Expression Is Not Free

This weekend I journeyed to the centre in the freezing cold to join the Rally for Free Expression opposite the House of Lords. Here’s my flickr set, plus you can see One Law For All’s videos and photos as well (of course, in the one I’m in, I’m making a weird face). Pod Delusion have some excellent highlights in Episode 123.

It was toe-numbingly chilly, but worth it! The turnout was good and the speakers were exceptional.

What for?

Right, there have been some disturbing occurrences in some London universities lately, which I’ve yet to write about, but this is a good time to collate them and look at the (serious) problem at hand.

University College London

First we have UCL. The Atheist, Secularist & Humanist Society (ASHS) advertised for their latest pub-based meet-up, which happened to feature a frame from one of the Jesus and Mo comics – appropriately featuring Jesus and Mohammed having a pint together. Aww.

Following what seems to have been one complaint from an angry person to the UCL students’ Union, the UCLU for some reason decided it was appropriate to tell the ASHS to remove the image so that this person, and others, would not be offended.

This all went on for a while, the whole debacle involving resignation, criticism from many angles, demonstrations of support from other universities, cities and indeed countries. Fortunately it did result in the UCLU taking a step back, though the overarching expectation of censorship-to-protect-religious-sensibilities does seem to remain. It’s been a bit of a PR nightmare for UCL – and it is an important issue, well-summarised by Ministry of Truth – but things could have been worse.

Here’s Susan Zuang of the UCL ASHS speaking a bit about it at the rally:

London School of Economics

For example, as they have become at the LSE, which has effectively brought in its own form of blasphemy law following a tiny number of complaints (given the size of the LSE student body) against their ASH posting the same cartoon in solidarity with the UCL ASHS.

The situation here is far more concerning, yet seems to have escaped the media’s notice; a far more heavy-handed and outright defence of religious privilege by the LSE Student Union. I would urge any current and former students to look into this and make their feelings known.

This action by a university – a supposed forum for learning, discussion, philosophy, ideas and progress, is throwing out accusations of racism:

The LSE Students’ Union would like to reiterate that we strongly condemn and stand against any form of racism and discrimination on campus

A depiction of two historical figures sharing a pint is both racist and discriminatory? Even though subscription to a religion does not make one part of a particular race, nor is one’s participation in a society automatically indicative of discriminating against those who don’t? LSE, we are disappoint.

Edit: here’s an account of the correspondence between their ASH and the SU.

Queen Mary University of London

Closer to home for me, as a QM student myself, and an even more worrying incident.

Here are the QM ASHS representatives talking about the fear and intimidation caused when the planned lecture on Sharia Law and Human Rights was interrupted by a man threatening everyone whilst filming them on his phone:

The police were called and the lecture cancelled. Again, in a university, which should be a rich ground for debate about a huge range of topics. Fortunately, the principal has been pragmatic and reassuring.

Principal Simon Gaskell has spoken publically following reports of a disturbance at a recent meeting of the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society, and spoke to reassure students that Queen Mary takes your freedom of expression and safety seriously.

“The democratic right to freedom of expression and debate is one Queen Mary strongly upholds and promotes. Talks, meetings and debates are held peacefully at Queen Mary on a daily basis and we will continue to host such events.

“We are equally committed to our duty of care to students. A police investigation of Monday night’s incident is currently underway and Queen Mary will conduct its own review. We will do our utmost to ensure this occurrence is not repeated and that our students are able to gather and engage in debate freely without interference of any kind.”

A short time later the principal released a further statement to all students and staff of the university, which I have reproduced below for those who would like to read it. He reiterates many of the points made by those involved in the events summarised above, and by all of us who support the people involved.

Rhys on Facebook

Finally, our friendly neighbourhood teenage skeptic strikes again. He uploaded the Jesus and Mo cartoon as his Facebook profile photo, again simply to show support for the students in London and in disagreement with the Unions’ approach.

His school later saw fit to tell him to take it down, or face some kind of disciplinary action. Tell me when it became acceptable for schools to interfere in students’ lives outside the school gates, when the matter is nothing to do with the school whatsoever and harming no one?

Here’s Rhys at the rally:

Defend Free Expression

So regarding the rally itself – the turnout was pleasingly high despite the challenging temperature.

You can listen to all of the speeches here on the Pod Delusion – with a full list of the speakers. I would particularly recommend Nick Cohen, Jennifer Hardy (as seen above, a bit), Derek Lennard, Sue Cox, Kate Smurthwaite and Joan Smith, but of course all of it if you do have time. I’ve got some more video snippets: Dawkins, Derek Lennard, Maryam Namazie.

