickest one sentence summary is “nobody likes option three”. (The Stonewall-gives-grants option) Many reasons were given for this but it boils down to any attempt by an LGB organisation to give grants appearing paternalistic, as well as the trouble of how LGB folk are supposed to know where money for T issues is best spent.

A number of attendees with experience of small organisations obtaining grants also commented on how taxing navigating grant applications can be for such groups.

Which of option one or two is best is a much harder call, particularly given that is can be viewed more as a range of options rather than strictly either/or.

The positive points about option one, Stonewall becoming entirely LGBT, is that Stonewall tends to be a one-stop-shop, with large organisations focusing on LGB issues for a while before finding some other equalities issues to worry about. Despite such groups being told by Stonewall that T is separate, they don’t quite get around to thinking about gender identity but just tick the “We did LGBT!” box and move on. If Stonewall deliver LGBT rather than LGB training and include the T when lobbying government bodies, that’s immediately a great deal more than we are getting right now.

The obvious drawback on that option is lack of autonomy of the trans community. Work will inevitably be focused on what LGBT needs this year and next year, not what T needs this year and next year, and trans issues can often court controversy which Stonewall is likely to be uncomfortable with. For example, there is not likely to be another LGB-centric bill going through parliament in the next decade or two so Stonewall will be less likely to focus on lobbying, but there are still a significant number of legislative changes being sought by trans people.

Option two, Stonewall having a sibling organisation, gives back that autonomy. What it does lose is the commitment from Stonewall itself to carry on doing the “T” long term once it has spun off such an sibling group. It also results in the loss of the contacts and influence Stonewall has that enables it to go into large organisations via it’s Workplace Equality Index and other initiatives.

The sweet spot appears to be somewhere between option 1¼ and 1¾, with a range of ideas on how that might look. Where we seem to be heading is towards Stonewall starting to do trans-inclusive work now, where “now” in such a complex organisation is more like “over the course of the next year, because lots of staff training needs to happen“. There were no concrete ideas at this stage on how this work would engage with trans people – either as employees or outside advisers, but Ruth was consistently and repeatedly clear that Stonewall will not be attempting anything without trans involvement.

The inclusive work is things like education/training campaigns (e.g. Some People are Gay would have also included “Some People are Trans, Get Over It”) as well as any lobbying work and research.

That leaves the trans-exclusive work which does not overlap with LGB issues: Gender Recognition Act reform, Spousal Veto, Sexual Offenses legislation, Healthcare and so on. Under a pure “Stonewall does LGBT” approach, some of this could be picked up but as it would result in a more major shift in campaigning it would not be quick, would take at least a year to get going and risks diverting some funding that existing T-exclusive organisations are already receiving. However, it looks more likely that Stonewall will help to set up a sibling trans-specific organisation to handle these issues instead.

Where next

As mentioned earlier, there is still more consultation that Stonewall would like to do. They are aiming to produce a summary document in January, which the Stonewall board will look at and trans folk will have the chance to comment on further.

The final report, with a definitive statement on Stonewall’s future intentions, is expected in April.

As a result of some recent discussion, the Toiletgate incident from Pride London 2008 has been in people’s minds again. It surprised me that this event is little known to some, even though it was in relatively recent history. It surprised me even more when I realised that a key focal point for this incident, one that has even ended up being cited in academic texts, is not longer available.

Specifically, a single web page was put up on the old web site to document the incident and the aftermath but the site no longer exists and was not captured by the Internet Archive’s WayBack Machine.

I did not write the page, but it was hosted on my servers and I still have a backup – which I reproduce below. For the purists, I have also put the original unedited HTML as it appeared back in 2008/2009 on it’s own page.

2008 was somewhat of a defining year for the trans movement, happening as it did in the same year as the protests against Stonewall’s nomination of a transphobic journalist for an award. That protest led to major changes within the trans activism scene in the mainland UK, and shaped things that we do today.

Pretty major change too – that was 6 years ago. Even 3 years ago, we were still dealing with the fallout of Stonewall campaigning against Same-Sex Marriage, but under new leadership Stonewall has come on enough that many activists, myself included, will be attending a joint Stonewall-Trans meeting next weekend. (Ruth has written a lengthy post about her thoughts on this on her blog that is worth reading)

I wonder what things will look like in another six years?


