Is Stonewall Institutionally Transphobic?

Organisations can be institutionally racist, sex discriminatory, homophobic by their very structures and procedures. This is when the way it functions in terms of its structures or systems acts against the interests of one particular group.

I am currently trying to see if I can get Ofsted to change its standards for assessing teacher training providers because I believe they are institutionally racist. This is not to suggest for one moment that Ofsted intends to discriminate against black people or Asians who want to become teachers but that the unintended consequence of the way it functions can cause teacher training providers to be less likely to choose black or Asians students to come on their courses. Black and Asian teacher trainees are more likely to need to take time off from the course for family reasons, either having family responsibilities or relatives abroad. Yet Ofsted penalises teacher training providers if too many students interrupt their courses. If this continues teacher training providers will become less likely to admit black and Asian students onto their courses, and the teaching profession will remain dominated by white teachers.

This is not what Ofsted intends but it is the unintended outcome of one of Ofsted’s systems.

The unintended outcome resulting from structures or systems within an organisation is what causes most institutional racism, homophobia, sex discrimination etc. It now appears that the unintended consequence of Stonewall’s activities is transphobic. Stonewall may well be institutionally transphobic.

The problem comes as a result of its activities as a provider of diversity training for teachers. It provides training for teachers and other education professionals in diversity issues about Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) people. So far so good, but most people these days don’t talk about LGB people, they talk about LGBT people, so when Stonewall sends its trainers to train teachers, despite the fact that nothing is said about trans children, the senior managers of the school are very likely to tick the “done LGBT equality” box, some may even consider that T has been covered.

But this is not all. Stonewall’s conference this year is a huge event entitled, without a hint of irony, "Education for All" and has attracted some big names including Gok Wan, Sue Gregory, one of the heads of Ofsted, and the hideous Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister. The event is being held in the sumptuous surroundings of the British Library.

This highlights the problems with the way funding and such like, from charities and other sources finds its way to Stonewall but not to other groups which are inclusive of trans people. As a result, whilst Stonewall can attract big name individuals and hold conferences which people who have power over schools will attend, trans organisations have neither the funding nor the visibility to do this.

Now Stonewall will obviously counter that they are simply campaigning for their people and are not involving themselves in trans issues. They probably do not wish to involve themselves in trans issues. The problem is that in both these examples, their activities result in problems for trans people, in that issues of transphobia in schools are not included in training for teachers and that issues of transphobia are not raised with people like Nick Gibb and Ofsted who have an increasing amount of power in the increasingly centralised education system. This may not be Stonewall’s intention but it is the outcome of Stonewall’s actions. It is institutional transphobia.

So what could Stonewall do about this? It is clear that for an organisation which promotes diversity to be institutionally transphobic is a serious blow for their credibility, as such they need to find ways of ensuring that trans people are not specifically disadvantaged by their actions.

Firstly, Stonewall could agree to permit a percentage of its funding, from those donors who do not object, to be channelled to trans organisations. Or it could ask those donor organisations to donate, say 5% of what they donate to Stonewall, to trans organisations. This would enable trans people to set up education conferences and attract top names like Stonewall does as well as start to build up an element of visibility and acceptance in the way Stonewall has done.

Secondly they could make it clear, as part of their diversity training to teachers, that they do not cover issues of discrimination of trans children and to provide schools with contact details of organisations which can.

I know Stonewall is an organisation which does not include trans people but that does not mean that they are absolved of all responsibilities for trans people. The BNP is an organisation, which acts against the interests of black people yet it was forced to alter the way it does things to avoid being institutionally racist. The fact that Stonewall’s actions, indirectly but concretely, are discriminatory against trans people in general and trans children in particular, means that it is time they took steps to rectify this.

GRS without psychiatrists? Maybe...

Is there already a route, still not very widely known, for transsexuals who wish to access surgery without having to go through to a psychiatrist? It is looking like there may well be.

It depends on the provisions embodied in the Equality Act, which is a piece of legislation the Tories are working very hard behind the scenes to get rid of, or at least to manufacture an excuse to get rid of. The Act makes provision for a trans person who, with no surgery and who lives in a different gender (and passes in that gender) permanently to change their legal sex/gender. The only proviso being that they can pass in their new gender (and a pretty nasty and very discriminatory proviso at that). They can then live their lives as men or women with all their ID in their acquired gender.

Once this has been accomplished, it has been suggested that trans people can simply go to their doctor and request surgery to enable their body to conform to their legal gender. It is unlikely that the doctor would have any grounds for refusing this treatment. If a patient turns up and he is legally male then a double mastectomy should be available with no psychiatric consultation required. Indeed this is the case with legal males who suffer from gynecomestia.

This could be important since it may well end the monopoly on gatekeeping, which the psychiatric profession has on GRS. Of course it is a completely untried route as yet, but given that a pre-op transsexual told me recently that she would say anything or do anything to obtain her GRS it is significant that this possibility is opened up. In effect this makes a mockery of the psychiatric consultation, which, as both Sandy Stone and Judith Butler have described as effectively little more than a game, the rules of which trans people have to abide by while they are transitioning.

