whittl(e)ings

Sonia (‘David’) Burgess (1947-2010) : An obituary

2010-11-01T21:55:00.000-07:00

Angelic Inspiration: Human Rights Lawyer Dies in Tragic Circumstances.

Sonia Burgess

I am shattered by the news of Sonia Burgess's tragic death. Sonia was the human rights lawyer every human rights lawyer respected. Sonia was to be the lawyer who inspired me to be the lawyer I am today. From 1992 to her semi-retirement in 2002, Sonia (as ‘David’) acted as the lawyer to Press For Change, the UK’s lobbying and activism group for transgender people’s rights.
Sonia specialized in rescuing the dispossessed, refugees and asylum seekers, lesbian, gay and trans people. Her work frequently saved the former from certain death, persecution, or degradation, and advanced considerably the battle for civil rights for the latter, over that period.
When I first went to Sonia’s office, naïve as I was, and coming down from up North, I expected a London lawyer to work in a fancy building, with polished furniture, and rich carpets. Instead I entered a dark, dingy, decaying building on the East London Road, where dirty magnolia woodchip wallpapered stud wall partitions, with holes where they had been torn and kicked in frustration by the firm’s clients, looked as if they would collapse at any moment. Inside that den of iniquity, their seemed to be hundreds of grey people hanging out, hoping for a bob or two, or a cup of tea whilst they waited for the British Government to decide on their lives. Rarely did money change hands. Sonia, backed by an army of pro-bono law students, mostly gave away her services. Her wife, a beautiful Nepalese woman, and a community nurse, was the breadwinner for the family, Sonia’s income was tiny in comparison.
On first sighting, Sonia (as David) was a tall, willowy individual with a toss of deep blonde loose curls on a face with the highest cheek bones any woman would die for. ‘David’ looked like someone of neither sex, and for all the world, as you might imagine an angel if you were ever to meet with one. Though Jewish, her wife was Nepalese and so Judaism was not pushed within the family. Yet, Sonia was a Jew with a contemporary reflection on life, with a vision of a world in which humanity acted humanely towards each other. As a lawyer, her mission, “a job that she had just been given”, she said, was to rescue the earth’s dispossessed.

David Burgess

As senior partner of Winstanley Burgess Solicitors, Sonia’s work led to significant judgments in the House of Lords, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. ‘David’ worked on cases involving issues as diverse as fair trials in foreign countries, victims of medical torture, refugees who were being refused refugee status, civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for unlawful detention, country guidance casework on North Korea, as well as the many transgender cases we presented her with.

In 1992, Sonia agreed to take a case on behalf of our first child (referred to as Z) to the European Court of Human Rights. Sonia’s plan for the case was that our daughter (Z) would seek to have me, a (female to male) transsexual man, her father, and for all purposes other than providing the sperm, recognized on her birth certificate as her parent. She was claiming the right to a private life (Article 8) in which she have the full set of parents she knew. Sonia planned it very carefully. We did not ask for me to be named the father of our daughter. Rather our daughter asked for me to be recognized as her parent. By this ploy, we hoped that (a) we could extend the right to Lesbian and Gay parents, and (b) as the only space left on the certificate was for the ‘father’, the government would finally see sense and recognize me as such, which logically would then involve recognizing me as a man – because after all that is what fathers are.

It was a brilliant strategy, and typical of the strategies’ Sonia would come up with. She would say they came to her in the shower, and I still tell me students that they will only finally become lawyers, when 10 to 12 years from now, they finally get a ‘eureka moment’ in the shower.

Four years later, by the time the decision in our case arrive, Z had been joined by Z’s 2,3, and 4. The decision came by fax at 8am in the morning, and for the next hour, with my wife’s consent I ran around the Manchester BBC studios to give 14 interviews, outing ourselves and our family. Sonia was constantly on the phone reading and analyzing the decision, so that within 10 minutes I was able to spin the fact that though we lost and were very disappointed, the court had found us to be a family.

Sonia’s work on this, and many other cases we came to her with, was to provide a sound strategical set of arguments in favour of trans people being recognized as entitled to the same Human Rights, of privacy, dignity and equality as others.

She was equally brilliant on everything else she touched, and brought more than one home secretary down on their knees, as they lost case after case where they were attempting to return individuals to face persecution, degradation, or even certain death. However, I hated receiving the 9.30pm phone calls where she would ask me to write a ‘persecution risk’ brief for the court – for tomorrow at 10am. I lost many a night’s sleep at her request. It was an amazing high to find she had won the case. The rescued clients would then leave the court saying ‘thank you, thank you, I will, I will send you some money”. The money rarely came though.

In the end, financially the firm was on its last legs, Sonia’s back was giving her a terrible time, and ‘David’ wanted to live as Sonia. My daughter wanted to know why she didn’t work as Sonia? I transitioned in 1975, a period when ‘David’ was desperate to do the same. But Sonia was first and foremost a human rights lawyer. She knew what I was going to find out. As a trans person, she would likely be tormented by fellow lawyers, have no credibility at all in a tribunal and most likely lose her job. When she did semi-transition in the early 2000’s things had changed, she was able to work part time as a lawyer and the courts acknowledged her expertise. Technically she was still David, but looking like rather like the angel of neither sex.

It was many year into our friendship, before I was told of Sonia’s existence. Sonia’s wife had known of Sonia from before their marriage, but the children had been protected. However, they told me of the time when Sonia had been out for dinner with a friend, a fellow trans woman, when she realised she had been recognized by a fellow diner, a parent of one of his son’s school chums. ‘David’ decided that now was the time, she had had a difficult few years with her teenage son. When she finally got the courage and blurted it out, her son said “I thought you were really the most boring person I had ever know, thank god there is something interesting at last”. The family adapted easily, and happily accommodated both Sonia and ‘David’ within their household. In a statement the family said: “Sonia (David) was a loving and wonderful person and will be missed deeply.

Sonia was just as beautiful and handsome as David had been, in many ways even more so. She must have had a picture decaying in the attic as she had barely aged outwardly, from when she had been 30. Sonia (rather than ‘David’) and I first met for a for Amnesty International’s photo shoot for a ‘Trans People are People’ campaign. She looked wonderful and very desirable. Quintessentially though, she had stepped outside of our current universe and entered what the transgender actor and writer, Kate Bornstein refers to as that (trans)gendered space outside of where everyone else’s gender is. Sonia claimed a position as a trans woman, and she was a supreme trans woman. Men might look and know there was something different, they would often desire her, but rarely guess she had been born male.

It has been very sad to see the tabloid references to her as an ‘escort’, implying that she was some sort of transgender prostitute. That was not Sonia, she simply sought love, and fun. Her assailant is a trans woman who is an asylum seeker. We will probably never get to the bottom of what happened on the tube train platform of Kings Cross station. Most likely, there will not be a trial, according to one report as the architect of this terrible event, Nina was seen to be sharing a joke with Sonia. It might well turn out to be just a terrible accident, not everything is a crime. If she is prosecuted, she will almost certainly be advised to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter. For this to be a murder charge, I can only imagine that the woman who killed her, had reached that terrible point of frustration and despair with the British Immigration Injustice system, and had lashed out at the person closest. It is one of the dangers of the job; Human Rights lawyers are not meant to have an easy time of it.

Knowing Sonia, she would have approved of that, she was probably simply ‘helping out’ with the woman’s immigration issues, but something went wrong. Sonia leaves behind her wife, two daughters and a son. May she rest in her well-deserved but humble peace. It has finally dawned on me, that many of us were fortuante to really meet with an angel.

Finishing with some words from the sermon on the Mount by another famous Jew, these 3 short beatitudes sum up the meaning and purpose of Sonia Burgess’s life:

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Key Case Law: Sonia ('David') Burgess
Chahal v United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights
Razgar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 840 (19 June 2003) Court of Appeal
A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1584 (05 November 2002) Court of Appeal
R (Tamil Information Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 2155 (Admin) (18 October 2002) Administrative Court
X,Y and Z v United Kingdom (1996) European Court of Human Rights. Case no: 75/1995/581/667
In re M (A.P.) (Cross-appellant and Original Respondent) 1993 House of Lords
The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen. (Free movement of persons) [1991] EUECJ C-292/89 (26 February 1991) Court of Justice of the European Communities
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Sivakumaran and Conjoined Appeals (UN High Commissioner for Refugees Intervening) [1988] AC 958, 16 December 1987 House of Lords
____________________________
Copyright: Stephen Whittle 01/11/10

ps. Jemima comments "Why is the value or status of a trans woman measured in her desirability?". I feel an answers needed here. My reference to David's & Sonia's desireability had nothing to do with her trans status, her glamour, beauty, sexuality or anything similar. Sonia was 'desirable' as a person who truly cared, who always had a smile no matter how much pain she was in, who made you feel like you were the most important person in the room - when you were anything but, and who lived a life which was given wholeheartedly to others. I wanted to be as good a person as Sonia was, I desired to be like her, to feel the connection of her brain rather than her body. I wished I could have been her and live my life in the self sacrificing way she lived hers. People assume that the only form of desire is sexual, desire is so much more about aspiration.

Sweden depathologises transvestite, but not transsexual, people.

2010-03-16T21:57:00.000-07:00

The Swedish Board of Psychiatrists recently announced their decision to remove transvestism from its diagnostic codes:
Clearly Sweden does not wish to ‘control’ the behaviour of trans people, unless it is motivated in some special way. You can wear what you would like, so long as your motive is purely to cross dress. Sexual titillation will not make it wrong in fact, it is evidence of the innocence of your behaviour. You are harmless, even sane, unless you have the wrong motive; a desire to live your life as a member of your opposite natal sex group, whilst wearing the once forbidden clothes.

If I was to discuss his in terms used in the criminal law, cross dressing might be described as being the actus reus (the criminal act), and except in very limited circumstances, (such as getting parking tickets), if cross dressing was a crime you would be convicted of the offence of cross dressing if you also had a mens rea (a guilty mind), i.e. you cross dressed knowingly whilst knowing it would cause offenSE.

What is the OffenCE?
In the criminal law if you have an actus reus (eg. flung out your arm) and a mens rea (intended to break the man’s nose) for the criminal offence then you will be convicted, unless you have an appropriate defence. A defence can be mounted, which can be either be full or partial. If full, i.e. you did not fling out your arm, or you did not intend to hit the man) you cannot be convicted of causing grievous bodily harm.

If partial (you flung out your arm, because you have epilepsy, and forgot to take your medication, and so flung it out without any conscious control) your offence can be downgraded, in this case from causing grievous bodily harm to common assault due to diminished responsibility, i.e. you carry some responsibility as an epileptic who knows he is epileptic you should take all your medications to ensure this sort of thing doesn’t happen.

We have recently seen an example of the partial defence at work in the Crown Court, whereby Angela Gordon, who along with her partner, caused her daughter, Khyra Ishaq, to die from malnutrition has been convicted of manslaughter. During the time leading up to Khyra’s death, Gordon was found to have suffered a deep clinical depression. Consequently the judge directed the jury to find her not guilty of murder but instead find her guilty of manslaughter, i.e. Gordon killed Khyra unlawfully but under circumstances in which Gordon did not intend or foresee her daughter’s death. Her partner, Junaid Abuhamza, is schizophrenic and had already been similarly convicted of manslaughter.

Criminal law is simple , it is basic kindergarten mathematics that goes like this:

no actus reus + no mens rea = acquittal
actus reus + mens rea = conviction
actus reus + no mens rea = acquittal,
no actus reus + mens rea = acquittal
conviction + full defence = acquittal
conviction + partial defence = conviction of a downgraded offence.