Kate relayed a very moving anecdote about one of her students (she has taught English to immigrant classes), an Iranian woman who always seemed very committed to her religion; ensuring she always had her headscarf if any men were present, excusing herself from class to pray at the proper times and in the correct direction.

The subject at the time was adverbs of frequency (woo, grammar!) and Kate used the example:

“I never go to church”

To which the Iranian woman responded,

“But aren’t your parents angry?“

“No, because they also never go to church.”

And her sincere reply was both enlightening and sad:

“So… you are free.”

Probably the most moving speaker was again Sue Cox of Survivors’ Voice, whom I have seen previously at both the Protest the Pope rally and March for Secular Europe. Sue is an incredibly brave and admirable woman who speaks out against the abuse she and countless others suffered at the hands of Catholic clergy.

She told of a survivors’ group consisting of deaf and speech-impaired individuals, who had all endured terrible ordeals as children, including one man who recalled being passed around a group of  more than 10 clergymen who treated him as “a piece of meat”.

Sue thanked all those who have supported her and the survivors’ groups, which has in part enabled them to take their protest to the Vatican itself, although it is not permitted to speak ill of the Pope himself or hold any kind of demonstration there. With the march followed by helicopters, that same man was told to put down his Ratzinger, Out! banner because it was offensive.

He put it down, picked up someone else’s placard and kept going.

Not that it needs saying, but you know what is offensive? Powerful religious institutions protecting serial child molesters while showing little to no regard for their victims (until they’re found out, and even then some still manage to give excuses and receive protection – like this from yesterday: a ‘victory’ for the Holy See as abuse victim withdraws lawsuit).

The Bottom Line

A wide range of topics were covered at the rally, from child abuse to libel reform, blaming of rape victims, corrupt politics, the nuances of comedy, and of course the censorship of students by the societies set up to support them.

The message was clear; that freedom of expression is vital to progress. Pick any paradigm shift you can think of – the Suffragettes, Martin Luther King, anything – had those people shied away from offending, we would not be where we are.

We cannot progress further if criticism and debate are stifled. The only speech that needs protecting is that which offends (and we’re not talking hate speech or incitement to violence; those are legislated against for obvious reasons – see the Holocaust or Rwanda genocides, as Nick Cohen rightly pointed out. And people need to stop pretending things fall under this umbrella when they don’t). The things that need changing are those that some people won’t want to have questioned.

Without the freedom and encouragement to ask all kinds of questions, express ideas and new ways of thinking, we cannot better ourselves or help those who cannot help themselves. We can’t oppose abuses of human rights and we can’t improve anything for anyone.

So please, lend your support to those who need it and make sure the message is clear, that we will defend free expression – since, sadly, it still appears to need it.

—

Troublesome TfL

Last year I wrote a post on my blog about the victim-blaming rape culture we live in, in which the primary focus is still on telling women to alter their behaviour in order to avoid rape, when what we need to be doing is addressing the rapists and condemning them (which, thankfully, at least some places are doing, with apparently positive results)

“Oh but everyone knows rape is wrong, what’s the point in that? Nothing wrong with giving people some well-intentioned advice about staying safe.”

No, sod off. Clearly everyone does not know it’s wrong. That alone is clear, since if you leave the word ‘rape’ itself out of questionnaires and phrase them carefully, a shocking majority of people will admit to thinking force is justifiable in certain circumstances.

Recently we had an outcry directed at ITV and Eamonn Holmes specifically for his callous comment to a high-profile rape survivor, who aided her assailant’s conviction by deliberately leaving genetic material for later forensic detection.

For some reason he decided it would be a good idea to tell this woman that she should just take taxis in future. Right, thanks. Because no rapists are ever found driving licensed cabs.

With this in mind, some female friends and I, in a pre-Christmas 2011 exercise, received the following e-mail from Transport for London:

—

Dear Ms Baker,

I am writing to remind you that unbooked minicabs picked up off the street are dangerous and put you at risk of sexual assault. The safest way to get a minicab home is to:

• Book it – by phone, email or in a minicab office to guarantee your trip is carried out by a licensed, insured driver and vehicle
• Check it’s yours – ask the driver to confirm your name and destination before you get in the car, and check the driver’s photo ID
• Sit in the back – and carry your mobile in case of an emergency

Our Cabwise text service makes it easier to find and book a licensed minicab or taxi near you.

