Small World

I probably know more people who live in Boston than in any other city in the world where I haven’t lived myself. I’ve been there as much on business as for fannish reasons. Last night was a bit worrying. As far as I can make out, everyone I know is safe and well. And, as these things go, it turns out that one of my closest connections (the closest probably being Theodora Goss whose office is just down the road from where the bombing happened) was someone I know in Bristol whose father was running in the Boston Marathon (he’s OK too).

My Twitter feed was full of people doing there best to be helpful, and seeking news of loved ones. In amongst it, inevitably, were a few people pointing out that atrocities of a similar magnitude occur on a fairly regular basis around the globe. This is also true. We don’t react to them in the same way because we don’t know people in those places, and can’t imagine ourselves being in those places. I don’t think that’s a piece of human nature it will be easy to change.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it. Thanks to the Internet it is now vastly easier and cheaper to make connections around the world. If bad things were to happen in Delhi or Manilla or São Paulo or Cairo, well I know people there too, and I’d worry about them. Hopefully this makes me a little less blinkered.

In the meantime, Boston folks, stay safe and stay strong. I’d be back to visit if I could.

Radio: Legal Aid, Black History & Thatcher

As I noted on Tuesday, this week’s Women’s Outlook show was light on books and heavy on politics. In the first half hour Paulette and I quiz two Bristol experts on legal aid. What the government is doing in this area is quite despicable, and makes no economic sense whatsoever. It is depressing listening, but a valuable insight into just how ideology-driven the current “austerity” drive is.

The second half hour is a lot more upbeat. Paulette and I talk to a lovely lady called Rose Young who is running an oral history project aimed at collecting the stories of black immigrants living in Wiltshire. Alongside the more serious discussion of racism, we manage to touch on important things like cricket and Caribbean food. Paulette mentions Turtle Bay, which is a new restaurant chain being launched in the UK. They have branches in Nottingham, Southampton and Milton Keynes, and open in Bristol later this month. I can’t wait.

Both of those segments are available in the first hour on our Listen Again site.

The second hour kicks off with some light-hearted discussion of parties, and includes a shout out to Kevin. After that Paulette interviews the amazing Cleo Lake who runs the Caribbean carnival in Bristol. And we wrap up to hour with our memories of the Margaret Thatcher era. The Guardian article by Russell Brand that I quote from is available here.

Adrian, our techie, who now has his own Polish/English music show on before ours, played us out with one of my all time favorite pop sings. It’s a bit clichéd for a women’s interest show but it is awesome, and on Listen Again it cuts off half way through. If you are as disappointed by that as I was, here’s Saint Cyndi doing what she does best: having fun.

Parliament Talks #LucyMeadows

Yesterday the vigil for Lucy Meadows went off so well, and so peacefully, that not even the Daily Mail could bring itself to talk about a “violent rentamob” — the usual tabloid reaction to any protest against their behavior. Of course it helped that there were two MPs present. Kudos to Graham Jones, in whose constituency Ms. Meadows lived, and also to Kerry McCarthy, MP for Bristol East, who went along to support the vigil despite having no direct interest. Stephen Williams, the Bristol MP who talked about our LBGT History exhibition in Parliament, tweeted his apologies to me this morning, and I do appreciate that not every MP is able to free the time for such things.

But things are happening. Mr. Jones has promised to raise the issue of the harassment of Ms. Meadows in Parliament once the coroner’s report into her death has been published. Meanwhile Helen Belcher has been making use of the contacts that she made during her time as a witness at the Leveson inquiry. She reports that Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge and a known supporter of trans rights, has tabled an early day motion to discuss media harassment of trans people today. Which is why I am writing a blog post at past midnight when I’d like to be getting some sleep before I have to do live radio.

Mr. Huppert’s motion is specifically about the press, and it is certainly a very important issue, but given the amount of hot air and lack of action that has surrounded Leveson I’m not sure that much can be done directly to rein the media in. I’m not one of those calling for Richard Littlejohn to be sacked, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly he hasn’t acted alone. There are numerous people, including Burchill, Bindel and the editors of the Mail and Observer, not to mention other newspapers, all of whom have gleefully jumped on the trans-bashing bandwagon. They should bear responsibility too.

Secondly, firing him won’t change anything. He’ll walk into a new job with another newspaper, probably at a massively inflated salary after a bidding war for his services. As for the Mail, they’ll hire someone equally vile, and instruct them to go after trans people in particular. They’ll assume that as long as no one else dies there will be no repeat of the public outrage.

And finally the whole “get Littlejohn” thing seems to me to tap into precisely the same desire to have someone to hate on which Littlejohn’s career has thrived to date. We need to stop making people hate figures, not play the same game.