What is the OffenSE?
Our cross dresser, has done the act of ‘being a man wearing female clothing’, which, if it was a criminal offence, could result in conviction if they had a related guilty mind. But in Sweden, you can wear what you like, so long as your intention is pure – like trainspotting only in frilly knickers. There is no guilty mind for those who return to work the next day as their same old, asperger-ed, self, still wishing to play with the train set in the attic. Cross dressing whether your wife’s lace panties and bra, or full drag for Stockholm Pride is, in other words, entirely innocent, so long as you are not thinking anything more than enjoying the feel of the lace panties and bra.

So, In Sweden, if you go out cross dressed, you will not be stopped by the police. Nor will any hospital or doctor be interested in you. The act of cross dressing is neither an offense nor an offence.

A small problem with this discussion, is that Sweden does not seem to distinguish between trans women and trans men. It may be my poor (non-existent) translation skills but it seems they assume cross dressing as essentially a male behaviour. Thus the following discussion is slightly askew, as it is very difficult to determine what exactly is their attitude towards trans men, so instead I will presume that as they think that the actus reus is wearing clothing of the opposite sex and the mens rea is expressing the desire for gender reassignment, therefore the sooner the trans man and the trans woman undergoes psychiatric assessment and treatment, the better it is for all, as they will no longer be cross dressing nor will they be desiring of gender reassignment treatments.

But we do face the problem of exactly what is the guilty act is. Is it wearing clothing of the opposite natal sex, or is it the wearing of women’s clothes by people who say "I am a man". It clearly is neither. So is it women wearing men’s clothes, or men who say “I am a man” wearing men’s clothes, or is it simply wearing clothes other people disapprove or. Well it is none of those either. Yet it is also clear that that having the gender identity, i.e. thinking of oneself as being a man or a woman, in and of itself, cannot be guilty act. Most people have one of those two gender identities.

But clearly no matter the extent of your cross dressing, it becomes an offense in some circumstances only. Not an offence in law, but certainly an offense against the state of the Swedish State. It seems you will cause offense if you do the act and/or express that guilty thought with an intention to think it. This takes some sorting out: Clearly the actus reus is not just wearing the knickers, but it is includes in the guilty act. The act of THINKING at the same time of wearing the knickers that perhaps you wish to live as a member of the opposite sex, also constitutes part of the guilty act. So if the thinking is part of the actus reus, what constitutes the mens rea? Transsexualism is one of those rare offenses where the thought behind an act matters as much if not more than the act itself.

The full state of the offense is the guilty act i.e, doing and thinking, and something which constitutes the guilty mind, and a guilty mind – which can only therefore be the expression of the guilty act. So you are mentally disordered if you have transsexualism, i.e. if at the time you are cross dressed you express to a third party that you think you wish to change your gender. The cross dressing combined with the thinking has become the actus reus of an offense and the expression of that thought to a third party becomes the mens rea of the offense.

When reviewing this position in depth, we find ourselves having to think about whether this categorisation of transsexuality as a mental health disorder has any basis in fact. Fortunately this is a blog and not an academic paper, and so I do not need to worry about the niceties such as references and footnotes or bibliographies. Secondly, this is opinion and not journalism. As we found out recently, in the Press Complaints Commissions’ pronouncement on the behaviour of the journalist - - sorry, column writer - - Jan Moir, who untruthfully reported - - sorry, opined - - that Stephen Gately suffered a lonely, addicted, drunken death, on the sofa while his male partner slept with somebody else in the room next door, which is apparently the fate of all Gay men, opinion writers do not need to tell the truth at all, not even a little bit of it. Unlike Jan Moir, however I am not going to lie when I opine.

Good Questions
I want to know why any physician would wish to continue a mental health categorisation for a group of people whose behaviour seems identical to that of another group of people. Of course the two groups are not quite identical, transsexual people appear to be in some ways more rational and therefore saner, as they frequently dress much more sensibly for the situation they are in. They know to wear jeans when gardening or boots when rambling, and they do not wear 8” stilettos whilst marching in Pride.

Why would they do that when it is well known, even amongst some Swedes, that such categorisation will have a severe impact on the individual’s well-being. We know it will result in the ‘real’ mental health problems of severe anxiety, depression, feelings of worthlessness, alcoholism, and addictive drug use, especially tobacco products. These will in turn cause further health problems as well as leading to workplace exclusion, family breakdown and social isolation. In turn, these people often become a problem for the state, requiring social welfare input, involving financial and social services support. We also know that none of this would arise if the person did not have a real fear of consequent prejudice, discrimination and violence that comes with being diagnosed as having the mental health disorder of transsexualism. .

Now it is only those trans people with the guilty expression of the guilty thought as well as the guilty act that are of interest to psychiatry (presuming all Swedish psychiatrists enjoyed forensics when at university). Presumably some psychiatric services may still be seeing some transvestites, but as with homosexuality, I believe, the numbers seeking psychological care will fall considerably over the next 10 years, as transvestite people discover they are no longer socially stigmatised.

I also would suggest that as there is no documented case of a cure of a transsexual person by the psycho professions anywhere within the scientific literature (though there are some churches who profess to achieved such a miracle), it would seem therefore the only treatment we have available to stop the [‘transsexual’] behaviour is gender reassignment. I will opine therefore that in Sweden, we should assume the sooner we can catch and ensure our transsexual citizens access the assessment and treatment process in a prompt and timely manner, and commence permanently living in their preferred gender role, the safer (nicer?) it will be - not just for them, but for all of us. After all we simply don’t want them around whilst they are still transsexual and causing such great offense, but our only alternative is to help them become the men and women they say they are, and so stop them wanting to cross dress.

Yet in Sweden, though some gender identity clinics are marvellous and progressive, in action as well as thought, clearly as can be seen from the new activism in Sweden, many clinics are still illogical in their approach, making it as difficult as possible for transsexual people to obtain gender reassignment treatments and to transition.

FREDA: Human Rights and Trans People
For a moment , lets pause and think about the principles of human rights; Fairness, Respect, Equality, Dignity and the right to Autonomy (Freda – not Frida as in the second most important event in Sweden’s history, the formation of ABBA) . It seems clear to me that this decision, which has just been embodied in Swedish law lacks fairness, fails to afford respect or dignity, certainly produces an unequal result and in the transsexual person’s case assumes they are not capable of their own autonomous decision making.

In de-pathologising cross dressing, any transvestite behaviour in itself is now harmless, so the first thing that needs to be arranged is a formal apology by the Swedish government to the many transvestites who have suffered inhuman treatments like aversion therapy, chemical castration and other bizarre medical regimes in the not too distant past. In the 1970s, Sweden was still sterilising the children of alcoholic parents using the theories of eugenics to justify their actions. As that was the case, I am sure they did not give cross dressing children a pat on the back of the hand. Compensation should also be considered for those people whose life chances have been damaged considerably by the ‘madness machine’.

Further, if cross dressing is now sane behaviour which needs no form of social intervention, the Swedish legislation must now urgently move to make transvestism a protected ground in the Swedish discrimination laws.

If cross-dressing is not in itself deviant or offensive, there must be a compelling and really serious reason for keeping some people under such a harmful psychiatric regime as described above. The seriously wrong thing must be a threat or danger to others. The thing that is seriously wrong, we can deduce is manifested through cross dressing, but it only comes into play if a cross dressing person also claims they are (in opposition to everybody else’s view) a man or a woman.

When this claim has been fulfilled, i.e. we have reached the endgame, in that other people now see them as the man or woman they say they are, and the individual is facilitated in achieving their new social role, clearly "the serious thing " disappears and we end their psychiatric supervision, because they are no longer dangerous. Rather than being sociopaths, they become pussycats.

Presumably, in Sweden, this very compelling and significant reason leading to the ongoing diagnosis of transsexual people with a mental health problem, must be such that it is worth the distress caused to transsexual people, and the severe impact on the individual’s life. Especially, when we take into consideration the risk of transphobic violence, prejudice and discrimination that comes with that diagnosis.

Is the very compelling and significant reason that many transsexual people try to commit suicide? Except of course it could not be, because otherwise, when we appear to recognise them as the person they say they are and are allowed to engage fully in their deviant behaviour, and we stopped forcing them to speak psychiatrists, the suicide attempt rate falls to what are close to normal figures. Some suggest they might even be lower than normal.

As a member of the general public, therefore I would really like to know what this compelling and really serious reason is, particularly as it is clearly dangerous. I think we need a national debate as to whether transsexual people should be put in locked units, until such time, it has been proven that they will not do this really serious thing – whatever it is. In fact, we could rehabilitate them through such units, making them undergo the full transition process, until they reach the end game and we know they are safe.

But, also, curiosity means, I just really would like to know what that one thing is. On one level it concerns me that I may have done it some time in my past. Fortunately my past is quite long way away now and there is a statute of limitations, unless of course it was something serious as murder.

De Pathologisation
I could go through a huge list of consequences to the state and the individual if we just imagine if it had not been a mental health disorder. I personally find that really difficult to imagine. It is as the Scots’ might say “Beyond my ken”. I still suffer from the shame, the blame, the fear of doctors, then feeling of vomit rising every time I have to tell someone new about my dark and dangerous past. I suppose I would feel none of those things - that would be a good start anyway.

Yet, I believe the mental health categorisation for transsexual people could disappear overnight, just as it has done for transvestism within Sweden. It has been done before over other similarly stigmatised behaviours and thoughts; the act of masturbation or the thoughts of romance when holding the wrong man’s hand, or getting pregnant when unmarried have all been de-pathologised.

Thankfully we no longer see young women locked away for 60+ years for such dangerous behaviours. In the 1980s we were all rightly ashamed of our society and our status as human beings, when we saw these women finally being released from the asylums into a sort of free life which had long been beyond their imaginations Similarly de-pathologised has been the act of sex with a partner of the same sex, and the thought of love with a lover of the same gender. And, now it has just now been done for transvestism. Surely, with evidence in existence from many, albeit mostly historical, societies where cross gendered living was not pathologised, that is proof enough that it can be done for those daring to think they might be transsexual.

I can see no reason for the mental health categorisation for transsexual people not to similarly disappear other than the purely practical problem of ensuring treatment, especially specialised liaison psychiatric services for those people who continue to need it, and will do so until the stigma vanishes. As the stigma slowly dissipates, we will see a new generation of mentally and physically healthy young trans people able to come out as children or teenagers, so avoiding much of the later surgery required, because of their current ongoing pubertal hormonal processes.

Indeed, the next generation of fathers and mothers may well realise that babies are not born boys or girls, rather they grow up into being boys or girls and the key indicator is not necessarily genital. They may well welcome the child they thought was the daughter when he announces he is the son. Similarly, they probably will also worry about the cost of the wedding when the child they thought was their son, announces she is their daughter. Hopefully we would see an end to the beating and throwing out of young people by their families.

Why would we not de-pathologise transsexualism, when we know that to do that will lead to those continuing health and social problems associated with stigma have a chance of falling away when the transsexual person is finally allowed to live in their preferred gender role, including wearing clothes whereby they can be identified, but which are also best suited for their circumstances.

De-pathologisation will only finally occur It when psychiatrists and psychologists agree with the viewpoint that the transsexual person is who they say they are; ie. they are the woman or man they say they are. What is it that really makes a woman or a man? As the ‘experts’ any non-trans woman or man they will say "I am a woman " or " I am a man .", and that is what makes them the person they say they are. So why can’t we transsexual people do the same.

