Gentle readers, I present Ms. Laverne Cox, who is awesome.
I love the idea of a “possibility model”.
Gender
New Podcast Channel
Because the podcasts I do about gender issues are likely to have well short of 100% overlap in audience with my SF&F podcasts, I have decided to create a separate podcast channel for them. It is called Neither Simple Nor Binary, because it is about gender, which isn’t either of those things.
The first podcast I have put up there is the interview with Jools from yesterday’s Ujima show. I do also have a recording of a short talk I gave about Michael Dillon at the Out Stories Bristol launch in Yate on Monday, which I’ll put up when I can. And if all goes well next week I will come back from Brighton, not only with a recording of my own talk, but an interview with some of the cast of My Transsexual Summer. Fox and Lewis are in the same session of the conference as I am, and I’m hoping that Sarah will be around at some point during the day.
Ujima: Raising a Trans Child
As promised, here is my final interview from today’s Women’s Outlook Show. It features a lady I will name only as Jools. She is the mother of a trans child, and she kindly came into the studio to tell me about her experiences in that very difficult role. It wasn’t an easy interview for either of us: Jools because of the pain that her family had gone through, and me because it inevitably brought back memories of my personal journey.
There are a few things I should note before presenting the interview. The first is that the whole thing is solely from the point of view of a male-to-female transsexual. That reflects the experience of Jools’ daughter, and of myself. It does not necessarily reflect the experiences of a trans man, or of someone who identifies more as genderqueer and neither needs nor desires medical transition. I apologize for these omissions, but Jools had come in to tell her story, and that of her daughter, and I did not want to spend her valuable air time on explanations of the varied nature of other trans experiences, equally valid though they are.
Probably, along the way, we may have been slightly clumsy in our language and phrased things in ways that could have been better. Live radio is like that. I haven’t had enough practice to be perfect every time, and most guests have no chance of being so.
Finally, a trigger warning for trans people thinking of listening. The interview does contain mention of two separate suicide attempts. If hearing about such things will upset you, please don’t listen.
This podcast is now available from my new, gender-related podcast channel, Neither Simple Nor Binary.
Clarification From Yesterday
It appears that some people who read my post yesterday think I am accusing Paul Cornell of being transphobic. That’s what happens when I’m so angry that I write posts dripping in sarcasm rather than something plain and simple. Let’s see if we can get this clear.
From what I saw of the Hugo ceremony on UStream, including the bits about the Campbell Award being in denial about its desire to live as a Hugo, I did not think anything Paul said was transphobic.
Someone else did, and said so very loudly. He also thought that Paul was homophobic, SMOFphobic and probably a few other things as well.
I happen to know that the poster is an older cis male, but he wrote under a handle and some cis people were unwilling to counter the accusation because how would they know what a presumed trans person felt?
And, of course, humor is subjective. If a trans person had been offended by Paul’s jokes, we’d have a duty to listen as to why.
In this case, however, we don’t, at least not that I know of. Because cis men do not get to define what is transphobic and what isn’t. If an actual trans person has come forward and made a complaint, that’s different.
The main problem with such accusations is that stories can very quickly morph from “someone said something transphobic at the Hugos” to “Worldcon is institutionally transphobic and it isn’t safe for trans people to go there”. Because there are people who would delight in spreading that idea. So let me again talk from personal experience.
I’ve been involved in fandom for a long time, and my first Worldcon was in 1995 when I was just starting to transition. I have kept going back. I know lots of other trans people in fandom. I can’t speak for them, but the reason I am there is, in part, because I find fandom far more accepting of trans people than the general population. I should add that Paul is a good friend, and very supportive of me and of other trans people. He and Caroline have done their bit to argue the cause of trans people within the Church of England.
I note again that this is personal experience. It hasn’t been perfect. I remember one particularly obnoxious person at a con in Australia, and a few issues at WisCon (where gender issues are inevitably fraught). Other people may have had bad experiences. But if bad experiences were the norm I think I would have heard about it, and so would Roz Kaveney, who would not have been quiet about it.
Edited Out
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on the Section 28 issue, here’s Natacha explaining how references to gender identity, that were included in the draft of the National Curriculum, were deliberately edited out by civil servants at the Department for Education. I don’t see how that is anything other that deliberate discrimination by the bureaucrats involved.
I note also that while sexuality is generally not an issue for children until they are older, gender identity is often a significant problem for kids before they even get to school. Having government enshrine discrimination against gender variant children in school policy is deeply disturbing.
