It has been revealed today that Cameron is planning on ordering Internet Service Providers to block “extremist” websites.

It may surprise some people, but I don’t have a problem with this. The reason I’m not worried is that it’s not going to work, because Cameron wants to use the anti-Child-Abuse Cleanfeed system to do it. One of the many criticisms of Cleanfeed is that it’s completely ineffective in the face of either a web site host or an end user with even a hint of technical ability, and there are even US Navy-sponsored initiatives to help users in oppressive regimes get around blocks.

The counter-argument by Cleanfeed is that it is not designed to stop “determined access”, just inadvertent access to unwelcome images. So it would seem the new system will prevent inadvertent access to terrorist and extremist web sites, not something that will likely have any significant access besides a few “Tough on terrorism” headlines in the Daily Mail.

What I do have a problem with is the slippery slope. When Cleanfeed was first introduced, many assurances were given that it would only be used to block images of child abuse. We’ve already seen that go wrong with the accidental block of Wikipedia, and it appears the secret list will now be extended to content someone, somewhere deems “extremist”. First it will be the obvious targets, but what about websites calling for civil disobedience or protest? The police will no doubt have some input into the block list and do you think they will be able to resist the temptation to add sites causing them headaches?

Mysteriously, they will become inaccessible with no way of verifying if you are on the list and no appeal.

This is worrying when it happens to mainstream websites, because Cleanfeed is somewhat dishonest and doesn’t tell you that you have hit a blocked site. Instead, you receive a generic File-not-found message. Not being a terrorist, why would you bother installing any mechanism to work around the blocks? No doubt people will figure out they have been blocked eventually, but in the case of a time-critical demonstration the damage could already have been done.

And once it is in place, might the powers that be try even more desperately to find ways of closing the loopholes in the system? I doubt this would work, given even China has failed in this regard so far, but there is a huge amount of collateral damage that could happen if they tried.

No doubt Cameron will say he doesn’t want to do any of the above, but will there be sufficient safeguards put in place? We saw when David Miranda was stopped at an Airport, where supposed anti-Terrorism powers were abused due to a lack of appropriate rules and oversight, that such things are critical. And what prevents a future, less liberally minded, parliament from quietly chipping away at those safeguards once the system is operational. Being a secret system, how would the public know?

If Cameron wants to do this, he needs to propose a better way than Cleanfeed. A more transparent system, with judicial oversight. And then we can talk.

Some may recall the somewhat controversial history of the Royal College of Psychiatrists when it comes to transgender issues, and the decade-long wait for their guidelines for treatment of Gender Dysphoria.

Well, the wait is finally over and the guidelines were finally published last week. Given how potentially catastrophic they could have been, the positive nature of the final version is welcome and this is reflected in the long list of endorsements from trusted organisations.

The document is broadly in line with the latest WPATH Standards of Care, and positive points include: (These are mostly clustered around pages 15-16 and 21-23)

• For HRT prescription, transition is explicitly not required. There appears to be an implicit acceptance that HRT without social transition (i.e. without “going full time”) is sufficient for many people with Gender Dysphoria, as it also states no commitment to transition should be expected.
• If a patient turns up already on HRT (E.g, having obtained it online) then as a harm reduction measure, GPs are permitted to prescribe a “bridging prescription”.
• Genital surgery is permitted one year (Rather than the 2 years commonly usually used by the NHS) after transition and starting HRT.
• Revisions required from surgery or other complications should be referred directly to the appropriate healthcare provider and not result in a GIC referral.
• Hair removal should be provided. (Either for surgery or facial)
• The requirements for HRT and surgery are regardless of the direction of transition. The exception is top surgery for trans men which is permitted at the time of transition, noting that binding can potentially be harmful.
• Anyone with an intersex condition should have equal access to gender services.
• On an administrative front, all GP etc records should be fully updated from the moment someone transitions, including name and title, and this does not require a deed poll or statutory declaration. Information that a patient has gender dysphoria or has transitioned should never be disclosed to other healthcare professionals unless strictly necessary.

The document has a brief discussion of, but does not fully address, treatment of adolescents with Gender Dysphoria. It also does not attempt to set any age limit at which “adult” services should be accessible which will disappoint some people.

Of course, it’s impossible to compile a guidance document like this without some areas which people will feel are negative, or do not go far enough. Some of the more obvious ones include:

• A full physical exam, to include a genital exam (Which may be refused) is recommended when a patient first approaches to a GP. No evidence is presented as to why this should be clinically helpful and given the distress such procedures can cause, it’s inclusion here is somewhat surprising and is likely to put people off approaching their doctors. Inappropriate handling of physical exams were the source of some of the most serious complaints in the recent #transdocfail saga, so this advice may be as harmful for GPs as it is for trans folk.
• Discussion of non-binary/genderqueer identities is lacking. There is more on this on the nonbinary.org forums.
• Some very odd language around “certificated” men and women, meaning holders of GRCs.

Finally, two points that appear to be older portions of the document from it’s original decade-old draft incarnation that were missed in later updates:

• An uncited line on page 40 states “progesterone is not usually indicated since no biologically
  significant progesterone receptor sites exist for biological males“. This is inaccurate, as well as misusing the term “biological males”. The line appears to have been lifted from another paper coauthored by Wylie, who chaired the working group that produced the RCPsych guidelines.
• The section on male-to-female genital surgery is somewhat gloomy and does not reflect the current state of the art.

Overall, it’s a welcome document and certainly one that can be used by those in the process of medical transition to persuade their GPs and other medical and administrative staff to do the right thing.

Given the news that Wes Streeting has been selected as a parliamentary candidate for Labour in Ilford North, it’s time to update my list of political platforms NUS presidents stood on and the posts they have gone on to hold. Candidates prior to 1969 did not appear to stand as part of a formal organised grouping and none I can find had any further political career.