What might be the consequent changes that will now come about, within Sweden, because transvestites are now fine and dandy citizens, with full human rights, and their behaviour is no longer mentally disordered. I recently had a conversation with a member of staff from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in which she was telling me to explain the human rights of transvestites. I said transvestite people have no human rights, which she refused to believe. Of course, in principle, we all have human rights, but there has been a long history of refusing human rights to many people on arbitrary grounds. Cross dressers have been amongst those, along with transsexual people. AS the law stands, where there is no legislation or case law to support the human rights of anyone if they are a cross dresser, I argued that I did not feel able to advise a cross dresser that they would win the case in court, where their human rights had been contravened, because they were cross dresser. The EHRC member of staff was getting edgy about this; until I said to her; "the day the EHRC employs somebody called Robert to work on the reception desk, knowing Robert will comes into work wearing a skirt, blouse, tights and a wig - I will believe transvestites of human rights ". She quickly saw the veracity of my argument.

Finally: the compelling and really serious reason for pathologising transsexual people.
As I said earlier, there must be a compelling and significant reason to continue the diagnosis of transsexualism as a mental health disorder, otherwise physicians, who are otherwise well-educated, responsible, sane individuals would not take such a drastic step. There must be some really serious problem – but what is it?

Before Magnus Hirschfeld and Harry Benjamin came along, there was no treatment for people who we would now identify as transsexual, yet the historical record does not seem to be any record of any particular consistent insanity or criminal offence, other than that of being a cross dresser who wanted to change sex, that these people engaged in. Yet, there are in fact many historical records of trans people suffering the most dreadful punishments; being hanged, burnt, garrotted, or in some cases, being drowned. In 17th century Holland, they would drive the Urnings and Tribades– up to 200 people at a time, to the Amstel, and then the people of the city used sticks to hold them under the water until they drowned. A tribade was a woman convicted of using an artificial member to have sexual intercourse with another woman, undoubtedly, there were trans men included. Similarly urnings were men convicted of being passive sodomists, undoubtedly there were trans women included.

So therefore, perhaps we can reach a conclusion, the compelling and really serious dangerous thing must be having sex, not heterosexual, lesbian or gay sex - in Sweden that is not a mental health disorder. But it must involve having sex, whilst cross dressing and thinking , and then expressing the thought. So it seems that the compelling and really serious dangerous thing is in fact linked closely to the breaking of archaic, patriarchal, social rules and values as to how to men or women should behave in the bedroom. Biological males must not be ‘passive’, biological females must not be ‘active’, whatever that nonsense means. Clearly it is not just that you have done this before but that you have the potential for doing this in the future, otherwise they would not be trying to cure gender variant kids, who have not yet even thought of sex as an activity.

But this is nonsense. Nobody is any longer concerned with those archaic social standards in the bedroom. So long as we are all consenting, and are old enough to properly consent, and we are not breaching a position of trust, and are not too closely related by blood, then we can do what we like in the bedroom. It no longer matters, who is on top.

But that is Sweden for you. It is a large country with very few people in it, it is a very wealthy country where people still get full student grants, and they have very, very long winter nights in which to do their knitting or to rub their hands together, prying into other people’s affairs. I think they might find it more edifying to take up philately, playing bridge or alternatively, enjoy reading Carlos Castaneda vols 1 to 12 in hope for their own enlightenment, hopefully arriving with the spring.

There are two other possible explanations to this current move to de-pthologise transvestism. It could be that in Sweden there is so much transvestism that they worry they will not be able to afford the clinical services for addressing the problem. In this case, continuing to classify cross dressing as a mental health disorder is about to become a significant drain on the Swedish health services. Following a pathway similar to late 19th century homosexuality, as there is now less stigma associated with cross dressing behaviour, more transvestites are becoming brave enough to talk to their doctor and they want their doctors to provide a cure – because there is still stigma surrounding being a transvestite. The Swedish health authorities have made this change to close this loophole, as they are extremely concerned that outpatient’s clinics will be full to the brim of worried-well cross dressers, and schizophrenics, psychopaths, sociopaths and addicts would be left to roam the streets rather than taking part in their group therapy.

The other ‘far fetched’ possibility is that the Swedish health authority, the Parliamentary Cabinet the ICD committee, and the Department of Health in Sweden are full of transphobic cross dressers.

If you get to the end of this piece of missionary zeal, you will realise that all I am doing is pointing out the illogicality of a system which says one thing and yet does another. A system which clearly fails to understand the link between cross dressing and being transsexual, a system which fails to relalise that over 40% of cross dressers would, if possible prefer to live as a member of the opposite natal sex grouping. Transevstite, transgender, transsexual, trans-nonsensical, we are all trans-connected, different from each other, yet still more often the same.

Some days I love being a lawyer, it is like mathematics, a simple game of logic whereby you can assume the strangest mentalities and behaviours exist and using logic, prove that they probably do exist.

_____________________________
copyright STWhittle 13 March 2010

Transgender Europe adopts new demands STP2012 campaign

2009-10-07T10:38:00.000-07:00

Transgender Europe (TGEU) Announcement & Documentation

Stephen: To update on my previous post, I am pleased to announce the Transgender Europe has reflected on the STP2012 demands to address the concerns of trans people in other parts of the world.

Please think about joining the campaign under the umbrella of TGEU to ensure it is known that you support these extra demands.

More than 160 groups worldwide oppose Trans Pathologization includign TGEU

Two weeks before the heyday of this year’s “Stop Trans Pathologization: Goal 2012” campaign already 7 international Networks and 161 trans groups and allies from 37 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and North and South America have joined the campaign of the Trans Depathologization Network.

On October 17th the heyday of this year’s campaign demonstrations will take place in 30 cities in 18 countries in Europe, Asia, North and South America (Date of information: 5.10.2009).

Transgender Europe (TGEU), which is supporting the campaign and calling upon its member organizations and other European trans organizations as well as our allies in other world regions to join the campaign and organise actions in their cities or countries, documents the campaign and its supporters on the TGEU website (http://www.tgeu.org/node/75 ) in English.
The Steering Committee of TGEU has adopted three additional demands in relation to the campaign’s principal demand:

“The Removal of Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM and ICD.”

These additional demands are:

The creation of an alternative non-pathologizing category in the ICD 11, recognizing that our gender identities are not mental health disorders while still enabling hormonal and surgical medical assistance to be provided for those trans-people who seek such assistance.
The funding of hormonal and surgical medical assistance for trans people by national health insurance.
The creation of processes for changing legal name and gender without compulsory treatment or any form of diagnosis.

However, every trans organization joining the campaign is free to choose their demands as long as the principal demand is supported.

We encourage participating organisations to choose their additional demands to best reflect their current national medical and legal situations.

If you want to confirm the participation of your group, please send an email to research[at] tgeu.org with the subject “JOIN STP 2012” and the following information:

Group / organization name:
Logo:
Country:
City:
Message: We join the campaign “Stop Trans Pathologization-2012

It is also possible for individuals to support the campaign. If you want to support the campaign, please send an email to research[at]tgeu.org with the subject “I SUPPORT STP 2012” and the following information:

Name:
Country:
City:
Message: I support the campaign “Stop Trans Pathologization-2012”

More information on the Trans Depathologization Network and their actual call for action n http://stp2012.wordpress.com/.

Aviso y documentación de Transgender Europe (TGEU):

Más de 160 grupos en todo el mundo se oponen a la patologización trans
A dos semanas del punto máximo de la campaña actual “Alto a la Patologización Trans: bjetivo 2012”, ya se han adherido 7 redes internacionales y 161 grupos trans y aliados de 37 países en África, Asia, Europa, Norteamérica y Sudamérica a la campaña de la Red de despatologización Trans.

El 17 de Octubre, el momento clave de la campaña de este año, se realizarán manifestaciones en 30 ciudades de 18 países en Europa, Asia, Norteamérica y Sudamérica (información con fecha de 05/10/2009).

Transgender Europe (TGEU) que apoya la campaña y hace una llamada a sus organizaciones iembros y otras organizaciones trans europeas, así como a los grupos aliados en otras regiones del mundo a unirse a la campaña, y a organizar acciones en sus ciudades y países, está publicando documentación de la campaña y una lista de los grupos que la apoyan en inglés en la página web de TGEU (http://www.tgeu.org/node/75 ).

El Comité Directivo de TGEU adoptó tres demandas adicionales relacionadas con la demanda principal de la campaña:
“La retirada del Trastorno de Identidad de Género del DSM y CIE.”

Estas demandas adicionales son:

La creación de una categoría alternativa no patologizante en el CIE 11 que reconozca que nuestras identidades de género no son enfermedades mentales, a la vez de posibilitar que se proporcione una asistencia médica de hormonación y cirugía a aquellas personas trans que busquen tal asistencia.

La cobertura de asistencia médica de hormonación y cirugía dirigidas a personas trans por parte de los sistemas sanitarios públicos nacionales.

La creación de procesos para cambiar el nombre y el sexo legal sin tratamiento obligatorio o diagnóstico.
Sin embargo, todas las organizaciones trans que se adhieran a la campaña son libres de elegir sus demandas, siempre cuando se apoye la demanda principal.
Animamos a las organizaciones participantes a elegir sus propias demandas adicionales que mejor reflejen sus situaciones nacionales médicas y legales.

Si quieres confirmar la participación de vuestro grupo, por favor manda un e-mail a research[at]tgeu.org con el asunto “ADHESIÓN STP 2012” y la siguiente información:

Nombre del grupo/organización:
Logo:
País:
Ciudad:
Mensaje: Nos adherimos a la campaña “Alto a la Patologización Trans-2012”.

También es posible adherirse a la campaña de forma individual. Para eso, por favor manda un e-mail a research[at]tgeu.org con el asunto “ADHESIÓN STP 2012” y la siguiente información:

Nombre y apellidos:
País:
Ciudad:
Mensaje: Me adhiero a la campaña “Alto a la Patologización Trans-2012”.

Más información sobre la Red Internacional de Despatologización y su convocatoria actual en: http://stp2012.wordpress.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STP2012 – IS THAT THE ANSWER?

2009-10-03T19:36:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Over the last few months, I have expressed my support for the International STP2012 campaign, which calls for the declassification of Trans as a mental disorder.

It has been quite successful particularly in Europe and parts of Latin America.

Miguel from the STP 2012 campaign has put out a letter asking for some Trans people who are supporting the campaign to stop supporting it. The reason for this is apparently these trans people want to have transsexualism reclassified within another medical category. He writes:

“I just want to remember that the STP2012 campaign doesn't ask for the "reclassification”, and we don't think transsexuality is something biological, we don't think IN ANY CASE we have an illness, a trouble...nothing. So, if there is a movement asking for the reclassification please don't call it STP2012..?”

And he asks :

”I just want to understand what happens? In our groups everybody cannot read in English and all these discussions are in English. We are trying to follow your debates but it's impossible.

Being now a mature, middle aged, middle class and middle income trans man is a great improvement on poverty, the key feature of my transition and younger years. It has afforded me the luxury of thinking back over almost 35 years as a trans guy, to ponder some of these great questions. I believe, like many of us who have been around some time, andwho have seen the vast diversity in the trans community, that the answer is simple: 'I am here, therefore I am'. So let me live my life in peace, and do my own thing as a responsible world citizen and please do not try and put my life in a little box.

But that doesn’t answer the question as to why so many people are seeking a new ‘label’ within medicine. So I will answer that and try to give you the reasons as to why some trans people hold these views. My apologies that this is long, but I have tried to keep my English simple for the translation to the other members of Stp2012

Reason no. 1: these things happen – you do one thing, you inspire someone to do something else. That’s life, you can’t control it, it can be irritating, but you must just be grateful that your work has provided inspiration for another person and you may have even given reason to their life. If your arguments are sound, and you saty calm, they will win through in he end. Often people do respond, but it is very rare for one’s critics to commit themselves to the sort of dedication you will have put into getting this campaign going and keeping it alive.

