ACTION: Transphobia in Schools

The Tories have deliberately excluded trans children from its inclusion statement for the final draft of the National Curriculum. This appears not to be an oversight but a deliberate decision.

In the February 2013 the draft National Curriculum document included "gender identity" as part of its inclusion statement;

https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/National%20Curriculum%20consultation%20-%20framework%20document%20(2).docx (Page 9 section 4.2)

The Final version, published in July excludes "gender identity" entirely, it has quite simply vanished;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210969/NC_framework_document_-_FINAL.pdf (Page 8 section 4.2)

As such it must be assumed that this is a deliberate exclusion rather than what trans people have become used to, being excluded through thoughtlessness. As such it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that it is deliberate transphobia. The category "gender reassignment" is enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 and by excluding it as a conscious act, the DfE appears to be attempting to harm the interests of transgender children.

I have just made the Freedom of Information request to the DfE;

"The final version of the new National Curriculum, published in July, in its "Inclusion" section on P 8 (section 4.2) excludes "gender reassignment" whereas this aspect of diversity was included in the Feb 2013 draft version. Please could you send me the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made to exclude this protected characteristic and please could you also send me a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment made prior to the exclusion of this protected characteristic. Please also send me copies of all emails, memos, discussion documents or protosals in which the exclusion of "gender reassignment" was discussed, mentioned or proposed."

If anyone can think of anything to add their FOI page is here;

https://www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus/dfe


I would suggest everyone to write to their MP and as him or her to ask Michael Gove. Secretary of State for Education why he has excluded "gender identity" from the final version of the National Curriculum inclusion statement, and if he will ensure that it is re-included. You can write to your MP here;

http://www.writetothem.com

This does not appear to be an oversight but represents a deliberate act of transphobia, we cannot allow trans children to be excluded from school life, it is vital that they are included in everything to do with schools.

The most chilling newspaper editorial ever written.

The one thing you can rely on with the Tories is that you can always tell what their real policy priorities are by listening to what they say. However it is not quite a simple as it appears; you can tell what the Tories main policy aims are from the opposite of what they are saying.

So when Michael Gove made a speech a couple of months ago against homophobia (but not transphobia) in schools, this was the forerunner of the huge number of his academies adopting homophobic policies. He gave them the freedom to adopt their own policies, so he has to take responsibility when they do so. The silence from Gove on this has been deafening.

When the chancellor, George Osborne tells us "we are all in this together" you know we are definitely not in it together; the rich have become immensely more wealthy since 2010, boosted by his tax cuts and wilful reluctance to collect billinos of pounds in taxes owed to the nation from the wealthiest companies. The rest of us get poorer, the 1% get richer at our expense.

So when David Cameron made a great show of championing a "free press" after Leveson, fighting to allow the billionnaire-controlled propaganda machine to retain its own toothless and biased "self-regulation" system, one had a feeling that there would be more to this than met the eye. It didn't take long for this to be revealed. Today the editor of the Guardian published what has to be the most chilling editorial ever written by the editor of a newspaper. In it Alan Rusbridger described how government agents entered the Guardian's HQ and ensured that hard drives containing data about NSA and GCHQ surveillance of ordinary people worldwide, through the internet, were destroyed. Cameron talked press freedom whilst attacking the Guardian's reporting on how his government is watching us. There can be no greater hypocrisy. Over Leveson Cameron talked press freedom, yet only a few months later he was sending his goons in to destroy the evidence of how his government has talked freedom and "rolling back the state" whilst in fact it has greatly increased state interference in areas where the state should not go; everyone's personal emails, social networking and internet activity. Ask a Guardian reporter or David Miranda whether, as William Hague infamously asserted "The innocent have nothing to fear."

These are important issues concerning freedom and personal liberty and state transparency, things which Cameron was all talk about just before the election. All talk and no trousers apparently. He has made no comment at all about these crucially important issues, indeed all we have heard from him is that his back is too bad to go deer hunting. This is not just a disingenuous silence on his part (have you noticed how Cameron, Gove, Osborne etc never speak about issues like this, they just shut up and ignore anything about which they could be criticised) but a rank cowardice. I said three years ago that Cameron was not the Prime Minister, that view has been greatly reinforced, he is simply a leader of a despotic cabal of the rich and powerful who wish to use state apparatus (while saying they are anti-state) to crush dissent and make themselves richer at our expense.

