by ·0 Comments

I find myself simultaneously amused and saddened slightly by the language in this article in the Independent. The piece reveals to us that some security guards now have the power to “request a name and address for a string of offences including criminal damage, begging and anti-social behaviour” around Victoria Station as part of a trial into increasing the power of security guards.

“Request”? The security guards have always had the power to request this, just as I have the power to request the name and address of the person sitting next to me on the Clapham Omnibus. As long as they don’t engage an anti-social behaviour, they’d equally have the power to tell me to go forth and multiply.

So it’s not that the security guards have gained any power to request anything. We, the public, have just lost the power to tell them to (politely) get lost without expecting “consequences”.

I wonder if the exact wording of that article was supplied by the department of spin press officer at the Home Office?

by ·0 Comments

There was a story in Pink News last week about trans pensions which struck me as slightly odd and has generated interest in some circles. From just the opening couple of paragraphs you could be forgiven for assuming that this was the problem of Trans women who turn 60 now not getting pensions because they’re unable to get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Certainly I’d be very concerned (And firing off emails and letters to all sorts of people) if they government had rejected any notion of fixing this as I’m hopeful the forthcoming Marriage Equality Bill will resolve a lot of this mess.

Reasons not to be able to get a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) one are surprisingly common and I’m often finding out new and innovative ways that the system has created that deprive people of recognition, but the tend to centre around marriage, which is why they can be fixed in a marriage bill. Currently, to get a GRC you must get an annulment. This isn’t something that everyone is happy doing as even though you can get Civil Partnered/Married again straight away, it’s emotionally quite a blow and has implications for tax, inheritance and pensions. With pensions, any annulment/divorce (Even if you remarry) can cause serious problems for a spouse if they survive their partner or result in other unwanted effects.

But fixing all that was not what was being discussed, and not what was “rejected” by the government in the House of Lords last week. (Hansard link) An amendment was tabled to promote discussion, the text of which would have granted transwomen who transitioned before the GRA was around the ability to retrospectively claim the pension they would have had between 60 and 65. (Basic state pension for 5 years is around £25,000, if adjusted for inflation, but can be more)

Lord Freud notes, in his speech on the matter, that he knew the amendment was tabled largely just to get an update on the ongoing issue and the amendment was subsequently withdrawn by the proposer. It is perhaps somewhat disingenuous to label the response quite so flatly as a “rejection”, especially as the update informs us that it is not a dead topic and is still being looked into.

There’s also a clue the amendment wasn’t seriously expected to go anywhere as it’s quite problematic in it’s practical outcome. It would not have mattered what age one transitioned at, as long as you transitioned more than 2 years before the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) became law. If so, you’d be able to claim your full state pension from between the ages of 60 and 65, even having transitioned at 70.

Not quite so good if you didn’t transition more than 2 years before the GRA as you would then still need a GRC. If you did divorce though, or were never married, and received a GRC within 2 years of the GRA you would again be able to claim full state pension between 60 and 65, regardless of when you transitioned.

Confusing? Yes, rather.

There’s also the problem of money. Lord Boswell, when proposing the amendment, reckoned on 50 individuals, which results in a cost of one or two million pounds. The HMRC suggests 750 people who could be eligible, which I can believe. There are at least 7,500 fully transitioned individuals in the UK according to their figures, rather more than the four thousand or so that GRC figures would suggest and this would apply to any trans women over about 70 who transitioned in 2002 or earlier.

That puts the cost anywhere from nine to thirty eight million pounds.

You can bet the inevitable Daily Mail headline will run with the £38 million, not the £9 million. “TAXPAYERS FUND SEX SWAP GRANNIES £38 MILLION WINDFALL” Unpleasant though it is to have to say it, I don’t think it would help to have such headlines in the run up to the consultation on the marriage equality bill, where much more is at stake.

by ·9 Comments

As some will know, it’s been reported today that RSA SecurID have been compromised in undisclosed ways. I don’t use them as I prefer the open-standard Feitian tokens via Gooze, but even then if Feitian or Gooze were compromised, the Bad Guys would know which tokens I had. (Even if they did not know what systems they were each for – I believe that to avoid this, Gooze at least destroy the keys after sending them to you)

I think Cryptocard provide the ability to reprogram tokens, but I do not have any myself and I believe it’s a commercial rather than open-standards system.

So, does anyone know of a source of reprogrammable open standard security tokens so that I am the only one that knows the secret keys? If not, anyone fancy designing and selling some?

by ·3 Comments

I’ve seen a few people around the place wonder why the census does not ask about sexuality or transgender status. I, for one, am glad it does not. You’re probably all aware of the Census Campaign, encouraging people to tick the “No religion” in response to the optional question on religion.