The Other Reasons, 2, 3, 4 etc: There are some fairly straightforward reasons why some Trans people are calling for the removal of Gender Identity Disorder from DSM IVr where it is a classified as a mental health disorder to another sort of medical classification, maybe within endocrinology. So I will try and go through the reasons to help STP2012 understand:

The Label Provides Access to Treatment
Life is not simple. I agree – why should we be labelled by a group of 19 century white , middle class, middle aged, able bodied, straight men? I’ll take that back, many of them were gay (men).
One of the consequences of the taxonomy (categorisation) of Trans people by medicine, where it was wrongly assessed as an undesirable and abnormal behaviour and not as an identity, has been its placing within the framework of a metal health disorder. This has unfortunately meant that non-trans people treat us as if we are of less value in this world? That gets Trans people really mad (but not in a mental health way). We are not, as a general rule, mentally ill unless others persecute us, and then we can become very depressed, anxious and even suicidal.

Who Decides Who is mentally Ill: The patient or the doctor?
It might be asked, what makes us a special case? Why should our classification be changed, rather than the classification, say, of those who hear voices?

Just as we are not ‘mad’ how certain cane we be that the people who hear voices are mad. Well, often they are not, according to my friend Philip Thomas, former Navy doctor turned Psychiatrist and founder of the Hearing Voices network in the North West of England. Though a large number of voice hearers seek help from the psychiatric services, a similar number never do that, but rather see their voices as being inspirational, friendly, and almost ordinary.

Quite a lot off us will hear voices at some time, mostly after a close bereavement. My voice wakes me in the middle of the night; it either barks loudly or shouts at me to turn the telly over to Channel 4. It is so irrelevant to my life that I often forget about it for months, until one night it happens again. Many people, who hear the most grotesque voices, and who have sought out psychiatric help because the voices are ruining their life, according to Phil, can also start to place the voices into the background once they know why they happen. When they hear that it is just a crossed wire, and as common and ordinary, a natural variation of human life and brain, similar in numbers to those people who cannot taste tomatoes, or have the recessive gene to roll their tongue, or are colour blind, or have the urge to cross dress, or the knowledge that their gender is different from that normally expected from someone of your birth sex.

Being trans used to worry me, as did the voice, but the trans worry was huge compared to the voice worry. In someone else, the same combination of features might have the size of the worries reversed. Now I know that the voice is a common and natural variation on life, and just a little crossed wire between some neurons, it has never caused me to think about it again.

Until recently, people who heard voices were treated as having a schizophrenic disorder and were often heavily tranquillised in an attempt to control them. Similarly trans people who did anything to try and be themselves were also tranquillised, placed in asylums, or chemically castrated in an attempt to cure them. I use the comparison of voices, because the person most often thought of as persecuted for hearing voices, St Joan d’Arc was not burnt for heresy because of her voices, but went to the stake because she insisted on cross dressing in men’s clothing.

But to the point, if we are to be declassified, perhaps there are many other labels in the DSM IV should also be declassified.

I argue that if we hate being being labelled with a mental health disorder because that means being treated as less worthy, which invariably it does, by rights as Trans people we should be campaigning for the removal of all of the mental health labels and classifications that people are given, which result in them being held in less worth.

Is it because we believe we are more worthy than them, that we seek the ending of this classification or reclassification? We have vested interests; consequently our motives are everything in this debate.

Sort out society, there will be no need for psychiatry.
Ever since Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) introduced the new medical categories called mental illness, there has been an anti-psychiatry movement. Kraepelins’ taxonomy of types of ‘mental illness’ were a problem from the start – they were based in behavioural, what he referred to as symptomatic", observations rather than any pathological evidence of causation, bodily illness or disorder. How could we know these ‘illnesses’ were true. Why couldn’t these people just pull themselves together? We know the answer. Because they couldn’t.’

In the 1960s, the anti-psychiatry movement became internationalised through the mass media. South African psychiatrist David Cooper, and the more well known psychiatrist, and Philadelphian, R.D. Laing argued that mental illness was a “transformative state” - a coping mechanism in response to a sick society. Sort out society, there will be no need for psychiatry.

Perhaps a more familiar concept to Trans people, is Thoam Szaz’z work on mental illness. He argued that mental illness is simply a fiction, it does not exist, mental illness is a myth, counterfeited by psychiatrists to provide themselves with worth, value, status and a large income. Or as the psychiatrist J Geller said to describe Szazs’s work

“Schizophrenic" provides the necessary structure from which to hang stigmatised images of a person—a lonely person with inadequate social skills and poor hygiene in one language, and a person who is bizarre, grubby, smelly, a street person, or a zombie in another language.”

So, should trans people actually be campaigning that the entire DSM is also burnt at the metaphorical stake? Well let’s think of what the consequences of that would be?

My wife is a psychiatric nurse turned lecturer in rencent years. She believes in mental illness, though, she agrees, not all things labelled as that are in fact illnesses. And from her tales from the wards (always discretely anonymous)it is clear that mental illnesses can be devastating, and whilst not all , some can in fact be be ‘cured.’ By which she means people become happier, more able to cope with the behaviour they sometimes manifest, and able to go home and restart their lives in a more optimistic way.

If however, we destroy the bible of psychiatry, as is our desire, and it seems our moral obligation to do so, will clinically depressed people no longer be able to access anti-depressants because what they feel is just a normal variation of the human condition. If they were unable to access their medication, we know some would kill themselves, some would eventually feel better, and a large number would be inside our prisons raising the percentage of the prison population with a mental health disorder from 10% to many more.

Bio-medical companies would no longer research, make or supply the medicines – it is only by knowing that through evidence based medicine that doctors will feel they are worth supplying to patients , that they have the confidence to put millions of dollars into their research and development. Current supplies would run dry – or I suppose they would have never existed in the first place. Might we find the treatment of choice be as follows:

FOR THE SLIGHTLY MISERABLE:

“’ave a nice cup of tea, dearie”

FOR THE TRULY MISERABLE:

Mum:
“for heaven’s sake Jim, your 16, I was working at your age. Now just stop floating around, get out of that bed, NOW, … pull your socks up, take some responsibility, get a job, put a grin on it …. And put that razor blade down .. NOW”.

FOR THE IMPOSSIBLY MISERBLE:
Doctor:
“Mrs Brown, this ‘post-natal’ thing you have, what did you call it – depression, humph – never heard of it before. Well, anyway we have a solution for this very obscure thing that is happening to you. Well not that obscure it seems, apparently we have another 20 of you languishing in the hospital. And we have to get you out you know, budgets, and things like that.

Clearly, you have chosen not to pick yourself up and be a good wife and mother. But don’t worry, we have a solution. Tom is divorcing you, well at this moment he’s in the court, we felt clearly you were not up to attending that.

Rupert, your son is going to live with him and his new partner. Your 3 year old daughter Ellie, and the new baby are being adopted … …………….

Now, now, there is no point in screaming, it has all happened whilst you’ve been in here having this appointment with me. But as I said, don’t worry, you are sorted, you can carry on behaving like this for the rest of your life, which is what you would obviously like to do - and it won’t bother anybody. We have a place for you at a Nunnery, there are flowers, magazines, and a lovely set of padded straightjacket and shackles in your room.

“What was it you called it … depression? How do you spell that, oh right, d e p r e double S- ion. Is that some foreign, oriental, concept. … very interesting … perhaps you would be game for coming and taking part in one of my public lectures next week. I mean, it’s easy, you would just sit there and I would ask you a few questions. Then you would go behind the screen, undress, -- yes, yes - everything , and then -- well, well .. I’d examine you. You know, measure you head, the size of your nose, your clitoris, things like that, and then you could slip on your robe. And if you would like, I think I can make a special exception on this occasion, you could sit in the audience for the rest of the show. Of course there would be security, you would have to wear the shackles, and there would be a couple of armed guards – but no more than that.

“oh dear, you don’t look very well Mrs Brown”

The anti-psychiatry movement of the 60s and early 70s failed miserably, because people really do suffer, and I remember that suffering and how badly I wanted to get those hormones. There is the fear that if we do not exist within a medical framework, somewhere, those of us who wish to have medical treatments would not be able to access them.<-/em>

For many trans people; they really do feel the need to engage with the medical services (as I have done) because of the sheer scale of the dissonance they feel with their body. It is a long time ago that I transitioned and first started hormone therapy, and then later had my first chest surgery. I cannot really remember what that felt like, but I can still remember the absolute desperate need to be seen as the person I am, as a man – or as it turned out, in the end, as a trans man – and how driven I was.

It is in America, and other countries with similar private health insurance systems, where the community are most fearful of change without reclassification. Their health insurance systems are very different from those we have around Europe. Our health insurers are either like that of the UK; a taxation based insurance scheme whereby access to (unlimited) health care is guaranteed. In other European countries the private health insurers are very highly regulated by government, so much so, that they could almost be called government schemes. And here again there is a very strong guarantee that if a doctor says you need a treatment, it will be paid for.

Other parts of the world are very different. Trans people are dependant upon minimal provision schemes for the poor, or the alternative expensive, often work related, private health insurance. In those countries trans people have to work very hard to get most insurers to meet any of the costs of trans related treatments – whether it be for therapy, hormones or gender reassignment surgeries. It is only a label of some sort that has enabled most to get anything. The vast majority of trans people in this world have no access to free or insured health care, nor the money they would need to even gets their kids some painkillers.

With STP2012 you started an International Campaign without thinking of the International Consequences.

There is a great fear, in the US where these issues are most vocalised, because the community is most organised. There is real fear that without a ‘classification’ in one of the major standards (such as the DSM IV which is for mental health problems) the medical insurers will refuse to pay for anything. In that sense, they probably are right to be fearful. Health insurance is so very expensive, only those in work are likely to be able to meet the cost of insurance. And health insurance generally only covers those conditions recognised by medical professionals, through the consensus systems that develop the major diagnostic manuals.

Without insurance coverage, the cost of any healthcare treatment in the US is extremely expensive, and the costs of gender reassignment treatments are in themselves high up on the expensive scale. I have friends work dangerous jobs down mines, or as line men (they are the people whom climb large pylons and fit phone lines and power lines), for 10 years or more to raise the money for chest and hysterectomy surgery after being refused health insurance.
Of course it is not just trans related costs that are affected, it can happen for any other health problem also, if the insurers can find the way to disbar you from the benefits – they will. I have one US friend in his late 70s who is still working to meet the very basic health costs for his sick wife, even then only she gets minimal treatment – nobody will pay for life saving methods in her case, though they do exist, and if she had been a European citizen she would have almost certainly received the treatments by now.

Those who oppose Obama’s health care plans, most notably the elderly who say that treatment will be less available to them, if the plans to give more health care to others go ahead, are also quite fearful, of losing benefits as they see a very thinly spread pot of money now having be spread even more thinly to meet the costs of those people often thought of as the ‘undeserving poor’, the low wage earners, the single mothers, the chronically sick, the people with mental health problems and so on.