Update: Someone has started a petition. Sadly past experience has shown that the general public doesn’t have any interest in trans rights, so I’ll be surprised if it gets more than 1,000 signatures.
Trans Pride: The Movie
Fox and Lewis have produced a My Genderation film of the recent Trans Pride in Brighton. I embed it below so you can get a sense of the occasion. I have checked it through and if I am in it then it is only as part of the crowd in the background, so you should be able to watch it without making a sanity check.
Your Newspapers At Work
Some of you may remember that the coroner who dealt with the Lucy Meadows case was somewhat scathing about how Lucy was treated by the press in the weeks leading up to her suicide. Well it turns out that some journalists had the cheek to issue a complaint about his words. I guess they think they were being unfairly pilloried. You know, due to being white, straight, cis and probably male. And now they are reporting that the poor coroner has been formally reprimanded for his awful behavior towards them. I’ll link to Gay Star News, because they are simply reporting what other papers are saying.
Naturally the good folks at Trans Media Watch were a little concerned about this. Could it really be the case that mercilessly hounding a trans person, day and night, is perfectly OK, but saying that this sort of treatment of a private individual is outrageous is not? What sort of strange world do we live in? So they made official approaches, and posted two new tweets.
We've just received clarification from the Office of Judicial Complaints on the matter of coroner Michael Singleton…
— Trans Media Watch (@TransMediaWatch) August 2, 2013
Contrary to what some newspapers have said, no formal rebuke was made and the complaint was dismissed. The matter was dealt with informally.
— Trans Media Watch (@TransMediaWatch) August 2, 2013
So the story about an official complaint having been made and upheld is, in fact, a barefaced lie. Why am I not surprised?
The Trans Pride Report
The podcast of last night’s Shout Out show is now available for download via their Listen Again feature. That will scroll down the page with time, but there’s a direct link to the podcast here. I manage to get name checked throughout the show, but the actual report starts at around 27 minutes in. It includes interviews with Fox and Sarah from My Transsexual Summer, and with CN Lester. All of the websites mentioned during the report are linked from the show notes.
Well, That’s Us Put In Our Place
The Trans Pride event in Brighton over the weekend had the full support of the City Council and Sussex Police. Representatives of the Greens, Conservatives and Labour Party were on hand to give speeches, and the Police had a stall at the event. So naturally the local media covered the event. But The Argus couldn’t resist sending a message about just what they thought of such an event. So they reported it as a footnote to an article about a dog show.
So now we know. Trans people are not just less than human. They are below dogs in the pecking order as well.
Sarah has written them a letter.
Update: The Argus has posted an apology and proper report on their website. Well done all round.
A Pride of Our Own
I spent most of today in Brighton attending their Trans Pride festival. They have billed it as the first ever such event in the UK, though I understand that Manchester regards the long-running Sparkle event as a Pride in all but name. Whatever the situation with bragging rights, however, this was an enormous achievement. As you can see from the photo (thank you, Sharon Offield-Munnings), there was a great crowd, and the sun stayed out for much of the day.
The event started last night with some films, which I did not attend as I had restaurant reviewing to do. I gather that around 100 people attended, and that blew people’s minds. Sarah Savage (one of the stars of My Transsexual Summer), who was on the organizing committee for the Pride, said that when they started out they figured that if they got 50 people attending the main day then they would be happy. Fox just tweeted that the footfall at the event today was 1531. Given that it is a free event, attendance-counting is difficult. That number will have double-counted some people who came in, left to get food, and came back again. Even so, attendance surpassed everyone’s wildest dreams.
While many of the attendees were fairly obviously trans, others were not so. The event took place in Kemptown, Brighton’s gay quarter, and a number of gay and lesbian couples could be seen checking out the stalls. Of course some of those might be trans-identified. A few younger trans folk had come with their parents. A special shout out is due to Tara and her friend who had come all the way from Newcastle to support the event. I even spotted what looked suspiciously like a small hen night party who had presumably come in because there was somewhere to relax with good music.
The stalls, somewhat sadly but inevitably, were mainly from organizations that dealt with providing support, domestic abuse, AIDS prevention and so on. I was very impressed with the Just like You campaign which is trying to do something about the horrendous death toll amongst trans women in Latin America. Please take a look at their website and sign the petition.
