Transphobia Is A Feminist Issue

TRIGGER ALERT – I discuss transphobic/transprejudiced statements with examples.  Plus, if my privilege shows, please let me know.  Thank you.

I was recently involved (okay, started by addressing a comment) in a debate over transgender/gender dysphoria.  Call me naive, but I am shocked by the level of ignorance, prejudice and discrimination shown with regard to transgender-identifying people and gender dysphoria.  I was aware of transphobia/transprejudice (for the sake of brevity which I sadly lack, I shall use transphobia hereon in) existing in feminist theory (mostly identified in radical feminist branches, although it certainly wasn’t a radical feminist group where the initial discussion took place).   [EDIT: These comments are taken from a discussion in a feminist group but I have edited them for brevity and clarity, and using standard practice with regard to best practice according to my understanding from textbooks and my university studies]. I had not realised just HOW prevalent it is.  I am copying some of the comments as examples of transphobic commentary as an aid to this blog post.  I have also been caught up randomly commenting on transphobic statements, so the comments are not exclusively from the feminist group.  The vast majority of comments in the feminist group were not transphobic and actively addressed the transphobia and the prejudice shown by a few commenters.

Quick definition: Gender dysphoria (also Gender Identity Disorder) = “For people with gender dysphoria, there is confusion between their sex, their gender identity and their gender role. They feel that their gender identity does not match the sex that they were born with, and they may prefer to take on a gender role that opposes the stereotypical image of their sex.  For example, a person with gender dysphoria who was born male may feel that their gender identity is female and prefer to dress in women’s clothes.” – this is according to the NHS website (page due for review 28^th April 2012).  This is a simplistic and flawed definition, in that it does not take into account the complexity of the condition, and is assumptive about gender stereotyping and definitions, a problem many of those who define as transgender come across when seeking treatment, being forced to conform to stereotypes in order to have their condition recognised and for treatment to be accessed.

Things are changing for the better.  The UK government has recently developed and implemented equality policies with regard to transgender.  Unfortunately though, transgender prejudice is still rife, and is absolutely a feminist issue (I’m not the only one who thinks this, check this blog out.

Okay then, here are some of the comments I have been addressing (comments in italic, my responses in normal text):

“I get confused when biological males say they feel like a woman. If there is no commonality to what “all women feel” then logically it isn’t possible for anyone to “feel like a woman” and therefore there’s no actual reason to transition.”

‘Feel’ isn’t used in the case of gender dysphoria as an emotional term, but as a biological one. It has nothing to do with genderised personality characteristics, it is to do with biological characteristics.  Crudely, not all women are born with vaginas and not all men are born with penises. For example studies have proven that the fact of having a penis does not equate with the inner hormonal/chemical make-up of a person.  Some transgender people don’t feel the need to have the full surgical procedures, known as ‘transitioning’, but some do.  Some may only transition through hormones, some may never be able to, for whatever reason (economic, social, medical etc.), make that step.

Gender dysphoria has emotional consequences, but it is not an attempt to match the genitalia with a social construct of gender identity, but with the biological construct.

“[transgender people] feel the urge for a body part to have a different shape … If there were a bunch of people who felt the urge to say, have a third elbow, THOSE PEOPLE wouldn’t need to claim they are a different biological sex. They would be considered the same bio sex they were born as, but needing the addition of a third elbow …So why do trans feel the urge to be recognized as a member of the sex class, or a member of the default human class, or a member of the Black class?  … Personally, I do believe some transgendered folks are indeed like this, really only needing a new body part, but society won’t let them have a third elbow without also pretending that they’re all the things associated with a different social class. But I suspect most of them have as their primary goal, the need to be perceived as a different social class. Which is sexist.”

We are all subject to the gender conditioning of our societies, those with gender dysphoria and those lucky enough to be born into the correct body.   The expressed disbelief in gender dysphoria naturally prejudices against any testimony or experience given by a transgender person.  The transphobic viewpoint disallows the existence of transgender people and will ask questions and interpret the responses on the basis of their own presumption and bias.

In the same way I, as a cisgender woman, know I am a woman, transgender women know they are women also.  The transphobic viewpoint precludes this knowledge.  (BTW – has anyone else noticed how the problem transphobic feminism has is only with transgender women, and transgender men are almost non-existent?)

 ‎“[talking from the perspective of a transgender woman] I feel like a woman BECAUSE only women suck at math and like pink and only women enjoy placing men’s needs first while placing our own needs on hold and because I prefer doing all those things then I must be a woman”. She says helpfully.  … And you need to accept me because X [I conform to ‘insert gender stereotype here’]“.

To transition in any way does not mean that person will become a gender stereotype. It merely means the physicality will finally align with the person they know they are.  Further, in order to be accepted by the medical community and believed, in order to obtain the transitioning procedure, the transgender person must live as a person identifying as the gender to which they wish to transition.  That means they must conform to stereotypes because that is how society defines the gender to which they wish to transition.  The identity to which they must conform may not be their true identity, but it is the only path available to them to transition.  To accuse transgender people of reinforcing stereotypes is a fallacious, offensive, and shows ignorance of the condition of and treatment available for gender dysphoria.

“If this is all about “physicality” …  and a man requires boobies to feel whole, then why doesn’t he just say “hey I’m a guy who needs boobies to feel whole”? But we notice no transgendered individual actually says that. What they say instead is that “hey I feel like a woman” except they fail to define what is meant by “feeling like a woman””

The transphobic viewpoint continually denies the identity of anyone who is transgender; repeatedly a transphobic woman is called a man.  Transgender women are not biological males, they have always been women but their physicality did not reflect that. That is the dysphoria.

Those who transition are transitioning to their natural biological gender, not away from it.

“ I do not accept transgenders are the same as me because they do not have a shared experience of female from birth. That doesn’t make me a bigot. It simply makes me rational. I have no hatred for transgendered people. I do believe they need to stop trying to fit the stereotypes of “only two sexes” patriarchy forces upon us and define another gender all their own … Arguing that the m2f body is not male is not going to work. It is xy. No changing that. A focus on changing the genitals is a typical male way of assuming that’s what defines being woman …. No amount of surgery can provide the ability or experience of birth … when our breasts first begin to grow or we have our first period. It won’t provide the knowledge we are the nurtures of new life. Surgery also will not rescind the experience of male privilege or keep someone from continuing to use that learned trait against born women. The assumption by too many m2f is they have the right to dominate women and to redefine what woman means. …  Women are tired of men who want to dominate, control and define women. Those traits don’t become more attractive simply because the man has made himself a eunuch.”

Transgender-identifying people will or won’t conform to gender stereotypes, the same way cisgender-identifying people do.  Not all transgender women fit the stereotype of the gender to which they transition, any more than all cisgender women do.  Any basic study or exposure to transgender issues would show this.  Calling mtf transgender identifying people eunuchs is blatantly offensive.

As a cisgender woman, I have experiences common with some other women and not with others; no woman will have exactly the same experiences and suffer exactly the same oppressions as another.  Culture/’class’/disability/race/sexuality – so many things influence us. If the argument is that transgender women should not call themselves women but choose another gender-identifier, surely then these other influences would mean there needs to be many more gender-identifier descriptors in order to satisfy the myriad experiences and differences that exist between those defined as ‘women’? Some people do define outside the gender binary, with “genderqueer” and other such descriptors.  However, mainstream, dominant, society defines legally and socially by two broad descriptors; man/male and woman/female.  It is an entirely other debate as to whether that is useful or not, or whether it should be perpetuated or not.  It is not a debate over the right of transgender people to identify by whichever gender binary, it is a debate about gender definitions and humanity.  All humanity.

The conflation of binary biological sex and fluid sociological gender is sadly common a common one from which much transphobia is derived.  Gender dysphoria is not a choice.

Transphobic views define the experience of transgender and gender dysphoria entirely on the biased suppositions and reductive experiential gender norms of their non-acceptance that gender dysphoria exists.   Transphobia denies the right and existence of transgender people by denying gender dysphoria exists.

It is true there is solid scientific evidence to show there are basic biological/physiological differences between man and woman, and solid sociological evidence to show how our experiences also define our genders. It is the experience which gives us the differences within the binary gender definition of man/woman.  It is not as simple as that though.  Studies of gender dysphoria have proven that transitioning people have such things as brain chemistries and hormone levels of the biological gender to which they wish to transition.  It is not a man transitioning to a woman, but a woman transitioning to the body which she should have be born into but by quirk of nature, fate, biological accident in the womb or whatever reason, she wasn’t. The same for ftm. There are many cisgender women who are unable to have periods, or children, or develop breasts but no-one would deny their womanhood as a result of the medical deviations from their biological gender.   Where is the line drawn with regard to transphobia?  These women are not denied their identity, their gender, because of such ‘lacking’ in biological fact.