The Pride march and rally are now over for 2008. A lot of fun was had by many, but unfortunately transphobia reared its ugly head at the Pride rally in Trafalgar Square. At about 6:30 in the evening, Roz Kaveney, long time human rights campaigner, journalist and transsexual woman, needed to answer that most basic call of nature and use the loo. What happened next is the sort of thing one is used to reading about in reports of sexual discrimination cases against transpeople. In Roz’s own words:

Official stewards who were running the toilets at Trafalgar Square announced that I, and any other transgender or transsexual woman, had to use the disabled toilets and was not allowed to use the regular women’s toilets. I pointed out to the stewards that I transitioned and had surgery before they were born; I was more polite than a polite thing. No dice.
I went and fetched a posse of transwomen and transmen and we made a collective fuss. Their response – and remember these were official stewards AT PRIDE – was to radio in “we’re being attacked by a mob of trannies! send backup”. They were joined by a policeman, who was a LGBT liaison officer, who claimed that we had to be able to show our Gender Recognition Certificates if we wanted to use the women’s loos and got quite upset when I explained to him that I had been involved in drafting the Act and that it did not take away rights that existed before it. At one point he threatened to arrest us for demonstrating on private property – those loos belong to Westminster Council, so you are not allowed to make a fuss there.
At one point it was claimed that they had instituted this policy a few minutes earlier because a man had attacked a woman; at another they said it was official Health and Safety policy. I don’t think it was particularly to do with how much I do or don’t pass – I think I got read in part because I am so tall and turned up in the queue among a particularly short group of lesbians.
It was one of the most wretched experiences I have had in thirty years, only made positive by the love and solidarity of my community – including various transmen who proposed that, since they had no GRCs, they should be made to use the women’s loos. Beards and all.

This raises a number of troubling issues:

  • Transphobia and transmisogyny continues to be a problem in the wider queer movement. It’s unthinkable that a steward would have refused entry to, for example, a butch lesbian (and to then be backed up by an LGBT liaison officer in that action), but such discrimination can still be casually directed at transpeople.
    Making transfemale people at the rally the scapegoat for a reported sexual assault.
  • An LGBT liaison officer, someone whose job requires the need of tact and sensitivity in dealing with LGBT people in situations where they may be experiencing abuse because of their gender identity or sexual orientation aggressively colluding in such abuse and threatening to arrest the victims of transphobic discrimination, rather than supporting them.
  • The use of stewards for a supposed LBGT Pride event who have apparently had no sensitivity training for dealing with transpeople.
  • A very large number of transgendered people were present at the Pride march and rally. For many, it is one of a very small number of places they feel safe enough to express their gender identity. Roz is a confident woman who has lived in her identified gender post operatively for 3 decades and was able to immediately find support and solace from other transpeople present. What’s unclear is if something similar happened to other transgendered people, perhaps taking early tentative steps out in public, who then ended up leaving in tears with their confidence crushed.
  • The actions of the police officer involved illustrate a worrying trend of using the Gender Recognition Act as a way to justify sexual discrimination against transpeople, which is very much a perversion of what the act was supposed to accomplish.

UPDATE: Pride London have issued the following statement:

We at Pride deeply regret this incident happened and are doing everything within our power to remedy the situation. As the Appointed Director to handle this issue I am concerned that a lot of misinformation has been circulating with regard to this.
So let me clear some of this up:
Firstly SFM workers are not volunteers for Pride London, they are handled by SFM directly. The incident that took place in the women’s toilet did not involve one of Pride’s stewards as been reported as we at Pride do not adhere to any discrimination issues. We have a clear policy with regard to toilets and usage by Trans people, that is a Trans woman is clearly allowed to use the women’s toilet and a Trans male clearly able to use a male toilet. We would never say to any Trans person to use the disable loo as this is clearly illegal.
SFM have adhered to Pride’s policies for their three years of providing additional stewarding at our events, and this is the first complaint we have had over their handling of such an issue in all that time against all the hundreds of staff that they provide. SFM have assured us that this incident was not how they would normally handle such an issue, and was a genuine mistake. We are working with them to ensure that there is no repetition.
Secondly we at Pride cannot speak on behalf of the Metropolitan Police with regard to this incident. It has been alleged that one of their LGBT liaison officers requested a Gender Recognition Certificate: this is a breach of all legislation in relation to Trans, as very few individuals can request this, and a GRC is never to be used as an ID document. I am sure that the Metropolitan Police will be looking into this.
Thirdly we have very clear policies regarding equality and expect that all sub-contractors adhere to this – this is going to be looked into as a matter of urgency.
*Making this Public statement I must also say that we deeply regret that Roz Kaveney had to endure such an experience at our event, this is deeply regrettable and should never have happened, and so I publicly apologise on behalf of Pride London to her with regard to this, and we will endeavour to ensure that it never happens in the future with respect to any groups that are a part of our Stakeholders forum, or indeed any one attending Pride London’s events.*
When things like this happen it leaves a very distasteful feeling with any person or community who feel that they are being singled out or picked on and this is not what we are about at Pride London. We hold very dearly our commitment to equality. We accept that in some cases training is important and we are happy to work with any of our contractors with the training of their volunteers in this respect, and we will also include any individual or groups that have an interest with this as well, where appropriate. This can involve Trans members being called upon to be a part of a training package.
Pride London has an excellent track record or working with all members of our community, and has in particular a strong record on Trans issues. This incident has marred a very successful event and lessons have to be and must be learnt from it.