The opening ceremonies were well supported by local politicians, including, much to my astonishment, a rousing speech in favour of trans rights by a Conservative councilor. Labour and the Green Party were also represented, but not the LibDems. Perhaps they don’t have any councilors in Brighton.
Throughout the day various trans artists performed on the main stage. I was impressed with Wild, a folk singer, and Hel Gurney, a performance poet. Roz, sadly, wasn’t there, but CN Lester and Bethany Black were. Unfortunately, because I had to get back home for an SFSFC board meeting, I missed their sets. I did get to hang out with CN, which was great, and Beth tweeted that someone reported her act to the police, which probably made her very happy.
The one glaring absence from the event was high profile trans activists/celebrities. Sarah and Fox were then, of course, as was Karen Gale, though I didn’t see her. But neither Press for Change nor Trans Media Watch had a presence at the event. I know that there is a limit to how much travel people can do, but I would have thought that this was an event worth supporting.
Next year, then. Because I am sure that there will be a next year. This one, after all, was very successful, and the people of Brighton clearly backed it. Next year will be bigger. Next year will be better. And following on from this I hope to see Trans Pride events in other cities around the country. Brighton has proved that it can be done, and if we do want a Pride that highlights our own issues then we have to organize it ourselves. No one else is going to do it for us.
LGBT Rights – The EU Survey
Conveniently timed for Trans Pride, the EU has released the results of a major survey of the lives of LGBT people in member countries and Croatia (which was not a member when the survey was undertaken). I haven’t had a chance to read the full document yet (you can download it free here), but I have had a browse through their interactive data map here. Some of the data is quite interesting.
One thing you can try is looking at the results produced by the trans-related questions when answered by all respondents as compared to responses from self-identified trans people. For example, in answer to the question, “In your opinion, how widespread are positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of transgender people in the country where you live?” the total survey puts The Netherlands and Sweden on top, but if you look just at trans people then Belgium and Spain come out the most transphobic.
The question, “In your opinion, in the country where you live, how widespread is discrimination because a person is Transgender?” puts Croatia top of the list, which rather surprised, me. But again if you ask only trans people then numbers are different. Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania are apparently the worst places. (The survey took place before all of the unpleasantness in Greece started.)
This, however, is still a question about the perception of discrimination. When the survey asked, “In the last 12 months, in the country where you live, have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed because of being perceived as Transgender?” the top country was (…drumroll…) The United Kingdom.
Oh dear.
That Was The (LGb) Pride That Was
As you doubtless know, I spent last Saturday at Bristol Pride. For the most part it was an absolute blast. The weather was great (at least for exiled California girls), and it was wonderful to see so many people of all genders and sexualities out enjoying the fun. I got to do the BCFM Sports Show, and spend much of the day in the Shout Out field studio, which was one of the best places in the park to see all of the action on the main stage.
Having said that, however, I still came away from the event with a sense of unease, and I’ve been trying to work through that and find out what it was all about. The explanation I have come up with is that Pride isn’t political any more.
Now of course I need to explain exactly what I mean by that. Mostly when people complain about Pride not being political they are complaining that it is no longer anti-establishment, and specifically no longer anti-capitalist. While I have some sympathy with that view I think it is inevitable that, as a wide spectrum of sexualities becomes more acceptable in mainstream society, broad political activism is bound to wane. Gays and lesbians are no longer considered to be outsiders, and some of them are quite wealthy. Heck, this year Bristol had a VIP tent where rich people could enjoy Pride in comfort.
I should also note that politics wasn’t absent from the event. Lots of politicians were there to celebrate alongside us, including the Elected Mayor, George Ferguson; the Lord Mayor, Faruk Choudhury; the (gay) Deputy Lord Mayor, Peter Main; the (gay) head of South Gloucestershire Council, Ian Boulton; and the two city centre MPs, Stephen Williams (gay) and Kerry McCarthy. All of them were, of course, very happy about the impending passage of the marriage equality bill into law. That duly happened this week. There was definitely a sense of victory in the air.
Victory, however, means that the battle for QUITBAG rights is over. Many gay and lesbian people probably assume that it is. And yet the marriage bill, as it turned out, was not a “marriage equality†bill; it was a “different but equal same-sex marriage†bill. During the campaign, most QUILTBAG activists tried to refer to it as a “marriage equality†bill, but the government and the media steadfastly insisted on referring to it as a “same-sex marriage†bill, because equality was something they really didn’t want.