Their fears are unfounded; those I have described will have got free or low cost basic care under the current Medicaid system as it is. But despite all that is promised - and I believe it is promised in good faith by Obama, those elderly people may well find the pot becomes more thinly spread anyway. The fact that they are living longer is what will cause the problem. Care is bound to be spread more thinly in practice – but that is demographics, and not new patients.
US Health providers are loath, like in my friend’s case, to spend money when they can avoid spending it. Like the Health insurers themselves, they have shareholder profits to think about, so of course they will cut corners. Obama’s government will need to put in place strict controls at the managerial and board level of health care providers, but in a state where the very idea of government control in any aspect of private life is an anathema, they may find that very difficult.
It is the fears of any loss of the paltry levels of health insurance coverage that Trans people in the US have that leads to calls for reclassification. Obviously, any reclassification seems to fall into the trap of labelling our life experiences as abnormal, and as we know, that is something that intersex people have also been fighting against for decades.

I think there is a problem out here in the real world beyond the theoretical gender queer position some of us feel able to embrace, and the harsh realities of trying to life a safe, sane and healthy life as a trans person in the US. And there is a long list of countries I could add in here.

I advise many real Trans people out there in the wider real world beyond that of Europe and the US, in places where life can be really tough I know what they think, and that is they can not be doing with all this theory nonsense, they are far too busy as they need to access some low cost hormones, get a job, stop being beaten up by their pimp, or having their stuff stolen by their brothers, and so on, in a whirl of misery and a life barely worth living in many cases.

The Stop2012 campaign needs to stop – for a short while to spend some time considering the lives and health care access issues for those outside of the European context; the people whose health care access is virtually impossible within the chaotic and corrupt regimes of Africa for example. The people who need to access treatment within Middle Eastern and other Muslim states where as we know, having a medically recognised condition really can be the difference between life and a public hanging in a packed football stadium. Have you considered what happens in the former Soviet Block countries – when communism collapsed so did the provision of gender reassignment treatments as the constitutional laws collapsed, and health care workers were not paid for years. In Japan, gender reassignment treatments were only made unlawful after a campaign in the 1990s to claim it was an illness in the DSM IV and should therefore be treated. And does anybody really know what happens in China, or in the truly repressive states of Burma & North Korea.

My concern has always been, despite my support, that the Stp2012 campaign is naïve. There was always going to be this problem because of the corrupt nature of health care provision in the US, and the lack of health care systems in so many other parts of the world. Until that is sorted out, most Trans people will feel unable to express a position ‘in between’ or ‘outside of gender’ whist doing so prevents access to any, never mind low cost, basic trans related health care needs.

So, the campaign is great as an idea, but in the execution of it, you failed to realise that the very people you have tried to help, might have been better helped with engagement in the debate, rather than just simply brushing them and their healthcare concerns under the North Atlantic. To be united we must listen to each other.

I don’t think we should need classifications which fit us in little boxes which are specifically designed to lock most people out, but then I have the luxury of a social health care system that is free. Before we make pronouncements on other people’s lives, and by ‘we’ I also mean the West, and the medical establishment, as well as health insurers, governments and US, as trans people we need to be offering solidarity to those less privileged, rather than threatening to take away their only access to gender reassignment treatments.

We must engage with those people in the world who have no funding or insurance for health care and for whom, gender reassignment treatments are a distant dream. We must also engage with the many others who could have some health insurance but for whom their health insurers will do everything they possibly can to refuse to pay for care.

The Shame of Being Trans
We must also try and understand those many trans people who are still carrying a huge sack of shame for being trans. Most older trans people, and many young ones, year after year, have been told, firstly by their parents, then teachers, then priests, then doctors, then employers, then so-called friends, then loved partners and often their children, how unworthy they are of even the right to live. They are abandoned from the minute their ‘secret’ is discovered. Being told how disgusting, dirty, and perverted you are, how worthless, how you deserve to die, how it would be better if you committed suicide and how much you are hated, makes most of us very ashamed of themselves.

That shame can be so big it causes many to take their lives, for others though it means that even a small idea that perhaps this ‘mental illness’ is not so mental, but it might be physical – that it can be found by counting cells in a tiny part of the brain, or decoding the genome to find a tiny part of our DNA were the causes of our ‘condition’, ‘syndrome’ becomes a lifeline.
When people contact press for Change, or myself, for help, they are often very angry, and that anger can be so great that it is directed to us, the very people who are volunteering their time and expertise. We try to remember that they almost certainly have good reason to be angry. The STP2012 campaign group needs to recognise the privileged position they are in, and try and understand that when starting an International campaign, they must have an international perspective.

I hope that better explains why some people seem to want reclassification, and why some people are unhappy that the campaign exists at all.

Sex, Gender and Race - slippery ideas

2009-07-16T21:20:00.000-07:00

The debate on what is sex and gender is interesting. In the context of trans people, particularly so. Some argue that they change ‘gender’, other’s say they always had their gender so ‘changed sex.’ Others argue all of that is impossible – sex is fixed and impossible to change by any number of operations, gender is what you do and it never changes – gender reassignment (or confirmation) simply places a different perspective on your gender.

But I would say be careful, what we are discussing can lead to some very slippery slopes, and saying we know what Sex is, is just as controversial position, as saying we know what Gender is.

It is worth looking at this debate in the context of one very similar; one which determined people’s social role, which decided what they could or could not do, and who they could or could not be: Race.

In the 1850's, when the Scottish explorer, and missionary, Dr. David Livingstone first saw Mosi-oa-Tunya, the source of the Nile (which he named the Victoria Falls after the Queen), he was looking for people with frizzy afro style hair, short loin cloths, beads round their necks and bones through their noses. Of course they did not exist, but 100 years later, as a child I would read story books and even a children's encyclopaedia, where Africans were pictures as having just those features. Africans were ‘natives’, and different from us, we were civilised, and we did not put bones throughour noses.

For centuries, mankind has a distinguished people based on Race. However, despite what Nick Griffin of the BNP says, we now know that the 'race' of a person is indistinguishable because it is not there, it does not exist. In science, there are no 'separate races' of people., any longer. We all have the vast majority of our makeup in common, and the bits that are different cannot be put down to 'race'.

Granted, there are some body differences between people from different parts of the world. For example, I might claim, "people of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity, i.e. descent, have a higher prevalence of sickle cell anaemia." But is that true? According to the US National Library of Medicine, it actually has a higher prevalence amongst people:
"whose ancestors come from Africa; Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Turkey, and Italy; the Arabian Peninsula; India; and Spanish-speaking regions in South America, Central America, and parts of the Caribbean"(1)
So the premise I started from was wrong. What I should have said, if I had taken a global perspective, is that: "Afro-Caribbean people are just one of the ethnic groupings who have a higher prevalence of sickle cell anaemia."

Nonetheless, what I initially said was true - but in a British context only, and then because of historical accident. One of the larger groups of mid 20th century immigrants in the UK were descendants of those people originally taken from Africa to be slaves in the Caribbean islands occupied by the British. In the early 1950s, the British government invited large numbers of these Afro-Caribbean’s to come to the UK on low cost subsidised tickets. Many held British passports, because we still ruled much of the Caribbean. They came in their thousands, to take low paid jobs (again) in our new nationalised health, education, railway, coal and communications industries.

So it is true to say in the UK, that as an 'ethnic' group 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th, and now even 5th generation descendants of those have people who came to the UK in the 1950’s have a higher prevalence of SCA, it just isn't true in a global perspective. So, let’s say a person has SCA, you might presume their ancestors were African slaves. But that might well not be true, they may be descended from native South Americans, or Arabs, or in the case of an ex- colleague, from India.

From the 17th century, we began to see common folklore about human difference merging with the new scientific taxonomies of difference. Distinctions were sought to determine race. It could the width of the nose, or the height of the forehead, and by the 1960’s - intelligence tests.

Why did we do that , firstly it was to develop the 'ideology of race' which many of us grew up with, which would allow us to decide all sorts of things about people of other ‘ races’. Most especially we could decide they were inferior.

Until 1964, some US states used this pseudo-science to determine who a person could or could not marry. In South Africa, from 1948 to it decided where you could walk, sit, drink, swim, even where you could live – a policy which left millions of children eking out a survival in the vast deserts of the Bantustans where the economy depended much like Native American reserves do now, on casinos. Their absent mother worked in Johannesburg or Cape Town, their father in the diamond mines. They visited maybe every 4 or 5 years, if lucky. A friend only saw her mother ,who was a maid in Jo’burg, twice during her childhood on a very few ocassions. Earlier, in the 1940’s in Germany, it decided who went to the gas chambers.

Interestingly as early as 1787, the New Jersey preacher, Samuel Stanhope Smith wrote that skin colour was simply a consequence of exposure (or not) to the sun, and that all human beings were of one race. But the idea was not going to catch on quickly. It took until 1984 for James Baldwin to declare that race was nothing more than a social construction which afforded a framework for power.

Finally it is only in 1984 that Henry Louis Gates Jr. was finally able to captured the zeitgeist of the anti-racism movement, when he said:
"race has become a trope of the ultimate, irreducible difference between cultures, linguistic groups, or adherents of specific believe systems which…also have fundamentally opposed economic interests"(2)
In other words, nothing more than a site of oppression.

But, back to Sex and Gender; Gender (as we now call it) has a long history of enabling oppression, particularly against women and trans folk. There may be more to gender than that, but its role in subjugating women and the gender variant is so strong and so powerful, I would argue that anything else it might do is so minute in comparison it is almost as if it doesn’t exist.

As for sex, just what is it. We now know of so many ways in which the body can be’ un-sexed’, differences in size of genitalia, in gonadal structure, in hormonal uptake, in chromosomal makeup, that we can no longer say what it is – it certainly is not something made up of ‘2’ any longer.

So let us ditch them both – at least in so far as they do oppress us. Instead, they should be sites, not of oppression, but sites of expression. Otherwise, and only if they are just things we can use to enhance our lives, I am all for keeping them. I like having both.

I know they are just part of my own personal construct of what makes me ‘Stephen’, but I like my beard, my baldness, my hairy chest, my libido (if it bothers to come out and play, nowadays) and the voice I can boom out and which makes people stop and listen.

Though none of that is what makes the man, some of it makes me feel like the man. A rather mad idea, as Colette Chilland would say.

(1) see http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=sicklecelldisease
(2) Gates Jr, H.J., (1984) Preface to Blackness: Text and Pretext. In Ed. Dexter Fisher and Robert B. Stepto Afro-American Literature: The Reconstruction of Instruction . New York: Modern Language Association, 1978. 44–69.

And not a trans person in sight.... Pride London 2009

2009-07-10T04:18:00.001-07:00

Pride London
Originally uploaded by Downing Street

40 years on, Remember Stonewall.

So, who airbrushed the trans folk from Gordon's morning bash for [London]Pride, this year?

Gordon and Sarah's reception on the morning of [London] Pride 2009 was clearly enjoyed by the great, the good and the celebrity gay men and lesbians.

Maybe someone did arrange for a trans person to attend, but there isn't a face here I recognise, and yet we were there, in truth, we were there.

40 years on, Remember Stonewall - the bar where a leather dyke was arrested for wearing 3 items of 'mens' clothing, that initiated the riots and sent Stonewall into the history books. The queens who then picked up their handbags and toook to beating the police at their own game, by beating them.

40 years on. Remember Stonewall. It was Sylvia Rivera, trans person extraordinaire, and merely a 17-year-old Puerto Rican-Venezuelan trans woman who threw one of the first Molotov cocktails, out in Christopher Street. Have you seen the grainy black and white film images of Sylvia Rivera, in that truly outrageous knitted lycra body suit, which I have always presumed was the colour of silver when she dressed that morning, grabbing the mic on the stage of an early Gay Activists Alliance stage at Pride circa 1971. If you haven't, and your trans, do. Not only does the lycra suit grow both larger and dirtier, as the day goes on, but Sylvia grows with it. Smaller , physically, compared to it, but very so much larger in stature and shouting her lungs out for Trans Pride.