Patrick Williams
Chair stakeholders Committee and HR Director
for and on behalf of Pride London

  1. Trans at Pride and the ad hoc group Stop Transphobia At Pride accept the official apology of London Pride to Roz Kaveney and the broader Trans Community subject to the following provisos:
  2. that there be some real movement to accept the suggestions we have made for greater inclusivity and diversity awareness on the Pride board, and that real institutional change follow from this.
  3. that there be proposals to deal with the weakness that the incident demonstrated not in Pride’s transinclusivity alone, but also to its insitutional skills in crisis management.
  4. that Pride’s response to the failings of both FSM security and Capita’s health and safety people in this matter be made transparent.
  5. that FSM and Capita apologize for the incident and indicate preparedness to make institutional change to ensure this never happen again.
  6. that Pride, FSM and Capita clarify the earlier incident from which the segregation of the toilets derived. If, as alleged, a transwoman was assaulted by a male in the women’s toilets, what happened to her? Was she taken care of and encouraged to make complaints? Why did no one connected with that incident try to contact the Trans Community stall thirty yards away to help us take care of her? We are glad that the Metropolitan Police are investigating the assault, but are shocked at the poor support given her on the spot.

The Metropolitan Police have issued the following statement:

Pride London 08 celebrations took part in Central London on Saturday 5 July and was attended by 825,000 people who enjoyed the day.
Feedback to both the Metropolitan Police Service and PrideLondon was that it was a day of celebration and festivities with an appropriate police response which met the needs of all communities.
Police dealt with a number of incidents that day which they resolved with the least disruption to people’s enjoyment of the day.
Regrettably for all the organisations involved in the management of this event, an incident occurred which caused great offence to members of the Trans community.
The incident took place in the public toilets within Trafalgar Square where a Trans woman was denied access to the female toilets.
As a result a number of Trans community members decided to stage a demonstration within the entry area to the toilets, an argument ensued, and the steward at the toilets was barged and pushed up against a wall, and inappropriate language was used.
An off duty police officer, a LGBT liaison officer, who was in the area at the time intervened at this stage. One of the officer’s primary concerns being that some of the trans community members, having previously participated in the parade, still had their placards with them and during the growing arguments, he felt that these could inadvertantly cause injury through escalating tensions and heated exchanges. The officer took action to reduce those immediate tensions and ascertained facts from both the steward and the trans woman involved.
The officer’s actions included attaining an apology for the Trans woman, an offer to act as her witness should she wish to take the matter further and he also provided his name and details should she wish to contact him further. The officer then left believing that all actions he had taken were of satisfactory outcome.
The MPS also reviewed the CCTV footage outside the public toilets.
Neither party wished to make a formal complaint at the time against the other party.
It is deeply regretted by the MPS and PrideLondon, that Trans community members were denied access to these facilities.
It is the firm view of both organisations that the Trans woman involved should never have been denied access to the women’s toilets, and members of the Trans community should have been able to attend this event and feel supported by diverse communities who they are close to.
The MPS and PrideLondon recognise the depth of hurt, and frustration felt by the Trans community around this incident, and both organisations took immediate action to ascertain what had occurred.
The welfare and reputation of the MPS LGBT Liaison Officer with over 8 years of examplary deployment has also been of key importance to the organisation and throughout their internal review, the MPS have ensured that enquiries were thorough and transparent but conducted with sensitivity to the position he had now found himself placed in.
The MPS also felt it was of the utmost importance for their organisation and other multi agency stakeholders, including the Gay Police Association, PrideLondon executives and trans community representatives to meet at the earliest opportunity which was chaired by Steve Allen, the borough commander for the City of Westminster.
The meeting provided opportunity for respective findings to be shared and to discuss proposals for a united approach that would support the regaining of trust by our trans communities and further reflect our continued desire for transphobic incidents of this nature being prevented from happening again.
The meeting on Wednesday 9th July 08 supported the proposal for a public open forum hosted by Commander Steve Allen being held. Invitations for this event would be extended to trans community members, trans support agencies and wide ranging multi agency LGBT representatives.
Details of the proposed meeting date and time will be advised via separate communication within the next two weeks.
Meanwhile, the MPS and PrideLondon continue in their ongoing day-to-day work that both engages our trans communities and respectively continues to learn from their diversity.