However, this doesn’t mean that there is nothing that Parliament can do. The reason that the tabloids continue to harass trans people is that they are group that society sees it as legitimate to harass. To some extent that’s a chicken and egg problem, in that society gets its views from the media, but it is also something where Parliament can take a lead, or fail to do so. Sadly, there are many areas in which Parliament has signaled, deliberately or otherwise, that trans people are not worthy of respect. For example:

1. The government’s promised Transgender Action Plan seems to have sunk without trace.

2. The concerns of trans people over the marriage equality bill were summarily dismissed in committee.

3. The Equality Act contains language that implies that a trans woman, no matter how early in life she transitions, no matter what medical treatment she has had, and no matter how long she has lived as a woman, can never “really” be a woman, and may, in some cases, be discriminated against on that basis.

These are things that Parliament can address. Perhaps if they did so, the rest of society would start treating trans people with more respect as well. I appreciate that there’s nothing that can be done tomorrow, because these issues are up for debate, but they are things that Parliament needs to think about. Giving leadership is something that Parliament is good at. Trans people would appreciate seeing a little of it done on their behalf, please.

This Would Be A Lie

I am not afraid

On Monday a vigil will be held in memory of Lucy Meadows outside the offices of the Daily Mail in London. I won’t be there. Trips to London are time-consuming and expensive, and I have a busy week in the offing. Were I there, however, I might well be carrying a placard bearing the message above. It has been circulated to members of Trans Media Watch for use on the day. Were I to carry it, however, it would be a lie.

There may well be people at the vigil who are genuinely not afraid. A small number may be sufficiently financially secure, and have sufficient family support, not to be worried. Rather more will be so poor and lonely that they feel they have nothing to lose from being “monstered” in the press. Others I suspect, will be putting a brave face on things, and having nightmares about the possible consequences.

In my case, I don’t own my home, I rent. Were I to become a target of media interest, it would not be long before my lease was terminated. Rental companies are expert at finding excuses to get rid of unwanted tenants. And with a pack of paparazzi after me it would be difficult to find somewhere else to live. That, in turn, would make it difficult to work.

Worse still, however, would be the effect it had on those near and dear to me. The people who hounded Lucy Meadows didn’t just go after her, their besieged her family as well. Kevin might escape, being 5,000 miles away, but there are other people that I take care to protect. The thought of what would happen to them should I become a target of the tabloids worries me far more than what would happen to me.

And, of course, there would be no recourse. We have seen time and time again that the Press Complaints Commission will find convenient excuses to permit continued harassment of trans people. The new, post-Leveson arrangements may be better for some people, but I don’t expect them to make any difference to me. To have the protection of those in authority, you have to have the respect of those in authority, not be regarded as some sort of disgusting, sub-human freak.

I guess you are probably asking, “Is there anything we can do?” Some people have been pointing me to a petition to have Richard Littlejohn fired. I don’t see any point in that. The chances of it happening are ridiculously small, and even if he did go he would just be replaced by someone even worse. The Mail pays him very well for what he does, so clearly he’s important to their business. Besides, he doesn’t act in a vacuum. He gets direction from editors. Indeed, as I recall, when Julie Burchill first turned in her infamous Observer column, her editor sent it back and told her it wasn’t vicious enough. This recent blog post makes the point very well:

Above all, we need to recognise that papers like the Daily Mail exist because their brand of hatred is popular and people buy it. The same goes for Littlejohn, he has — and continues to have — a glittering career because editors see value in writing populist myths as fact and in attacking the disenfranchised.

What you can do, of course, is not buy the Mail, or any newspaper like it. And not support companies that advertise there. Remember also that every time you link to a Mail story in social media you bump up their web stats and make them a more attractive prospect for advertisers. Please don’t do it. If you must, take a screen shot of the article that has offended you and link to that instead.

More practically, there are things that can be done to help people like Lucy Meadows. This article in Pink News is by one of the authors of a study of the mental health of trans people conducted by a number of UK organizations. It surveyed 889 trans people in the UK and Ireland. This is the key finding:

Statistics on suicide

The statistics on suicide amongst trans people are jaw-dropingly awful, yet no public health organization shows any interest in doing anything about them. The NHS certainly isn’t interested. After all, every time they try to do something for trans people, the tabloid newspapers run stories about it, fantastically inflating the cost, and complaining about the waste of money. So trans people and their allies have to organize and get things done themselves. Here you will find a fund-raiser set up by some of the authors of that survey. This is an excerpt from their project plan:

We want to build a repository of hope, so that we and our allies can tell others that they are not alone and that they are loved, and so that trans people who are feeling isolated can turn to them when the world feels like it’s all too much. We’ll have video messages, self-help guides and daily affirmations from some awesome people. This is being built with the principles of positive psychology in mind – that by re-focussing on community, connections and resillience we can help each other stay strong when it feels like the whole world is against us.