For most practical purposes, of course, same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages are equal. Where they are not, it mostly affects people who are outside the gender binary. And there’s the rub. Because while the fight for rights for G and L people may be almost over, for Trans people it is still very much in progress, and for others such as Intersex folks it has barely begun.
This is what I mean by Pride no longer being political. There is an assumption that we have won. We don’t have to protest any more. Indeed, having anyone else complaining that their own rights haven’t yet been granted is seen as “raining on the paradeâ€. Trans people were certainly welcome at Bristol Pride. They weren’t shut out the way that they were in Toronto, for example. The organisers certainly tried to provide trans-specific events, and it isn’t their fault that many trans people are still terrified of being out. But the impression I got from Saturday was that trans people were only fully welcome if they were happy, celebrating Trans people.
There is, of course, an argument to be made that gay rights have been won, not because gays are seen as angry political protestors who need to be accommodated, but because gays and lesbians are seen as people “just like us†who happen to have better parties. The general public doesn’t much like angry complaining people. It likes happy, dancing people who are all about love and happiness.
Possibly trans people need to be happier too. There is, perhaps, a suggestion of a start of this in the “Untragic Trans†panel that was held at this year’s WisCon and is available as an Outer Alliance podcast. Initially that panel made me very angry, because tragic trans people are certainly not a myth. It is great that so many people are making a success of transition these days, but to do so you need a combination of privileges in wealth, social class, geographic location, race and so on. While trans women are still being murdered at a rate of around 5 a week worldwide no one should be claiming that transition is easy and risk free. But as the panel went on the panelists made it clear that they were aware of this. What they wanted to do was provide positive role models to counteract the negative ones. That’s a worthwhile project.
So yes, we need images of happy, successful trans people to present to the general public. Bristol Pride certainly provided that. The younger attendees, in particular, seemed very willing to experiment with gender and sexuality. Given how far we have come in two decades, it may well be that we are only a generation or two away from a society that accepts gender diversity as much as it now accepts diversity of sexuality. On the other hand, it isn’t there right now.
That’s my problem. I’m very happy to celebrate the victory that the marriage legislation represents. I’m absolutely delighted for all of the lesbian and gay friends I have who are now able to marry. But I can’t enjoy a supposedly LGBT event that is all about celebration of victory when my own civil rights are being systematically stripped away. Make it an LG, or LGB, event and I’ll be very happy, but I can’t join in something that purports to be an LGBT celebration if all mention of what is being done to trans people is omitted because it would spoil the party atmosphere.
What I expect will need to happen is that independent Trans Pride organizations will spring up, running their own events which are still very much about political protest as well as having a good time. Indeed, there is one such event happening in Brighton at the end of the month, and I intend to be there. Manchester’s Sparkle event has, of course, been happening for years, but it conflicted with Bristol Pride this year. Next year, if the same conflict of dates happens, I might go to Manchester instead. Or I might just stay home.
By the way, if you are interested in an update on what the marriage legislation has done to Trans people, Sarah Brown has an excellent and in depth explanation.
Hooray For Sailor Moon
Kevin has been telling me for a long time that the later series of Sailor Moon were extravagantly queer. I was impressed. Little did I know that he was under-selling them. If you want to know more, and what American television did to strip out all of the queer content, go here.
UK Government: Transphobic or Homophobic?
One of the questions that has been exercising my mind over the past few weeks is where the virulent hatred of trans people being exhibited by various branches of the UK government comes from. Because unless you understand the problem, you are not going to be able to find a solution.
At first sight this seems to be a clear case of transphobia. The singling out of trans people for special discrimination in the Equality Act, the Same-Sex Marriage Bill and the recent court decision about “obtaining sex by deception†all seem to point to a deep-seated dislike of trans people similar to that expressed by some radical feminists.
However, when you look deeper, things are not so simple. Transphobia generally comes about because people are unable to accept trans people in their preferred gender (whatever that might be). For people like Julie Bindel, trans women are all “really menâ€. (For most trans-hating feminists, trans men either don’t exist or are also “really menâ€, but I’m not sure what line Bindel takes on that these days.) If you are a radical lesbian separatist, clearly you don’t want to associate with anyone that you believe to be a man, so you don’t accept trans women into your community if you believe them to be men. That last step is logical, even if the rest of it is very confused.
This can’t be the case with government or the courts, neither of which are run by radical lesbian separatists. Their reasons for disliking trans people may stem from the same failure of acceptance, but it cannot be based on a desire to distance themselves from men. Some other prejudice must be at work.