I freely admit TGs have unique experiences. I do not try to define or control their experiences. By the same token, I refuse to allow a relatively small number of TGs (in comparison to the billions of born women) to define and control what it means to be woman … Women matter. Our biology and physiology matter. Our life experiences matter, as do our opinions. We don’t need to be told our born experiences do not matter because someone else wants to co-opt the definition of woman.

So it would seem transphobia states whilst it is not trying to define the experience of those with gender dysphoria, by denying the condition exists it does exactly that.  Transphobia defines m2f as men who have transitioned to appear to be women, but stills states they are men.  It assumes a commonality of experience for all women which would preclude transgender women from being ‘women’; in itself this is problematic and denies intersectional prejudice and different physicalities and biologies of cisgender women.  It also seems to derive from a fear; a fear that somehow transgender women are seeking to ‘outrank’ and ‘control’ cisgender women.  This is ultimately derived from the belief transgender women are not women and as a belief is self-fulfilling, self-defeating and circular.  Transphobia feeds transphobia, based on ignorance, fallacy and conflation.

The italicised comments are among the milder I confronted – other words and definitions I felt compelled to confront included ‘freaks’, ‘subhuman’, ‘different species’, ‘affront to women’, ‘offensive’ – you get the picture.

Transphobia has no place in feminist theories, and I will confront it where I see it.  I believe transphobia is reductive and limiting to feminism.   I will continue to say gender dysphoria is not a choice.  Transphobia  is.  I know which side I’m on.

When did I know he was ‘the one’?

I’ve just been reading a blog in which men posted their stories of when they realised their girlfriend was ‘the one’.  I am assuming such stories are interchangeable with regard to sexuality, but as the blog was heteronormative in posting, and as my relationship is heterosexual, we’ll stick with those terms.

It got me wondering – what would my partner write about when he knew I was the one?  We do talk about it sometimes, as he is an incurable romantic with a brilliant memory for such things (me, not so much…), and being the egoist I always want to hear!  But when did I know he was the one?

The truth is, I don’t think there is any one moment when I realised he was the one, the person to whom I would plight my troth, with whom I would tie the knot and with whom my life would become forever entwined.  I think, honestly, that those around me probably understood the truth of my relationship before I did.

Some background – I met my partner when I had just turned 32.  I had never before in all my life been involved in a relationship that lasted more than four months.  I was a running joke with lots of my friends, and I joined in that joke because I, by that point, was completely happy with the idea that I would not have a long-term relationship.  I didn’t need one; I knew what I wanted and didn’t want and was not prepared to compromise.  Fun would still be had.  I firmly believed, and still do believe, that a long-term relationship is not essential to happiness or contentment, but that it can enhance both if it is the right one.

He, on the other hand, was a bit of a serial monogamist.  Lots of long-term relationships; we’d even drunk at the same pub 10 years previously (Dew Drop Inn for those in the know) and having seen photos of him was GORGEOUS and exactly the person I would have flirted incredibly outrageously with, but we never met.  Neither of us was ready.  Both of us needed to go through our ‘issues’ before we would be able to be ourselves and therefore be fully committed to a relationship.  I had many issues…  Not least of which was a total lack of belief in myself as a partner early on (which was resolved quite early too, about 6 years before we met) but I then had many physical issues (I may blog about some of them) which also needed to be resolved and affected my body image severely.  Strangely, I never had issues with regard to sex; I always thought once you’d both reached that point it didn’t matter, we all have body image issues and the fact we had reached that point meant the ‘turned on’ outweighed the ‘body paranoia’!  I apologise to my parents if they are reading this, by now you know more than you ever wanted to!

It is not only important for someone to be ‘the one’ but also that you meet them when you are ready in yourself for that ‘one’ relationship.  If you are the type of personality who would suit a ‘the one’ relationship.  For some people, a lifelong commitment is not for them.  I always knew that if I ended up in a ‘the one’ relationship it would be monogamous, but never thought I needed a ‘the one’.  That is also important to me – needing a person is not healthy, wanting them but not needing them is.  I never want to be without him, but I know if I was I could cope with life (I wouldn’t want to, but I could).

I was very confused early on in the relationship.  I was used to realising quickly in relationships that it was fun, but that it would end due to differences which were currently minor but which would grow to problems (pretty much the ending was always my decision; looking back I made those decisions occasionally for the wrong reasons and under assumption rather than knowledge, and may have hurt people – I projected onto them and I pre-emptively struck the relationship off my list).  I didn’t want this one to end.  It just kept going, and it grew, almost organically and almost in spite of myself.  I just didn’t want him to go.  He didn’t complete me (I was already complete by this time, thank you very much), but he made my life better.  I remember discussions with friends where I literally didn’t know what I was doing with him, because I had never gone past the four month barrier and this was all new ground.

I decided to see how it went, and not to put any pressure on it.  Let it develop, organically, don’t set up problems or try to see the future.  The future will happen anyway, I might as well concentrate on the present!

I don’t remember who said ‘I Love You’ first (he probably does).  I do know we say it to each other every morning before whichever one of us is going to work leaves, and end every text with it, and say it many times to the point of probably making everyone around us physically sick.  We say it because it is true, and because we want the last words to be ones of love.  We have both experienced early deaths of people close to us.

I met his family early on.  Two weeks after our first date, to be exact.  He has since told me that his father said to him as I left that it was clear I was ‘the one’.  He did not tell me that for a number of years, because frankly that would have made me run a mile!  His father passed away a year after we met, about four days after both sets of parents met for the first time and after our first performance of our first play with a new theatre group just formed – I was Titania, he was Oberon.  It means so much to me that his father said that.  He knew I was the one, as did my partner.  After two weeks, I would not have known that. By the time of the play, I had a pretty good idea he might be.

I remember walking up the road towards his flat after we had been together about five months, idly chatting about the future, and the words “when we are married…” just slipped out.  Me, a person who had always said I probably would never get married.  Not because I didn’t want to, or thought that there was anything wrong with the institution (apart from the fact it is not available to those in same-sex relationship; that is and always shall be a shameful discrimination which should be stopped), but merely because it did not seem necessary to me and I had never met anyone I thought I would be able to make that sort of lifelong commitment too.  I was very embarrassed, and turned into Hugh Grant stuttering like a fool in an attempt to cover it up.

I think that, given the above story, it could probably be said that I proposed to him.  However, he did propose to me.  He took me to a jewellery shop and I picked out a ring (he has an engagement ring too, but chose not to have one that can be worn on his finger; shocking!).  I can’t remember if I took the ring off, or if he had it in a box already (my memory is that of a sieve), but I ended up organising a dinner out for some friends which turned into a surprise engagement dinner.  Our friends were so excited they kept hinting at my partner to propose, making arch comments which I did not pick up on at all (honestly, it’s a miracle I can breathe and walk at the same time).

He told me about four years later that he had been to the shop first and picked that ring, and asked the shop assistant to place it where it was visible to me.  I looked around the whole shop, and picked that exact ring.  He just knew.  He always knows.  I find that comforting.  If he was not the one, I think that might be creepy!

He has never, ever been afraid to be public about his love for me, nor I him, but we are not cloying (I hope).  We are still individuals, but together we are better.  We support one another, give strength and love, but do not smother or demolish dreams because they are ‘impractical’.  We discuss, talk things through, and have the same guiding principles.  Our future plans – no children, places we want to travel, him being the main homemaker, me being the main breadwinner (although frankly I feel those roles are so complimentary it almost seems silly to separate them) etc., coincide.  He is as much of, if not more so, a feminist as I am.  He gets me when I say I find the use of the ‘Mrs/Miss’ terms fundamentally discriminatory and perpetuates inequality, whilst being against prohibition of the use of those terms (the woman’s right to choose does not end with reproductive decisions).  Our principles match, our ‘big life decisions’ match.  If they hadn’t matched, then he would not have been ‘the one’, it’s as simple as that.

Relationships, if they are right, in my opinion shouldn’t seem like hard work.  Yes, you may have to discuss, disagreements will happen, but if it seems like hard work to be with them then perhaps being with them is not the right decision.  We argue (generally about semantics; yes we are that pedantic) but resolving issues is never hard work, it just is what happens.  I know he is the one, and therefore any work is not work, it’s just a part of the relationship which happens, and I never lose sight of the fact he loves me completely (hard to lose sight of something which is constantly being said in front of everyone you know; copious ‘vom’ comments on FB statuses will attest to that).

When did I know he was the one?  There is no one point in time I can look to and say “yes, that was it, then”.  It crept up on me.  My subconscious knew before I did.  What I do know is that, as a friend of mine recently put, “we make each other better” (said friend was intoxicated, bless him).  All I do know is that if I think of my life without him in it, my mind shuts down to fend off the panic attack.  He is the one.  I know it, from the innermost reaches of my emotions to the outermost areas of my life.  It doesn’t matter when I knew it.  I just did and do and always will.

He doesn’t know I wrote this.  I wonder what his reaction will be?

