by ·1 Comment

G3 Magazine just put Julie Bindel up for an award for campaigner of the year. Initial relation: Rolling of eyes, general “oh dears” and “here we go again”. If you are not familiar with her work, I have a few earlier posts about her tagged. Her significant work in 2011 includes her getting a Royal College of Psychiatrists’ meeting canceled merely by being invited to it.

I don’t expect the protests we had with the Stonewall awards back in 2008, partly just because G3 magazine is known to be problematic anyway and does not have the profile Stonewall does. G3 were on Bindel’s side back in 2008 for example. (Although that does mean that they can not claim to be unaware of her reputation within the community)

But if you do disagree with this nomination and currently read G3, could I perhaps point you in the direction of the much more Trans-friendly Diva Magazine?

by ·0 Comments

The long-awaited Transgender Action Plan has just been published and is available from the Home Office web site.

I will need to sit down with my notes to see what, if anything, is missing from the workshops we held last year and to scrutinise the wording. From a quick pass, there are are few hard policy areas (Rather than just soft information-publishing initiatives) that jump out:

by ·5 Comments

I’d clarified my earlier post, but I’m still seeing links to it passed round as an example of “evil Tory scum”, presumably because the headline is most of what people are seeing. So, to clarify this wasn’t down to Gove. A posted on Liberal Conspiracy traced the clause back to the very first academy funding agreements, such as this 2001 example of the first academy to be set up in the UK. (Large PDF: 6.54MB – it appears at number 26)

Yes, it’s still not a good clause but attacking Gove and the Tories for something they didn’t do is not going to make them change it any quicker. (Quite the opposite, I suspect.)

by ·1 Comment

Edited 1920GMT, 5th Dec: Please see this update to the post. The below is not correct when it blames Gove as it turns out the clause is also present in Labour’s version of the agreements from 2001.

With echos of Cameron’s “single parents cause the riots” speech from a few months ago, The Telegraph have noticed that there is a new Section 28 in the offing. (Section 28 was the now long-dead rule that prohibited Local Authorities from teaching about homosexuality. Neither Bisexuality nor Transexuality had, it seems, been invented back then: They didn’t try to ban them)

The offending document, a “model funding agreement“, is on the Department of Education web site and has allegedly been up there since 2nd September, but nobody had noticed until now. The clause really is numbered 28, and reads:

28. The Academy Trust shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on sex and relationship education to ensure that children at the Academy are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children.

It doesn’t directly mention homosexuality, but given that marriage is still a strictly heterosexual affair, the wording requires that schools promote the monogamous man-and-wife, two point four children approach to life, ignoring that in the real world poly people exist and we’re quite capable of raising well-adjusted kids.

My kids have two step-mothers and a step-father (In stable relationships) and two half-siblings. The only people who get confused are the teachers: I don’t think their forms are big enough for all that information.

I don’t know how this agreement compares to the language used in rules for state schools, but the Telegraph story does have some basis in fact. At best, it’s an unintended interpretation of a poorly written clause with an unfortunate number. At worst… yes, this is why having Liberal Democrats as a moderating influence in government is a good idea. I foresee some not-very-moderate language being directed in Gove’s direciton in the next few days.

by ·3 Comments

Today’s big news (Well, it had first billing on the radio this morning) is that women in the UK are fatter than anywhere else in Europe. Men don’t escape criticism either, being second “fattest”.

Whilst I don’t doubt health is important, I’m always wary of the numbers like this. As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, the British Army regards me as both healthy and fit enough to serve on the front line, and I can comfortably pass all the fitness tests required.

But my BMI, 26.1, says I’m “overweight”. 18-25 is regarded as a healthy range, depending on who you ask, but I suspect I’d look like an unhealthy stick insect with a BMI of 18 and I’m almost certain I would struggle with fitness.

I do wonder how much of the media focus on BMI is due to a Daily-Mailesque obsession not with fitness and health in general, but with looking like a supermodel.

by ·14 Comments

I have not seen last night’s episode – I’ll watch it tonight – but I understand that there was a scene in My Transsexual Summer that some people have expressed surprise at where Drew is refused employment in a Bridalwear shop on account of being a Transwoman.

Unfortunately, this is not only permitted under the Equality Act (EA2010), it’s one area where Trans folk had rights stripped away as a result of the new legislation. Prior to the EA2010, if someone had a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) then they could not – except for a tightly defined set of circumstances involving intimate searches and the like – be discriminated against. This came from the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA2004) amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The explanatory notes from the GRA2004 say:

If, for example, the nature of the job requires a woman, it is open to the employer to show that it is reasonable to treat a male to female transsexual person as being unsuitable for that job. The amendments made by Schedule 6 mean that these exceptions will not be available once a person has been recognised in the acquired gender

I don’t know if Drew has a GRC or not, but it’s now irrelevant. The EA2010 removed this rule regarding having a GRC, such that it’s just as legal to discriminate against someone just because you think they might be Trans. (They do not actually have to be Trans, you just have to have “reasonable grounds” to believe they might not be cisgendered)

To add insult to injury, there’s a “passing clause” in the guidelines issued by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. If you’re “visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transseuxal person of that gender” then it’s much harder, almost impossible, to justify discrimination.

Paradoxically, every other protected characteristic allows you to employ a person with that characteristic – you can insist someone is from a certain ethnic background for example, if you can show that it’s needed to do the job. It’s reversed for Gender Reassignment in that you can insist someone is cisgendered, (Not Transgendered) such as in this case. You can not however insist that someone is Transgendered, no matter how relevant that is to the job as that would be unlawful discrimination.