In the case of the courts, the issue is pretty clearly one of sexuality. That is, if a man has sex with a trans woman, but believes her to be “really†a man, then he must be having gay sex. Even if he finds the girl really hot, his mates are going to tease him for being “gayâ€. We know this is the case. It comes up time and time again in murder cases.
The court decision, therefore, is not one about obtaining sex by “deceptionâ€, it is about obtaining gay sex by “deceptionâ€. The accusation is that, by having sex with a man, a trans woman tricks him into a homosexual encounter, which he is entitled to find repugnant.
What about marriage? As you may remember, a key discriminatory aspect of the Gender Recognition Act was that, in order to obtain legal recognition in their new gender, trans people could not be married. If they were married, it was not sufficient to divorce, the marriage had to be annulled. Annulment means not just that the marriage is dissolved, but that it never existed in the first place.
The reason the government gave for this at the time was that if this was not done it would create a legal same-sex marriage, and that would cause the sky to fall and the world to end.
Less than a decade later, Parliament is discussing a same-sex marriage bill. Note that it is not a “marriage equality†bill, and indeed both government ministers and the BBC insist on referring to it as “gay marriageâ€, despite the expressed desire of most campaigners for “marriage equalityâ€. That difference in nomenclature is telling.
To start with, same-sex marriages are not seen as equal to opposite-sex marriages, because the Church of England has been banned from conducting them. In addition, the legislation is deeply discriminatory towards trans people. Particular ire has been aroused by a provision knows as the “spousal vetoâ€.
Because same-sex marriages will soon be legal, it would obviously be unfair to force a couple to divorce when one of them transitions. However, there is a provision in the Bill regarding Gender Recognition Certificates. It is perfectly OK for a married trans person to transition socially, take medication, and even undergo surgery. However, if that trans person wants legal recognition of their gender, they must obtain their spouse’s permission.
Now you may think that if a spouse doesn’t want you to obtain legal recognition in your new gender then they would probably want a divorce anyway. However, things don’t always go smoothly. If a spouse is unhappy about a transition, one of the things they may do is refuse to recognise it. You see this with parents as well. People continue to insist that their son or daughter is still a son or daughter, not a daughter, son or otherly-gendered person. (Remember what Wanda’s parents did to her in Neil Gaiman’s A Game of You?). In a relationship that has broken down badly, it is quite possible that the trans person’s spouse will refuse a divorce, and refuse permission for gender recognition. Sorting this out could take years.
In an effort to offer an olive branch, trans activists worked with some sympathetic peers to craft an amendment that would limit the effect of the spousal veto to just one year. Surely if, after that time, agreement could not be reached, the trans person should be allowed to get on with his or her life (legal gender recognition is only allowed within the binary in the UK)? This was put forward in the recent debate on the marriage bill in the House of Lords. The government adamantly refused to accept it. They insisted that it was necessary for the spousal veto to last indefinitely if that was what the spouse wanted.
What is going on here? Why annulment rather than divorce? Why the indefinite spousal veto? The only explanation that makes sense to me involves the nature of legal gender recognition. You see, when you get your Gender Recognition Certificate, the effect is back-dated. As I have said before, I now have a birth certificate stating that I was born female, and have always been female. That makes me happy, but it has implications.
The problem is that if gender recognition is back-dated, and the trans person has been married, then that marriage automatically becomes same-sex rather than opposite-sex. And, as far as the government and their civil service advisors are concerned, this would be a disaster for the other partner in the marriage. You thought you had an opposite-sex marriage, and suddenly you found that you had a same-sex one. OMG! The sky will fall and the world will end.
This makes the marriage situation exactly analogous to the “sex by deception†one. In both cases the extreme levels of discrimination being levelled at trans people are not a result of abhorrence of gender changes per se, but as a result of a deep-seated horror of being “tricked†into a same-sex relationship.
I can’t see the LG activist community getting overly concerned about this. They are all busily celebrating the likely passage of the marriage bill and don’t want anything to rain on their parade. Besides, many of them are just as bad as Bindel when it comes to attitudes towards trans people. But they should be concerned. The UK is not getting equal marriage (not even in Scotland, where the same nonsense about spousal vetoes is being introduced to their bill); it is getting different marriage, and it is getting it from a government that is still consumed with horror at the thought of same-sex relationships. As far as the government is concerned, being gay is now OK between consenting adults, but if one partner does not consent in any way then the sky will still fall and the world will still end. This is not victory, it is just a step along the way.