The Stalker of the Child

Yes, I am continuing my fine tradition of being all interfere-y and refusing to keep my sticky beak out of it.  No, I am not the person to whom I refer in the title of this blog, you cheeky gets!

So, I’m stood at the bus stop, after a long day at work being all responsible and legalish, waiting for my carriage to take me to hearth, home and lovely snuggly husband.  I become aware of raised voices behind me.  I wait, keeping my body turned away (it was a walking stick day) until I hear the words “You come near my daughter again and I’ll…”.  Child.  That’s like a red rag to me.  I look round, expecting to see a couple of kids harassing another kid, whose mother has stepped in.

Oh, how wrong I was.  This tiny, tiny 13 year old girl is in near hysterics, which develop into full-on hysteria as time goes by.  Her mother is shielding her and moving away from a very large adult woman aged at least over 25, who keeps moving towards her.  Every time the woman and her daughter move, this stalker (as she shall now be known) moves towards her.  This scenario keeps looking more and more threatening, and frankly I am not the kind of person who can stand by and let such situations develop, walking stick and challenged stature notwithstanding.

The stalker is stood about 3 inches away from the mother, who has her arm around her hysterical daughter and is clearly very, very angry but making no physical moves apart from the attempt to get away (thwarted at every turn by the stalker, who keeps looking at the daughter).  The mother and daughter are now trapped between the bus stand, a telephone junction and people behind them.  So I sidle over, saying nothing and making no eye contact, and slip my walking stick in between the mother and the stalker.  Slowly I edge forward, until I am fully in between them, still saying nothing but making my presence VERY obvious.  After a couple of minutes, I ask the mother if she is okay.  She is not, and again tries to walk away from the stalker, clutching her daughter VERY tightly.  They end up a good 4 metres away, to no avail as the stalker carries on the slanging match and follows.  No matter where the mother and daughter move, she is there, too close and very threatening.

The mother has had enough, and by this time I have overheard that this woman regularly follows her daughter home from school, getting on her daughter’s bus and has even at one point pulled the little girl’s hair.  The mother calls the police, and I go over to say I have heard and seen everything, and am perfectly willing to be a witness.

The mother starts to tell me the full history, confirming what I had overheard.  It has also become painfully apparent that the stalker has mental health problems.  That is no excuse, but may provide an explanation.

The mother has reported a previous incident to the police, and been told that they can’t do anything because the stalker has mental health problems.  That is a disservice to the stalker; she clearly needs help.  This becomes more apparent as I am told the stalker has previously stalked another girl from the time the other girl was in Year 5.  She has also, allegedly (because this is hearsay and I have no proof), got a conviction for previously attacking another child.  It is painfully obvious this woman needs help.

I am going nowhere until I have either seen the police or seen the mother and daughter safely on to the bus to their home without being followed; I really don’t care how long it might take, I am not putting up with this.  The police don’t come, and the stalker stands about three metres away, constantly looking around but by this time silent.  The daughter is just about starting to calm down, so I do my usual “attempt to make them laugh” whilst trying to cover up my utter shock at the attitude of the police and the inadequacy of mental health services.  I work in Lewisham Centre, between the daughter’s school and the bus stop where the daughter has to get the bus.  I give her my name, work address, details of where the office is EXACTLY, my work land line and my mobile number, and tell her if she is being followed or if she feels threatened at all in any way, to come to the office and I will call her mother while she is in safety.  I tell the mother exactly what I have done and suggest they call me on Monday to confirm the information is bona fide.  The mother works, she can only collect her daughter on Mondays and Fridays.  It is not always practical for people to arrange someone to pick up a child from school.  I wanted to ensure she could feel safe, and that her mother was happy with the arrangement.  I did wonder if that was maybe going too far, but you know what? I don’t think it was.  If ANY child I know and love is at any time feeling threatened, I hope they might have a contact of safety.  I hope no-one I know is ever in need of such a bolthole, but I am glad I had the opportunity of providing one.  If it is never used, it is there.

There are people all around us, and some school-friends of the girl come over (they were not there before).  It is confirmed they have seen the stalker before.  Neither the daughter or the mother have any idea who the stalker is.  She picked the daughter out completely at random.

We are surrounded by people; a young tall skinny alternative-looking man (who may have been responsible for the very strong smell of a certain substance that wafted by occasionally, which mother and I had joked out of earshot of daughter about) made it clear he, too, was keeping an eye out.  I became aware of how many people there were around us, no-one being as interfere-y as me of course, who were keeping a subtle eye out.  Community at its best.

At no point did anyone make any threat towards the stalker.  Then a woman who obviously knew the stalker came up to talk to her, and jokingly asked if she was all right and if any of the kids has been harassing her again.  As she said this to the stalker, she looked towards the daughter probably not realising what the impact of what she was saying was having.  The mother naturally stood up for her daughter (never at any time making any move away from cradling her daughter as close to her as she could); there is a history of harassment and her daughter has never harassed anyone.  The woman accepts this.  However, she states, loudly and many times, that the stalker has been harassed by schoolchildren before, and therefore it is perfectly acceptable, understandable, and the fault of the daughter for being a schoolchild that she is being stalked, and has been physically assaulted before.  Further, because the woman has mental health issues, she cannot be held responsible and it is unfair if any steps be taken to try and stop the woman doing this.  The daughter should just put up with it.

I cannot believe my ears.  I think my jaw bounced off the floor at least twice.  This is an adult woman stating that because a few, a minority, of children have behaved in a disgusting manner towards someone with mental health issues then ALL children will just have to put up with criminal, threatening behaviour.  However, I don’t need to say anything and can concentrate on the mother and daughter because the young man immediately steps in and takes quite a lot of verbal abuse, deflecting the attention.  Eventually this idiot moves on.

We are still waiting for the police.

The stalker moves away to sit at a bus stop, and two other school-girls who have never met the daughter before stay near us, checking occasionally without drawing attention to themselves where the stalker is.  Yes, school-children, you know, those ones that deserve to be harassed because a couple of kids behave badly.  Well, there are adults in prison who have behaved badly, and no-one thinks ALL adults should just put up with assault, stalking, being threatened and harassment just because some adults have been harassed.  I do not subscribe to that point of view.

The stalker is so obviously in desperate need of help; there is a clear pattern of behaviour and it is not helping her at all to excuse, accept and ignore this behaviour.  She needs help.  She is not getting it.  I assume she must actually do someone a serious injury before she gets any help.

Finally, after 50 minutes, the stalker gets onto a bus and leaves.  The daughter, who has calmed down considerably, visibly relaxes.  I suggest that the mother and daughter get on the next bus to their home and phone the police from there.  They have all my contact information, I assure them I will be a witness, and the mother is happy that her daughter seek refuge in my solicitors office if she needs it.  I see them off, adamant I am NOT LEAVING until I see them both safely onto their bus.  I did not see the stalker get on the bus, and I am not taking any chances.  I have no idea what I would do if actually confronted, but I believe that the mere presence of witnesses can do a lot to deter action.  There were a lot of people around, but sometimes a word, a look, an assurance that yes you have noticed and no you are not going to stand by and let it happen, is enough.  They leave, smiling and thanking me.  I don’t think I need thanking.  I am sure if I hadn’t stepped in, someone else would have.  There were others around, keeping an eye out.  I think I just got there first.

The police never turned up.  Apparently, and this is what they told the mother, there was a serious car accident in Lewisham, and some other incidents, so the largest police station in Europe which was located 200 yards walk away from where we were stood could not provide even a special constable to come and ensure that a child who was being harassed and stalked by a known stalker was okay.

Hmmmm….

Why I Believe Sex Work Should be Legalised

This is one of the beliefs of Sex Positive Feminism, which my last blog listed as point 3, and which I said I would come back to as (a) the previous post was over 2000 words long ; and (b) this point alone is probably going to be near that length too.

Legalising sex work is controversial.  There is so much wrong with the current mainstream sex industry; as with all other areas of society (and remember, please, I can only write about what I know so this is from my perspective as detailed in the “Who I Am” section of this blog) it exists within the inherent gender/heritage/race/ability/sexuality etc. discriminations that ALL systems and institutions are influenced by.  That is crucial; all institutions and systems are subject to and either wittingly or unwittingly perpetuate the discriminations even if they specifically attempt to address the discriminations.  Societal change is slow, there is no either/or, just gradual evolving.  Sex work is merely one such institution, and because of the overt gender and sexuality prejudices they have been the most obviously utilised and widely accessible examples of perpetuation of the discriminations.  However, that does not mean they are defined by those discriminations, any more than gender-stereotyping occupations such as nursing, plumbing, secretary, midwife, fireman, milkman, binman, postman (see the connection developing here?) are defined by the stereotype.