In time, I hope, social attitudes will change. The Richard Littlejohns of this world will grow old and retire. Those who replace them might be more like Laurie Penny. But until that time us trans folk need to look after our own. Your help would be gratefully appreciated.

Freedom From The Press

'Chocolate teapot' by Dru MarlandBack in January The Observer published a “comment” piece by Julie Burchill which was basically one long piece of hate speech against trans people, full of inaccurate and abusive stereotyping. Many people were deeply offended by it. Over 800 people wrote to the Press Complaints Commission to say so. That includes some of you. I know, because you told me that you did. Personally I didn’t waste my time because, as Dru Marland’s fine cartoon states, the PCC is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Helen Belcher has an analysis of the judgement here, but the guts of it can be summarized in three simple points.

1. The Burchill article was not offensive because it talked generally about a class of people, not an individual, so on one was actually demeaned by it.

2. The article could not be regarded as misleading because was presented as Ms. Burchill’s personal opinion.

3. Newspapers could not be seen as harassing trans people because the complaints were only about a single article.

That may seem like a pile of dishonest weaseling to you, and you would be absolutely right. Take the first point, for example. Back in December the tabloid newspapers, led as usual by the Daily Malice, picked upon an individual Manchester trans woman who worked as a primary school teacher. Richard Littlejohn, as usual, was particularly obnoxious and demeaning. I’m sure some people will have complained about what Littlejohn wrote, and I’m equally sure that the PCC would have defended it as being in the “public interest”.

That teacher’s name was Lucy Meadows. On Tuesday, the day before the PCC ruling on the Burchill case was released, Lucy was found dead at her home. The police say that there are no suspicious circumstances. Friends say that she had talked of contemplating suicide.

As soon as the news broke, concerned members of the media took to the Internet to ask how this could have happened and how further tragedies could be prevented… Wait, no, that was David Allen Green. He’s a lawyer. Concerned members of the media took to the Internet to remind us that we could not know how Ms. Meadows had died, nor was there any obvious connection between her death and what they had done. Don’t people know that wearing dresses while male causes cancer? She could even have been abducted by aliens. In any case, it is far more likely that she would have been distressed by the actions of her neighbors, or parents at the school. None of those people are likely to have decided that she was a disgusting, dangerous freak from reading the Daily Mail, are they?

And the decision of the Mail to remove the offending article from their website was not in any way an admission of possible culpability. They just wanted to give Toby Young an opportunity to re-publish it so that the discussion could be moved on to outrage about how the press is being hounded and censored by a powerful cabal of trans people.

Then they all went off to a well earned lobster and Bollinger dinner and started work on articles for today’s papers in which they could further demean and insult Lucy because, after all, now she’s dead she can’t complain, right?

Sarah Brown said on Twitter today that she’s often asked how she managed to survive being trans. She said she points out that she’s white, middle class, Cambridge educated and well off, which helps a lot. Some of the ways in which privilege works in the UK work for people like her and me. But then again, Lucy Meadows was white, middle class, was well educated and had a full-time job that pays more than I earned in my last tax return. That didn’t help her.

Being outed publicly clearly doesn’t do you any good. What happened to me was very public, but equally far less so than what happened to Lucy. Had I not had Kevin to comfort me, I would have been in a dreadful state. Somehow, I got through it.

For Lucy, as David Allen Green noted, the problem will have been exacerbated by having it happen while she was starting transition. When you first start taking estrogen it messes you up mentally. It’s like having to go through all of the angst of puberty, except as an adult. It would be good if there was a way to protect people during that vulnerable time, but the press much prefers to target people who are just starting transition because that’s when they look most like the he-she stereotype. After a year or two, when the hormones have done their work, trans people are much less interesting to photograph.

I have no idea what was going on in Lucy’s mind, or what persecution she experienced. I can only speak for myself. What I find is that the low level danger is survivable. You get used to the idea that strangers may come up to you in the street and ask intrusive questions, or yell abuse at you. You get used to the fact that you may be randomly mis-gendered or refused service in a shop or restaurant. What gets to you is not the fact that some people are arseholes, because some people will always be arseholes. What gets to you is the idea that you probably have no recourse, because no one cares.

So, for example, when a marriage equality bill is put before Parliament, it is just a bill for lesbians and gays. Amendments to address the problems it will cause for trans people get thrown out without explanation or excuse. And when trans people are vilified in the media nothing will be done, because vilifying trans people makes money, and is fun for the journalists doing it.

Helen Belcher noted on Twitter yesterday that if we ever do get freedom from the press we need to make sure that it isn’t at the expense of another minority group. She’s right, but sadly it is probably the only way it will happen. Trans people may disappear from the front pages for a day or so, because the news coming out of Parliament at the moment is that it is time to stop hating on the queers, and to stop hating on supposed “benefit scroungers”, and start hating on brown people instead.

