clovehitched | Your Life is not Your Own

Your Life is not Your Own

So now it's out - the world knows that both the victim and the suspect in the death of Sonia Burgess are transgender. In one of the most hateful pieces of alleged "journalism" I have ever seen on trans issues (warning, reading this reduced me to sobs and I had to resort to Valium. You have been warned), the Daily Mail casually strip both women of their identity, their dignity and their humanity.

Notice too how the legal system is doing the same. The police outed the victim, the judge apparently outed the suspect (I knew she was trans and who she was a few days ago - I was keeping quiet about it). Notice how the suspect was remanded in a male prison, notice how she appeared in court with significant male-pattern facial hair. Notice how the judge asked if Nina had "completed" her "sex change", which is, of course, code for "does she have a penis?". Notice how it's reported that Nina "wished to be referred to as Nina" (probably because that is her name). Wonder whether, in allowing this information to come out in this way, the state is allowing Nina to receive a trial which is fair and unprejudiced?

And, to reiterate, notice how this woman is currently in a male prison. Regardless of her guilt or innocence, she is now being punished beyond anything I dare to imagine. I can only hope that they have her in solitary confinement, because if she is exposed to the general male prison population ...

This then is what transgender people face every day of our lives - the possibility that on a whim of a policeman, or a judge, or a journalist, our identities, dignity and humanity can be stripped from us, and it can be done with impunity. Sure, in theory there is the Gender Recognition Act, the thing that supposedly protects us, only according to the explanatory notes for the 2010 Equality Act, it doesn't - not really. It should be noted that no case has ever been brought under the anti-outing provision of the GRA -

zoeimogen checked using the Freedom of Information Act.

The Equality Act itself makes our precarious situation in society very clear, in perhaps its most chilling part for trans people. With respect to 8 of the 9 "protected characteristics", employers can create a position which requires someone to have that particular characteristic. You can, for example, require that applicants are female, or from a particular ethnic minority, or is a wheelchair user, or is gay.

For the last remaining "protected characteristic", gender reassignment you can't do this - it's not just that there is no provision in the Act to allow a job to require a transgender applicant. No, the sense of the Act is actually reversed at this point - you can only allow a job to require that the applicant is not transgender.

And if the explanatory notes are to be believed, the mighty GRA is, in this situation, irrelevant. That bit of paper that says I'm female, my birth certificate that says the same thing; the state apparently doesn't regard them as true, not really.

Imagine living your life faced with the constant possibility that who you are can be taken away from you, if you are a woman, that you can be dumped in a men's prison, and also that the thing that causes you the most pain in your life can and will be dragged through the press for the public's entertainment. That is what it is to be transgender in the UK in 2010.

There but for the grace of god go I, and all that.

Also posted at http://auntysarah.dreamwidth.org/248244.html - you can comment here or there.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(deleted comment)

Have heard via FoaF who knew her that she had a female identity, and also seen suggestions that she described herself as "pre-op transsexual". It's not definitive for sure.

That's possible. Though it's hard to say anything with certainty about her identity, based on the media reports. Be that as it may, this is obviously not the case for the defendant as Sarah states she knows something about the woman from some other source.

The Mail are scum - the story's angle is exactly what is to be expected as their business model seem to be to make money by gratifying a minority of (mostly) older, right-wing people with whatever uncomplicated nonsense they like to read every morning. This is only going to chance when nature takes it course with that demographic.

This is not a good day. Another transwoman was involved in a somewhat lighter story. The Independent writer seems to willfully go out of his way to cram in as many male pronons as possible. One would have expected better from them.

(deleted comment)

My point is that a cis person would not be reported as "wishing to be known by" their actual name, unless they had a number of aliases.

(deleted comment)

You have a different readding of this than I do. My reading is that the Mail's subtext is that Nina is nit her "real" name, that it's fake, that she merely "wishes to be known" as Nina.I think they chose how to write about this, the language they use and the aspects they report, to be as sensational (and as disrespectful) as possible. I think you're being quite charitable here, and I'm not at all sure it's deserved.