Translation of articles in Danish about attack on Cecillia Mundt

Translated from original article in EkstraBladet

"Why I hit a transsexual with a hammer"

21 year-old denies hatecrime was a motive for the attack

"Smiling and grinning a 21-year-old trainee chef from Sønderborg in Copenhagen confessed to a magistrate today that he beat the 48-year-old transgender woman Cecillia Mundt down with a hammer in City Hall Square in Copenhagen.

The 21-year-old, who is on parole for assault, met the 48-year-old at the main train station by chance and asked why he (sic) was dressed as a woman. But the perpetrator denied that hatred of transgender people was the cause of the brutal assault.

“I asked why are you like this. I should not have involved myself, and then he (sic) called me a 'møgperker'” explained the 21-year-old to the police magistrate.

He was angry about this and followed the 48-year-old to City Hall:

“I happened to have a rubber mallet in my bag when I moved a few weeks ago, so I hit the back of his head”, the grinning 21-year-old in the told police magistrate.

“You laugh? You think this is funny?” asked senior prosecutor Maria Cingari.

“No, I just got something in my throat”, said the 21-year-old, but continued the rest of the hearing to smile and chuckle as he appeared relaxed in the dock.

Knows gay men

“I want to be accountable for what I've done. It is not acceptable. I have respect for people who dare to be different and I also know some gay men. It's okay that they are as they are”, said the 21-year-old. According to his explanation, he went only crazy because he was called 'møgperker'.

“He spoke rudely to me”, said the 21-year-old of the transsexual.

He beat Cecillia Mundt in the back of the head, so she fell. Then he ran off and threw the hammer away. He went home to Sønderborg, where he goes to the Technical School, and has a room. On Monday he should have been starting two weeks of work experience as a trainee chef at a hotel in Sønderborg.

Yesterday he called police and turned himself in. He was arrested at 10:10 yesterday.

The 21-year-old stayed at a hotel in Copenhagen when the attack happened. He should have gone home to Sønderborg on Sunday, but chose to stay in Copenhagen to 'get some fresh air'.

Victim in danger

 At the hearing it emerged that Cecillia Mundt was in potential danger. She had a three-way fracture on the right side of the head and a piece of bone of 2.5 times 2.5 centimeters was pressed into the skull, but luckily without bleeding. Moreover, the 48-year-old had abrasions on the hands, face and scalp probably from the fall.

The 21-year-old denies that he struck the 48-year-old in the head more than once.

Prosecutor Maria Cingari doubts that the damage could have been caused by a rubber hammer, but according to defender Peter Giersing also a witness described the hammer as a rubber mallet.

The 21-year-old, who is heavily tattooed on the left leg and in the neck, sat in the police magistrate in short black pants and gray hoodie.

He has twice previously been convicted for domestic violence. In May 2009, he was sentenced to 60 days imprisonment for violence by a court in Sønderborg. In August 2011, he was given four months in prison for aggravated assault, also in Sønderborg and he is on parole with probation until 27 January 2014 with 42 days remaining to be served.

He was remanded in custody for 16 days until 24 June, both for the risk of new violent crime and the interests of the gravity of the pffence and the sense of justice.

“Can I go now?” asked the 21-year-old and was with a small smile on his face and was led out of the police magistrates court.

LATEST: Update, also from Ekstra Baldet

Cecilia's Response: Attacker is full of lies

That's just sickening that he comes out with that. I am not a racist and would not dream of calling someone 'møgperker'.

The 48-year-old transgender Cecillia Mundt is shocked by the 21-year-old violent man's explanation in Copenhagen magistrate today.

Here he claimed that the motive for his brutal assault with a hammer on Cecillia Mundt on the square was not due to that she is a transsexual, but that she called the 21-year-old for 'møgperker'.

The 21-year-old trainee chef claims he randomly met Cecillia Mundt at the main train station and asked 'why she looked like that' on the grounds that she was dressed as a woman.

Cecillia Mundt changed sex when she was 46 years old, and the police magistrate claimed the accused that he was told that “he (sic) hadn’t shaved” and then he was called 'møgperker'. Therefore he followed Cecilla Mundt to City Hall, where he beat her down from behind with a rubber mallet, which he happened to have in his bag.

“I have never spoken to him.”

“It is simply something he has done. I have never met him before or talked to him before. I have no idea what he looks like and no one stopped me or spoke to me before I felt the attack from behind and fell, said Cecillia Mundt to Ekstra Bladet from her sick bed.