But what exactly is sex work?  Historically, it has been defined as prostitution and pornography.  However, one could extend this definition to include anything in which sex features as part of a person’s labour by which they derive their income; ‘sex sells’ is a frequent mantra of advertising, so is it sex work to take part in advertising campaigns which either explicitly or implicitly use sex as a tool of selling?  Is it sex work to be part of creating a scene in a film which has sexual content in it?  Celebrity culture derives much of its material from sex and lust – is that sex work?  Magazines on shelves aimed at men which are not defined as being in the pornographic industry, such as FHM or Loaded, feature pictures on their covers which are frequently indistinguishable from the covers of porn magazines just one or two shelves up.  Are the creators, producers and participants partaking in sex work?  Although acts of sex such as kissing and touching may be involved in such labour, it seems that the definition of sex work is when actual acts of physical or verbal sexual intercourse (not necessarily penetrative) occur; when the sexual activity is ‘real’ as opposed to ‘acting’ on the part of at least one participant (for example, with phone sex lines one of the participants may well be doing no more than reading a script).  Even that line has been blurred in modern production, and is becoming more so.  There are also other types of labour in the sex industry which are not illegal nor involve sexual activity, such as shop workers in establishments selling sex-related products.

As I am talking about legalising sex work though, it should be assumed I am discussing pornography and prostitution.  Even then, the laws with regard to pornography are complicated.  In the UK much pornography is legal which leads me to conclude it’s already okay to engage in sex for money as long as it is filmed or photographed for distribution.  That’s bizarre to me…

Therefore, it seems, this blog is about legalising prostitution, that being the only form of sex work which is actually illegal (and may also have the largest introduction to a blog in the history of blogging).

For background, here is a brief summary of my understanding of sex positive feminist beliefs with regard to sexual behaviours, from my previous blog:

1. Sex Positivism is about informed consenting sexual activity.
2. Sex Positivism is not about moral judgements.
3. Sex Positivism is about fostering healthy attitudes towards one’s body and one’s sexuality.
4. Sex Positivism is about autonomy over one’s own body.
5. Sex Positivism is about accepting that people, all people, of all shapes, sizes, sexualities etc. are sexual beings and have a right to express their sexuality without moral judgement or impingement.

‘Prostitute’ is the only job title which is considered an insult (except maybe ‘banker’), and it is gendered.  Male prostitutes exist, but the gender has to be stated in order for it to be understood the worker is male, either that or such terms as ‘rent boy’, ‘escort or ‘gigolo’ are employed.  For male prostitutes, the assumption is that it is a gay activity, and homophobia comes in to play, or their job is seen as servicing older woman and possibly is a good thing, because of course men are supposed to be highly sexed and are ‘allowed’ to have sex with more than one partner without being married or in an emotionally attached relationship.  Women do employ prostitutes, increasingly so as it becomes more acceptable for women to have sex lives, but still there is the slut/stud dichotomy that is never so obvious in relation to sex workers.  I see ‘prostitute’ as a job title akin to my own (Litigation Assistant according to my firm’s website), and that is how the term is being used in this blog.

In order for legalisation of prostitution to work, social attitudes towards gender/sexuality and sex must change.  As was shown when Amsterdam legalised the sex industry, social attitudes were not addressed and this meant any complaints of abuse made by the prostitutes were subject to the same discriminations as before.  If the law is changed, it must be enacted; many prostitutes in Amsterdam found their complaints were discounted, treated as ‘part of the job’ or it was considered they had ‘deserved it’.  These attitudes are prevalent with regard to sex workers.  Legalising would be a start in giving sex workers protection, but are part of the bigger change towards creating non-discriminatory attitudes towards sexuality.

If a person visits a prostitute, the reason for the visit is not the responsibility of a prostitute.  Society would not judge a plasterer, for example, who visits a property to fix damage caused by a domestic violence incident.  There are myriad reasons for employing a prostitute, none of them the responsibility of the prostitute.  Such reasons should not be an influence when making laws regarding sex work and/or prostitution.  They are more to be understood in the context of sex education, and the broader issues involved in relationship & life skills learning.

The reasons why one may become a prostitute are also myriad.  Here is where freely-given informed consent comes in.  The illegality of prostitution means it is not an option people can make when considering paid employment choices.  This means that many people who do choose the option do so from a position of desperation.  For those people, informed consent is subject to pressure and is not freely given.  Extreme debt, drug addiction, history of abuse; these all may restrict a person’s ability to give free informed consent.  However, it is possible that a person with such influences has given free informed consent; to assume not is to assume knowledge of someone one cannot have unless one is close to the prostitute.  Legalising prostitution would help people escape from the trap they may have fallen into as a result of such pressures; no criminal record would help in job applications and combined with a social policy of non-judgemental acceptance, the stigma attached to sex work would (slowly) recede.

The illegality of prostitution in part enables the abuse to continue.  Trafficked sex workers, underage sex workers – these are not sex workers and I do not agree with the reference to the same.  They are abuse victims, they are rape victims.  It is commercialised rape, and is not part of the sex work industry.  At the moment though, they are considered to be, and it is down to the fact it is a blanket illegality.  Legalising prostitution would not legalise these aspects of the industry; in fact it would free up vital resources for detecting and prosecuting these abuses.

Not forgetting our basic right to autonomy over our own bodies.  If a person chooses to become a prostitute, then it is their absolute right to do that with their body.  Any employment we may take up uses a physical part of ourselves in one way or another.  It is the moral rules built up around sex which have caused sex work to become an employment which is negatively morally judged.  There are those who have historically and do currently choose to work in the sex industry; freely and with informed consent.  It is every person’s right to make that choice, and to make that choice illegal removes a fundamental right to body autonomy.

If prostitution is to be legalised, it must be regulated and the voices of the prostitutes must be heard in designing these regulations.  The protection of both sex workers and those who employ them is paramount.  I feel it is of principal importance that the prostitute be the one with charge of their employment.  Undue pressure can be exerted by employers in the quest for profit and/or business (as I am sure we can all recognise from our experiences of legal employment, although I am currently in the blissful position of loving my paid employment and being able to respect those for whom I work; I am fully aware of how lucky I am!).  The prostitute must be in charge of deciding what services they will or will not offer.  It may be that contracts between the prostitute and employer of their services should be drawn up; the practicalities of such arrangements notwithstanding, it would provide the prostitute with further protection in the victim-blaming sexual abuse culture we currently endure and ensure the client has a clear understanding of what they have contracted to partake in.  Regular STD testing would be required and legalising sex work would make access to such services and certificating the same (as is already part of the porn industry) far easier.

There would no longer be a fear for the prostitute who wishes to utilise the safety of collectivism and group protection which at the moment leaves them open to charges of running brothels.  The illegality of prostitution forces many to put themselves into dangerous situations, which again because of victim-blaming sexual abuse culture means if they are attacked or abused they have little or no recourse.  The worker on the street or the woman ‘employed’ by a pimp is in potential danger, and can have free informed choice taken from them at least in part (I am not ignoring the impact sex stereotypes has on this) because of the illegality of their job.

The illegality of prostitution in itself can make it titillating (for those who find the sense of disapproval and illicit thrill titillating).  The success of Belle du Jour, best-selling books and two TV series and counting, and the eroticism of ‘high class’ prostitutes introduces a peculiar dichotomy; on the one hand she is titillating, naughty, the ‘acceptable’ face of selling sex, on the other hand she is selling sex, she is a prostitute and all that job title implies.  How is it that she can remain illegal and yet be so acceptable?  Many of those people who enjoy the books and TV series are those who wish prostitution to remain illegal.  As long as the idea of a prostitute who freely chose that job is fictionalised, it seems it is acceptable.

Of course, legalising sex work will not result in overnight societal change.  I believe any results from such changes may take two or three generations to begin to emerge.  But for the safety of those already in the industry, for the perpetuation of gendered and homophobic stereotyping, for the right to body autonomy we all have, for the development of a sexually non-judgemental society, for all the reasons I have given, legalising and regulating sex work should happen.

My name is Tina and I am a Sex Positive Feminist

For some reason, this statement is likely to cause offense, outrage and confusion amongst many people; opposition to this may even unite groups most normally seen in the media as being in opposing camps.  Many people may not even know what “Sex Positive” means.  I only found out about this definition of beliefs and activism about 18 months ago, and upon researching it realised as a label it broadly defines how I feel about sex, female (and male) autonomy and attitudes towards sex.  I find such labels useful as jumping-off points to discussion, as we all define terms in different ways (although for some reason ‘feminism’ seems to be defined in mainstream media and society by those who oppose equality rather than those who define themselves as ‘feminists’; I suppose that’s only to be expected, the oppressor/privileged sets the agenda for the society over which it exercises its privilege, after all).

So, what is sex positivism?  I could post a ton of net links to various sites to explain it, but you don’t read my blog (all two or three of you) to get someone else’s ideas.  Here, then, are mine.