Edited 2010-11-01 16:34 (UTC)

The papers were quoting the judge. At that level quotes are sacrosanct. His turn of phrase probably means that, like Sonia, Nina has not changed any documentation but he is respecting her indicate wish on the the name to be used anyway.

There is background we don't know in this case, obviously. Like the grounds upon which Sonia's family requested that her identity not be revealed at all, at the first hearing. And like the reasons that the family had for the information on Sonia's preference on how her identity should be described, which was then released by the Transport Police (and it wasn't transgender or transsexual).

As a solicitor, Sonia knew she could change her name anytime, for no cost. We don't know why she didn't, but she must have known the possible consequences.

But about Nina we know nothing.

(deleted comment)

Right now I'm mostly pissed off about how the private life of someone who iprecently suffer a horrible death is being dissected in order to scandalise and entertain the masses, and how a woman (yes, I know her) charged with her murder is now being exposed to the same treatment, and being kept in a male prison.

I am willing to accept that Sonia's identity may be more subtle than my summary here, and if it turns out that I am being inadvertently disrecpectful to her memory then I will own that. This is not just about accuracy in reporting - the Mail is presumably doing this to sell newspapers and entertain the public, and they don't seem to care how much surfing they create or intensify in the process. My immediate goal in writing this has more to do with wanting Nina to at least be moved to a female prison.

I tried, but I can't read that article.

Is there nothing that can be done?

Am doing some work behind the scenes to try and pull levers to get her moved ti a women's prison. Others are doing the same. I don't want to say too much - this is a public post and the same parasites who are tearing into both victim and accused for newspaper sales could well be reading it and looking for yet more salacious gossip.

I have had no less than 4 trans friends temporarily held in men's prisons due to their pre-op surgical status.

One of them had been arrested for being the victim of an assault. When the police showed up, the assailant said that my friend was attacking him and pointed to her trans status as evidence.

She lost her job over that one when the local papers outed her. (In Santa Cruz, no less.)

This is why surgery is so damned important, if you can get it and want it. It makes a lot of these issues go away. Unfortunately, not all of them, though. You're only marginally more likely to be treated like a human being if your genitals match your presentation.

Edited 2010-11-01 17:05 (UTC)

Surgery should NEVER be a pre-requisite for basic human rights.

I agree.

But our society seems to think otherwise a lot of the time.

Of course, it's still no magic bullet.

The expectations aroused by the word "should" mislead many people into decisions later regretted. We don't live in an ideal world. We try to make it so, but in the meantime we must be realistic.

Ok, in addition to disturbing my Saturday morning, you've now crossed the line into apoligism for genital essentialism. Might I suggest you find somewhere else to air such views? You won't be doing it here any more.

Goodbye.

Is there anything that you would suggest people could do to encourage this to happen?

That's disgusting. I hope things improve for her.

Fuck. Just mousing over the link I can tell how it's going to read.

I seriously needed tranquillisers after reading it. It's that bad.

Seriously, if there was a Valium upload protocol, I'd be sending you some extra.

This is a good example of how the state owns our gender identities and how the state removes those identities from us with no regard for our integrity as human beings. The only other people who destroy people's identities in a worse way is the press. I have seen some appalling reports in the Daily Mail but this one is by far worse than all the others. But you are right, the trans community needs to be very careful, no doubt there are some creeps from the media sniffing around for any shite they can drag up. We can do nothing for the victim other than ensure that she is treated with the respect to which she is entitled, and which she is not receiving at the moment. For the alleged perpetrator, we need to ensure that her trail (both in court and by the media) is fair.

This whole thing makes me quite quite sad and angry. It might *just* be relevant to the court case - without a complete transcript I can't judge whether there were any compelling legal arguments that would rely on those facts. But it wasn't relevant to anything the Daily Fail had to say about the incident. The whole tone of their article was prurient in the extreme. (Er, can a tone be prurient? [/end pedant]) But it's all very typical of a world that wants to divide everything into two camps: male vs female and never the twain shall meet. Except in heterosexual marriage. There's no tolerance of a spectrum. (Actually, that seems to be pretty typical of the Daily Fail in other areas, notably their desire to categorise the world into Things That Cause Cancer and Things That Don't Cause Cancer. They just manage to fail at everything.) And of course we are completely defined by genitalia.