I might have had my troubles with the US immigration people, but that’s nothing to what the UK Border Agency is doing these days. Students who applied for visas and had them legitimately granted are being told that those visas are being summarily cancelled mid-term because the UKBA no longer approves of the college that supported the visa applications. I’m sure that somewhere in London a concerned journalist is having a lobster and Bollinger lunch with a UKBA press officer and being also fed a shock story that can be used to justify this.

Update: Jane Fae has a wonderful article at the New Statesman. She has been given access to emails that Lucy wrote to a friend over the past few months. This comment is particularly pertinent:

Lucy writes of how parents themselves complained that their attempts to provide positive comments about her were rebuffed. The press gang, it seems, were only interested in one story: the outrage, the view from the bigots. The stench of money hangs around – it’s widely believed among those connected with the case that money was being offered for these stories.

Charity in Action

The standard narrative of right wing politicians these days is that the poor must make do with less because we are living in an age of austerity, while the rich should be given incentives in the hope that they will invest them in the economy. Nowhere is that more nakedly obvious than in the UK’s proposed “bedroom tax”. While it is apparently OK for the rich to have multiple big houses (and MPs actually get an allowance to allow them to maintain second homes), the poorest members of society will have their benefits reduced if they have a spare room in their homes. The National Housing Federation explains how vulnerable people will be hit by this, while Polly Toynbee has a human interest angle on the issue. The bottom line is that poor people will be forced to move into smaller homes, and maybe become homeless.

This being the age of the Big Society, it is down to ordinary citizens to help out, and one of Roz Kaveney’s young friends has decided to do something about it. Elaine O’Neill has decided to walk the length of the Northern Line to raise money for Shelter, the charity that helps the homeless. You can sponsor her here.

Marriage Equality: It Matters

I keep an eye on the authors I’ve contracted with at Wizard’s Tower Press. You never know when one of them might do something newsworthy. Juliet, of course, is buried in convention work as she’s chairing this year’s Eastercon. Lyda has no such restrictions, and is free to get into all sorts of trouble. Of course she hides it well. The big news is tucked away at the bottom of a post about car problems. But I spotted it anyway. There are wedding bells on the horizon.

Minnesota is still in the process of passing its marriage equality legislation. I’m no expert on the process, but the news sites I’ve looked at are all suggesting that, with key votes passed yesterday, it is now only a matter of time, because the votes are there and the Governor has already signaled that he will support the bill.

Lyda and Shawn have been a couple for as long as I have known them, which is well over a decade. Indeed, I was slightly surprised to discover today that their son, Mason, is almost 10 years old. Time flies. And kids are important. After all, one of the reasons that the wedding is on the cards is that years ago Mason asked his mothers to promise to get married if they were able to do so. So that they could be a proper family.

Which is why I’m getting all teary over this. It might just be a piece of legislation, but it means the world to the families affected by it. I am so happy for Lyda, Shawn and Mason.

By the way, the UK’s marriage equality legislation has moved through the committee stage more or less unscathed. And by “unscathed” what I mean is that all but one of the amendments put forward to address the concerns of trans people were voted down. The only one that got through was one that corrected an injustice that would have been faced by the cis spouses of people who transitioned. I’d like to say I’m surprised, but I’m not.

Julie and Hilary

Let’s see now…

Julie Burchill wrote something about trans people that vast numbers of readers thought was a nasty and unjustified piece of bullying. For days afterwards our papers were full of stories about how a secretive gang of powerful trans activists was mercilessly bullying poor Ms. Burchill.

Hilary Mantel wrote something castigating the dreadful way in which the UK media covers the royal family, especially those who marry into it (see Nick Harkaway for a good digest). Suddenly the papers are full of stories about how Ms. Mantel has been mercilessly bullying poor Princess Kate.

Do I detect a pattern emerging here? I think I do.

The Minister and I #girlslikeus

This morning I was up early and off into Bristol to the M-Shed for an important meeting. As you may recall, the LGBT History exhibition that I have been involved in organizing was mentioned in Parliament by local MP, Stephen Williams, during the marriage equality bill second reading. That bill is being shepherded through Parliament by the Rt. Hon. Maria Miller, MP, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Today she was in Bristol, and having heard Mr. Williams wax lyrical about our exhibition, she asked to see it for herself. I was there, partially because I’m self-employed and can take a day out at the drop of a hat, and partially because (largely by accident), I’m one of the co-chairs of the charity staging the exhibition, Out Stories Bristol.