1. Sex Positivism is about informed consenting sexual activity.
2. Sex Positivism is not about moral judgements.
3. Sex Positivism is about legalising sex work.
4. Sex Positivism is about fostering healthy attitudes towards one’s body and ones sexuality.
5. Sex Positivism is about autonomy over one’s own body.
6. Sex Positivism is about accepting that people, all people, of all shapes, sizes, sexualities etc. are sexual beings and have a right to express their sexuality without moral judgement or impingement (see point 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; in fact, these points all cross-over as you will read).

Guess which one usually gets the most complaints and causes the most outrage in debates?  Yes, that’s right, point 3.  Let’s take it point by point, saving 3 for last as it is the most juicy.

1 – INFORMED CONSENT (I’m capitalising because this is VERY IMPORTANT!).

This is the primary, number one, consideration, from which all else follows.  Sex Positive means informed, consenting sexual activity.  This precludes those who are unable, for whatever reason, to give informed consent.  Children cannot give informed consent.  Animals cannot give informed consent.  Trafficked slaves forced into sex work cannot give consent (and personally I dispute the definition of these people being in sex work – it is commercialised rape).  Anyone under any form of external duress directly related to the situation cannot give informed consent; for example putting pressure via emotional or physical violence disempowers, and those under duress cannot give informed consent.  Abuse of a position of power (college professor and student/boss and employee) by the consentee removes the ability of the consenter to give informed consent.

Informed consent means having all the information one feels is necessary to oneself in order to give informed consent to a sexual activity.  This means knowing all the information which may exist which may cause harm to the consenter if they knew the same and which would alter their decision to give consent – such as whether the potential sexual partner has a sexually transmitted disease or a partner with whom they do not have an open relationship.  The decision whether to consent to sexual activity is then made with all the necessary facts available.  However, some people consent if they know a partner is not in an open relationship, and informed consent does not mean there is a universal moral rule which can apply.  Different folks like different strokes (phnar), what is acceptable for one will not be for another.

Informed consent means the ability to give the same – if a person is very intoxicated on whatever substance THEY CANNOT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT.  If in doubt, don’t do it, even if they tell you the next morning they really wanted to (which, if so, wahay!  Informed consent obtained, let the sexy-time begin!).

Informed consent means knowing one’s own sexuality, what one is comfortable with, and feeling one is in a safe environment and one is able to give that consent.  It does not describe the behaviour to which that consent is given.

Most importantly, the only way informed consent can be given is if sex education is given from as soon as children are old enough to ask question, in an age-appropriate fashion of course.  After all, how can a person give or deny consent if they don’t know what they are or are not consenting to, and the implications of the same?  Informed consent requires information; the clue is in the title!

Informed consent is the ability to say “yes”, to say “no”, and to say “maybe, but I want to know more first before I can decide” and to know that that decision will be respected and adhered to.

2 – Not making moral judgements.

Bloody religionists, coming along, spoiling everything with their judgemental, sexist, party-pooping…

Of course, not all religious people are judgmental (although it is in the job description especially for those involved in the organisation of religious beliefs).  However, most laws and social norms surrounding sex and sexual activity have their basis in religion, as that is historically from where our law derives.  Non-heteronormative, non-marital, non-male sexual activity, that’s what I’m talking about here.  Such judgements create misery and deny love and sexual pleasure.  These are (given point 1) not crimes (or shouldn’t be if they are, as they are victimless and the laws derive from prejudice) and are discriminatory.

There are differing standards in our society for sexual behaviours (by which I mean with whom you have sex not the actual positions said horizontal jiggling may include) – women are sex objects and have a passive role, whereas men are sex subjects and take the active role.  As for non-heterosexual sexual activity, well when such relationships are not accorded equality in law is it any surprise social judgement persists in condemning them.  Slut-shaming, victim-blaming, anti-choice crusading, hate crimes, homophobic violence – all these come from irrational moral judgements deriving from religious and social judgement.  All are wrong and infringe the basic human right a person has to express their sexuality in any way which is their own.

Sex positivity recognises we all have different sexual desires, dreams, wants and needs.  It is about allowing those needs, accepting the difference and not judging, condemning or denying the liberty people should have to meet those needs in a healthy and informed way.

3 – Legalising Sex Work

All sex work should be legalised.  This, however, is to be subject to its own blog post, as I just KNOW there will be controversy.  If anyone actually reads this blog, that is.  Otherwise, it’ll be useful for me to refer to in future debates.  Mass debates may be particularly fun…

4 – Healthy Attitudes towards Sex and Sexuality

“What is a ‘healthy’ attitude?” I hear you both cry (having lost one reader since paragraph 1 of this epic).  “Good question” I respond, feeling sure I am talking to myself.  In the context of this blog, I expect to develop hirsute palms and go blind very shortly.

In my opinion, a healthy attitude towards sex and sexuality is one which does not judge, has no moral imposition, is one which knows oneself and what one wants and doesn’t want, and has confidence and understanding in one’s ability to give informed consent.

A healthy attitude is one which does not hate one’s body because it does not conform to society’s ideal of what one should look like.  Physical conformity is impossible for the vast majority of society, whatever the norm happens to be, because humans come in a huge variety of shapes, sizes, shades, and physicalities.  There is no norm other than that which is socially created and perpetuated.

It is impossible to have a truly healthy sex life if you hate how you look.  You can never really relax and allow your body to feel the experience, if you are constantly worrying if your stomach is going to flop, if your breasts are in your armpits instead of pointing ceiling-ward (of course if they are doing this whilst you are on your front, I would recommend seeing your GP pretty fast), if you think your penis is not going to touch the sides (although if this is a comment on the size of your partner’s vagina/anus/mouth/nostril I think you may have a personality rather than self-image problem and will be contributing to your partner’s lack of healthy attitude should you mention it, you asshole), or if you think your body is in any way unattractive and therefore unworthy of the person to whom you are gifting the experience of sex with it.

So many things affect how we see ourselves – gender stereotyping, the beauty myth, the constant conflation of sexuality with gender, homophobia, transphobia, cisgenderism, racism, fashion and economic snobbery, societal assumption that healthy = thin (although that is only a narrow band of thinness and is frequently contradictory making the whole thing more confusing and damaging to your psyche; for the male physique healthy = muscular is not so prevalent but is on the rise in mainstream culture), and image/celebrity obsessed culture all have a negative effect.  Yet when I look around, I see myriad couplings/grouping of a huge variety of shapes and sizes.  Physicality is not ‘one size fits all’, it just seems that way.  Nor is sexuality.

Sexuality – why is it types of sexuality are legislated against or ignored?  There are so many definitions currently.  Here are a few:

Pansexuality, bisexuality, bicuriosity, heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, asexuality, non-sexuality, polysexuality.

Some of these definitions will change, grow, and come into and out of usage as gender definitions change, grow, and come into and out of usage.  People define themselves in whatever way seems best to fit them at that time of life and depending upon their environment and upbringing may not be as free to express themselves as they would wish.  No sexuality is ‘wrong’, to those who hold a Sex Positive view.  To morally judge the gender of the partner, or the sexuality of certain genders, is not sex positive.  It’s not healthy, either for oneself or for one’s society.

5 – Body Autonomy

We are all the owners of our own bodies, and no-one else’s.  We do not have the right, ever, to dictate what one person will do with their own body, be it tattoo it, pierce it, have a medical procedure or not, have an abortion or not, or have sex or not.  In fact, if we remove that autonomy with regard to sex, that is called RAPE and is illegal.

What we do with our own bodies are decisions influenced by our environments, our families, our perceptions of ourselves and others, the judgements we may or may not receive both before and after acting, our intents and desires, our fears and negativities; myriad influences in fact.  But they are OUR decisions to make.  No-one can, or should, make them for you.

These decisions, of course, are entirely based on point 1.

6 – Acceptance

There are probably as many different types of sexual activity as there are people engaging in the same.  Even if the label is the same for two couples/groups, what actually happens will never be exactly the same (although I don’t think I ever want to actually PROVE that statement…).  What people choose to do within the privacy of their own sex lives may be shocking to others, or boring, or incomprehensible, but that is irrelevant to anyone not directly involved in the sexual activity.

Sex Positive means acknowledging and accepting sexual behaviours vary.  It doesn’t mean ‘tolerating’ as ‘tolerance’ implies judgement and disapproval or approval as deemed appropriate by the judger (who of course is not involved in the actual sexual activity and is probably jealous that you are getting some and they aren’t, so yah boo sucks to them!).  Acceptance – pure and simple.  No judgement, no disapproval or approval.  Acknowledgement and acceptance, and moving on.

Okay, this post turned out a lot longer than anticipated, so this is part 1.  Part 2, which will focus on point 3 and the legalising sex work issue, will come with a conclusion personal to me.  Hopefully it won’t take me too long to produce, but hey, no-one is actually reading this blog anyway, so I guess it doesn’t matter.

Until next time, sweet non-existent reader. *kissy face*!

Why is blogging so DIFFICULT sometimes?

