Your Life is not Your Own
Nov. 1st, 2010 03:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
clovehitchedSo 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 -![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Also
Date: 2010-11-01 04:15 pm (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 2010-11-01 04:34 pm (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 2010-12-04 09:27 am (UTC)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.
Re: Also
Date: 2010-11-01 04:42 pm (UTC)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.