Being involved in a Ministerial visit is a strange experience. The thing it reminded me of most was when Paramount parachuted Patrick Stewart into the San José Worldcon. In that case I was able to leave Kevin to deal with the drama and run away to hide (I went for dinner with Sean McMullen), but this time I was right in the firing line. Thankfully I had my colleague, Charlie Beaton, with me. He’s the secretary of OSB. (My fellow co-chair, Andy Foyle, who is the person who deserves all of the glory, was unavoidably elsewhere today.) There was much waiting around at the exhibition. No one knows exactly how long anything will take, and while the Minister was in town everyone wanted a piece of her. When she eventually turned up, we got about 10 minutes with her. I gather that was quite a long time. Normally at such events the people responsible for the thing the Minister is coming to see get elbowed out of the way by local politicians. But no one seemed keen to take credit for an exhibition about LGBT lives, so there we were.

I’m pretty cold-blooded about public speaking these days. (I’ve interviewed Neil Gaiman in front of 1,000 people — an audience of 40 like I had on Saturday is a piece of cake after that.) This, however, was another matter entirely. I would only have a chance to say a few sentences to Ms. Miller. I had to use those as best I could to represent the LGBT cause, and in particular the cause of trans people. What if I screwed up and she went away thinking that trans people were awful? That’s responsibility.

I think I did OK. I have, of course, been kicking myself for the rest of the day. It is easy to think of things you could have said after the event. But you do need to let the conversation develop naturally. It doesn’t do to seem pushy, and babbling nervously can seem awfully pushy.

There were a number of thing we talked about. One of the most important was emphasizing how many people came together to help produce the exhibition (we have a volunteer list of over 90 people). From a political point of view, however, the very clear message was how far we have come in a very short time. Wandering to the center of the exhibit, Ms. Miller’s eyes lit on a large police record book dating from 1960. Two of the crimes recorded in there were incidents of buggery. A copy of the 1967 act abolishing buggery as a crime sat in the display case next to it. Now here was the Minister in charge of a bill allowing gay people to get married. It was pure history.

Inevitably there’s a case of how far we’ve got, and how far we still have to go. I couldn’t resist a mention of a certain notorious newspaper column, and got what I’m pretty sure was a look of sympathy in response.

I can’t remember much of what was said, and of course any successful politician has the skill of making people feel listened to and valued. Nevertheless, I came away with the impression that Ms. Miller genuinely supportive of what we were doing. She did specifically say that she’d been moved to tears by one of the speeches on the marriage equality bill. From our point of view, I hope she went away knowing how much that bill (and other legal recognition such as the Gender Recognition Act) means to us.

And hey, when I took the plunge and decided to transition all those years ago it was still the case that trans people were treated as social pariahs. Had you told me then that one day I’d be shaking hands with and chatting to a Secretary of State I would have laughed at you. Trans people have come a long way.

Germany Recognizes Intersex

Some very interesting news came in my email this morning. The Bundestag has passed a law that allows for the gender of newborn babies to be left indeterminate, effectively creating a third gender. However, this was swiftly followed by concerned emails citing the unhappiness of German intersex activists with the new law. They have issued a press release. I don’t read German at all, but I’ve run the text through Google Translate and this is what I think it says:

  • The law does not provide a choice, it makes registration as intersex a requirement in certain conditions.
  • The parents will have no say, it will be up to doctors to determine if the baby is intersex.
  • Even if the baby qualifies, doctors may be reluctant to use the new category because of the social stigma they fear would result for the family.
  • The majority of intersex people won’t qualify, and therefore can’t benefit from the law

These are all reasonable points. It would have been much more sensible to allow parents, and eventually the intersex individuals themselves, a say in the decision. And, as with other forms of social stigma, passing laws alone can’t fix the problem. Intersex rights still have a very long way to go, and in many ways the recent UN decision to condemn “normalization” surgery is more important, but this is a very interesting development, especially as the British Parliament is currently debating gender issues.

Talking of which, a number of trans-friendly amendments to the marriage equality bill were submitted today. Zoe O’Connell has an explanation.

If anyone out there reads German and has corrections to my understanding of the press release, please let me know.

A Mention in Parliament

Today the House of Commons was debating the second reading of the putative marriage equality bill. As usual with Parliament, a lot of hot air was spouted. However, a significant number of British MPs are openly gay. Many of them made strong, emotional speeches. One of them is Stephen Williams, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West. He opened his remarks by noting that on Saturday he had attended the opening of an exhibition about LGBT lives at a local museum. That was this exhibition launch, at which I made a speech. Of course I didn’t get quoted in Parliament, but I still got a tremendous buzz out of this, and I’m very happy for my gay and lesbian friends at Out Stories Bristol who must be delighted to have heard their hard work recognized in this way.

Update: You can read the speech here.

By the way, I say “putative” marriage equality because the bill is very badly drafted and, as several speakers pointed out, is more a “creation of a new and different type of marriage” bill than a “marriage equality” bill. However, the bill will now go to a committee stage where some of the defects will hopefully be ironed out. In particular I hope that something will be done for heterosexual couples who want civil partnerships, and for trans people whose marriages were stolen from them by the Gender Recognition Act.