I have been trying to write a particular blog post for about six months now.  It is on Sex Positive Feminism, my personal beliefs with regard this, and is something I believe in very strongly.  It also creates a huge amount of controversy whenever it is talked about, from what I have seen on various discussion boards and in myriad groups.

For someone with such outspoken views, who has strong opinions and is quite vocal/literate about them, this will probably come as a surprise.  However, we tend to surround ourselves with people who broadly agree with our viewpoints on various topics, and if there is a massive disagreement about something which is a core fundamental principle to our being then those people tend to be on the periphery of our social circles.  Debate is rare, argument (unless our personalities desire such things) rarer still.

I am a person who does not enjoy confrontation or argument.  I have only recently (in the last 10 years or so, on a sliding scale of “getting more so”) become increasingly confident in my knowledge and therefore in my opinions.  I am still quite shocked (naively so, and I can be VERY naïve) that people can actually disagree with me!  Fundamental to my principles and therefore myself is the belief in equality and when someone disagrees with me with regard to equality I am shaken to the core.  I always try to understand the other side(s) (I have yet to debate an issue which has only two sides) position(s) but sometimes have found it incredibly difficult to see how they can hold to such principles.  It does not mean I will ever stop trying, although acknowledging people are prejudiced and that blind faith will rule some people is quite difficult for me.

So far, the most controversial topic I have instigated is the debate regarding the titles by which women are addressed in the English-speaking world (Ms/Miss/Mrs); my post can be found by clicking on the blue highlighted words.  Every time it is discussed, it creates controversy.  I understand why, it is a topic fundamental to people’s hearts, but I do not really understand the controversy about it as the legal facts are plain and the inequality is obvious.  However, the controversy has taught me valuable lessons in listening, understanding and opening myself up to other points of view, if only to determine eventually that my position is as I stated, fundamental to my core principles and representative of my central core of being.

I don’t like anger though.  I don’t want to upset people, or hurt them.  My wording is carefully chosen to avoid doing so, yet somehow controversy finds me.  Why is this?  Is the belief in equality so offensive to some people that they feel duty-bound to insult, abuse, deride and wish quite nasty physical violence on people?  I am lucky not to have received such abuse yet, but from my knowledge of other feminist bloggers I know this is a matter of time.  Unless, of course, I remain attractive as a blog to only 5 or so readers, all of whom are friends.

The Sex Positive blog (which is going to be split into two, possibly three, parts on account of length) is the hardest one I have written so far.  I know, having taken part in previous discussions, that it is a topic that angers MANY people.  It angers people with whom I identify, whose views I respect and agree with.  Feminists are often angered by it (although as I have written before, feminism is an ideology which is not an amorphous unchanging identification).  I know it could upset those I care about, and that is not something I ever wish to do.

So why write it, or indeed any blog which might cause upset, anger or offense?  Quite simply, because it is another belief system fundamental to my principles and myself.  Because it is incredibly important in the fight for equality and to my belief that understanding is vital to advancement and education of everyone.  Because, ultimately, my fear of controversy, confrontation, embarrassment and criticism is not as important as my belief in stating my views, opening myself up to alternative points of view in debate and furthering my and other’s understanding of people and society as a whole.

I have to.  It’s another fundamental principle of my core being.  That’s all.

Section 28 – Same Number, Same Discrimination.

“28) The Academy Trust shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on sex and relationship education to ensure that children at the Academy are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children.”

Taken from here:

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools/a0074737/free-schools-model-funding-agreement

This document was updated on 24^th June 2011, and is not something that the government is trying to bring in as new part of the Agreement.  It already exists, in practice, for all Free Schools.  The wording indicates that this clause is intended to ensure Free Schools are in line with State Schools, therefore almost all children are taught this.  Is this Clause 28 with new wording?  Not quite, it does not specifically mention non-heterosexual relationships.  What it is, is ensuring that schoolchildren are taught the value (for which read moral correctness) of marriage for raising families.  “What is the problem with that?” I hear you cry across the nation.  Glad you asked.

Section 28 discriminates against any form of relationship which does not conform to marriage, and as marriage is only available to heterosexual couples, it is discrimination against non-heterosexual relationships of any kind.  Back in the bad old 80s (for which I have been feeling major déjà vu’s for most of the noughties; increasingly so since the ConDems started decimating controlling the country) Thatcher and her Cronies (now there’s a punk band name) managed to pass Clause 28, which prohibited any school teacher or worker within a school from ‘promoting’ homosexuality, leading to the inability of anyone related to the school being able to talk about non-heterosexuality in any way, shape or form.  That was thankfully repealed.  To me, Section 28 seems to be attempting exactly the same thing, with the specific remit of ensuring it becomes morally correct only to have children within marriage.

Previously to the industrial revolution, however, only the rich could really afford to be married in traditional church ceremonies (which seldom if at all resembled the meringue circuses which bankrupt many people these days).  Many poorer people saw themselves as ‘married’ but had never gone through the traditional marriage ceremony so by today’s legal standards would be classed as cohabiting.  After all, it wasn’t until 1836 that the Marriage Act allowed for marriage to be formally legalised by anyone other than a Minister of the Church of England.  Children were not raised in a two-parent unit, but in extended family groups or communities if poor, and by governesses, nannies and boarding schools if rich.  It was only the expansion of the middle class which allowed for the development of what we now know as the nuclear family.  The ‘nuclear’ family is a modern invention, coined in around 1947.  It refers to the two-parent and child only model of a family, and increasingly came to be the idealised ‘norm’ model.  Gingerbread cites the statistic for single-parent families with dependent children in the UK in 2011 at 23%.  That’s almost ¼ of all families.  That’s a lot of children being brought up by a single parent being taught how important marriage is to families.  This figure has been steady since the mid-1990s.

Further, if we extend the inference of the Section to say that marriage should be for procreation (this seems more and more to be a religious-based Section to me; state schools are supposed to be secular so one assumes the remit would be wider than this, but the same cannot be said for Academies and Free Schools), surely this means all infertile couples should also have their marriages annulled?  Of course, that is a ridiculous argument, which no person would seriously consider.  However, if the argument against non-heterosexual couples marrying is that they can’t procreate, it stands.  They can adopt though, or use surrogates, or, in the case of lesbian couples, carry the child themselves!  The emphasis on the importance of ‘marriage’ in relation to family life is exclusive and infers, clearly, a moral superiority which is discriminatory and foundless.

Before anyone comments that gay couples can ‘marry’ and be Civil Partners – if this is the same thing as marriage then it should be called marriage and include all the rights and responsibilities of marriage; further, the marriage ceremony should be able to be conducted in all the same places that heterosexual marriages are conducted.  THAT is equality.  If religious organisations refuse to marry non-heterosexual couples, then I say they should have their right to conduct the legal marriage ceremony removed and conduct blessings in the eyes of whichever God they worship – the legal ceremony should only be legal in secular places such as registry offices or the halls/castles etc. that now have licences to hold them.

Gay couples became able to legally adopt in 2005.  One can assume that therefore there will be an increasing number of gay couples doing so.  However, children have been raised by gay parents ever since there have been children and gay parents – I’m guessing the statistics would be very hard to come by but anecdotally 21 years ago I was at college with at least one girl whose mother was a lesbian.  That was 21 years ago, and I’m damn sure I’m not unique and nor was she.

As far as I am concerned, the argument about gay marriage and raising children within a gay relationship is won with this video, but I freely admit I have a bias (which you may have picked up on, I’m not sure…):

http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/#.TtZpEoldHIs.facebook

What I firmly believe is important is that children are taught about sex, sexuality, relationships, marriage and civil partnership, and all aspects of personal interactions without moralistic judgement.  Those moralistic judgements come from a variety of circumstance, be it religious influence, cultural influence, social peer influence, and so on.  These can be taught as well, but it is vital that the child be taught ALL aspects of life in this way, as they will face all manner of views in their lives and the tools to deal with the same are essential to them.

Children don’t discriminate unless they are taught how to.  Problems they may face as part of a non-married family come from the judgements that are made by their society, not from any inherent moral ‘wrong’.

I searched the Free Schools Model Funding document.  There is no mention of Civil Partners or sex education in any context at all other than my cut-and-paste that opened this blog post.

Section 28 is another attempt to allow children to be taught to discriminate.  It is wrong.  It must be either amended or repealed, and I suggest amendment to encourage life skills, not bigotry.

Yes, I’ll pay your ridiculous, disablist, parking fine, but I am not happy about it and shall tell everyone the reasons why!