I feel very sorry for Nina. Solitary Confinement is pretty grim, but almost certainly better than the alternative.

My understanding is that in these situations, it's usually permanent residence on the hospital wing rather than solitary. I don't know the practical difference.

I don't either. It's possibly something to do with your prison record, but I have no idea. But I think it may mean less fresh air and exercise, which probably isn't much fun.

I wonder what the legal reasons are for not having comments on the page? Ongoing court case?

I know I am not going to see eye to eye, entirely on this, because I think we need to be precise as to where we target and how we call people out.

Like Phoebe, I have some concern that in defending our own gender identities, we don’t appropriate those of others. I remain fairly puzzled as to how Sonia would have described herself, although the official line, taken from the BTP release, is that the accurate term for describing Sonia is cross gender or gender variant.

The BTP also stated – and I took issue with them on this use of the term "legal name": "While Sonia’s legal name was David Burgess, her family wish for her to be referred to as Sonia. She was known in her profession as David."

Hope that helps. In terms of the substance, the real villains here are the Press Association, whose initial release (details here: http://sexualitymatters.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/legal-abuse-of-trans-women/) explain why the obsession with facial hair. I asked them whether they felt that was transphobic – and they stated not: that they were only “describing”.

Thereafter, all reporting on Nina was bound to be fucked...because the very first that any of the press heard about her was that she was male and had stubble. I’d add: never attribute to malice what is often explicable by sheer ineptitude (or laziness). The Mail piece is bad, but in two halves, and very much a cut-and-paste job on a) the PA report and b) what they ran last week.

(Much of the rest of the press is the same, just going wth a close rewrite of the PA stuff)

And on that - the issue over sexual services – I hate that they did it, but I’d also ask for some recognition: any senior lawyer (and David Burgess WAS senior) who also sells sexual services on the side is going to be a media target.

I’ll repeat as often as people like, that I think that’s appalling – but equally state that I don’t see that as being motivated by transphobia (even if the end result was). If this story came to light any time, they’d have run it. It is just very very unhappy that it came to light as a result of Sonia’s untimely death.

jane
xx

I have to say, I'm really not feeling very tolerant of excuses as to WHY they're being transphobic scumbags, and regardless of whether it's all original Mail copy or not, it's still hate speech in my opinion, and I don't think that mitigates their decision to publish it.

Those who put that story up, who contributed to it, each have a moral responsibility for what they have done. If I see a bicycle unchained in the street and steal it on the basis that someone else was going to do it anyway, I am still a thief. Similarly, that these details would presumably have come to light eventually does not excuse the moral bankruptcy of those responsible for this hateful drivel.

This, I agree thoroughly.

The point is that these papers were describing her, once they knew her as a woman, there was absolutely no reason to mention her stubble. It might have been description but it was completely unnecessary description that was used to demean her. No woman wants to have her facial hair discussed in public, and any paper should have the sensitivity to realise that, whether the woman in question is trans or cis. Intent is irrelevant here, they may not have made the comment from a transphobic motivation, but in my opinion it was nonetheless transphobic.

you are confusing two issues - and leaving me to wonder about weter you should be reacting to the piece if you miss the point in this way.

The Mail piece pulls together two stories: that of Nina (and her stubble) and that of David/Sonia.

I’d have hoped you’d have spotted a distinction I made between the story about the latter, which I can see as having some independent news justification – and the remarks about stubble, which I consider to be disgusting.

Its about picking battles. I wouldn’t confront the Mail – or anyone else – on the escort story. I am hopping mad about the PA reporting on Nina’s shaving status and absolutely agree with you that they certainly would not report on a cis woman in this way.

Therefore, looking to take that a good deal further. And happy to take with me anyone prepared to come along.