For further details please visit tfl.gov.uk/cabwise

 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Burton

Director of Community Safety, Enforcement and Policing

 —

Well, gosh, thank you, Steve, for your care and concern. Apparently getting in random cars isn’t a good idea any more, because you’re likely to get raped. It’s not like we haven’t been hearing the don’t-trust-strangers message since we were children, is it?

Interestingly, this mail only went to female users of TfL. There was no suggestion to men not to let their friends – male or female – take unbooked cabs. There was no suggestion that men taking them might also be putting themselves at risk of violence (sexual or otherwise).

You can put a hundred women in outfits of differing styles, in varying degrees of drunkenness, with or without friends and with different personalities into the same kind of situations over and over. But it’s not victims who cause attacks, it’s the attacker. It is their presence, not a woman who’s drunk or wearing a short skirt, that results in the crime. She can go about her business in the majority of situations, but only when she comes into contact with a rapist is that violation going to occur.

Someone recently commented on my post:

Applying the same logic to other crimes highlights the absurdity of it all “sorry I just couldn’t help myself, he just looked so stabby in that flimsy t-shirt that I just couldn’t help plunging the knife into him, why did he have to wear that t-shirt?!” etc.

If there really is evidence that unlicensed cabs are the problem here – harbouring a particularly high number of (known or suspected??) rapists, then how about tackling that issue, instead of targeting the victims and innocent among us? We all keep ourselves safe as best we can. No one wants to be the victim of an assault.

This kind of communication holds within it the suggestion that the problem is in fact women – our actions and behaviour – if only we changed that (silly women, just be more sensible!) then maybe everything would be OK. Well no, it wouldn’t.

Target the criminals, please, and leave the rest of us to go about our business – stop making us think we could and should have done something different to help ourselves avoid whatever horrible things might befall us.

Our culture finds it perfectly acceptable to shift the blame onto the victims of certain crimes – particularly sexual assaults – and it is this that we should be recognising and addressing. Constantly telling women to be careful achieves nothing except belittling victims, discouraging people from coming forward and generally normalising the idea that sometimes it’s OK to do what you want because there are certain excuses that are acceptable.

A 1984 study looked into the justifications used by a cohort of convicted rapists. The general themes included:

- women as seductresses (she’s asking for it really – tacit consent)

- women mean “yes” when they say “no” (again, she does want it despite what she says)

- most women eventually relax and enjoy it (we all want to be dominated!)

- nice girls don’t get raped (her past could be justification for your crime)

- guilt in a minor wrongdoing (people don’t self-identify as rapists, though they will often admit to something less serious).

Men should be more offended by the suggestions so often trotted out about them being unable to control themselves. Here in our society, this often translates into friends covering for friends they may suspect, while elsewhere it manifests as laws requiring women hide themselves from view almost entirely, to avoid provoking the menfolk.

Don’t patronise us, Tfl, and don’t blame us for the failings of law keepers and our rape-sympathetic culture.

 

We’re not asking for it.

 

Victim blaming

This has come up a lot lately (not that it’s a new thing by any means) so I’m going to do a proper post on it. Firstly a warning that what I write might be triggering for people – if you don’t know what that means, do look it up.

Second, I’m going to be using a certain terminology, talking about men who are rapists and women who are victims, mainly because that accounts for the majority of cases.

However, not all of them – it’s important to remember that men can be victims as well and often they face even more stigma than women. It is, rather sadly, an accepted fact that women are often victims of sexual assault. For men, there is often a further element of shame attached if such a thing happens to them. This stops them speaking out and people think the problem is so small as to be insignificant. It isn’t.

Men get drugged, overpowered and frozen by fear, too. Assuming it’s all about the greater strength of a man overpowering a woman is part of the victim-blaming culture; “you didn’t fight back enough”. Sometimes you can’t, sometimes it happens too quickly for you to process – don’t act like you know better than someone who has suffered what you have not.

One (of fortunately few) personal analogies I have is when I was set upon by someone I used to go to school with. She (yes, she) had about 10 friends nearby and my reaction was to wait for her to get bored of punching me, which, fortunately, she did.

You won’t know the details of people’s experiences of attack and betrayal, so don’t presume to tell them what they should have done to avoid it.

It’s simple – the rapist should not have done what they did and they are the only party at fault.

—

Sadly, victim-blaming happens all the time, particularly in the case of women who have the misfortune to experience sexual assault.

There was one recent incident that has highlighted this fact. After an interview with a high-profile rape victim (she pushed strands of her hair into the car seats during her assault, which aided the conviction of her attacker), Eamonn Holmes makes a disgusting and completely pointless comment:

“Well, I hope you take taxis now”

Unfortunately a lot of usually considerate, sensible and caring people will respond to this and similar admonitions with comments along the lines of well it’s just good advice… taxis are safer… you can help to protect yourself etc. etc.