I recently had reason to forward the following letter to a company who are employed to monitor parking at a retail park near where I live.  As you may be able to tell, I was a tad irked by being issued with said parking ticket.  Some information has been redacted, partly because I wanted a chance to use the word “redacted” in something:

“17^th November 2011

UKPC Payments

[Address redacted]

Dear Sir or Madam

RE: Parking Notice No: [redacted]

I am writing to express my disgust at receiving a parking fine for parking inCatfordIslandRetailPark.  As you can see from the enclosed McDonalds receipt, I did use facilities within the retail site.  Your notification sign affixed to the wall of JD Sports states that “failure to comply with the following may result in a £90 parking charge notice reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days” and goes on to list three types of parking fine.  The fact that the wording “following” is used clearly states the following three examples are subject to the specific fine mentioned, and the three are as follows:

1. 2 Hours Maximum stay (no return within 30 minutes) no parking out of hours.
2. Park only within marked bays.
3. Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays.

The first and last two are extremely badly worded – there is no indication in the sign anywhere as to what the ‘hours’ are in order that people can avoid parking ‘out of hours’ and the wording of three implies that anyone holding a disabled badge can only park within the disabled bays.  This is discriminatory – if the bays are all full, I can only presume that disabled people must leave the car park and are unwelcome in the retail site.  As I am an intelligent person, I am guessing what you actually mean to say is that “only people holding a blue disabled badge may park in the disabled bays”.

Above this wording, your sign states “If you leave this site whilst your vehicle remains in this car park, you will be liable to receive a parking charge notice”.  This does not state that you are ONLY allowed to use facilities within the retail park, as I now understand is the case.  This is misrepresentation and misleading.  It also does not clearly state that a fine will be levied, nor does it indicate what level the fine might be, and this implication is further reinforced by the use of the word “following” as detailed above.

As your parking attendant must clearly have noticed in order to register that my partner and I had left the retail site, I was walking with a walking stick and was clearly mobility-impaired and therefore slow in gait.  I was leaving the site to visit a cash machine and visit Lawrence House, and I also visited facilities within the retail park.  I now realise that those who park in the retail site are banned from visiting cash machines (none of which are available within the retail site) and banned from visiting other stores or buildings outside the site, but can only visit stores within the retail site.  You may rest assured I will be publicising this fact to everyone I know, and will be writing to the buildings within the facility to let them know that customers are not allowed to visit cash machines or places off-site.  I can only hope that their business is not affected by your short-sighted, disablist, badly-worded policy and Notice.

I am enclosing the cheque, which I am extremely reluctant to pay as I do not like acquiescing to what amounts to blackmail, as I cannot afford £90 which I am sure you will enforce.

I should appreciate your acknowledging receipt of this cheque, or returning the same to me once you realise your sign is very badly worded and incredibly unclear in intent and consequence, and that as a direct result your policy is damaging the businesses on the retail park site.

I also look forward to receiving your full response to the points made in this letter.

Yours sincerely

Tina Price-Johnson 

CC:      The Manager, Dreams,Plassy Road, Catford, London SE6 2DE

The Manager, Lidls,Plassy Road, Catford,LondonSE6 2DE

The Manager, McDonalds,Plassy Road, Catford,LondonSE6 2DE

The Manager, JD Sports,Plassy Road, Catford,LondonSE6 2DE

The Manager,MeccaBingo,Plassy Road, Catford,LondonSE6 2DE

Encs.”

The result of this missive?  Within 2 days I had the cheque returned to me accompanied by a letter of apology stating the fine had been levied in error!  I am very pleased with this result, but learned in the meantime that many people have received fines for exactly the same reason.  All these people paid the fine without sending a complaint.

How much money, exactly, are these parking fine businesses making from car-owners who have not actually contravened the parking policy?  My ticket was timed at about 10 to 15 minutes after we had first parked the car; having had the cheque returned it appears that one IS allowed to park, leave, and return as long as shops within the retail park are visited.  However, it appears the policy is to ticket as soon as someone leaves the retail park.  People tend to pay, rather than face the larger fine or the hassle of challenging, and the threat of court proceedings is very scary to many people.

I appreciate that there is limited parking in London, and there does have to be some control.  I also understand that the Warden cannot ticket a car as it is moving out of the car park.  However, to ticket a car within 10 minute of it being parked is surely far too short a time to allow for someone to return to their car.  The signage is, as I have stated, poorly worded and there appeared to be only one sign.  There is no sign to indicate hours of parking.

All things told, it appears to me that UKPC, and other private parking companies, I do not want to single UKPC out but they are the ones who ticketed me, have a policy of entrapment.  This is not fair, but is legal.

So, in conclusion – challenge every ticket you get!  If you have broken the rules which are clearly stated then fair enough, you should pay.  But as in my situation, the rules are not always clear and the policy is deliberately ambiguous to enable fines to be levied where they may not actually be due.  Keep proof of purchases, proof of times, take photos of the parking rules where you find them (and if you don’t find them, make sure that is documented too).  Stop the blackmail, the entrapment, the theft, while you can!

Rant over.  Normal service will be… oh what the hell am I saying, this is normal service!

What is Prejudice?

I received my first nasty personal message recently, which arose from a Facebook discussion initially inspired by the question “Can Fat Be Fabulous?”  I believe the offending sentence, the one which tipped the writer of the nasty personal message over the edge, was when I called her opinion prejudiced. I was careful not to say SHE was prejudiced, but that her opinion was.  It is possible I did not make explicitly clear the differentiation between the opinion and the person; after all I do not know how she perceived my comment. It got me thinking; how does one define a prejudice, and what does that mean for the individual?

For me, prejudice is any judgement made about a person based purely on arbitrary factors. For example, judging someone on the basis of their skin colour, the presumptions one may have about the ability of a person based on visible disabilities or by unseen invisible disabilities, their perceived sexuality, their perceived gender, their physical size, their religion; any arbitrary factor which does not in fact give any information which may be pertinent other than a physical or single fact.

We are all prejudiced.  We all have prejudices about something; none of us is raised in a vacuum without influence.  Unless we have our prejudices addressed, we will quite often be unaware of it.  This may lead us to unintentional discriminatory behaviour.  A recent example of this is the furore over comedian Ricky Gervais’ use of the word “mong” as an insult.  He states he was unaware of the link between this word and the condition “Down Syndrome”, and has stopped using the word now he has become aware of the etymology of the word.  Whether or not the public believe him is up to them, their own experiences and prejudices, the way in which the press reported it (from his Twitter account the apology and cessation of use appears to have been almost immediate, but from the general media one would not believe this to be the case – probably doesn’t sell enough papers without the reason for hating him being pushed upon the unsuspecting public).  I do know that although he is some 10 years older than me, he was raised close to where I was raised and would have had similar experiences when younger.  It is possible, therefore, he did not know the origin and meaning of the word.

However, I too for many years was unaware of the link between the two words.  I too thought it merely meant a state of being when overly-relaxed due to the intake of intoxicants.  I too had to be told of the etymology and was absolutely mortified upon discovering a word I had used was so offensive.  I still feel guilt over that and always will, and rightly so.  This guilt will stop me from ever using that term again, and I hate the fact I ever used the word in the first place.  I cannot take back the word.  All I can do is take responsibility for my use of it, never use it again, and when addressing someone who does use it explain how offensive and discriminatory it is.

I was discussing a science fiction programme with a friend recently.  He stated that he had stopped watching one programme because they had tried to make it more female-friendly by adding more female characters (for a brief time there were actually more female characters than male, but it is usually quite balanced).  This gave me pause for thought, and I was surprised at this statement from my friend who I perceive as one who does not hold many such prejudices.  Statistically, the country which produces the programme does have slightly more females than males, so the programme was reflecting reality.  Further, it is interesting that his reaction was that adding more female characters to a programme made it less interesting to him; why should the gender of a character have this effect?  Science fiction, like most television not specifically designated “for women”, has more male characters in more authoritative positions than female characters (and this is quite apart from the lack of non-white characters, those with disabilities and those of non-heteronormative designation – unless they are aliens of course!).  Science fiction is a genre which traditionally has addressed prejudice more than any other genre through allegory and example.  Female science fiction fans such as myself don’t cease to watch programmes with more male characters, so why should addition of female characters cause a male viewer to turn off?  Prejudice, unrealised, unintended, unaware.  We all have prejudice within us.  Without exception.  We all need to address it, when we become aware of it, within ourselves and within others.

That’s all any of us can really do.  In my “about me” section of this blog, I detail all the identification labels I may be perceived as belonging to, and those I broadly define myself by.  This is because of prejudice, because although I am an ardent campaigner for equality I know I will have prejudices and will display discriminatory behaviours about which I have no idea.  I rely on those around me to point these out.  It is a very hard thing to have one’s faults pointed out.  It hurts, especially when one tries so hard not to be prejudiced.  But it is essential, and I thank people for helping me to overcome my prejudices.  I’m not perfect, I never will be, nor will any of us.  But all I can do is try.  It is not about blame, it is about taking responsibility and being the change I want to effect in society.