In light of recent events, it would seem a good time for the trans* communities to try to recognise some of the work done to champion trans rights over the last few years.

The rules are simple. Nominations are open for any politician elected to public office, who people feel have made a positive difference to the lives of trans people, covering the whole period of the equal marriage consultation and subsequent legislation. Initially, nominations were to be restricted to allies only as otherwise it could end up being divisive, but after discussion on twitter nominations will be allowed for anyone. Unless someone else feels like coming out, this is a very short list.

Nominations will be open until 5pm on Friday, 1st November and can be made by commenting below, via twitter (@zoeimogen) or EMail (zoe@complicity.co.uk). Nominations may be anonymous – please indicate if this is the case – and you may nominate more than one person. “Trans” in this context is as people self-identify.

Shortly after nominations close, the final result will be decided by public vote. You can not vote yet.

Below is a list of the nominations as received so far.

Baroness Barker Openly lesbian, spoke in defence of trans rights during the passage of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill through the House of Lords.

Hugh Bayley MP Member of Parliament for York Central

Cllr Sarah Brown “The Cambridge Councillor is the only out transgender politician in Britain. Representing the Liberal Democrats for the Petersfield Ward, Brown has been made the Executive Councillor for Community Well-Being this year. A member of the LGBT and Liberal Democrats Executive, she is also an advocate for equal marriage.” – Independent on Sunday Pink List

Michael Cashman MEP “…who said “We have to start saying Trans before we say LGB” at Work Place Pride this year, particularly relevant in light of @pinknews awards” – @natachakennedy “Founder of Stonewall, an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society and a Patron of The Food Chain, a London-based HIV charity.” – Wikipedia

Lynne Featherstone MP Member of Parliament for Hornsey and Wood Green, Former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Equalities “The Lib Dem MP launched the consultation by the UK government on introducing equal marriage and was the first politician to take part in the Out4Marriage campaign.” – Independent on Sunday Pink List

Mike Freer MP “Mike Freer, the Conservative MP for Margaret Thatcher’s old seat, Golders Green and East Finchley, made one of the more moving speeches in the debate. He said that he was proud of his civil partnership, but wanted to be married like other people: “Many argue that we should be content with our civil partnership – after all it affords all of the same legal protections as marriage – but I ask my married colleagues, did you get married for legal protections it afforded you?” He concluded: “I’m not asking for special treatment, I am simply asking for equal treatment.”” – Independent on Sunday Pink List

Baroness Gould Chair of the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity. Spoke very effectively in defence of trans rights during the passage of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill through the House of Lords.

Kate Green MP Member of Parliament for Stretford and Urmston, Shadow Minister of State for Equalities

Julian Huppert MP Member of Parliament for Cambridge “Can’t remember any other politician speaking so forcefully on issues affecting T* people” – @annajayne “…for good work re marriage plus support shown to on-binary people” – @jennie_kermode “…for the non-binary stuff, but also for just general “getting” of the topic” – @loyaultemelie

Caroline Lucas MP Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion

Kerry McCarthy MP Member of Parliament for Bristol East, Shadow Foreign Office Minister

The latest possibly-not-that-well-thought-out idea in the debate about protecting children online comes from the little-known QUANGO The Authority for Television On Demand, or ATVOD for short. As the catchy name suggests, ATVOD has a responsibility for regulating on-demand video programming in the UK, a large portion of which will be delivered by internet or internet-like connections. One of their regulations prohibits the hosting of many forms of pornography unless behind a paywall or similar to prevent access by under-18s¹, i.e. no free samples.

But it appears ATVOD have decided to exceed their remit of regulating UK content in the name of WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! They’ve spotted a problem in that non-UK internet sites do not need to follow UK rules (Surprise, surprise) and that many sites offer free samples before paying. Being powerless to intervene directly and enforce UK rules on them, ATVOD decided to follow the money instead and have asked the banks to block payments to these sites. Whoever came up with this idea clearly hasn’t spent enough time on the internet (Or talking to politicians) for several reasons.

First, ATVOD and the banks are arbitrarily deciding what is right and wrong with no democratic oversight. That the banks might acquiesce to this request is in itself worrying, although we only have ATVOD’s word on it that they are thinking of doing so. There were many statements from the Home Office indicating that ISPs were going to introduce a default-block on porn on the internet, which turned out to be fibs…

Secondly, we are not the world’s police and our laws are different from other countries. What is illegal to access until you are 18 in this country might be quite legal at 16 in another, or might be totally unlawful regardless of age. The UK is a small part of the internet as a whole² and it does not seem likely that the majority of foreign providers will want to pay a UK regulator and have to work with UK standards. By extension, they would also need to work with and pay money to the other 205 sovereign states of the world.

Unless you happen to be America, a single government does not carry anywhere near enough influence to alter de-facto internet standards like that. Even if you are America, it usually doesn’t work.

And finally, the attempt to block money appears to be born entirely of spite, or perhaps protectionism for the UK VoD industry. The majority of foreign content providers are not going to care enough about the UK market to do anything. That means the content ATVOD is so worried about – the free samples of pornography that is not behind a paywall – will continue to be accessible.

There are better ways to do this. Reputable adult sites in general do not want kids accessing them, as it is bad publicity and kids generally do not have the money to pay for anything so there is little point. Voluntary systems existed such as ICRA, but that system failed due to lack of takeup. Perhaps if organisations like ATVOD cooperated internationally to promote such voluntary systems rather than trying to force their own rules on everyone else, we might make some progress.

^1. In practice, a paywall that requires a credit card to prove you are 18. Rules on credit cards will differ between countries, so this is another area that would need country-specific handling.

^2. About 2%, based on Wikipedia.