The response I got to my complaint was, pretty much as expected, disappointing.

Hi Marianne

Many thanks for your email. I was the producer on yesterday’s show and can absolutely assure you that Eamonn was certainly not suggesting that the victim was in any way to blame for this horrific attack, he was merely making the point for the benefit of viewers that it is generally safer to call a taxi than to walk the streets alone at night.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Many thanks

Kirsty

Sorry, but this is not an adequate assessment of the problem, and I’ll leave it for others to expand upon that.

None of us wish to be attacked. We all take precautions when we go out; these are common sense things, we have our instincts and we don’t like putting ourselves in danger. You don’t need to tell adults about these things.

Especially not after the fact. Put a woman in a low-cut top who’s had a few drinks in a room full of people – it doesn’t matter if they’re her friends or total strangers. Put her in another room with another set of people at another time – she has changed nothing, but her company may be different. She may have the misfortune to encounter someone who will assault her.

There have been surveys that reveal disturbing things about the way many people think (in fact rape stats in general are often very shocking).

If you are careful not to use rape specifically as a term when asking people questions about it, a ridiculously high percentage of people will admit to thinking it’s somehow OK.

The culture-wide attitudes towards sexual assaults, responsibilities and rights are rather warped, it would seem. Unfortunately, people will vehemently defend their ‘right’ to tell rape jokes, to mash the term with other words to describe things (frape being one I really hate; when someone uses your facebook account to change your status) et cetera.

These things are intertwined with sexism and other archaic ideas, it’s a complex social and psychological problem that some try hard to combat, not least because the number of victims is so very high, all over the world; of course, rape is still used as a weapon of war in countries experiencing conflict.

The fact that many wish to dismiss it with jokes rather than reprimand their friends who make light of it says a lot. It’s ok to be a bit rapey, it’s just a laugh. She was asking for it, right?

Wrong.

The amount of friends I have who have, over time, revealed to me their experiences… I am now quite surprised if I meet someone who has not experienced sexual violence at some point. Most of those people had abusive partners, but not all. Sometimes “friends”, often family members, rarely total strangers.

How, pray tell, would changing one’s behaviour avoid such situations? I can’t see it myself. The girl in the low-cut top and the drink in her hand can be herself in many situations, but the only thing that causes her to be assaulted is her assailant.

Shaming women because of what they wear, how they behave… that’s what the slut walks were all about.

What is needed is a shift away from blaming women for what happens to them and to society rejecting those who commit crimes, and those who sanction them.

Recently I had a bit of a rant about a Metro article’s language when describing one of Vincent Tabak’s defence lawyer’s statements, somewhat prompted by a Welsh police force’s new poster that did the rounds on Twitter (right).

This again skirts around the fact that rapists cause rape, not women drinking or any other arbitrary behaviour.

Also, if one does express apprehension towards various people or situations, as a woman concerned for one’s safety, men will often pipe up with “hey, that’s offensive! Don’t assume all guys are rapists, that’s just sexist as well” or some other tripe.

You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to tell women they’re responsible for everything that happens to them, including crimes, then suck it up when you see them taking precautions or getting a ‘creepy vibe’ from someone.

If you’re making excuses for a friend you suspect of having dangerous attitudes towards women, stop and ask yourself if perhaps you could be educating him instead.

We are all daughters, some of us sisters and/or mothers – imagine members of your own family and friends. How would you feel if her friends made jokes about raping her, or took advantage of her when she was too drunk to be responsible for her own actions?

There’s a campaign with the slogan ‘men can stop rape’ – which I don’t entirely agree with based on what I said at the start of the post, but it is often true. Your laugh at that disgusting joke is part of the problem. Your unquestioning attitude, his admission of what he’d do to her if…

Stop blaming women. Start behaving like a civilised human being.

Invisible Lives

It’s a skeptics in the pub write-up!

In case you missed it, I luckily made it to Westminster Skeptics to see Juliet Jacques give her talk,

Thinking critically about transgender issues

and you can listen to it on the Pod Delusion but I shall write up my notes for those who prefer to read!

Firstly Belinda Brooks-Gordon introduced the talk by saying that trans rights have not really moved forward along with women’s rights. To try to highlight this and educate people, Juliet has a Guardian blog where she posts regularly about trans issues.

Now we can hear what Juliet has to say – it’s a lot of stuff, hugely informative, and it was a great talk!