She is convinced that the assault is a hate crime due to her sexual orientation, she is upfront about.

If someone asks me, then I explain to them that I am a transsexual. It's not something I hide. My neighbors are of a different ethnic origin and they respect me 100 percent as a woman. I would never call anyone for 'møgperker' says Cecillia Mundt.

Cecillia Mundt had eaten with a friend who is a journalism student and who is writing  a thesis about transsexuals when she went to City Hall and sent a text message along the way. Suddenly she felt the attack in her head and it all went black.

According to doctors, she was in potential danger. Amongst other things there was a large piece of bone pressing into herskull.

“The attacker’s explanation was that he "only" used a rubber mallet, I think he did not.”

“I'm missing a piece of the skull for life. A rubber mallet did not do that, said Cecillia Mundt. Doctors have implanted a titanium mesh in her head instead of the broken skull pieces.”

“I do not know when I will be able to go home. There is enough for a while. I still have severe pain and have an increased dose of pain medication. It is slow sending an SMS message for example”, says the 48-year-old.

But Cecillia Mundt has only compassion for the perpetrator.

“I would like to meet him and ask him why he did it. He must be sick and in need of help,” she says.

The 21-year-old has two previous convictions for violence and was released on parole.

8 June 2013 "

CC) Natacha Kennedy. Translation may be used freely as long as translator is acknowledged.

Westboro Baptist TERFs

Just when you think TERFs cannot sink any further into their cesspit of ignorance and fanaticism they surprise me and do so. Although having said that they also do not surprise me, if you see what I mean. This time one of the most fanatical TERFs has set up a website which appropriates the murder of trans people. Sickening. In my opinion the product of a badly diseased mind.

I'm not going to link to it here, it does not deserve additional publicity. This site imposes its own interpretations of the deaths of trans people and, simplistically as usual, puts the deaths of trans people down to the essentialist concept of "male violence". This is an oversimplification the likes of which led one particularly ignorant UK-based TERF to say that trans people should not exist because they "obcure the clear lines of oppression of women." It is also a deliberate misrepresentation of the reasons that trans people are murdered.

Aside from the fact that some trans people are murdered by women, including a Spanish trans man who was tortured to death by two women a few years ago, and the women who were part of the medical teams that have refused to treat trans victims of accidents, it is wrong because it obscures the reasons trans people are murdered which are largely structural and cultural.

The majority of trans people are murdered because they are forced to exist in vulnerable situations. The bulk, in excess of 80%, of recorded trans murders are in Latin America. They are usually murdered because they live in vulnerable situations and, for cultural ressons, do not have the protection of the police. Many trans women in particular, are forced into sex work because they are denied access to employment and education. It is likely that a significant number, if not the majority, of those who deny them access to education, are women (since women tend to predominate in employment in schools and colleges). This has the result that they have nowhere else to go but survival sex. Doing sex work leaves them particularly vulnerable, especially to drive-by shootings and murder caused by unusually violent clients. This does not merely result in death but in huge numbers of trans people being injured in such attacks every year.

This is not a product of the simplistic concept of "male violence"; an essentialising concept which seeks to position all men as inherently violent, something which is simply not the case, it is a result of the structure of society and its cisgenderist culture.

The problem, which makes the Westboro Baptist TERFs action even more sickening, is that back in the  US in the 1980s, under the Reagan administration it was TERFs who connived with this particularly nasty, and indeed misogynistic, right-wing government, to withdraw medical services for many of the poorest trans people. This resulted in them having to resort to sex work in order to pay for treatment. So the TERFs are the ones who were responsible for the extremely high murder rate of, particularly black and Hispanic, trans people. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

To then seek to appropriate the murders of trans people for their own simplistic and essentialising purposes places them beneath contempt.

I can't imagine that they can sink any lower than this. But I am sure they will...

TERFs, MRAs and lies about trans people.

The recent decision by the London Irish Centre to cancel the transphobic TERF13 (otherwise known as “Radfem 2013”) conference has resulted in a tsunami of misinformation, disinformation and downright lies from TERF*s and MRA**s alike. 

MRAs have claimed that violent protest action by members of MRA groups caused the conference to be cancelled.

TERFs have claimed that violent protest action by members of MRA groups caused the conference to be cancelled.