A few years later, shortly after the 1992 Pride March, the body of her friend, and collaberator at those early events, Marsha P Johnson was found floating in the harbour just north of Christopher St. Apparently the police investigation consisteed of 2 phonecalls and they said she had committed suicide. No, she was murdered, as her injuries were to prove, like so many before and so many after. That a hero like Sylvia was to spend the next 25 years living on the street, or in doss houses, or sofa surfing -- well that is another story.

I remember what it was like here in the dark, chimney strewn. poverty filled desert of slums and council houses in Manchester, in the UK 40 years ago. And how Sylvia and people like her were far off in the dreams of escape to a home that took many, many more years to materialise. I also remember when 8 years ago Manchester City Council held a 25th anniversary reception for the founders of the Manchester Gay Switchboard. Not one trans person was invited other than Julia Grant who was by then a local dignitory. But she hadn't been around in 1975. Carol, Linda, Stan, Roy-in his rubber suit, and even little ol' me - not one of us was invited, and you cannot tell me they didn't know how to get in touch with me at least. We were there, but also airburshed out at a later date.

Moonflowrr, of whom I am a big fan, writes on her blog 'Transpolical' on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, of Sylvia, Marsha P. Johnsone. Miss Major and their friends, and says "The Stonewall Girls and Guys? They virtually all feel they've been co-opted and tossed away by the modern day movement like a used condom."

My dear, that is what happens with us all - especially when we are no longer young and beautiful. and the type of lucky mascot they like to have their picture taken with. "Oh - didn't I tell you, thats my tranny friend ..... uhm, now what is his/her name".

Back in London Pride 2009, in fact, I wasn't there. Living over 200 miles away, with train tickets costing a minimum of £61 for weekend travel, even if booked in advance, it would have contributed to breaking the bank. Being even a little disabled and unable to walk the distance is also a big issue. Why would I want to attend Pride to sit in a bus? Take a wheelchair, someone says. As someone who also cannot push themselves in a chair, even getting a chair on the train is hard, then making my way on London Transport (no tube acess, and buses that don't stop!) , before begging people to push me, and much as though I would grateful if anyone would push me. I never get to speak to them - because theyare all 'up there' and I am 'down here'. Get lost, I'm prouder than that.

But, where were the trans folk? Maybe sometrans folk did visit Gordon & Sarah's for a glass of lemonade. Mabe they didn't. But either way, we are clearly not fit to be seen in an 'official' photograph with the PM, at least not in public. However, we WERE THERE - not just in 1968 but also in 2009.

So, if anyone out there has some photo's of OUR presence at pride 2009, and the trans people in them are happy to be seen, then let me have them, I'll make sure we are seen here, and on the Press for Change website; ww.pfc.org.uk

The Real Life Test: to be or not to be?

2008-09-10T17:38:00.000-07:00

I am not a medical or other form of psych clinician. but a legal advisor. However, I have 35 years experience of the trans community, as a member & as a phone support worker. I have also run a national FTM support organization for 19 years, as well as co-running what has been the world’s most successful lobby and legal campaign for trans people; Press for Change. I am now Chair of Transgender Europe, President of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and Professor of Equalities Law, at the School of Law , in Manchester Metropolitan University.

Personally, I have now provided legal advice to around 3-400 trans people, from all over the world, over the last 20 years and probably know on a personal level around 1500 transsexual people, as well as knowing in a more general sense at least twice that. And of course I teach extensively about the right to bodily autonomy for the patient.

I am often asked whether I think the Real Life Test (RLT) is a valid exercise of the doctor's power over the patient. The RLT is considered to be that period of time when Trans people must socially transition from one gender to another, during which they must wait for psych letters saying they are suitable for gender reassignment surgeries. In WPATH's Harry Benjamin Standards of Care v6 this period is known as the Real Life Experience (RLE) though it seems that here in the UK, and worldwide most doctors and their patients still refer to it as the RLT. IT is advised to be one year long before any letters are provided for surgery. However, many clinicians choose for it to be 2 years, and some clinicians seem to make some patient's wait indefinately for these magical letters. This causes many patients great distress.

So what do I think about the RLT?

Well, for a start I truly believe that fully informed patients who are able to, and will take full responsibility for the decisions they make, can have what surgery they want, so long as a surgeon is happy to do it.

However, of my experience of the 15 - 20 cases of 'trans' people who regret their treatment including genital surgery so much as to seek to change back, I would estimate that three quarters of them expedited their genital surgery, paying privately and not completing a RLT of longer than a few months at most. Eight or nine of these people did not undertake any RLT at all before their surgery.

I am not saying that in some cases where a RLT has not taken place, there has not been a very successful result – but other than trans men, who were living as men for some time already, I know very few of these.

However, I believe the RLT, or as I (and the WPATH SoC) would prefer it was called, the RLE (experience), is still fundamentally flawed in many clinical practices. It's practice is often set out in such a way it focus's the patient's mind on PASSING the test, whether by; 'passing' , or, more likely, by persuading themselves that they are passing, or by pretending they are passing —- or as the French psychoanalyst Collete Chiland might say for the majority ; by deluding themselves or by an illusion of themselves.

The use of the symbolic test forces patients to race for the goal, to cross the winning tape. I prefer the RLE to be thought of as a period of time for patients to deal with the very difficult and traumatic time of transition, and to ensure they are certain that this is the right route for them including the route to surgery, but by being held up to be goal orientated it adds on a significant and often debilitating further stress at this time.

Consequently, the RLT, as it is currently understood and often practiced, prevents the patient from a whole range of possibilities, because they are driven towards the goal and 'passing' the test. Patients do not understand that nobody need fail the test of 'passing' well enough for surgery, but they are terrified that they will be the one.

Furthermore along with clinicians, our social, employment and legal systems frequently support this arcane and falsely conceptualized pathway e.g. no legal change of sex without surgery and therefore no successful, social, change of gender. A simple question, how many doctors write to their patient's employers saying that the period of living in role before surgery provides an opportunity for the patient to work out what path is best for them, but that it does not necessarily mean that they are less than the wo/man they claim to be? Do they ask that the patients work records are changed, but also say that of course the patient might want to change them back, or not, at a later date? Do they explain that a failure to deal with discrimination is not only unlawful, but will ensure that this period is a terrible experience for the patient, and this would not help the patient successfully undergo this medically led experience in order to discover what is the best way for them?

A properly conceived RLE would include all these things, 'permission' for surgery would not even be part of the package. That would be an ongoing discussion in regular therapy sessions throughout the period of the RLE (not currently funded on the National Health Services here in the UK - and the NHS is by no means free, we pay a lot for it through our salaries). It would be focused on the patient’s understanding and their evaluations of their transitioning experiences. It would not be time bound, but rather be bound by the joint decisions of the patient and the practitioner. Some surgeries, those available without any sort of psych evaluation, such as those surgeries which are cosmetic, such as mastectomy and mammoplasty would not be part of the RLE, except as background to the regular discussions. The patient with their clinician's guidance could choose when they felt ready for any of these and whether sooner or later they would proceed to them.

As for genital surgery, discussions would not be about whether a patient could have it, but rather would be about whether the patient was able to give fully informed consent for it; what that means, providing the full information the patient needs, including reasons for not having surgery, and information about people without surgery who have succeeded (give them a copy of Rikki Anne Wilchins’ book: 'Read my Lips'),

Finally it would involve discussing whether the patient felt fully informed, whether genital surgery was appropriate for them at this stage, and of course such time as when the patient thought it was appropriate for them. It would not be about whether the practitioner, nor when the practitioner, thought it was appropriate for the patient.

I know several practitioners who already use this sort of programme, and patients appear to have nothing but praise. But even then, it seems a failure of the clinician’s duty in that very few advertise their wares which provide a valuable RLE. Patients are left to find that out later when they commence the procedure. Unfortunately, though, most practitioners still maintain an RLT that has little or no benefit to the patient, rather it maintains their constant sense of failure and put the fear of god (the clinician ) in them.

So, overall, my view of the RLT is that it is mostly done in a way which is not good medicine and certainly not best practice, even if it is (apparently) according to the current HBIGDA Standards of Care.

I believe that during that period of transition when most trans people are having to fire-fight major crises of day to day, a time for reflection and therapy to seriously consider the meaning of what they wish to do - never mind discover what it is that they wish to do, can only be a very good thing. It would ensure that patients are able to make fully informed decisions. That way, fewer of the few who would otherwise find it was a mistake will conclude they have made that mistake. Clinician’s must have discretion in by passing the wait - we all know of people who really do not need a time of reflection or therapy, so it must not be compulsory for all - but undoubtedly those people are few and far between. Nor must it cover cosmetic surgeries which are not genital - a mastectomy or a . It should be a process of full information disclosure intended to ensure valid consent, if genital surgery is the chosen pathway. It must, also, fully support the patient in the process of managing the social change; in the family, at work, and in law. Finally it must not be a goal orientated programme, rather a collaborative fact finding programme.

I believe that this would be the only RLE that could ever be considered best practice, and I am of the view that most patients would discover that it was of significant benefit in their decision making process.

Stephen

OII's response to being told the truth, kindly

2008-08-03T16:03:00.000-07:00

see part 1 of this blog here

Trying to make sense of it all.

20th July 2008: Curtis HInkle has now taken down Sophia Siedlberg's defamatory commentary - I thank him for that. However, he says that in challenging this defamatory post, I have humiliated him in front of OII's board. I am sorry he feels humiliated, but wonder why? After all, would he take such lies about him, lying down. I hope not. And it isn't that hard to speak the truth. On the website they continue to maintain it as if I have not responded!

3rd August 2008: As this is now a little bit of history, I can comment further.
OII activists have removed the offensive and defamatory attack on myself, which was written by Sophie Seidlberg. However after I wrote this blog, in which I gave them truthful and honest answers, they have now put in its' place the following:

"OII did eventually receive an email from Stephen Whittle which appeared initially to answer some of the questions raised by members of OII. And it also appeared that Stephen Whittle was being polite and reasonable. However, later on Stephen Whittle said in his blog that he was both angry and felt the discussion with OII was very hostile. For us the problem appears to be the inconsistency with which Stephen conducted himself in this debate, being civil with us at first, but later taking a very unpleasant stance in his blog and in emails to various individuals who challenged him on some points. We are concerned because OII and intersex activists feel they are being attacked by Stephen Whittle for asking these questions about Zucker. The president of OII has decided not to communicate any further with Stephen Whittle."

Clearly they do not get the message - I have absolutely no problems with any person questioning whether Ken Zicker should be chairing the APA's DSM V committee. I think it has to be questioned and the answer should probably be no, he should not, not least because he is not an MD & psychiatrist, merely a psychologist. However I do want an apology from Seidleburg, and from Hinkle for publishing her gross and defamatory remarks about myself and what I supposedly 'think'. They may well have been read by hundreds of people, and many of them, in turn, might think they were truthful if they did not know me well. Have they ever thought of the possibilities of this and they impact it has had , not just on myself but also on my partner and wife, Sarah, and the rest of the family.

OII clearly think that requesting an apology and asking for the removal of defamatory remarks was taking an 'unpleasant stance' and that to ask for these to eb done is to 'attack' them. I chose to respond sensibly and very carefully, with a great deal of consideration both in the letter to them and, later when they still had not removed it, in this, my blog , but unfortunately nothing happened until I made it quite clear that, if they did not remove the offensive material, I would sue them .