Religion is, compared to sexuality or transgender status, usually (But not always) a less controversial topic. Some may recall the ONS study, “revealing” that only 1.5% of people are gay/bisexual. That was with some careful work done to ensure that others could not overhear the answers being given. Despite that, it came out with a surprisingly low figure with a significant number of unknowns/won’t says.

In comparison, the census is relatively public and can be seen by other members of the household. Yes, you could request an individual questionnaire but if someone really fears being out to their housemates that much, are they really going to risk revealing they have something to hide? Simple human nature – procrastination – will mean they probably can’t be bothered anyway. They’re just go for the easy option and tick heterosexual.

We can’t expect everyone to be an activist.

And that’s without even considering the problem of identity. How many people have had a same-sex relationship, but regard themselves as heterosexual because they are now in an opposite-sex marriage? Or started out “straight” before having a couple of gay relationships, so would tend to go for “gay” over “bisexual”. Or just don’t know yet.

We do not need another ONS-type result claiming there are fewer LGBT people in the UK than there really are. Officials would base their funding allocations on these numbers and there will be less available in the way of LGBT resources, in much the same way as the skewed religion result causes problems.

Inaccurate data is worse than no data.

by ·2 Comments

Last night was the launch of Trans Media Watch’s Memorandum of Understanding with Channel 4, which for anyone used to Trans events would have seemed a little unusual, hosted as it was at Channel 4’s HQ in their James-Bond-esque underground bar and cinema. I do feel a little inadequate trying to explain the mood of the room and significance of the event as it really would need the eloquence of someone such as Laurie Penny to do it justice.

This was a novel event to be at because in recent years, when it comes to big LGBT events, I’m more used to standing outside waving a banner than being inside in the warmth with wine and canapés. But Trans Media Watch achieved something truly remarkable with this MoU, aimed to end transphobia in the media and promote more accurate, positive images of transgender people as a whole. As anyone who has been involved in Trans campaigning will know, we can be a very fractious and transient community so it’s good to finally have a cause that I believe everyone can rally behind.

We had several speeches not just from TMW, C4 and the BBC but also from a Government Minister (Yes, a Government Minister turned up and gave a speech about Trans issues at a Trans event organised by Trans folk! How cool is that?) and Channel 4 showed a few clips from “4thought”, a series of short vox pops that include trans folk and I understand will be going out during prime time some time soon.

It was good to finally meet up with many people I know from Trans campaigning that I have either not have the chance to meet or I have not seen for some time. As well as many people from Channel 4 and TransMediaWatch, we had Lynne Featherstone MP (LibDem, Minister for Equalities who gave a speech); Dru Marland and Richard Beard (Becoming Drusilla); Victoria Aitkin (Jason Costello, Hollyoaks); Juliet Jacques (Writes about her transition for the Guardian); David Allen Green (Lawyer, Journalist and Orwell Prize Judge, also gave a speech); Christine Burns MBE (“Just Plain Sense” podcast and co-founder of Press For Change); Dr Stuart Lorimer and Dr Leighton Seal (Charing Cross GIC); Roz Kaveney (Journalist, Author and ex-vice-chair of Liberty); Terry and Bernard Reed OBE (GIRES); Dr Richard Curtis (Transhealth); Dr Evan Harris (President of the LGBT LibDems); representatives from the Government Equalities Office and Scottish Governments; at least one person from the BBC (Who I understand will also be signing the MoU, if they haven’t already) and video clips from Caroline Lucas MP (Greens) and Julie Hesmondhalgh. (Hayley Cropper, Coronation Street). Apologies to anyone who was there who I’ve missed. There were enough people about that I’m sure I’ve neglected to mention someone significant!

And finally, two quotes from the event:
“There is no good reason why, just because a Trans person is caught up in a story, it becomes newsworthy” – David Allen Green
“This is game changing” – Everyone

Featured on Liberal Democrat VoiceI hope that these events will stop being unusual and the next time we all meet, it’s inside in the warm and not outside waiving banners.

by ·0 Comments

In some more and definitely good news, in the Scottish “Sex-by-deception” case I’ve been following, it’s now been reported that all charges have been dropped.

For those not familiar with the story, a woman was being prosecuted for “deceiving” other women into having sex by pretending to be a man, something that could have quite worrying consequences for any Trans folk in Scotland who are not out. (And being out to just your partner might not be enough, if you were not out generally and they later claimed otherwise) It’s not been reported why the charges have been dropped, but I would hope it is down to a point of law, as in “You can’t prosecute someone for this” rather than insufficient evidence.