This is something for transsexuals, who are not confident about approaching psychiatrists, to think about. Will it work? That is a big unknown, but there do appear to be some in the NHS who are prepared to take the possibility of this new route seriously...

Conservative feminist separatists - things get nasty (again).

Many of us have got used to the internet, and social media in particular, being a force for good in trans people’s lives. As a small, geographically dispersed population, the internet has been a godsend and enabled trans people to connect with each other and create the kind of social capital and mutual support that has made it easier for many to come out and feel accepted and more comfortable in their lives as well as fight for the kind of human rights others take for granted.

However there are clear signs that the forces of conservatism and oppression are gathering and becoming more organised to push the genie of internet freedom and back into the bottle. In the United States far-right organisations and those representing conservative and oppressive religious bigots have combined to contaminate the web with lies and deception. This goes well beyond the dreary conservative blogosphere and includes right-wing conservatives organising to post bad reviews of left-wing books on Amazon, and good reviews of right-wing books. They have got organised to troll places like Comment is Free, where regulars can see right-wing comments posted by one-off posters with identities that never appear again.

The fact that is that this is all organised using money from shady right-wing organisations using money from even more shady right-wing millionaires or billionaires, to look like it is spontaneous is all the more disturbing. Not grassroots but Astroturf.
The fact that the Conservative Feminist Separatists (they call themselves “radical feminists” but they are about as radical as the Daily Mail) are using the same dishonest and deceitful tactics is both a cause for concern and for optimism.

It is a cause for optimism because they are losing the argument, their dubious and hateful arguments underpinned by a carefully concealed Heidegger-inspired desire for “gender purity” or “gender cleansing”. The esprit fasciste underlying this being something they try hard to obscure.

It is a cause for concern because they are resorting to the kind of duplicitous tactics of the right-wing conservatives. For all I know they may even be getting paid for this by the aforementioned shady ultraconservative organisations. The most recent example of this was a poster on Juliet Jacques’ article about trans history in New Statesman. In a clear attempt to drive a wedge between the trans and the LGB communities, someone using arguments which had, a couple of weeks earlier, been used elsewhere by a conservative feminist. The argument itself was as disingenuous as it is possible to be, blaming trans people for the actions of Iran’s cisgender religious bigots forcing one half of a gay couple to have gender reassignment surgery on pain of death.

Another Conservative Feminist Separatist has used her blog to attempt to ‘out’ trans people, despite the fact that doing this could have dire consequences for the individuals concerned, up to and including death. This is a serious cause for concern, the fact that they are prepared to put individual trans people’s lives in danger.

Of course these people have form in this area. The activities of so called “Radical” feminists in the US during the Reagan government, who connived with the Republicans to deny thousands of transsexuals in America access to the healthcare they desperately needed. There is no telling how many trans people have died as a result of this, either from suicide or as a result of going into prostitution to pay for private healthcare. The consequence of this hatred is a murder rate of 1:12 for American trans women.

The trans community has reacted impressively when faced with the institutional transphobia of the Royal College of Psychiatrists over their, abandoned transphobic conference. What we need to be careful of is the influence of the Conservative Feminist Separatist bigots. They know that they cannot win the argument by legitimate, open and honest debate, and as such they will resort to behind-the-scenes manipulation and secret back-door deals with influential individuals and organisations, as well as the kind of duplicitous anonymous interventions on social media, and in mainstream media as well.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, something which is likely to become more significant to trans people before long.

The Death of Bin Laden

When notorious murderous conquistador Cortez attacked Montazuma's citadel they destroyed the entire Aztec civilisation within a day. However the Spanish forces, despite overwhelming military superiority failed to destroy the Apaches in 300 years and eventually gave up trying.

The reason for that was the horizontal, cellular structure of the Apache civilisation which, in contrast to the hierarchical, centralised pyramidal structure of the Aztecs, permitted them to absorb attacks without their society being whiped out. If one leader was killed, another simply took his place. This is the model for Al-Qaeda's organisational structure. Of course symbolically Al-Qaeda will suffer, "those who laugh last laugh longest." Yet it will not be the end of Al-Qaeda. They may not respond straight away but this increases the likelihood of retaliatory attacks in the medium term. Doubtless another leader will spring up, and the ultra-conservative zealots who make up the bulk of Al-Qaeda's and the Taliban's membership will be just as fanatical, indeed in the short term they may even be motivated by his supposed "martyrdom".

Let us get this straight; Al-Qaeda is a fanatical right-wing organisation which is racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic. Bin Laden was an old-fashioned bigot, whose ideology functioned to spread this kind of hatred and has been instrumental in the oppression and death of thousands, if not millions of people worldwide in Muslim countries and in other places. The death of the architect of this group, the main aim of which further the kind of extreme hate-crimes and violent crimes pepetrated by this organisation.

My main hope now is that President Obama can now move forward on Guantanamo, and rid America of this blight to its claim to be a free and just country.

The Met forgets that trans people are people.