UK Writes Trans Panic Into Law
As most people are doubtless aware, trans people (mostly trans women) are murdered at a ridiculous rate. The sort of execution-style killings you see in parts of Latin America are presumably the work of religious fanatics, but very many of these killings are sex-related, and often the perp, if caught, tries to get off by using something called the “trans panic defenceâ€.
It goes like this. The perp says he had sex with what he thought was a really hot chick, but then he discovered that “she†was “really a manâ€, and he was so upset by this that he was driven into a violent rage. I suspect that in most cases the upset is caused by him stopping thinking with his dick and instead thinking about what his mates will say if they find out what he has done, but that’s by-the-by. The important point is that often this is sufficient to get the guy let off.
In the UK we like to pretend that we are more civilized than other parts of the world. We don’t go around killing people just because they are trans. But we do absolutely sympathize with unfortunate people in such situations. I mean, having sex with a tr*nny? Eeeeuuuwwww!
Now, however, you don’t have to go through all of that messy murdering stuff, you can just go to court and have the disgusting freak put away for a few years, and can rely on the lower class persons found in prison to perform violence for you. All the work is done for you by others. How very genteel.
No, seriously that is exactly what you can do. A judge has said so. The case has gone to appeal, and the appeal court upheld the decision. See here for details.
Now I have to admit that the lad in the case was somewhat foolish. I guess that only goes to show that young men think with their dicks even when they don’t have one. However, the sweeping nature of the judgement means that all trans people are now vulnerable to being jailed for the crime of obtaining sex by deception. A lot of observations follow.
Firstly, trans people are unique in being singled out in this way. You can have sex with someone without telling them that you are married, without confessing to being an undercover police spy (apparently a very common profession these days), without letting on that you have previous convictions for murder or rape, without admitting to being HIV positive, and for the benefit of my friends in US immigration without admitting to having previously been convicted of genocide. But if you have sex with someone while trans, and do not reveal this fact beforehand, then you are committing a criminal offence and can expect to be jailed for it.
Unfortunately, simply telling your partner won’t help, because if it is some guy who is thinking with his dick he’s still going to want to screw you. It is afterwards, when he gets to think about what he’s done, that the worries set in. And because this is sex we are talking about, there will probably only be two witnesses: you and him. Given that UK judges already believe that trans people are yucky and disgusting, or they would not have passed this initial judgement, which one of you do you think is going to be believed?
By the way, I have only had one brush with the UK courts. It was civil rather than criminal, and not something I could do much about, but the advice I got from my lawyer was so stark that I remember it clearly almost 20 years later. He advised me not to contest anything that was said about me, “because there is no justice in British courts for people like you.†That wasn’t prejudice speaking, I picked him because he was known to be friendly to trans people.
Oh, and that word “sex†isn’t simple. There was no penetration involved in the case in question because the lad didn’t have a penis. Genital touching was involved, but may not be necessary for an offence to be committed. Conceivably you can be done for “sex by deception†just for having an enthusiastic snog.
Presumably you can try to defend yourself by living a very open life, informing everyone that you meet that you are trans, just in case they should claim to have had sex with you. And of course you should be very careful never to be alone with anyone who might be able to make such a claim. Possibly you should be careful to dress in a manner that could not be seen as sexually appealing, just in case someone were to take a fancy to you. I’m sure that any woman who has been told that she’s “asking to be raped†because of the way she is dressed will recognize the arguments here.
The trouble is that it simply isn’t safe for most people to be openly trans. You might not hear of many trans murders in the UK, but there is plenty of bullying and violence. Only a couple of weeks ago there was a case of a trans woman who was forced to flee the town where she lived after being branded a “witchâ€.
In any case, many trans women still have to rely on sex work for money, because they can’t get jobs any other way. This ruling ratchets up the already very high risks of the sex trade.
It is an open question as to whether having a Gender Recognition Certificate will save you. In theory, a GRC is supposed to allow you to be treated as a person of your preferred gender in all ways. Heck, I have a birth certificate that asserts I was born a girl. But the recent Equality Act made it quite clear that as far as the government is concerned, trans people are “really†the gender they were assigned at birth. They are only protected against discrimination on the grounds of their appearance and behavior, not in matters where their “true†gender is an issue. Debate over the same-sex marriage bill also confirmed that both ministers and the civil service abhor trans people and believe that “normal†people need to be protected from awful people like me.