Unfortunately, Brooks did have to spend some time on remand in Cornton Vale Prison prior to the charges being dropped.

by ·5 Comments

Creative Commons Witches Image via Jeff Hitchcock, http://www.flickr.com/people/arbron/For those who haven’t seen, the catchily-titled Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Mental Health Special Interest Group is holding a one-day meeting titled “Transgender: Time To Change” (Word DOC link) in May. There has been much grumbling about this behind closed doors for a while now and it’s now been officially confirmed with the speakers including the ever-controversial Julie Bindel.

Reading the line up, this meeting looks like it could be a welcome step for the wider Trans community as with the exception of Christina Richards, all the speakers are known for what can be regarded as outdated and controversial views. If those pushing these views have to have a meeting with such speakers, struggling to attract more progressive speakers that are now becoming mainstream, it points towards a day where their voice is ignored so much that they can only talk amongst each other in dark corners, not bothering the rest of the world.

Perhaps this is the beginning of a day where outdated concepts of Transsexualism are relegated to the shelf of history alongside witchcraft and “reparative therapy” for homosexuals. I certainly hope so.

(Oh, and I’ll note that the group is the LGB SIG – no T. Perhaps that too is telling?)

Updated: Here’s a nice little letter to the Telegraph co-signed by one of the speakers. I’ll give you a little taster here: “The recent judgment in the ECHR, in which a post-operative transsexual person was granted permission to marry in his adopted gender role, is a victory of fantasy over reality. … It is a measure of the urgency and desperation of their situation that they frequently seek surgery to make their fantasy real.” (Thanks to @earwicga for pointing me at this one)

by ·11 Comments

For those interested in reading the actual new guidance, it’s available on the Prison Service Web Site now. And for those for whom this is all TL;DR, the summary is: It’s generally a good document that falls into the two common traps with such things. Firstly, the assumption that the NHS is always right and secondly, that you can magically determine someone is trans just by looking at them without ever making a mistake.

I shall start, which is all too common, by correcting two errors that have appeared in the press. Firstly, this guidance is from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and only bears the Ministry of Justice logo because NOMS is part of the MoJ. As a result, it does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It has been pointed out to me by one reader that when I’d previously suggested there was draft guidance in place in the case of the trans woman in a Scottish jail, I was incorrect as the draft guidance doesn’t apply there.

Secondly, this does not apply to “cross dressers”, “transvestites” or any other term the Daily Mail might want to use to stir by imply it’s related to anything other than gender dysphoria, a recognised medical condition. (I have no idea if there’s a possible Press Complaints Commission complaint in there, but I suspect not)

Beyond that, as I suspected much of what is in the new guidance isn’t news as it doesn’t vary much from the draft guidance, which I’ve written about before. Oh, and, surprise surprise, the Daily Mail have written about before too so it’s not new to them either.

It has the same problems as before, with an effective ban on treatment while on remand waiting trial. However, other areas have improved greatly and that this area has not changed makes me suspect that there is a genuine logistical problem here rather than a lack of desire to fix things. (The average time spend on remand appears to be about 2 months) There’s also the assumption that a prisoner be held in the prison appropriate to their “legal sex”, i.e. based on presence of a GRC but this is much weakened compared to previous drafts and there is much more scope for someone to be transferred early.

Interestingly, there is already a provision for the most problematic female prisoners to be held in male prisons under certain guidelines and this is mentioned, although only on the understanding that it can only be used for transwomen in the same way as it is for ciswomen. This hopefully means that any claims that a violent prisoner might transition to cause trouble can be easily rebuffed, as they can end up back in a male prison. (Presumably alongside the most problematic female prisoners, which probably isn’t much fun)

Transmen can never be refused a request to relocate into a male prison, although it is explicitly acknowledged that many, in particular those who have not undergone full bottom surgery, may prefer to remain in a female prison due to the risks. A completely non-scientific survey of a handful of trans men who are friends of friends and have been in prison suggests that most trans men would choose to remain in female prisons. Presumably they could still be transferred against their wishes into a male prison in the same way that a cis woman can, but that isn’t addressed.

But one item jumps out as immediately problematic. There is a general ban (Section 1.10) on new or continuing private treatment that has to be for “demonstrable clinical reasons” and not based on “uninformed personal choice”. I suspect the majority of trans folk who end up in prison simply cannot afford private treatment anyway, but for those than can I suspect “the NHS won’t treat me” won’t be regarded as a good enough reason. In general, although a good policy, the document has a slightly confused mix of ideas about NHS versus private treatment, long-term transitioners and the practicalities of the laws and could probably do with a couple of cycles of revision.

