clovehitched | 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

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.

Your Life is not Your Own

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