I’ve put in a few thoughts of my own with [Comment: ...] along the way.

—

“Transgender” is almost deliberately a loose term. There is no commitment to a transsexual (TS)/transvestite (TV) distinction; the two not being the same thing, in case you’ve never thought about it before.

It turned up in late 1960s United States literature and became popular in the 1990s as an umbrella term for gender non-conformity and gender-variant identities.

Terms such as male/female (referring to bodies) were challenged by transgender communities.

A Whistle-Stop Tour of Trans History

Gay/lesbian histories and identities are far better explored (also bisexual but to a lesser extent) and it is much easier to define these terms.

In the Victorian era, modern industrial cities like London were giving people the chance to cut themselves off from their families and old friends, to reinvent themselves and be isolated from their past.

Thus, LGBT identities became possible.

However, men who dressed as women in public were arrested and sent to court. The Met, from 1829 onwards, accused the offenders of being ‘sodomites’; Victorian authorities associated cross-dressing or, officially, ‘men in female attire’, with homosexuality.

[Comment: at this point I'm reminded of one of my favourite comedians. Now, it might piss some people off that I bring it up, but having had close family dismiss him for his transvestism when I was quite a lot younger, since then I've felt uncomfortable when people poke fun.]

Men would often try to have the charges dropped using a defence of humour; “it was just a lark”. They dismissed their actions in this way to avoid prison.

In 1870 two men were often seen out and about as women. The mainstream press showed photos of them and they were well-known in London theatre. One was also associated with the aristocracy. They were charged with committing an “unnatural offence” and were subjected to examinations trying to prove they had engaged in anal sex. This (unsurprisingly?) failed and new charges were brought:

“Conspiring to incite others to commit an unnatural offence”

There was no frame of reference. Law and the media were reacting to events, creating legislation. The prosecution tried to prove cross-dressing was innate in order to suggest that sodomy had occurred.

There was the basic assumption that these people were deliberately trying to deceive men into having sex with them, by pretending to be women.

Obviously everyone’s lives revolve around heterosexual male perceptions!!

Women were also not accorded sexual agency; feminine sexuality was also suppressed.

[Comment: it was in the Victorian era that genital mutilation really took hold culturally; sex was something to be ashamed of and dampened, for both men and women. Circumcision was touted as a cure for boys' masturbation 'problems' and female circumcision became popular to suppress female sexual desires and 'hysteria']

A new defence was then brought: that they’re actors! Actors continuing their roles outside of the workplace. Male-female cross-dressing was a long tradition particularly in English theatre so there was an assumption of performance associated with it, and that London was a City of vice.

The judge did not like the police; he felt they had violated the men’s human rights with their invasive ‘questioning’. Public support increased due to this mistreatment.

In 1885 an amendment to criminal law was made: 2 years in prison for male-on-male sexual acts (which ensnared Oscar Wilde and he was sent down under this law).

Germany’s Paragraph 175 outlawed homosexual behaviour. After this, sexology developed, in order to classify and understand human sexual behaviours.

The medicalisation and pathologising of ‘conditions’ such as homosexuality and transgender/gender-queer identities then began.

Medicine and Media

In 1909-1910 Havelock Ellis published a book called The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress.

Language is always evolving but there was little to describe transgender behaviour. Transvestite was coined as a broad term then, but is obviously more specific now; referring only to the act of wearing clothes traditionally thought of as being suitable for the opposite sex.

During World War I, Edwardian British and German sexologists were less active. There was still no separation of maleness vs. masculinity or femaleness vs. femininity.

In 1928 The Well of Loneliness was published, one of the first accounts from female perspectives.

The Institute of Sexual Science was founded in 1919 and pioneered sex reassignment surgery. A Danish painter, Lili Elbe, died after attempted ovary and uterus transplantations (Niels Hoyer wrote an account of her life, Man Into Woman). In 1933, the National Socialist Party closed the Institute down and people photographed the book burnings that took place.

These events caused the study and understanding of gender issues to be significantly held back.

Gender verification in sport also became an issue, resulting from people’s suspicions and prejudices, particularly those of Avery Brundage. Examinations to determine (mainly female) competitors’ sex were introduced with the intention of identifying people with an ‘unfair advantage’ – i.e. those born physically male but living as women.

In 1945 the first female-male sex reassignment surgery was performed on Laurence Michael Dillon who later wrote his own book, partly inspired by The Well of Loneliness.

Male-to-female transitions drew attention. A TV/TS schism formed, and also between TS and Gay/lesbian – the latter emphatically not desiring of surgery.