The issue of the transphobic sexual assault of a trans person by the Met as they tried to protect Wills and kate from unarmed demonstrators more than a mile away from the Royal Wedding has caused outrage amongst trans people.

There appear to be serious problems relating to diversity training for police officers, yet the issue is much deeper than this. The apparent open sexual assault of a trans person was not simply down to training and diversity. It is an issue of how trans people are perceived. The manner of the assault was something which would never have happened to a cisgender individual, no police officer of either gender would considering doing what was done by the squad in Soho Sq yesterday, to a cisgender man or woman. Yet it happened, in effect without thought, because the individual concerned was considered to be transgender.

As such this represents an issue of humanity. It has often been argued that being intelligble as either male of female (by no less a person than Judith Butler amongst others), is a prerequisite to being considered human. In other words, people in our culture generally appear not to accept as a human being, anyone who does not appear to be gendered either male or female. This is probably the root cause of yesterday's assault. The perception that trans people are not people.

This is an issue which goes beyond policing, it is the reason journalists, "comedians", some psychiatrists and even teachers discriminate against trans people; because they do not see trans people as people. In my opinion it is the theme running through Trans Media Watch's Memorandum of Understanding; the desire for trans people to be accorded the respect that is due any human being. It is the reason why some psychiatrists think they can force us to conform, as though they are training a dog or a performing seal, it is one of the reasons why some Rad Fems incite violence and hatred against us. As the Nazis succeeded in doing in the 1930s, dehumanisation carries with it enormous consequences; once a group of people is considered less than human, any treatment becomes possible.

The issue here is about much more than sexual assault. It is about our humanity, a humanity which is still denied to us by a hostile and institutionally transphobic culture.

Destroying Teachers TV: Educational Vandalism

The government’s decision to get rid of Teachers TV is a deliberate act of vandalism which reveals a huge amount about the motivation behind their policies and the direction they intend to take.

Firstly it shows up their stated commitment to increase the quality of teachers to be a lie. TTV has helped both new teachers and more experienced ones over the years and has won over people, who, like myself, were initially sceptical. If something this popular with teachers is destroyed, how is that going to help improve their quality? The TTV website is even telling us that some of the videos which teacher educators have downloaded and kept may not be used after the 28th April.

The truth is that the government does not want good teachers. A well educated population has never been, and will never be in the interests of the Conservative Party and its big business backers. Gove’s action in vandalising a cheap and easily available resource to help teachers makes this abundantly clear.

From Farce to Fiasco: The Royal College of Psychiatrists conference debacle.

Newsflash: The Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic has just put out the following statement:

“The team at the WLMHT Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) at Charing Cross Hospital notes the apparent shift of emphasis in the Royal College of Psychiatrists Gay & Lesbian Special Interest Group conference, ‘Transgender: Time To Change’ on May 20th and feels compelled to withdraw on this basis.

When we were originally asked to take part, GIC clinicians understood that our role was to outline the work we do within our own service and explain the very considerable evidence base which underpins it. We are very happy to do this and our more than 55 years of experience as the country’s leading NHS provider gives us a rich and robust data set from which to draw observations.

It now appears that the conference comes at trans issues from a very specific agenda, namely, to explore the validity or otherwise of gender diagnoses as medical and psychiatric phenomena. So long as this is the case, we feel we can’t support it.

Although we were somewhat wary of engaging in what is essentially a clinical discussion with a predominantly non-trans panel, which, moreover, features a non-clinician whose personal opinion is already well known, we agreed to do so in order that discussion might focus on evidence rather than anecdote.

The Royal College should be aware that there is a great deal of disquiet around this event within the trans community and interested parties should note that the discussion as it now stands will be one-sided at best..”

The sudden withdrawal of the Charing Cross GIC from the Royal College of Psychiatrists conference following widespread anger amongst the transgender community and pressure from trans activists, represents a massive blow to the College’s credibility.

If they haven’t already decided to do so, then they should seriously consider cancelling this event, which has gone from farce to fiasco. The RCPsych’s arrogance and unwillingness to engage with trans people objecting to the basis of the conference is now pouring humiliation on the College’s senior management. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

It seems inconceivable that the conference can now go ahead and the RCPsych should bow to the inevitable. Their supercilious attitude to trans people’s wishes and feelings is coming back to haunt them. The contempt with which they treated all efforts to negotiate some sort of compromise has resulted only in increased anger and determination on the part of the transgender community. The Gay & Lesbian Special Interest Group was always an inappropriate forum at which to discuss trans issues, and the RCPsych should have seen that and should be asking questions about the way this group is constitutes and run. Now that their failure to act and to listen to trans people has blown up in their faces for the RCPsych the message is clear; welcome to the real world.

The Charing Cross GIC have obviously put a great deal of thought, both into their position on whether to attend the conference in the first place and subsequently whether to withdraw, and they should be congratulated for a sensible and courageous decision, and one which demonstrates that this is an organisation that truly considers the interests, and the feelings of its clients. It is time the RCPsych realised that trans people are people.