The truth is much less headline-grabbing and much less useful to both TERFs and MRAs, both of whom have an interest in presenting this as a victory of MRAs over TERFs, both of which have appropriated trans people’s legitimate opposition to TERF transphobia and hate-mongering for their own hateful and divisive narratives.

The TERFs want to portray their conference as being cancelled because of male violence. This is to help them gain credibility with other feminists. They need to do this because they lack credibility in every other area. They have also been quick to call this a "pincer action" between MRAs and trans people. Their desperation to portray trans people as working with MRAs being so great that they have done so in their usual, evidence-free way.

MRAs have been desperate to portray their action against TERFs as successful, probably to justify themselves as fighting against feminist oppression, a fantasy which, like TERF ideology, is also evidence-free.

However this is what the London Irish Centre has said about this issue:

“We did some research into RadFem and discovered certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.”

In other words the cancellation has nothing to do with MRAs and everything to do with the LIC’s equalities and diversity policy. It is interesting how venues tend to cancel TERF bookings once the issue of  TERF discrimination and aggression towards trans people is pointed out to them and they do some research. This is exactly what happened the previous year with Conway Hall. It is becoming a kind of ritual; 

Annual TERF hate-fest cancellation ritual

1. TERFs decide to have a hate-fest disguised as a conference
2. TERFs try to book a ‘respectable’ venue in an attempt to add credibility to their hate fest
3. Trans people point out to the conference venue some of the things that TERFs have said or done
4. Trans people suggest the venue does a bit of research independently about TERFs
5. The venue does a bit of research independently
6. The venue realises what TERFs are really like
7. The venue cancels the booking 
8. TERFs accuse trans people of threats/violence/intimidation/the usual rubbish
9. Trans people get on with their lives and ignore TERFs like everyone else does
10. TERFs try to claim some kind of credibility from the whole thing and claim ‘silencing’ despite the obvious fact that TERFs are the ones trying to silence and intimidate trans people.

Notice here how the whole exercise seems to be a TERF attempt to obtain credibility. This is important because their arguments and general behaviour (intimidation, threats, outing trans people, breaches of privacy/copyright, silencing, calling for trans people’s extermination, attempts at delegitimizing trans people, bullying etc.) are partly why their ideology has no credibility. As such the only way they can possibly manufacture credibility is to claim to be ‘silenced’ or ‘censored’ and bullied by MRAs.

The MRAs in turn have tried to claim credibility for what is essentially a misogynist hate movement that oppresses women under the guise of male ‘liberation’. They employ online attacks and attempt to silence feminists through threats of violence and online bullying of feminist bloggers and journalists. In this case they have claimed that their violent and intimidatory tactics against the TERFs and the London Irish Centre are justified and successful. To that end they have appropriated the actions of trans people who have calmly and peacefully, through reasoned argument, persuaded both the LIC and Conway Hall to do some research and rethink their bookings.

Trans people reject the tactics and aims of MRAs. MRAs represent the patriarchy, actively promote a culture and ideology that oppresses trans people as well as cisgender women, and tries to silence feminists. To appropriate trans people for their oppressive action is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Your Handy Guide to the differences between TERFs and MRAs;

TERFs	MRAs
Make evidence-free claims	Make evidence-free claims
Misrepresent trans people	Misrepresent trans people
Use threats and bullying as a matter of course	Use threats and bullying as a matter of course
Try to present their own oppressive actions as a struggle against oppression	Try to present their own oppressive actions as a struggle against oppression
Try to manufacture aggression to claim credibility for an ideology which has none	Try to manufacture aggression to claim credibility for an ideology which has none
Lie a lot	Lie a lot
Attribute the actions of one trans person, to the entire trans community	Attribute the actions of one trans person, to the entire trans community
Consider trans women to be men	Consider trans women to be men
Have an interest portraying the cancellation as the result of MRA threats and intimidation	Have an interest portraying the cancellation as the result of MRA threats and intimidation

 *Trans Exclusionary "Radical Feminists" 
**Men's "Rights" Activists

Press Release from Protest Transphobia

For immediate release: [01/03/2013]

A Community United Against Police Transphobia

Photo opportunity: Anti Transphobia Demonstration: Saturday March 2nd, 14:00 - 16:00 Charing Cross Police Station, Agar Street WC2N 4JP

We are a newly formed pressure group Protest Transphobia and will be holding a peaceful protest outside the Charing Cross Police Station following the horrendous treatment of a trans person by the Metropolitan Police Service last week. The violent and dehumanizing treatment of Jose Dos Santos, 49 has drawn widespread criticism of police attitudes towards transgender people.