Then the first male-female transsexual was a friend of Dillon, in the early 50s; Roberta Cowell, an ex-pilot and racing driver. Her transition was serialised by the then equivalent of OK/Hello! magazine.

The front page of the New York Times featured Christine Jorgensen, a former US army conscript, in 1952. Her doctor, the sexologist Harry Benjamin, emigrated to the States during WWI. He worked on medicine for TG people, and with those who believed in pathologisation of the ‘condition’. He was closely involved in the development of phychological assessment and requirements for patients to follow ‘paths‘ to get the treatments they wanted.

The medical establishment was in control; unreasonable demands of femininity were made of M-F trans people (F-M were somewhat invisible – people assumed that women did this for practical reasons, to assume more powerful and respected roles in society); antiquated ideas of femininity were forced on people.

In ’66 Benjamin’s book The Transsexual Phenomenon was published, which detailed types of TS e.g. ‘Type 4′ – those with no desire to undergo surgery. These were all ideas articulated by non-trans people.

TS people became aware of the book. People understood the boxes to tick to get what you want - answering the questions posed ‘correctly’!

In 1960, April Ashley had surgery in Morocco. She had been married to Lord Corbett. He took her to court for divorce and the ruling was that she should still be considered male, so the marriage was void and there was to be no settlement. This set a legal precedent in the UK – that TS people’s sex is defined by what is printed on their birth certificate.

In the 60s, transitions and who could afford them were strictly controlled. ‘Sects’ emerged, for example in San Francisco. Sex workers funded their surgery. Police often harassed and blackmailed them in Compton’s Cafeteria, eventually causing them to fight back and a documentary film was made covering it.  Later the New York Stonewall Inn bar, rented by the LGBT community, was scene to more famous riots, where Sylvia Rivera stood up to police oppression. This led to the modern movement of Stonewall as the gay liberation front (gay in this context being queer & non-conforming identities).

People became more vocal about trans not being equal to gay and vice versa. Many were trying to integrate with ‘respectable’ hetero society. It became a cliché in the press; “I was born into the wrong body” – people started to think it was a new idea.

—

Lesbian and feminist groups became prominent in the 1970s. These were women-only spaces; M-F transitionists, did they fit in at all? Sport was also a bi-gender separated space. Trans decisions (and often requirements) to conform to patriarchal ideas of femininity annoyed some feminists.

Janice Raymond wrote ‘The Transsexual Empire: the making of the modern she-male’ and other anti-trans feminist literature, very aggressive in its content.

She managed to suggest that TS women were worse than rapists, that the appropriation of female bodies “becomes a total rape” (!). [Comment: hovering dangerously close to a no true Scotsman, I feel that 'feminists' being so obviously prejudiced against gender non-conformity would run against the very core of feminism itself, but maybe that's just my view of it.]

She claimed [comment: epic invocation of Godwin's law here] that TS technology was perfected in concentration camps, but there is no evidence for this. She interviewed 12 TS women (TS men didn’t fit; they were mainly dismissed as butch lesbians). This was prominent in the media.

Carol Riddell addressed Raymond’s comments in 1980. Sandy Stone also responded with The empire strikes back: a post-transsexual manifesto.

—

The Victorian persecution of cross-dressers made trans people invisible. Clinicians were free to frame the experience in a light designed by them alone, to propagate stereotypes, create legislation and silence trans people.

The mainstream media/trans schism developed as trans people were not used in film, TV etc. – the experiences presented were not framed by trans people themselves.

Authors stepped forward to promote the anti-transphobia cause, including: Jan Morris (Conundrum: An Extraordinary Narrative of Transsexualism, 1987); Kate Bornstein (Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women And The Rest Of Us, 1994); Leslie Feinberg (Transgender Liberation: A Movement Whose Time Has Come, 1992); and Viviane Namastie (Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People, 2001).

The organisation Press for Change was established in 1992 and finally the UK government passed a bill to create the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.

Today

Trans identities have some constitution now. The meanings of words for ‘Gender-queer’ individuals (TS, TV, TG etc.) are still evolving. We are experimenting with the language. The challenge is tackling transphobia and in a sense this is following on from the gay liberation movement. Homophobic violence is still often based on gender expression and identity.

Fear of unknown and unusual drives people’s prejudices. This is often reinforced in the media, a prominent example being Psycho; in which Norman Bates fits the ‘all crossdressers are crazy!’ stereotype. [Comment: I'm reminded again of Mr. Izzard's distinction between TV people in general and the "fuckin' weirdo transvestite!"]