In addition to this, Commander Allen of Westminster police has issued the following letter:

Last Saturday it was my privilege to take part in the Pride march at the head of the police officers and staff representing the Metropolitan Police Service. We were alongside colleagues from other emergency services, from the army, the navy and the air force. I am proud that the MPS is the uniformed service with the longest history of participation in this event since I believe it is a sign of the progress over some time now that my organisation has been making.
Having regarded my day so positively I was greatly disappointed to learn that events on Trafalgar Square had caused such anger and inflicted damage on what we all acknowledge is a fragile relationship between transgender people and the police. The details of that incident have been examined and I think there is finally clarity about what happened and who played what part. It is clear to me that the motivation and actions of the police officer involved were positive and he has my full support. We expect extraordinary things from our officers and I am pleased that although off duty, he regarded it as his duty to become involved where he saw a situation developing.
The events of the day are being addressed by the various organisations involved. Clearly inappropriate decisions were made and inappropriate words said. Those specifics are being or have already been addressed.
The issue at the heart of events over the last few days is much wider. That issue is about the nature and quality of relationships and engagement between police and transgender people. There is no doubt that we are at the early stages of the journey. The aim must be to get to a point where the relationship is sufficiently robust that it can survive the setbacks that will inevitably occur. The vision is getting to a position where policing services are delivered to victims, witnesses, suspects and every other member of our communities in a way that is fair, just, professional, compassionate and respectful of the particular needs of individuals. For members of our communities, this must be the case because that is what you have a right to expect. For the MPS this must be the case because we can only succeed if we have the trust and the confidence of the people we work for.
My organisation is committed to doing the right thing but we know we need help along the way. We know that we have to have a dialogue where we can hear and respond to the needs identified by transgender people so that we get it right. We also need to be able to explain the limitations on our powers and resources so that the expectations are informed and realistic.
I hope that we can use the events of last weekend in a positive way – as a catalyst for progress. At the Gold Group I chaired on 9 July (consisting of a wide range of people, not just police) it was agreed that I should extend an invitation to an open discussion of how and what we need to consider to make effective progress on transgender matters. A meeting wont solve all the problems but will at least open another channel of communication. Details will be made available in due course but please be assured I am up for the discussion.

Those of us who were involved in the incident do not agree with some of the facts as presented in these documents, and we’ll be taking this up with the police. We’ll update you all on the outcome when we have news. In the meantime we’d really encourage you all to attend the public meeting with the police and use this as a chance to have your say.

We are working with GALOP on this.

The meeting referred to will take place on the 29th of July from 6-8pm, at:
Main Conference Centre
Abbey Centre
34 Great Smith St
London SW1
Anyone wishing to attend should email to register.

Update: The meeting mentioned above has now taken place, and was well attended by transpeople, allies and representatives from the Metropolitan Police. As a result of that meeting, Commander Allen has issues this letter:

8th August 2008
On Tuesday evening, 29th July, I together with other MPS colleagues, met with a number of people from the transgender communities in an open meeting in Westminster. This meeting came about as a consequence of events during Pride celebrations on 5 July.
The meeting generated a lively and helpful discussion about a range of issues covering the relevant incidents and wider issues of trust and confidence between the police and trans people. There were a number of areas talked about where I believe the MPS can now make further progress as a result.
The point was made, a number of times during the evening, about the need for us all to listen to and learn from each other.
Part of the learning has been about the impact on the trans communities of early responses from the MPS. In particular, it is clear that my “open letter” had a very different impact from the one I intended. My intention was to provide reassurance that a senior officer had taken ownership and was determined to learn the organisational lessons that would undoubtedly emerge.
I offer my personal and sincerest apology that my letter did not have the effect I had intended and upon closer reflection I can see why this caused deep upset to some of the trans communities. It was never my intention to suggest that my officer’s actions would not be investigated or that there would be no need to offer advice and improved training to him and his colleagues.
It is clear that members of the trans communities and the officer found themselves involved in a set of circumstances for which the trans communities were not responsible. They were clearly the victims. It has been claimed that the demonstrators assaulted stewards – examination of CCTV evidence demonstrates that these claims are mistaken. Despite the best endeavours and intentions of the officer, these obviously came across in a way, which caused misinterpretation, confusion and hurt.
I hope that the response of the MPS speaks more loudly than my initial choice of words. We have taken ownership of the issues at a very senior level; we have circulated advice about the GRA to our officers; we have resolved the complaint against the police officer to the satisfaction of the party involved and continue to investigate with full vigour a number of criminal offences connected with these events. We have also, of course, held an open meeting to maintain dialogue with the community.
I have asked the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate to hold a de-brief of these events with MPS practitioners to ensure we get the maximum learning from them. I know that a significant issue to be taken forward is the raising of awareness and training of our staff and the Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate are now looking at options that further expand our developing partnerships with our transgender support associations who can assist us with our continued learning of this complex arena of diversity.
We have to start from where we are, not where we would like to be. Mistakes have been made and I and certainly my colleagues within the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate are aware of the disappointment and anxieties the trans communities have felt over this highly regrettable incident. We have for some years striven to understand the many issues, which beset the trans communities and in so many ways we have succeeded in listening and responding.
Obviously the MPS has let you down on this occasion for which we have to double our efforts to repair and restore the much needed trust and confidence which can enable us to progress these issues in order to deliver very real and meaningful change.

Steve Allen

Trans@Pride welcome this important first step in building trust and understanding between the Police authorities and the trans community in London. We are pleased that it acknowledges that the trans group protesting at the exclusionary policy were non-violent, and that transpeople involved in this incident were victims, and not the perpetrators of any aggression. We welcome the commitment to increased diversity training and awareness of the scope of the Gender Recognition Act within the MPS.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has today released a statement explaining that it will not be prosecuting undercover police officers for sexual offences having mislead political activists about their identity. This decision is highly inconsistent, given the CPS have previously successfully prosecuted trans folk for what they call identity “deception” when it comes to sexual relations.

The phrasing of today’s release either admits to transphobic prosecution decisions within the CPS (specifically, believing that trans identities are inauthentic) or admits that they believe Lord Leveson’s Court of Appeal judgement criminalising trans folk for sexual relations is incorrect. In his ruling on the McNally case, which was prosecuted by the CPS, Leveson stated that being trans was enough to invalidate consent to sexual acts, but the CPS now say: (Emphasis added)

In order to prove the offence of rape the prosecution must show that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse. In this case the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the case law interpreting that Act is applicable, the effect of which is that consent can be negated if…there has been deception as to the identity of the suspect. The identity of the suspect is relevant to a very limited extent. Section 1(3) of the Act expressly provides that impersonating a woman’s husband may vitiate (negate) consent. This section was later extended by case law to include the impersonation of a person’s partner. The law does not go further and allow the fact that a person does not reveal their true or full identity to be capable of vitiating consent where it is otherwise freely given.

The CPS are hardly unaware of the McNally judgement, given the same release cites it and specifically refers to trans identities as “deception”:

R – v – McNally, where consent was negated on the basis that the victim believed she was having sex with a male partner, where in fact she was having sex with a female who had deceived her. In this case the Court of Appeal said that “depending on the circumstances, deception as to gender can vitiate consent”… but added: “in reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent.”

No clarification is given as to why they think this case differs from the case of the undercover police officers, even though the CPS now know that the courts have decided that identity does matter.

According an article written by the Minister for Equalities today, the Spousal Veto seems set to remain in legislation in England and Wales:

From 10 December there is also good news for married transgender people. You will now be able to change your legal gender without ending your marriage, provided you and your husband or wife agree to remain married.

It is entirely possible that this not intended to be such an announcement but is simply sloppy and insensitive drafting by the Civil Service who should, if they are paying attention, be well aware of the coverage the spousal veto has been getting. The announcement today was partly a cover for the less positive news arising from the publication of the response to the consultation into civil partnerships. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport have decided that they are not going to legislate for mixed-sex civil partnerships – something that is bound to end up facing continued legal challenge.

Sadly, the technical paperwork underlying the announcements also fails to shed any light on the issue but the inclusion of the 10th December date means we at least know that the government must have decided for sure by that date, when the first conversions happen.

A number of people, myself included, have already contacted the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to ask for clarification.