They also clearly think it was acceptable to continue publishing these lies long after I had written to them with a very considered and reasonable answer (in their own words) was acceptable. Why do they think I took to blogging. The answer is that they were my inspiration. I wasn't going to continue after I had written my first blog about Alice Dreger's article on the 'apparent' saintliness of Ken Zucker. Rather, it became clear to me that if I was being attacked on the web as an irresponsible liar, trampling on other people's lives etc. then, at the very least, such perpetrators should expect is a public web response. This is my reputation they are trying to ruin.

To be honest I am now glad they have decided to vanish from my life – I could do with the extra time. However, I wish them and OII well, and I hope that the battles they are fighting to better the lives of intersex kids and adults go well for them. But if they are this paranoid about their friends, I doubt they are going to manage to speak to their enemies. An apology is still waited, though I am not holding my breath. I suppose I should now ask them to remove this latest comment which has taken the line that I took an 'unpleasant stance', because I took the time to be as pleasant as possible ... well not quite, I didn't (in the end) in the case of one individual who was exceptionally rude. But I am not apologising to her until she decides to apologise to me.

OII and the demon 'Whittle'

2008-07-14T11:53:00.000-07:00

Intersex Activists go mad for no reason at all

Stephen Whittle, 14 June 2006: I received a disturbing email and commentary on the 8th July 2008, from the "Organisation Internationale des Intersexes Founder, Organisation Intersex International" www.intersexualite.org/
The original email can be found, along with their commentary on me, at www.intersexualite.org/WPATH.html -- 28th July - the commentary has now been removed, but despite several considered & lengthy responses from myself, they still say they have received no response from me.

The protagonists ; Curtis Hinkle and Sophia Siedlberg from OII-UK, start by saying they are writing this because

"It would seem that Dr. Whittle is not entirely happy about this state of affairs, that is, he does not like people saying "We do not want Dr. Kenneth Zucker anywhere near our health care "."

Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact in 2000 I wrote the first serious piece about how these paediatric gender consultants should be legally liable for the dreadful and often unlawful decision making they practiced on behalf of their patients. (A year later, a physician, from one such leading clinic, wrote an almost identical paper and won a research prize for it from GIRES (but more about them another time).

They then go on to say:

"Stephen Whittle's reputation, well his unending desire to interfere with the lives of intersex people is nothing new. There are two reasons why we say this. Firstly in 2000 Whittle interfered with intersex organizations and affairs by claiming that Press for Change was mandated to deal with intersex people."

I would love to see the evidence for this claim. It cannot exist because Press for Change (PFC) and myself especially have always maintained we are an organisation lobbying on behalf of trans people, and never on intersex issues.

In fact in the mid 1990s, PFC deliberately withdrew its links with GIRES, a charity originally set up by PFC, after GIRES started to claim it was speaking on behalf of intersex issues. We have maintained that distance, especially as since the 'brain sex' experiments of Zhou et al, GIRES has continued to maintain trans people are intersex. PFC is an organisation run by trans people , for trans people, about trans people's issues. So why would I have ever said anything different.

There are some intersex people who also claim a trans identity. They sometimes work with PFC, and some see us as their mandated voice, but we can only ever talk about their trans issues as we are not experts on the rest of their lives. But then, Curtis and Sophia, turn to saying that when

"Whittle was trying to get the "Gender recognition bill" through parliament, he made sure that previous legal rulings dealing with intersex people (Specifically the Halliday case) were no longer valid and replaced it with a universal "Gender Recognition Act" where people who did not agree with the sex they were assigned as children (In the case of intersex people) had to go on a "Gender register" and obtain a "Gender recognition certificate".

This is just stuff and nonsense,as well as defamatory, as you will see from my reply (see below), which I publish in full at the end of this blog (they haven't bothered to publish it on the page www.intersexualite.org/WPATH.html , which contained the defamatory remarks). The Gender Recognition Certificate is only available to Trans people. Intersex people in the UK can continue to use the ages old method of having their birth certificate amended (those intersex people who also identify as trans can use either method).

For those who want to read a history of how intersex people have been classified in law, I suggest you read: Stephen Whittle and Lewis Turner (2007), '''Sex Changes'? Paradigm Shifts in 'Sex' and 'Gender' Following the Gender Recognition Act?'', in Sociological Review Online.

But back to the point; Curtis and Sophia go on to say that I apparently use:

"Aggressive damage limitation, clandestine policy making and a total disregard for those affected by all this"

and that this is "nothing new for Whittle" as, apparently, they will not "accept being made to "shut up" by Whittle"

I cannot imagine a moment where I have asked anyone (other than myself and GIRES) to shut up about this matter. But they proceed to say I do not "have a mandate to deal with intersex people", as if I ever did. I answer that allegation now:

I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim to have any sort of mandate for intersex people -- the reason why is simple, I am trans, not intersex.

Hinkle and Seidlburg then asked why I had

"not responded to OII's Enquiries being asked by Curtis Hinkle, the founder of OII. and Whittle, in classic Whittle Fashion, simply ignored it."

Well for a start I did not ignore it, and have responded several times, but I felt it contained so much complex material that I did not as yet know how to answer it, without getting shot in the back by someone. I get between 20 and 50 emails a day requiring considered answers (the rest get yes or no), most from colleagues at my day job, the rest from trans people seeking legal advice, or PFC/TGEU/WPATH colleagues.

As I had been travelling extensively recently, at no point did I feel I had the time to give considered thought to an answer, as it seemed clear from the beginning they had decided (for whatever reason) to hate and crucify me. But, no, in this instant email world they all expect answers tomorrow, something that is rarely possible for me.

Email needs once again to be treated like ordinary mail – it is too instant and leads to serious communication problems. For example, I am totally fed up with the tit for tat nature of emails. I start answering my email sometime in the late afternoon, otherwise I never get the rest of my job done. Emails are done in the following order: Students first, work colleague’s second, PFC work third, followed by TGEU, and then ignominiously at the end, WPATH. The rest comes later if there ever is a later, which oftentimes there isn't as I fall asleep from exhaustion. But more to the point, two weeks after I replied to OII, they took three weeks to reply to me, and only did so when I insisted on one. Clearly one rule for one, another for the rest.

The conclusion to their commentary on their web page is the finest bit of fantasy writing I have seen for a long while. Seidlberg says:

"Stephen Whittle, in his now well known arrogance (is it well known? I’m not sure I am that arrogant, just a tiny bit bossy) “has some agenda that he seeks to impose on intersex people. ... we suspect Whittle has a point of view that underpins all this. Basically we sense he regards female to male transsexualism as a "Legitimate intersex condition" or "DSD" (To use the contentious terminology he espouses) while he regards male to female transsexualism as a "Fetish"."

Seidlburg's says this is

"evidenced by comments like "Male to female transsexuals have their brains removed when getting SRS."

Clearly she cannot get a trans community joke when it is thrown at them – that is probably because they are intersex and not trans. I am a funny (ha ha) bloke at times, and sometimes even make light hearted humorous jokes about oestrogen & testosterone effects, but this is apparently now, a sin. Sophia needs laughter classes - surely she can see that the joke is all about the patriarchal values that I have spent my life undermining, and the need for a feminist perspective to trans lives. If I thought such a thing was true, I would not be saying it - I'd have left the trans women dominated organisations, Press for Change and TGEU, years ago. But, instead, she goes on and say: "

"Given that this misogynist attitude fits hand in glove with the past antics of ISNA (Who regarded those intersex people who rejected being assigned male as children by surgeons as "liars") I am not surprised he feels so confident about his probable agenda."

My ‘probable’ agenda - what bollocks, you would think that if I had an agenda, I would have kept it 'hidden' at the very least. That they have to imagine my thoughts shows how little they know about me. I was born female bodied, there are no hidden secrets. I am what came out of a life long project for change: a person in a female body, which I have adapted because I was driven by deep unhappiness to live a life where others knew me as a man, even if only (but what a glorious only) trans man. Let’s make it really clear:

I do not want see myself as intersex, I am a trans(sexual) man, and very, very proud to be so.
I am not interested in, and don't do, brainsex of the Zhou et al. sort.
I am not, and don't do, intersex
I don't do chromosomes - I have no idea what mine are
I do hormones, and have no idea whether I am killing myself with each dose of testosterone - but it makes me feel good.
I do the following identities: English / British / Manchester transgender / transsexual / poly /pan / bisexual, sexual /ex-working class / now middle class (yuk) / disabled / quite fit / academic / teacher/ leader / lobbyist / political / husband / partner / and father to 4 children.
I do transgender community external politics.
I do 'being a human rights and equality lawyer'.
I care about a person, whether trans, intersex, or regular, if they seek my legal advice.

and I care about every person's entitlement to their human rights and their right, in law, to be treated equally, and respectfully, regardless of their difference, without fear or prejudice.

I eventually responded (see below) to Curtis and Sophia’s letter and commentary -- you see names are much nicer, I don't do Whittle either. As I say to my students; Stephen will do nicely - we are all adults now.

Unfortunately, a month later, Curtis and Sophia had not put my response on their website. Rather they have maintained it as if I have never responded, and that I am unwilling to explain myself - hence my reason for this blog.
So Curtis and Sophia, I need you to take down your webpage discussing me. It is defamatory and therefore unlawful. (This is NOT a threat: but interestingly, in the UK, I can sue for defamation on the web, regardless of where in the world a defamatory piece was written or published. Those who defame have to provide hard evidence that the allegations they make are true).

Secondly, I need an apology, and bloody quick, do you hear me Curtis and Sophia of OII.

_______________________________________________________

My Letter of RESPONSE, sent by email to OII Dear Curtis & Sophie:

Dear OII,

Unfortunately I am a very busy man, and often do not have, immediately, the time to answer, in the manner which I would like to, emails like yours which raise very complex issues . However I will try to answer some key issues that I feel I am able to address, within my limited time : WPATH: I think it best that WPATH's board develops a consensus position on its relationship to intersex people and their concerns. Work is currently taking place on this matter, but I cannot give a date, as yet, as to when some conclusion might be reached. However I would repeat WPATH's mission statement to explain what we are endeavouring to achieve:

WPATH is an i

nternational multidisciplinary professional Association the mission of WPATH is to promote evidence based care, education, research, advocacy, public policy and respect in transgender health. The vision of WPATH is to expand its worldwide authority by promoting education, advocacy, training, research, quality health care and best practice standards for service providers and policy makers regarding gender variant individuals.

I can assure the members of OII that I have written to the chair of WPATH's committee on 'Disorders of Sex Development" and asked that consideration is given to ensure that the content of the committee's work reflects more publicaly, their support of the position of many people with intersex differences. They have a difficult remit, as you know, in that many intersex groups are run by parents, and though many committee members may wish to influence the them and the physicians they use, they do not wish to lead them to disengage, as then the commitee's educational purpose will not be able to be met.

I have also asked the committee chair that they work wth the committee to consider changing the name to better reflect the work that they do, which is to educate medical professionals about best practice when there are, for example, 'Differences in Sex Development". I am still waiting to hear their response. Now to answer your specific points:

Press for Change & THE GENDER RECOGNITION ACT 2005:

You say that Press for Change damaged the rights of intersex people in the UK, through our role as stakeholders in the development of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA). Clearly their has been a misunderstanding of English and European law in this area. In English law, there has been *NO* change of the position of intersex people with the coming into force of the Gender Recognition Act. Since time immemorial, intersex people in the UK have been able to apply to have their birth certificates amended to better reflect the sex they are. This system is still in existance for those who wish to use it.