Work is ongoing to close the gap between the mainstream media, trans people and how articles are produced. Also questioning the usefulness of bracketing TG with mental illness; at the moment it is still in the DSM of mental disorders. Perhaps we can overturn the idea that TS is a mental health issue. TS people do have a fear of ‘coming out’ so to do so may help.

In tackling transphobia there is a need for good language use and critical thinking on these issues.

Questions

Q. The ‘Real life experience’ requirement – no scientific basis to it; just tradition?? Good reasons for it potentially being harmful. Barrier and ritual humiliation. People coming to harm via the ‘Hormonal black market’ – e.g. oestrogen without prescription.

A. Especially in Britain. The Trans pathway is structured by the NHS’ fear of being sued; transition and regret. Public money and anxiety over its use! People often suggest decommissioning of gender reassignment to save money (approx 70% comments on Guardian!).

Need for some gatekeeping. If there’s no test; it’s an irreversible surgery. Russell Reed: hormones as diagnostic tool (effects are reversible) – one can stop and revert.

Bit of an endurance test. Street hassle, everyday things become an ordeal. Some programmes do away with the psychiatry element. Difficult – more flexibility? Equality? They were allowed x time… cut-off points?

Increased acceptance – more people – pressure from the right to not spend money?

—

Q. Language. LGBT(Q) bit awkward? Internal disagreements – your view?

A. Ever-expanding acronyms. LGBTQQI (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning, intersex) – a way around?

Umbrella term. But PC & this are kind of concurrent. Press fatigue with ‘PC’. Introduction of new words isn’t really tolerated now cf. 70s/80s.

“PC” is now pejorative. Causes some friction? Sexuality =/= gender identity. The state didn’t separate these.

How do to this but keep an ‘alliance’? Tend to occupy the ‘same spaces’. Contesting rights (Belinda BG). Trans & bi rights trampled! Medicine/sci/law intersection and research is behind –> guesswork policies.

—

Q. Liz D. Popular culture e.g. Coronation St. (did it badly?) M-F trans people e.g. in Little Britain – offensive?

A. C St. Hayley. History of trans people not given a direct voice/part. Spurred dialogue and was sympathetic to the issue.

Dana international won eurovision; informing people that TG different from L/G etc. “City of Lost Souls” TS singer in lead roll. Autobiography “Man Enough to be a Woman”. Warhol, punk etc.

Tara O’Hara character. Argument on need for surgery and ‘womanhood’.

Little Britain:  trans women as comedy. Trans men ignored; men who want to be female/feminine are funny whereas if women want to be men it’s practical. Merton & co. should be more careful with jokes.

You don’t always know how your creation will be perceived eg.. Al Murray pub landlord! Taking the piss out of people but then they adopt it; uncritical identification and missing the point.

 

Stereotypes often have a basis. Not being critical of them, historical context needed. The LB catchphrase “I’m a lady!“  is now shouted at people; people aren’t aware of transphobia.

—

Q. Pronouns. He/she/it ?? Queer has pejorative connotations (depends on who it’s from) – are you happy with the bifurcation?

A. Personally, yes. Have there been attempts to create new terms for people who don’t fit M/F and or don’t want – outside the binary; se/hir.

If you’re not sure, ask! Give the right of ID to the person rather than imposing your definition, but if you can’t…

e.g. Sonia/David Burgess and tube incident. Press coverage was awful.

—

Transmedia watch. Work with media creators; gap in education. Social innovation camp; trans techies, media, journos/broadcasters – contact us @transmediaact @transmediawatch

—

Q. A utopia where law does not interfere with people and their gender? Legal M-F/F-M transitions.

A. There was; they just existed. Legislation and pathologisation led to project to re-normalise.

—

Q. Change of language ?? To reflect diversity of trans group?

A. Complicated! TG is useful for many. Weird stereotypes around TV e.g. otherwise successful men putting wife’s undies on at home.

Trans cf. privacy issues. Often that history is irrelevant and incidental.

—

Q.  Is the goal to erase negative or balance negative with positive?

A. Balance. People will share strong negative opinions inevitably.

—

Q. 1. is use of ‘proper’ pronouns a barometer for accpetance? 2. Maybe human minds are wired to categorise things. 3. Sexuality =/= gender… do you think it might be useful to dissociate completely from LG(B)?

A. 3. Trans people have sexuality; B or G or L… L&G esp have fixed gender associations and so are inadequate to deal with trans. Hence, LGBTQ(I) more relevant.

BBG: Stonewall etc. have resources and can often help.