Missing The Point

Well, yesterday was “interesting”, and might have been more productively spent. The outpouring of support for trans people, however, was amazingly heartwarming. More people spent more time defending the rights of trans people than I think they did in the whole of the past year. I haven’t seen that much support since the My Transsexual Summer TV series. And indeed I’d like to publicly thank the MTS7 for putting themselves out there so bravely and educating people. Had they not done so, I am sure that Julie Burchill would have got much more support.

Inevitably some of the commentary missed the point. I’ve seen people saying what a horrible person Julie Burchill is, and others saying that we should ignore the whole things because it is only Julie Burchill doing what she always does. This is true. Burchill has been busily offending people for as long as she has been a journalist, but it is also not particularly important. What matters is that staff at the Observer saw fit to publish her rant. I see that they have now removed the evidence, which conveniently also removes all of the comments complaining about the piece.

There has been some right of reply. The Guardian commissioned Roz Kaveney to pen something, and she’s been brilliant as ever. Laurie Penny also has something in the works (after having insisted that an actual trans person get the first right of reply). Brooke Magnanti has a nice piece in the Telegraph pointing out that sex workers get the same sort of treatment from Burchill, Bindel, et al. And the New Statesman is running an entire week of trans-related stories. However, neither Roz nor Laurie’s piece will appear in print editions (Burchill’s did), and I imagine that by next Sunday the Observer will be assuming that everyone has forgotten about the story.

Elsewhere some of the “support” has been a little less than helpful. We’ve had the usual outrage trolls searching Twitter for people who are being supportive but can be attacked for doing it in the wrong way, or who can be misinterpreted as supporting Burchill. And we’ve had the finger waggers lecturing at length on what people are allowed to say. Last night I saw a cis woman telling her readers that “transsexual” was a bad word and that we are not to use it. I guess she got that from some ardent transgender activist. I’ve also seen a supportive cis person being told off on the grounds that she has no right to speak on behalf of trans people. This sort of thing is not helpful. Last night I was in danger of having my own Suzanne Moore moment, so I gave up and went to bed with a book.

Which brings me back to the other area where people are missing the point. There’s no question that some people were extremely mean to Suzanne Moore on Twitter. Some of them were undoubtedly trans people. Others were cis people. Probably some of them had PhDs in gender theory. I say this because I’ve been told off for “doing trans wrong” by such people before. But in the telling this story has become one of Moore being attacked solely by trans people as a monolithic whole (or the “trans cabal” as Julie Bindel would have it); then her and Burchill responding by attacking all trans people (which they inevitably caricature as comprising only trans women). As ever, when large numbers of people are involved, it is easier to demonize a group as a whole, rather than respond to the actual people behaving badly. It makes a simpler, and therefore better, story. As a result, even though we got all that support, the dominant media narrative is quickly becoming one of trans people as a unified and vicious group of social media harpies. As we have no influence on the media, we can’t do much to challenge that.

I worry about where we go from here. On the one hand it is good that the message is occasionally getting out. On the other I’m sure that the campaign to shut down all health care for trans people will continue, and that more articles like David Batty’s will appear. In the meantime, someone has to try to turn things around. Firstly we need evidence. Things that can’t be dismissed as the “alleged” complaints of deranged people. One of Christine Burns’ colleagues has produced this helpful blog post detailing how GPs in the North West of England responded to attempts to find out how trans patients are being served, and to provide trans awareness posters for waiting rooms. It includes such gems as, “Another refused to use the poster on the grounds that ‘women and children come in here'” and “There aren’t many around here in Cumbria because they’d stick out like a sore thumb”.

Meanwhile I spent the morning talking to a friend who has done Equality & Diversity training for the NHS in Somerset about how we might continue to offer such training throughout the South West. And I’ll be doing a slot on ShoutOut about TransDocFail on Thursday evening. I also need to get on with running my various businesses.

By Their Words Shall Ye Know Them

It is not often that I will post a link to a British tabloid newspaper, but today the Daily Mirror ran an article about what it called the “Ugly Face of UKIP”. For US readers, UKIP is a right wing minority party previously best known for its hatred of the European Union which is now trying to rebrand itself as Libertarian. Last week they sacked the leader of their youth wing because he supports marriage equality. Nevertheless they try to claim respectability. So someone (presumably an insider) leaked a few choice comments from UKIP’s internal web forums. Here are some extracts from the article:

On the forum, senior UKIP member Dr Julia Gasper branded gay rights a “lunatic’s charter” and claimed some homosexuals prefer sex with animals. She added: “As for the links between homosexuality and paedophilia, there is so much evidence that even a full-length book could hardly do justice to the ­subject.”

and:

Another member complained about the impact of immigration on the NHS, writing: “I am informed by past media that Black Caribbean and not Black African have a higher instance of schizophrenia.