In terms of treatment, the one year real-life-experience guideline prior to surgery is mentioned, but given there’s little possibility of private treatment, two years is the norm in England, with Wales being pretty much never. It goes on to say that it’s “essential” that someone planning on surgery undergo counselling for the “up to two years” wait. This fails on two counts. Firstly, you’ll be very lucky to get surgery within two years of commencement of RLE on the NHS. Secondly, the need for counselling is a medical decision. How essential it is in an individual case is a medical decision and does not belong in a Prison Service document.

For the long term transitioned, there’s an assumption that you’ll still be “high risk” and need special care. Personally, if I ended up in a prison now then I would not expect (Nor particularly want, I guess) that sort of special treatment.

And finally, there are some good points on the Gender Recognition Act, stating that staff should ask for a birth certificate and that you can’t request a GRC if someone was born in the UK. (Although one is acceptable if produced one instead of a GRC) For those that can’t produce a BC or GRC, you’re assumed to be your “birth gender”, although there’s no discussion of how to establish “birth gender” and as with police codes on searching, it could end up with some cis women, particularly lesbians, being treated initially as male if they can’t produce a BC as any physical examination to establish gender is, quite rightly, banned. Apparently, you are allowed to ring the Gender Recognition Panel and give them your “password” to allow them to reveal details to the Prison Service. I have no idea what my “password” I supplied when applying for a GRC is and I suspect I’m not alone in this and it still doesn’t help cis folk mistaken for being trans.

by ·1 Comment

“Women to be treated like women in prison” probably isn’t a newsworthy headline to most people or, in fact, a particularly surprising statement. But as some have probably seen, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail reported yesterday that the Ministry of Justice have “published” a guide on trans prisoners. (Published in quotes because as yet there is no indication of anything new on the web sites of either the Ministry or the Prison Service)

It’s likely the content of the manual isn’t anything new given that the prison service policies are nothing new, so they presumably only warrant a story because the kinds of people who read those papers may have a tendancy to whip themselves up into a righteous foaming indignatation based on the spin presented by the journalists and feel much better about it afterwards.

Without seeing the document there’s not much to say, except to note that the news reports are damning of the idea that trans women can wear their own clothes. This might sound like a liberty, until you check prison service rules. Convicted male prisoners do not get to wear their own clothes, it’s true. However, all female prisoners – either convicted or awaiting trial – do get to wear their own clothes.

So they’re treating trans women just like other women in prison. Fancy that. (The existence of trans men is, of course, something that the press haven’t considered.)

by ·1 Comment

According to BBC News, (Although they’re not alone in using this quote) yesterday’s decision to block a Christian couple from fostering because of their views on homosexuality is because “laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation ‘should take precedence’ over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.” Although I agree with the end decision in this case, the quotation given is somewhat concerning.

I’m worried about this idea that there is some sort of pecking order of oppression, that the gay community is somehow more oppressed than the religious community. That way lies Oppression Olympics which is, to my mind, unhelpful. Is it really relevant if I, as a white lesbian trans woman am more or less marginalised than a black lesbian cis woman or a Muslim straight trans woman? What’s needed is appropriate help and support for each group according to it’s needs and specific situations. This sort of muddled thinking could lead to more plaintive cries from the religious right that they’re being repressed because gay trumps religion in the courts. (In reality, the Equality Act 2010 states the opposite: there are many exemptions for religion)

Upon reading the actual judgement, the court actually makes it’s view very clear: “…between the protected rights concerning religion and sexual orientation there is no hierarchy of rights…“. (Emphasis mine) It goes on to say “there may, as this case shows, be a tension between equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation” which really is the nub of the problem: What to do in cases where two strands of diversity clash in this way.

The resolution is in the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services. I have not been able to get a copy of the document they refer to as the later, online, version has “Standard 7” about leisure activity. I do hope the courts are not equating homosexuality with a leisure activity! Luckily, they quote the relevant section earlier on in the judgement: “The fostering service ensures that children and young people, and their families, are provided with foster care services which value diversity and promote equality.” The same restriction presumably applies if a potential foster couple stated they could not tolerate a child being religious.

So, despite what the BBC quote suggests, the courts have not decided that one strand of takes precedence over another. It’s just in this particular case, the freedom of the children wins out over the desire of a couple to foster, as it should be.