It is probable that both the Equality Act and this court judgement are in contravention of European Law, because both appear to roll back the equality provisions of the Gender Recognition Act. But this has yet to be tested in court, and it is debatable whether the UK will remain part of the EU for much longer. There is also an interesting legal debate as to whether someone with a GRC counts as trans under the provisions of the Equality Act. I’d like to see that tested, because if they don’t (and that’s the only way the Act can be read as not contravening European Law) then Julie Bindel and her pals are going to blow a gasket.
Still, that’s all by-the-by. Hopefully the judgement in question will be appealed up to the House of Lords (where it will be upheld) and then on to Europe. That, however, will take months, if not years. In the meantime, trans people in the UK are now vulnerable to malicious prosecution. You can bet that the tabloid newspapers will be busily looking for people whose cases they can finance.
Anyone think that their country is likely to grant me political asylum?
Given that this is all legal and political in nature, I don’t think there is much that ordinary people can do to help directly right how. However, if you do feel the need to Do Something, may I direct you to this funding appeal where Fox and Lewis from My Transsexual Summer are raising money for their educational films about trans people. The shorts that they have done to date are amazing, and I very much want to see them do more.
Madeline Ashby Interview
One of the things I did while I was in Toronto was meet up with one the the most promising new feminist SF writers, Madeline Ashby. I had originally intended to do an interview with her for my Talking Books slot on Ujima Radio, but as Madeline and I got talking it soon became apparent that this was going to be too long for the show, and probably also it bit too academic for a mainstream radio audience. It is, however, a great interview, and Madeline has some fascinating things to say about how she uses the well-worn trope of the robot to ask interesting questions about gender.
Madeline’s new book, iD, isn’t out in print in the UK until next week, but the ebook and North American releases are tomorrow, so this is an ideal time to air the interview. Hopefully most of you can see the media player below, but for those who can’t you can also find it here, or download it directly from this link. As and when Apple get their act together, it will also appear in the Salon Futura podcast feed.
Biology Is Not Faith-Based
There’s an awful lot of fairly crass sexism and misogyny going on in my corner of the Internet these days, and equally a lot of very capable people debunking it. I’ve largely stayed out of it because other people are doing a perfectly good job without me. Anyway, it doesn’t take a lot of effort to debunk the “women are naturally inferior” argument. Where I do want to stick my oar in is to caution against using the same type of faith-based biology to argue that men and women are in fact identical. Specifically I saw someone tweet that if you did brain scans of men and women you would not be able to tell the difference. Tweets are, of necessity, devoid of subtlety, so I don’t want to call anyone out, but I do want to explain why that sort of argument worries me.
Firstly I think it is probably factually wrong. I’m not a neuroscientist myself, but do take an interest in brain science and I’m pretty sure that a trained professional in that field would stand a good chance of telling a scan of a male brain from a scan of a female one, in much the same way as a trained medical professional can tell a male skeleton from a female skeleton.
Secondly, medical science is slowly coming to the realization that there are important differences in the way that male and female bodies respond to treatment. It is crucially important for women’s health that these differences are recognized and studied. Insisting that we are “all the same” will tend to result in medical treatment defaulting to the current social norm, which means favoring males over females (see here for some of the issues).
And finally, this is the sort of thing that leads to transphobia. The idea that men and women are identical in all respects except possession or not of ovaries was a major factor in causing second wave feminists to insist that trans people could not possibly exist.
When people attack the idea of gender-based brain difference they often quote Cordelia Fine. But Fine doesn’t say that there are no physical differences. Some of the studies that purport to identify differences are highly dodgy, but much more importantly the arguments that extrapolate from real or supposed differences in brain structure to differences is abilities and behavior are, at best, bad science, and at worst pure snake oil.
The thing about human beings is that they come in all shapes and sizes. Some of us are better at some things than others. Some of this is biological, and some of it down to cultural influences. What isn’t true is that all of Group X are naturally better than all of Group Y because of their characteristic, Z. People are people, and no one should be assumed inferior because of their gender, ethnicity, sexuality and so on.
Besides, most of you, dear readers, also read science fiction. Even if we never encounter sentient aliens, it seems increasingly likely that we will soon be able to make people that are, in biological terms, a different species from us. Those people will still be people, and our understanding of “human” rights will have to evolve to cope with that.