“I wonder if this is due to inbreeding on these small islands in slave times or is it due to ­smoking grass.”

which pretty much confirms my opinion of the sort of people who join UKIP.

Meanwhile, over at the Observer, Julie Buchill takes up arms on behalf of Suzanne Moore, managing to produce one of those rare articles in which the comment thread is far more civilized than the main text. You probably don’t want to read the whole thing as it is one long exercise in ignorant stereotyping and throwing insults. The final paragraph will do:

Shims, shemales, whatever you’re calling yourselves these days – don’t threaten or bully us lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we’ve experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You really won’t like us when we’re angry.

A lot of people are asking how such mindless, frothing hatred can be published in the Observer (the Sunday edition of the Guardian). Sadly it doesn’t surprise me. The fact that Guardian staff are willing to publish such rot goes a long way towards explaining why they are willing to publish the far more dangerous clever lies of people like David Batty. Burchill represents the reality of what many Guardian staff and their friends think about trans people.

I’ve also seem people saying, “I bet they wouldn’t have published that if it had been about [some other minority group]”. But an Afro-Caribbean friend of mine challenged this, claiming that his people too get this treatment and, just like trans folks, get accused of political correctness if they complain. Here’s Burchill, from the same piece:

The reaction of the trans lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing them enough “respect”.

I wonder which sort of people she’s stereotyping there.

The one thing that has cheered me about the whole affair is the number of cis people who have expressed their horror at Burchill’s article. Many of them have been people from the science fiction community (who I guess also know a bit about being stereotyped in the press). One of the best pieces was this one on LGBT.co.uk. It is by Jane Carnall. I don’t know how many trans people she knows, but I’m one of them. I once seconded a motion that she put before the WSFS Business Meeting. Small world.

By the way, if any of you feel like making a complaint about Burchill, the Press Complaints Commission website is here. However, a quick scan of the comment thread on the article suggests that the PCC regards “comment pieces” as outside of their purview, and will therefore ignore any complaints. Self-regulation my arse.

Update: The Independent is cheekily running a poll to gauge reactions to Burchill’s article. You can vote here. I see that the trans cabal have been deploying their PhDs to good effect, as someone must have hacked the poll to have it running 9:1 against poor Julie.

Update 2: Have corrected spelling of Burchill’s name. Sorry folks. Tired and emotional today.

Porkies From The Pulpit

Christmas is a time when those in power feel the need to make Statements, and that’s especially the case, of course, for Christian clergy. So yesterday the Archbishop of Westminster, Britain’s most senior Catholic, took it upon himself to denounce same-sex marriage. The Archbishop claims that the current proposals are undemocratic as they were not in any major party’s manifesto, but actually same-sex marriage has been official Liberal policy for sometime, and apparently all three party leaders expressed their support for it during the election campaign. He also claimed that in a “period of listening” people were 7:1 against same-sex marriage. I’m not sure who he was listening too — possibly his fellow Catholic bishops — but in the official government consultation respondents were 53% in favor. I wasn’t aware that telling porkies from the pulpit was a new Christian virtue, let alone one that should be paraded so publicly at Christmas.

It isn’t clear how many people actually pay attention to what Catholic bishops have to say. I found a report from 2010 that said there were around 4 million Catholics in Britain. How many of those attend church regularly as opposed to simply stating their religion as Catholic is uncertain. The last census found that 59% of the population identified as Christian, but this Christian website says that only 15% of the population attends church regularly. If that applies equally over all Christian denominations then only around 1 million Britons are regular, church-going Catholics.

In contrast, on Christmas Day some 7.59 million people watched the latest episode of Doctor Who. In it our hero is assisted by two detectives who are in a cross-species lesbian marriage, and an alien who has no concept of gender.

As I’m sure you are aware, the legions of Doctor Who fans include some people who are committed Christians. I know of one who is a Catholic priest.

It occurs to me that some people are hiding from the real world in an escapist fantasy, while most of us are content to watch popular television shows.

Sympathy For The Devil

Over at The Independent they have been looking at the results of the recent UK census, in particular the religion data. It appears that the largest concentration of Satanists in the UK can be found in Bristol. There’s a claim to fame.

Of course it isn’t much of a concentration: 34 people out of a national total of 1,893. That’s less than 2%. But at least there are enough of them to have a decent Black Mass, and now our local writers have an excuse to go all Dennis Wheatley for a while.

Personally I would have expected most of the Satanists to be in London. After all, Satanism is very much a “what’s in it for me” religion. It is the sort of thing that ought to appeal to investment bankers, commodity traders and politicians. But maybe they all registered their address as their country homes when completing the census, or perhaps they refused to waste time filling it in if they didn’t get paid for doing so.