There may be a few intersex people , who also identify as trans, who can chose instead to use the Gender Recognition process in order to obtain a completely new birth certificate - that is their choice.

AS UK LAW STILL STANDS:

Intersex people who have their initital birth certificate amended, have complete and full rights from the time of their birth, in their real.chosen or preferred sex. - Trans people who obtain a new birth certificate, are recognised for all legal purposes in their preferred gender from the date of their application to the Gender Recognition Panel. To read a history of the legal claisifcation on Intersex people go to Stephen Whittle and Lewis Turner (2007), '"Sex Changes'? Paradigm Shifts in 'Sex' and 'Gender' Following the Gender Recognition Act?", Sociological Review Online.

THE JOELE HALLIDAY CASE:

This did not change the law as it relates to people with an intersex body. Rather it was a case as to whether government would allow a child who was intersexed to have a 'new' birth certificate reflecting her own definition of her sex, and for that birth certificate to be as if she was originally recognised as that sex when the birth certificate was being prepared. The decision of government to allow Joele a concession to have a completely new birth certificate was a reflection of government's concern public opinion. What was exactly decided was that in a case of severe cloacal exstrophy, which is a rare and complicated defect that occurs during the prenatal development of the lower abdominal wall structures, a child who was 'Gillick competent' i.e. was able to give informed consent, or if not via their parents competence, could ask that their birth certificate, rather than be altered, reflect the child's preferred sex which may be at odds with what the apparent chromosonal structure might appear to say. Government agreed to this request on a 'one by one ' basis.

PFC's ROLE IN THE HALLIDAY CASE:

As you can imagine, all of this was part and parcel of the 1990s liberalisation of UK attitudes and a retreat from the Corbett v Corbett model of sex determination. At the time of Joele Halliday's application, Press for Change provided some limited help, as requested, by discovering a 'secret' 1960s Scottish case (Fforbes-Semphill v Fforbes-Semphill, now available in the Scottish library) in which the court had decided a person's sex on the basis of a multifactoral approach, not just the gonads, genitals and chomosomeapproach of Corbett. This had some influence on government personel who were making the decisions. That took place long before the GRA was even concieved of in its current form. The GRA does not alter that position, nor does it alter the basic practice of allowing intersex people to apply for an amended birthcertificate. We do not have figures for how many, if any, intersex people insead choose the gender recognition process. However, I can assure any UK intersex person that if they are told they cannot amend their birth certificate, but must use the GRA process, they can seek legal advice from myself.

PFC's & STEPHEN WHITTLE'S POLICY ON INTERSEX People and Concerns:

My private position is well known; trans organisations have no place in voicing intersex issues, unless they relate to intersex people who are members who are also trans. For this very reason, Press for Change seperated many years ago from the charity it created , GIRES when GIRES claimed to be speaking on behalf of intersex people. PFC has expertise on trans issues not intersex issues.

This seperation has cost us considerable financial benefits over the last 10 years, but Press for Change is still quite clear on this policy matter. Press for Change does not intervene or speak on behalf of intersex people. Nor do I, as a trans man. The best, and what is after all most appropriate, that I can offer is to pass on the messages from the intersex community to those that can make a difference.

I hope this satisfies some of your enquiries.

Stephen
-----------------------------------

see more of this discussion here.

Informed dissent - DSM, Zucker and Aice Dreger

2008-05-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

DRE(D)GERING

Read Alice Dreger's "informed Dissent" here

Stephen Whittle, 27th May 2008: Activist,

Blanchard, CAMH, DSM IV, DSM V, FTM, ICD 10, Lawrence, MTF, T, Trans, WPATH, Zucker, ..... I currently wake up in in an alphabet soup sweat from a regurring nightmare, firmly embedded in the current Trans Activists vs Psychotherapeutic Professions debate around the writing of version V (5) of the Diagnostic Manual of the Amercian Psychiatric Association.

This week, Alice Dreger, published a polemic blog against the trans activists campaigning against the appointment of Dr's Ken Zucker and Ray Blanchard to the committee responsible for writing the new diagnostic statements of childhood and adult 'gender identity disorders' for DSM V , Alice Dreger says
"For dissent to be effective, for it to be sustainable, for it to be ethical, it has to be factually right". (See Informed Dissent)

I totally agree with her ... but as she steams through her vicious, if not quite transphobic, something quite close to it blog, the arguments she uses are very clever, but not true when considered through the realities of trans and trans / or not trans kids' lives, and are consequently disingenuous and therefore unethical. I quote, in full:
"Zucker also said that, if he could make a child feel comfortable with the genitals she or he was born with, without causing harm, then that would be best. As someone who has been a long-time advocate of keeping children’s genitals intact and using psychologists to help parents to accept their “different” children, I admit I was sympathetic to these arguments. In fact, as I thought about it more, I realized that pushing gender-atypical kids towards eventual transition (as some “progressive” therapists seem to do) could be another case of ultimately changing the child surgically to satisfy parental discomfort with the child’s atypicality. ."
(See Informed Dissent)

Let us get the facts straight. No one, including, and especially trans activists is advocating doing anything but keeping children's genitals intact. There is nothing on the table from either party to this heated discussion suggesting that gender atypical children should have their genitals surgically operated on to change them to look more like the genitals of children of the opposite birth sex . So why does Alice Dreger raise this point?

Firstly, she is making it quite clear to us that she is an expert on this matter - which of course she is not. She is an academic who has specialised and gained some expert perspectives on the history of intersex lives and the surgical interventions used on intersex children, and according to a recent interview helped lead the Intersex Society of North America for ten years. But she is not an expert of any sort on gender identity issues, she simply knows very little about trans lives.

Secondly, she is saying that Dr's Zucker and Blanchard are not wrong in not advocating such surgery - and that anybody who is advocating it is wicked. As I have said, however, she speaks falsely by failing to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth; she fails to point out that in all the Internet activity from trans folk expressing anger at Dr's Zucker's and Blanchard's appointments that the trans activists also think such surgery would be wicked. Instead she leaves the question hanging so that all right minded people will thank that is not the case.

Thirdly, she refers to the pushing of gender atypical children to eventual transition as wicked. Of course, as anyone who has been working with the trans community for as long as myself (33 years) or even as long as Dr's Zucker and Blanchard, knows it is not possible to push a non-transperson to transition. The only exceptions are the easily diagnosed schizophrenic disorders which might just make a person that. But they are not trans people, and their diagnosis has nothing to do with diagnosing trans people.

I did stop and wonder whether this last statement was accurate. Could non-trans children be pushed to transition? I feel it is important here to consider the small but whole set of medical literature and case law reflecting 'mistakes'.1 There are:

some people who are trans feel that transitioning and surgery cost them too much, in terms of health, family, work, and other social networks, but they do not to 'change back'.

other trans people who have felt that the social stigma surrounding trans identities led their transition and later life being a nightmare, but only a very few of them want to change back.

an even smaller number trans people (I have known 12 out of the thousands of trans people I have met) who feel that their doctor pushed them through the process too quickly when they were not quite ready to decide whether it was yet right for them, and so took a wrong route, but most choose not to 'change back'.

a tiny number of cases (I know 4 out of the thousands of the trans community) of non-trans people who feel they were pushed to transition and surgery at a time when they were just mixed up about their identity, feeling wrongly that they were trans, most of these want to 'change back'.

Overall, the long term studies show that between 5 and 14% of (mtf) trans women are not happy with the consequences of their transition; however almost all of these relate it to social stigma or poor surgical results. Between 0 and 6% of (ftm) trans men are not happy with the consequences of their transition; however almost of these relate it to poor surgical results. VERY, VERY few of both groups feel they were not trans, should not have transitioned, and if they did surgically transition - now want to transition back.

However, in relation to young people, the most telling evidence comes from the follow up studies from the team of another member of the DSM V committee, Dr Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, whose role it will be to lead the sub-working group who are responsible for writing (or choosing not to write) the specific diagnostic statements on gender identity disorders. Her co-written paper "Psychiatric Comorbidity Among Children With Gender Identity Disorder"2 states that that:
"children with GID are at risk for developing co-occurring problems. Because 69% of the children do not have an anxiety disorder, a full-blown anxiety disorder does not seem to be a necessary condition for the development of GID. Clinicians working with children with GID should be aware of the risk for co-occurring psychiatric problems and must realize that externalizing comorbidity, if present, can make a child with GID more vulnerable to social ostracism." (p. 1307, abstract)
as such physicians seeing children with GID should be very careful to diagnose and treat co-morbid illnesses, before or alongside interventionist treatments for GID so as to ensure that transition is not seen by the child as the cure for anxiety and unhappiness, when in fact it rarely is.
But, another paper "Sex Reassignment of Adolescent Transsexuals: A Follow-up Study"3 co-authored by Dr Cohen-Kettenis concludes in the abstract that:
"Starting the sex reassignment procedure before adulthood results in favorable postoperative functioning" but the team also say that this success is only possible:
"provided that careful diagnosis takes place in a specialized gender team and that the criteria for starting the procedure early are stringent."

Alice Dreger has chosen to villify and mock the trans communty - both in her blog, but more importantly in her paper recently published in the Archive's of Sexual Behaviour, in which she condemns the trans people involved in the Michael J. Bailey (him of "The Man who would be Queen") Crisis as liars and frauds without taking the time to speak to them properly. She behaved as if a cub reporter on the National Enquirer or the Daily Star, calling the trans people without introduction, and demanding they answer here questions. If she had rung me I would have politely told her not to be so rude and to get off my line, with as many 4 letter words as it took. There are certain standards when academics write - it is the ethics of doing research, and everytime we must remember those people we seek answers from are research subjects to be treated with respect and not to be hounded into giving information until they had given fully informed consent. I could not credit that it was ultimately publihsed by the archives of sexual behavior - though written to look like an academic paper, it was not formed from the basis normally required - that of ethical academic research. ..... Oh, but wait, guess who is the editor - why no other than Mr. Zucker himself.

So, Alice Dreger considers herself above the normal ethics of research as we saw then and as we see now in this particular blog. In it, she condemns trans activists for not wanting a guy who is not an MD or other medical professional, and who would rather make gender variant children 'normal' than allow them to grow up as trans in the future, chair a committee which will decide the basis on which trans youth and adults will be treated by the medical professions in the future. I tell you something , I don't want him deciding my life, or treatment, either.

Clearly the APA process is flawed, surely and only sensibly, they would ask a medical professional, at least a psychiatrist in the field of trans treatment, to lead a group whihc is going to decide on treatment routeways in the future. Instead we have to settle for this guy (who is so short he looks like a [ftm] trans man, but is so arrogant he couldn't possibly be), who works at a clinic which is notorious amongst trans people for the disastrous, rude and arrogant way they are treated there. I accept that might not be the full picture of the Clarke Institute. But it is a persistant picture (in the past I have received many letters asking for help from it's desperate patients.) Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that there may well be satisfied trans patients from the clinic, but I do wonder whether they knew they were entitled to get better respect from clinical staff.

Anyhow , what is done is done and we will now have to await the outcome, but I, for one, will not be wasting breath waiting for it. As for Ms Dreger, I think she should go back the her university's research gudies, manuals etc and look up ethics.

1 I'm not going to cite all of these, this is a blog not an academic paper.
2 Wallien,Madeleine.; Swaab, Hanna.; Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy.: Psychiatric Comorbidity Among Children With Gender Identity Disorder J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007 Oct ;46 (10):1307-1314
3 Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T. Ph.D.; Van Goozen, Stephanie H.M. Ph.D.: Sex Reassignment of Adolescent Transsexuals: A Follow-up Study