If someone has their prejudices pointed out, and refuses to accept them, to work on their behaviours, and continues to discriminate against anyone for any arbitrary factor, that is the time for blame.  That is the time to take action against such behaviours.  At that point we as a society require legislation to deal with such discrimination.  But it is so important to remember that the opinion, the discriminatory behaviour, is not the sum total of the person.  By reducing a person to a single, or continued, discriminatory act or behaviour it makes it so much easier for them to ignore anyone who addresses that behaviour.  No-one is defined by one attitude, by one act, by one incident.  To do so dehumanises them in precisely the same way prejudicial behaviour dehumanises those who are being discriminated against.  Prejudice cannot fight prejudice.  Small steps to effect the big change can.

That’s why I believe I got the hate message (which was, as far as hate mail goes, quite benign).  I did not communicate effectively, for which I take responsibility.  But I do not apologise for addressing a prejudicial and discriminatory behaviour when I see it, and I hope when I display my prejudices, someone will be caring enough to address it with me.

Hadrian’s Wall – Day 6 (a happy ending; how very Grimm)

First to rise, as usual, I decide both our high-achieving Brave Heroes deserve a decent breakfast, so awaken them with the aroma of a full English breakfast and pots of ridiculously strong tea.  We pack fast, mostly because we didn’t really unpack.  Rufus Baronicus (follow his blog here) is actually starting from Bowness today (not Burgh-by-Sands as I mistakenly put in my Day 5 blog), and walking all the way back to his goddess Vicky at the best pub in the country^TM The Salutation Inn in Irthington, which is at least 24 miles, so a relatively early start is necessitated.  I have a long 3 hour drive to the den of iniquity home of RB and don’t want it to be too late a start.  The weather has turned, and RB is not likely to have a dry day of it.  Quite clearly, ambition is overriding common-sense.

I have custody of my Sooterkin Wordus Nevynicus (read his blog here) and he, I and both our walking sticks will be getting our tourism groove on in Carlisle.  We are also keen to say goodbye to the five trillion and 63 flies we have been bunkhouse mates with.  We eat and leave.  Earlier than we ever have before.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

Turning left across the flood plain of farmland adjacent to the Salway Firth, we head towards Bowness-on-Salway, the small settlement to the west.  However, we screech to a halt a mere 100 metres away from the drop-off point as we encounter the three strange men of our first night in Greencarts, whom I encountered at the Roman Army museum when spending a bladder-torturing two hours waiting for our insane walkists Brave Heroes to return.  The Walk is clearly a well-trodden path.  RB makes the instant decision to walk with them, at least to Carlisle where they intend to end the day and from where he intends to walk a further 16 miles.  We promise to drive on and take a photo of the putative start point.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

We discover a bus coming the opposite way and I am forced to reverse backwards down twisty-turny village roads for some way, at which point I decide to take the photos and leave.  Carlisle, here my Sooterkin and I come!

I know the day is going to be wonderful when we encounter a brass band playing (with talent) what appears to be the entire instrumental version of Les Miserables (absolutely my favourite musical ever, even including Rocky Horror), right by the Tourism Centre and my place of worship, Costa Coffee.  If I were at all superstitious, I would take these as good omens.  But I’m not, so I just enjoy the happy coincidences.

Onwards to the Castle (another English Heritage building, more historical happies for me).  We walk through an underpass to get to it, as it has been cut off from Carlisle centre by a rather wide and busy road.  As a result, we discover an entire exhibit linked to the Museum (which we sadly did not have time to peruse) running the length of the underpass, entirely composed of display items relating to the history of Carlisle.  It’s a stunningly good idea which I have never encountered before, and is topped off by a poetry-inscribed stone as you leave to go up to the castle.  Every town should have one.  It’s wonderful.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

The castle is a total mishmash of different periods, having been in continual use since it was built.  It is still in use by the Army, and each headquarter building is named after a famous battle.  Those buildings, for obvious reasons, are not open to the public, but the castle does contain the military museum which we were not aware of and did not have the time to go into.  To be honest, both WN and I are more interested in the history before the invention of the bullet.

Mary Queen of Scots was imprisoned here.  As were the Jacobite prisoners taken during the uprisings in support of Bonnie Prince Charlie.  They were treated appallingly, as so many prisoners were (except MQofS, who as a Queen had it comparatively good).  They were deprived of food and water, resorting to licked the stones in the dungeon for moisture.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

There are blocked off staircases, reconstructed Warden’s Keep rooms, cannons pointing disturbingly towards what is now a children’s playground, and armoured vehicles.  .  I did not expect to turn a corner in an olde castle-e (doesn’t work when the word already ends in ‘e’) and find armoured vehicles, although it was at this point we realised there was a military museum in the castle.  For some reason, I could not stop thinking of Dr Who meeting Winston Churchill and expected a pepperpot Dalek to appear around the corner at any minute.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

A tour of this castle is like a walk through hundreds of years of history; interesting, moving and at one point stopping me completely – I’ll Take The High Road will never be the same to me again.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

A costa is most definitely required, although it doesn’t take much for me to find an excuse for a costa.  As we sit drinking our refreshing beverages, our thoughts turn to our intrepid colleague RB and his crazy quest for The Salutation Inn.  The rain has been falling, and is expected to become increasingly stormy.  He is alone, damp and walking through bogs.  The exquisite Vicky and ambition are excellent motivators, but we do feel sympathy for his predicament as we tuck into our cakes (walnut coffee for me, lemon poppyseed for him, since you ask) and massive coffees.  A little bit of ridiculing may also have occurred…

It occurs to me that I have not actually seen any of Hadrian’s Wall the entire time I have been up here, and this must be remedied.   Our hallucinating protagonists Brave Heroes passed by Birdoswald Fort on their way to the Goddess Vicky The Salutation Inn; there is plenty of Wall there for me to see.  Plus, again, it’s English Heritage.  Fed and watered, we return to our steel carriage of 400 500 a lot (probably, it’s a 4×4) of horses and, for the a million and twelfth time, I drive.  It’s well worth the trip.  FINALLY I see the wall, but not only that, I clamber all over it, and you can’t say that about many historical artefacts!   The Wall is imposing, even in its dilapidated, looted state, and stretches for miles and miles and miles (etc).  The achievement of our maniacal tramp(er)s Brave Heroes comes sharply into focus.  Unprepared, unfit, insane they may have been, but they did it and they should be rightfully very proud of themselves.  I am, but again, don’t tell them that.  I have a reputation to maintain.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

Birdoswald Fort is yet another prime example of how history can be brought to life in even the smallest of exhibition spaces.  To make up for my inability to photograph WN in the pillory earlier this week, he kindly posed for me on the reconstructed latrine (only a two-seater this one, unlike the communal 16-seaters of earlier historical visits).

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

 

I got slightly obsessed with the beautiful skies surrounding us on this hilltop fort, and was slightly disturbed to find out that the fort will, one day, fall into the river below which was slowly eroding the land in the way in which nature tends to do.  There are no plans to save the fort at the moment; it is deemed by the site that this is nature at work and it may be best to allow nature to have its way.  I find myself conflicted by this.  On the one hand, nature should be allowed to behave, well, naturally.  On the other hand, history destroyed!  It’s a conundrum.

We wander around the fort, and manage to finish just as a little gentle rain falls on us.  Time to drag ourselves away; a couple of quick photos at the end of the visible Wall mere yards/metres* (*delete as applicable to spatial awareness) and it’s off to The Salutation Inn to meet our weary wanderer.  It’s getting late already, it’s a long drive to Chez Rufus Baronicus, we don’t want to be too late.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

The Inn is packed and our dinner order must be served to our table in the bar.  I have never tasted such exquisite food in any restaurant in which I have ever eaten, although it appears the chef is not retired from a major London eaterie nor trained to the gills, nor are there any Michelin stars outside to advertise the chef’s skill.  We are both utterly astounded and lament that poor RB is unable to partake of the repast.  Eventually, at 8 pm, soaked, sweaty, exhausted and more than a little malodorous, our lone Brave Hero returns, to a fitting hero’s welcome.  Well, it would have been, except it is your HW and WN about whom I write, so he returned more to a sarcastic, teasing, affectionate welcome.  As reward for his valiant efforts, I capture an image of the beauteous Vicky for RB to be able to keep, forever.

Many pints are imbibed before we set off on our final journey (for RB, of course my Sooterkin and I must drive further to reach our welcome home on the morrow).  3 ½ hours of driving late at night, through storm, tempest, fog, gale and rather nasty weather all round and we arrive at RB’s abode at 1 am.  Bliss, a comfortable double-bed, with duvet, warm and welcoming.  Our holiday is ending in a most fitting way.

(c) Tina Price-Johnson 17.9.11

As is my blog.  I hope you have enjoyed my tales of woe and wonder.  It has been an ambition fulfilled for all of us, as although I did not ever entertain the idea of walking the Wall like our imprudent ageds Brave Heroes, it was a place I had always wanted to visit.  RB and WN have achieved a lifetime goal.  Now all that is left is memory; sweet and sharp.  My constant companion Orlando will now be well rested.

 

End of Day Six, End of Wall Blog.