In other news, the UK’s population of Jedi Knights has dropped from around 330,000 in 2001 to only 176,500 in 2011. Clearly Yoda needs to come out against same-sex marriage or something to get his religion some more column inches.

C of E Pleads Not Guilty

I had a chat to Paul Cornell over a beer on Wednesday night after his signing in Bath. One of he things he said was how surprised he and Caroline had been by the government’s plans to make it illegal for the CofE to conduct same-sex marriages. Well it turns out he’s not the only one. Yesterday the Bishop of Leicester told MPs that no one in the Church had been consulted. His statement was later confirmed by the Church’s press office. In her statement to Parliament when the bill was introduced, the Culture Secretary & Equalities Minister, Maria Miller, implied that the provision had been added at the request of the Church. Curiouser and curiouser.

Over the years I have developed a tendency not to believe statements by governments and large organizations where public embarrassments are concerned. Goodness only knows what really happened. Possibly the government only spoke to selected right-wing bishops who are now keeping quiet about their part in the process. Possibly the CofE has seen all of the bad press it has been getting and is doing a u-turn. Or possibly the government was more concerned with placating their own back-benchers and tried to shift the blame on the Church. It is all very mysterious. Whatever the explanation, hopefully this will be valuable ammunition for Caroline, Paul and their allies within the CofE.

Marriage: L&G But Not Equal

The UK government’s marriage equality legislation got its first airing in the Commons today. Here’s a brief overview.

If you are gay or lesbian and not Church of England you’ll be pretty happy.

Sorry, Church of England people, yours is the one religion in the country that will be banned from performing same-sex marriages. Most people can, of course defect to another branch of Christianity, but this is really rough on C of E clergy who want to minister to L & G people.

It is possible that straight couples where one decides to transition will now be able to keep their marriages. However, I understand that Northern Ireland is holding out against this and as yet the government isn’t willing to go forward without them.

And of course straight couples still can’t have a civil partnership, even if they want one. That means that a gay or lesbian couple with a civil partnership where one decides to transition will have to convert to a marriage in order to avoid having to dissolve their relationship.

It would be so much easier if a) the government didn’t have to appease the bishops, and b) we didn’t have Stonewall continually whispering in the government’s ear, “hey, we know what will appease them, why not screw over the trannies again, no one cares about them.”

Update: The Scottish government has published its marriage equality bill. You can find it here. There is lengthy and respectful discussion of the issues affecting trans people. It makes it clear that the problem with the divorce requirement is that the Gender Recognition Act is a UK-wide piece of legislation and, with Northern Ireland holding out firmly against same-sex marriage, any changes need to be agreed nation-wide.

Why We Need Leveson

This morning’s Sunday Malice contains a report quoting leading human rights activist, Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, as saying that she believed that the proposals in the Leveson report are contrary to the Human Rights Act and would be illegal to implement. I’m not going to link to the Malice, but the BBC takes up the story here. They’ve substantially re-written their story since this morning, but have kept the shock headline that implementing Leveson would be “illegal”.

The official Liberty position is explained here. Far from being a an attack on Leveson, their comments refer only to a fairly minor point of the report, and indeed were included in it as a footnote.

The Malice has apparently agreed to print an apology, but they won’t do so until next Sunday (the original report was carefully reserved for their Sunday edition which they regard as a separate publication). In the meantime they hope that a large proportion of the public will be soaking up their deliberate distortion of Liberty’s position and will be deterred from supporting action. When the apology does come, it will doubtless be in tiny print at the bottom of an inside page. Other news services that have repeated the Malice story will probably never issue a correction.

Now imagine that this story was not a lie about Liberty and Ms. Chakrabarti, but a lie about you. And because you are a private citizen, without spending a fortune on lawyers you would not even be able to secure an apology. It is, of course, much more likely to happen to me, because I’m a member of a minority group that the Malice has a track record of persecuting. But it could happen to anyone. This is why we need action.

Anticipating probable objections, I quote from the Liberty statement:

Leveson does not recommend compulsory statutory regulation of the press and Liberty believes that he is right not to do so.

I agree with them. The most important things we need are to provide private citizens with a cheap and accessible means of making complaints about incorrect media coverage, and a body independent of both press and politicians to adjudicate such complaints.

There is a petition demanding that the government take action on Leveson here.

Leveson, Briefly

I suspect that most people in the UK are sick to death of coverage of the Leveson Inquiry today. And that’s probably what the media wants. Luckily for you, I don’t have anything to add to the TransMediaWatch press release. You can read the whole thing here (PDF). Here’s the highlight.

In his Report, Lord Justice Leveson refers to TMW’s submissions as evidence of “disturbing and intrusive reporting,” going on to say that “it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect… parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code.”

Because there’s nothing that sells papers like finding some disadvantaged minority group and pillorying them. Trans people are by no means the only victims.