There’s possibly some room for debate on if being cisgendered might be a “Genuine Occupational Qualification” in this case. It’s arguable that it’s not, but as Sarah put it, “I wouldn’t want to take that one on as a test case”. There’s a strong possibility you’d be having to stuff people into tight-fitting wedding dresses and wield the tape measure, so it’s a step up from just the “changing room problem”.

For more background, I’ve tagged earlier posts that relate to the EA2010. Particularly relevant are “Some Equality Act Clarifications and Good, Bad and Ugly, both from October 2010.

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice(Edited at 1345: I’m told it was Drew that encountered this, not Donna as I originally stated)

by ·4 Comments

According to a study reported in Pink News, Bi women are more likely to get depressed. (They actually studied teenagers it seems.

This might explain why I’m feeling rather down at the moment, although I’m hoping it’s just Seasonal Affective Disorder (a.k.a. “It’s wet, cold, dark and depressing outside, isn’t it?”) and a stupid amount of money spent on some hopefully-not-snake-oil “daylight” lamp might fix it.

Alternatively, someone needs to produce some good Science Fiction TV for me to watch, or something nice and shiny for me to buy. (Or at least covet, if it’s expensive)

I never said I wasn’t shallow, did I?

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

by ·5 Comments

Cleaning up from yesterday’s internet meltdown has meant that I’ve not had the chance to write about this at length, but last night I went to a preview of the first episode of Channel 4’s new documentary, “My Transsexual Summer“, which airs tonight (Tuesday 8th November) at 10pm.

First off, it’s not perfect. But then, nothing ever will be – we can be an argumentative community at the best of times and even if this was produced by Trans folk, either everyone would still object or it would be terribly, terribly dull. (Follow my life with a camera and unless I happened to be on holiday, you’d mostly just get shots of me sitting in meeting rooms and typing on computers – not exactly blockbuster stuff.)

And some of the language used in voice overs at the start is a bit cringeworthy for anyone involved in the community, but the producer was quick to put his hands up to that one. He admitted that it changed over the course of the series and if he’d redone it from the start, different wording would have been used.

But in a way, that helps the programme as even from just one episode it felt as if it was telling the story of a journey, rather than a lecture or just a snapshot of someone’s life.

Notably, the cast – four trans women and, unusually, three trans men – did have a big say in how they were portrayed at their “summer retreat” house, enough that they got to veto many proposed titles and Max stood up and spoke in defense of the title they finally picked -before the producers could say much – when someone asked a question on it. Perhaps it was having the cast sitting at the back giggling and groaning along to various parts, but it felt positive. I identified (As a trans person) very quickly with the cast and many parts reminded of many past conversations I’ve had within the community… yes, right up to using the word “Tranny” to describe oneself to others within the community.

I’ve no doubt someone is going to complain about that at least, and perhaps the overuse of makeup at the start and lots of other things. But having seen it and having chatted to many of those in it and having had the chance to talk over the challenges faced by the producers and those that worked on it, I’m inclined to be very defensive if someone does take exception to it.

I felt that it’s more than just a step in the right direction, it’s a programme that pretty accurately reflected how many trans people carry on with each other in private. And we’re not all perfect paragons of Political Correctness, and we don’t all take ourselves that seriously.

One warning: There is a rather graphic part in the first episode where they show one of the transwomen being operated on. Yes, it’s that operation and it was certainly possible to get a good idea of who in the audience was either a cis male or pre-op transwoman from who was squirming and looking uncomfortable.

by ·0 Comments

I’m currently on a roll with near-future Science Fiction (Rule 34 currently graces my iPad Kindle app) with all it’s predictions of a capitalist, dystopian and advert-laden future. And I run across a blog post called 5 Terrifying Things Movies Don’t Tell You About Los Angeles. It’s number 5 entry bemoans the capitalist, dystopian advert-ladent present that is LA.

Billboard ads for gastric bands proclaiming “Dieting sucks!”? With a man who appears to be struggling with some sort of food-related being that’s attempting to stuff itself down his throat? Perhaps Ridley Scott just came forward in time three decades to modern Los Angeles before filming Blade Runner.

But I have a solution. Augmented reality glasses feature heavily in some modern Science Fiction, usually coupled with intrusive advertising being thrown through the cybersphere at the protagonist. We already have Augmented Reality apps of a sort on the iPhone, and seperately from this Ad-blocking technology is popular with some folk. (I use it myself on Firefox, because Flash hurts)

So, instead of glasses or a VR application on the iPhone that allow unscrupulous spammers to invade your reality with their sales pitch, how about a version with that blacks out locations of known billboards? You could even filter certain kinds of adverts perhaps. Or replace the adverts (And paper copies of the Daily Mail that accidentally come too close to you) with pictures of kittens.

by ·0 Comments

The court-ordered block on Newzbin2 for BT customers was a while ago, but implementation was delayed due to discussion on the exact wording of the order. Yesterday, it was back in court and the precise details were set.

Reading the full judgement this morning is interesting, as it appears ineffective. The court is ordering BT to use Cleanfeed (Paragraphs 6 and 9) in order to block the site, but Cleanfeed does not work on HTTPS (Which is encrypted) as it is unable to examine the request to determine exactly what has been issued. Cleanfeed was only designed to stop “casual” access to child porn.

I notice that Newzbin2 already has HTTPS access.

Oops.