1. Principle: right to self-determination. Choose your own pronouns (cf. ms?) Changing beauty standards related.

—

Q. Scientific studies e.g. on brains etc. If there is a ‘trans test’, is it good or potentially harmful?

A. It would change dealing with transsexuality.

—

Q. Ignorance. People are unaware of the issues; do trans people need to ‘get real’ and understand that people generally have no knowledge of these things?

A. Panic about making mistakes can increase their frequency; allay people’s fears – better for all – some trans responsibility here.

—

LGBTQQ… we’re all beaten up by the same people!

—

A call was made for a Corrie/LB blogpost.

Also: David Walliams played ‘Vulva’ in Spaced; when wearing some make-up after filming and walking through a park – he was verbally abused and stones thrown – he wrote about it and was apparently amused by this?!

—

Also listen to the Pod Delusion report by Liz in Episode 107! Transgender and the Media (41:00) ft. Nathalie McDermott

50 ways to kill your lover?

My most-listened-to radio station is currently XFM. I just like most of the stuff they play and the chat isn’t excessive or overly juvenile. Usually.

On Monday morning I was walking to work with my phone tuned in and found my jaw dropping at this day’s text-in subject.

It started fairly innocuously. Paul Simon’s enjoying a bit of a come-back at the moment so the ‘50 ways to leave your lover‘ discussion was revived; I really like this song actually. In it, Simon talks about encouraging a friend to leave a relationship they’re unhappy with. Something most of us have done or at least witnessed.

In the song, Simon suggests 5 ‘ways’ to leave one’s lover:

1)    Just slip out the back, Jack
2)    Make a new plan, Stan
3)    You don’t need to be coy, Roy
4)    Hop on the bus, Gus
5)    Drop off the key, Lee

So the text-in game was to come up with a further 45 ways, as long as they rhymed. Fair enough. The suggestions were as follows, and maybe you can spot why I was shocked by it:

6) Fake your own death, Geoff
7) Tell them they’re not slim, Jim
8 ) Sleep with her sister, mister
9) Push her out of a plane, Shane
10) Do a John Terry, Jerry
11) Do a Giggsy, Mr Rigsby
12) Change the locks when she goes shopping, Robin
13) Tell her you’re gay, Andre
14) Put his stuff in a skip, Pip
15) Become increasingly cold and distant, Vincent
16) Take her to see Celine Deon, Leon
17) Snowballed away, Jay
18) Kill her cat, Matt
19) Boil her bunny, honey
20) Engage the ejector seat, Pete
21) Have an affair, Claire
22) Put her out with the trash, Slash
23) Write a message in the sky, Kai
24) Get on the tube, Jude
25) Try and dodge her, Roger
26) Defriend on facebook, Brooke
27) Tell ‘em it’s gone down the pan, Fran
28) Tell him he’s smelly, Shelly
29) Get in your van, man
30) Don’t let her under the cover, brother
31) Send her a text, Rex
32) Do it by email, Dale
33) Sleep with a tranny, Fanny
34) Tell her she’s rank, Frank
35) Tell her she’s so uncool, Paul
36) Tell her she’s a dingbat, Pat
37) Toss her in front of the train, Wayne
38) Feed her to the lions, Brian
39) Bury her on Blackheath, Keith
40) Stick her head in the cooker, Mr Brooker
41) Sleep with her mum, chum
42) Push her off a cliff, Cliff
43) Tell her she’s old and grey, Ray
44) Trigger an allergy, Ramji
45) I’m with your sis, Fliss
46) Stop the sex, Becks
47) Ditch the witch, Mitch
48) Put him in the spam, Sam
49) Never wash, Josh
50) Jog her on, John

Here’s my issue. I expect there were more than 50 suggestions made and these were the ones deemed acceptable.

6-8 of them involve suggestions of killing the woman (9, 22  questionably, 37-40,42 and possibly 44). This is meant to be ways to leave someone, not murder them. Most of them are insulting, many involve some form of violence or adultery and the vast majority are men dumping women. Granted, there’s 48 (‘put him in the spam’) which is pretty ridiculous but it’d be unfair of me not to point out that there’s one such suggestion.

Yes, I’ve overreacted to something mostly harmless. I tweeted @Xfm to ask them not to applaud people who think it’s clever to allude to killing women but heard nothing back.

At the time it seemed like more were violent than there are, looking at the list now, but 7/50 is still a disturbingly high proportion, in my opinion, and the fact that the DJs read it out with apparent amusement even moreso.

Anyway, that’s my rant for the day. Any thoughts?