Mr Johnson, a witness to the attack who prefers to be identified only by his surname, reported that “The victim then had her wig ripped from her head, her handbag and purse literally emptied out on the road, so her personal belongings were damaged and scattered around her.”

'Meanwhile police officers mocked her for her dress and having feminine items in her handbag shouting at her: "You're not normal! We'll let you get up in a few minutes but you need to act like a normal human being."

The attack is reported to have continued with painful and excessive force being used on the victim as a crowd gathered.
Group member and co-organiser Fathias Yanez commented;

“The attack on Ms Santos fills me with despair. Why is transphobia still acceptable? Will we ever be treated as humans and be safe? We are resisting transphobia!”

Although this protest will target the police station and officers directly involved in last week’s violent attack, the group aims to raise national awareness of the transphobia rife throughout UK Police Forces.

The Police have kindly agreed to meet with the Protest Transphobia group at 15:00 to state their position and also to discuss the concerns that the group have.
Protest Transphobia are a group of people committed to challenging the transphobia that pervades our media, our institutions and our lives.

London’s LGBT Community Safety Charity, Galop, has been collecting statistics on the number of reported transphobic hate crimes. In 2010 there were 82 transphobic hate crimes reported to the Metropolitan Police. In 2011 the number reported had dropped to 74.

Nick Antjoule, Casework & Development Officer at Galop, commented that although current figures show a 10% reduction in reported incidents between 2010 and 2011 he believes this masks the real issue as transphobic hate crime is under reported and is not reflected in the figures provided.

Notes for Editors

Protest Transphobia was originally formed in response to the Guardian’s decision to publish an article by Julie Burchill, despite the piece being violently transphobic. The group hopes to raise awareness not only of transphobia in the UK but also of the anti-transphobia campaigning of groups such as Galop, rarely reported in the mainstream media. The original article that reported this incident first appeared in Gay Star News:http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/london-police-accussed-mocking-sick-trans-brutal-arrest210213

Group members are willing to be interviewed and photographed either at the demonstration or at your convenience.


Protest Transphobia

Email contact@protest-transphobia.org 
Website www.protest-transphobia.org
Facebook www.facebook.com/groups/532466710119803/

"Saint" Vince Cable, loses his halo.

Vince's treatment of the poor, students, the disabled, crime
victims, the elderly deserves better than this.

Today Vince Cable, now a potential Lib Dem leadership contender, especially now that Chris Huhne is on his way to jail, has, rather than distance himself from George Osborne's failure to retain Britain's AAA credit rating, covered himself with the same dirt, in an interview with the BBC.

In an interview that was little more than a rather unprofessional attempt to brush it all under the carpet, Cable argued that losing the triple-A rating was not so important. Suggesting that it was merely "symbolic" he described it as "background noise."

Interesting then that he has been part of a government that has justified extremely severe cuts in public services, including the massive hike in fees for university students that he promised he would never vote for, in order to save the AAA rating. Perhaps Cable could tell everyone when the retention of the rating changed from being "vital" and used as the justification for huge waves of cuts, to being "symbolic" and "background noise."

Will he now campaign to pay back those students who have taken on huge loans, will he now campaign to pay back those disabled people who have had their benefits removed, plunging them into poverty, further illness and in some cases death? Will he campaign to get EMA restored so that those young people languishing without either jobs, education or training can have their futures back?

Justifying cuts on the basis of retaining the AAA-rating was part of his government's excuse for;

• slashing social services, 
• lengthening NHS waiting lists, 
• privatising hospitals, 
• removing EMAs from the poorest students, 
• closing Sure Start centres. 
• making tens of thousands of people homeless by cutting housing benefit
• cutting police numbers
• cutting the pay of millions of public sector workers
• forcing millions into dead-end jobs on poverty wages
• forcing the unemployed into 'workfare' slavery schemes, which actually cost jobs
• imposing a 'granny tax'
• flatlining the economy and driving down productivity
• plunging hundered of thousands of more children into poverty

...and plenty more besides. You have now heard it from the horse's mouth. According to Vince, much of this was unneccessary. If the downgrade was merely symbolic background noise then many of these cuts were not needed. 

Cable cannot have it both ways. Either the downgrade from AAA was a serious blow or it wasn't. Or to put it another way; either Cable was lying two years ago, or he is lying today. 

Which is it Vince?