On Magical Transformations
When I was a kid I used to love fantastical stories such as the Greek myth of Tiresias in which men were magically transformed into women. That would have been such a convenient solution to my problems. But equally it was never going to happen. Dreams are all very nice, but if I’m looking for a story that reflects the reality of trans experience then magical transformations don’t cut it.
This post was prompted by a chat on Twitter this morning. Malinda Lo has discovered this book, Changers, which she thought sounded hopeful from a trans point of view. I wasn’t so sure, and I promised Malinda a post to explain why.
For context I should note that Malinda has written lesbian fairy tales; that is, fairy tales set in a world in which being a lesbian is seen as completely unremarkable. This sounds like a good thing to me. A world in which being lesbian (or gay, or bi) is unremarkable is something that I think we can legitimately aspire to. However, Changers posits a world in which some people change gender naturally. That isn’t going to happen any time soon. Nor does it necessarily give readers any sympathy for, or understanding of, trans people.
The trouble with magical transformations is that they sidestep all of the real issues of being trans. To start with there’s the question of how you are seen by others. A magical transformation is presumably complete. That is, everything about the person is changed. Surgery and hormones can’t compete with that. Perversely, therefore, a magical transformation can appear more “real” to a reader than a medical one (unless, of course, you posit Culture-level medicine). The reader may therefore accept the transformation in the book but still be unable to accept actual trans people.
Then again, there’s the whole psychological angle. Real trans people tend to spend a long time worrying about their gender identity. People who are magically transformed in fiction generally have no such doubts before their change, and for the sake of the story can’t spend too much time on angst afterwards.
What such stories are good at is exploring gender roles in society, and I’m looking forward to Changers on that basis. But I doubt that it will be the sort of book that can be given to people to help them understand what being trans is like.
By the way, a brief word here about Mark Charan Newton’s Book of Transformations. Mark does use magic in his story — it is a fantasy, after all — but it is the sort of magic that is effectively standing in for science. It is not “wave a wand and it is done” magic. Consequently Lan’s story unfolds in a similar way to that of a real-world trans person.
Half Boy, Half Girl
This is a Northern Cardinal. As US readers will know, while the male is bright red, the female is much less gaudy. (See Wikipedia for pictures). So what’s up with this particular bird? It is half boy, half girl, split right down the middle. The bird is an example of a gynandromorph. Whereas “hermaphrodite” is generally used to mean exhibiting both genders, a gynandromorph is split down the middle, one half of the body expressing as male and the other half expressing as female. Actually it can get more complicated than that. There are also “mosaic” gynandromorphs where the animal exhibits mixed patches of male and female tissue.
All of the examples I have seen of gynandromorphs have been insects and birds. Both have different chromosome systems to the one used by mammals, so I have no idea whether the phenomenon is even possible in humans. But hey, aliens…
For more information about this bird, and the biological mechanisms that cause gynandromorphs, see here.
(Thanks to Helen Boyd for finding this.)
The Future of Gender
A few weeks ago the feminist website, Autostraddle, announced that they were looking for trans women to write for them. I’m always happy to bring good science fiction to a new audience, so I pitched them an article about the future of gender, as seen by SF writers. I’m delighted to report that they liked the idea, and the article is now online.
If you are a regular reader, there’s probably not a lot new there, but the material is structured in a different way. From working with Jon Turney I’ve noticed that in the futurology business people do talk about the future of gender. Typically those people are cis males. This concerns me, and I’d like to offer a different viewpoint.
Plus, of course, it will hopefully encourage people to buy some good books.
What isn’t in the article, but I strongly recommend, is Pat Cadigan’s Hugo-nominated short story, “The Girl Thing Who Went Out For Sushi”. On the surface it is about people who get body modifications in order to live more easily on and around the outer planets, but it is clear from the language used that Pat is basing her ideas on genderqueer people. I understand she’s working on a novel based on the story. I’m really looking forward to that.
One of the most interesting aspects of Pat’s story is that humanity’s obsession with binaries is a result of our two-legged, two-armed, two-eyed nature. She suggests that adopting other body forms might lead to more flexible political attitudes. I seem to recall there being something similar going on with the Moties in Niven & Pournelle’s The Mote in God’s Eye. I have no idea whether that makes sense or not, but it is interesting speculation and that makes it good science fiction. Eight legs good, two legs bad, as they say on the moons of Jupiter.