Jane
xx

A lot of cis women go around with stubble, quite often far more than what Sonia Burgess had, but media doesn't obsess over it. It also doesn't make her male, it makes her hairy.

Stop trying to excuse the transphobia that is rampant in the reporting of this very sorry affair.

The individual newspapers carry a responsibility to provide fair and honest reporting, something that they consistently do with anything that has the faintest sniff of anything to do with a trans person. Nothing but nothing can excuse their handling of this.

er..iam not trying to excuse transphobia. Merely, as i said here and elsewhere, to dissect a little more clearly what is going on. It would help, f'rinstance, if people note that the stubble thing was targeted NOT at Sonia, but at Nina..whch in turn feeds off the PA reports.

I am following up on that aspect of the story and looking to see whether a PCC complaint would be in order. Failing that, will be seeing what more can be done about the PA.

Anyone for a picket? Or a bit of direct action?

The only ones capable of making a PCC complaint, that will not just be thrown out, are those directly affected by the story. It could be argued that this level of reporting directly affects all trans people, and that is a tack that has unsuccessfully been used in the past.

But sorry, your whole comment reads whether you intend it or not to be an attempt to excuse the blatant transphobia in the published articles. That makes you just as culpable as the press, IMO.

(deleted comment)

It's not a case of confusion. I am perfectly aware that at the core of the issue is what the Mail et al are provided with. However, they have the opportunity to do something about it, like write an article in a more sympathetic tone. They choose not to.

Someone, anyone, who comes along and essentially says "it's not their fault because…" is making excuses for them.

Oh. Its only just sunk in. Obviously been too busy to think about this.

The tide might just be about to change ever so slightly. I would love to claim credit for getting the PA to rewrite their appalling release today, but i was second in the queue.

They didn’t get it totally right – but they did in the end sort out some of the misgendering.

So what’s changed? Er, just this: I was talking to the EHRC throughout the day and about half way through, the EHRC, no less, got on to the PA and read them the riot act.

That is important, cause I’m not sure they’ve done this before. And if they are prepared to do so in future, then that adds real weight to the cause.

Worth bearing in mind for the future.

jane
xx

Excellent job!

::facepalm::

I'm so sorry that, in this day in age, people are being treated that way in supposedly first-world countries.

I am trying to ensure that the link attached is as widely disseminated as possible as it helps explain the background to Sonia. Would that the press actually pick it up and use it...

http://whittlings.blogspot.com/2010/11/sonia-david-burgess-1947-2010-obituary.html

The link it to Stephen Whittle's blog. Some of you will have seen it on Facebook. I hope that you can use it now to correct some of the mischief and harm caused by the Daily Smell and others.

As for the accused, they will be given protections, and while I agree they should not be in the prison they are, they will be looked after. Male prisons are not naive when it comes to having to handle such situations, sadly.

I've just sent an email to The Independent editors about the "Scrabble" article.
I'll write about in my own LJ page.

Thank you for posting this, much though I obviously wish it weren't necessary. I wonder how these so-called journalists live with themselves, peddling such belittling hate-filled tripe as they do.

Oh my god! That article makes me feel sick and repulsed - what piece of shit reporter did they dig up to write that???

I am really, REALLY offended by so much in this article. Quite aside from using MAN in capitals in the headline for shock value, but to haul out Sonia/David's private profile info and comments of 'hot stuff' etc is deeply disrespectful to the family and to the victim's memory.

And yes, I also really hope that Nina is in solitary confinement, but I imagine just the mere fact of being put in a male prison is seriously fucking with her head.

Regardless of the case itself, and guilt/innocence, right/wrong etc - people are entitled to be accorded the same degree of respect during the judicial process as anyone else in the court room etc. It's a basic human right.

I do't want to jump on your bandwagon, but I feel so strongly about this - partly from having worked in the criminal justice servicew myself - that I'd really like to write a letter of complaint.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Your Life is not Your Own

no subject

no subject

Re: Also

Re: Also

Re: Also

Re: Also

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

Re: Scripts and stuff

A small crack

Re: A small crack

no subject

You may find this helpful...

no subject

no subject

no subject