![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
The United Kingdom coalition government’s Equal Civil Marriage Consultation is preliminary in extending to same sex couples the legal right to marry and the privileges associated with civil marriage.
Behind the proposals lies the suggestion that the laws that govern civil marriage should become “gender-neutral” – a term that implies legal provision in order that all couples – all adult people – can enter into a civil marriage. In other words, ‘Equality for All’.
But this will not necessarily be the case.
The fact that something is classified as “gender neutral” will not make any difference to persons of non-gendered identity if the accompanying legislation is drafted using gendered terms and references. Referencing the terms ‘same sex’ and ‘opposite sex’ could also prove problematic to those who cannot define the core identity in accordance to procreation. And there remains the requirement for couples entering into civil marriage to produce documentary proof of identity – not a problem for most people but the requirement for identity documentation represents a barrier to those who cannot possibly obtain documentation that does not grossly misrepresent the identity. All the accepted items of personal identity documentation contain gendered references, either explicitly or in a coded format.
Until quite recently, the concept of my partner and I being able to register our relationship (either through civil marriage or civil partnership) was so far off the radar that I rarely raised the subject, preferring to concentrate instead on what I felt was ‘achievable’. Now this, along with so much else, has completely changed and it would appear that with determination anything is possible. And we should have the same fundamental right to marry as everybody else. Why should any couple be denied the right to register a relationship and access the benefits associated with a legally recognised commitment because either one person or both people in the relationship do not enjoy the privilege of socially legitimate identity within the gendered societal structure?
Of course it is technically possible for us to register our relationship but the act of doing would require unacceptable compromise due to the requirement for couples entering into civil marriage or civil partnership to provide proof of (gendered) identity. Compromise is NOT equality. The denial of the core identity is a compromise that no one should be expected to make.
I have for some time campaigned for the removal of inappropriate gendered references on essential documentation, and directly challenged the Identity and Passport Service to end the discriminatory policy that forces inappropriate gendered classification on non-gendered people.
There is provision in the ICAO specification for Machine Readable Travel Documents for a third “unspecified” category indicated with ‘X’ http://www.icao.int/Security/mrtd/Pages/D
There are precedents – and Australia is the latest in a small but growing number of countries that have revised policy on non gender-specific passports and where it is possible to obtain an ‘X’ passport https://www.passports.gov.au/web/sexgend
The IPS are currently undertaking a policy “review” which is due to last until next February. In the meantime, non-gendered people in the UK remain unable to obtain an essential personal identification document that does not misrepresent the core identity. The implications are fundamental in that the passport is now more often used as an all-purpose personal identification document with a much wider remit than its origination as a travel document. While forced to wait for the outcome of the IPS policy review (and with no certainty or guarantee of a satisfactory outcome), those who cannot identify within the gendered societal structure remain in a legal and social limbo where we are denied the ‘right’ of legitimate identity and denied the privileges associated with social legitimacy that others can take for granted (such as obtaining personal identity documentation that should enable civil marriage without compromise).
“...... it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.
That is why we are, today, launching this consultation” (Equal Civil Marriage Consultation, Ministerial Foreword)
The Equal Civil Marriage Consultation document does not reference in any way the position of non-gendered, bi-gendered or intersex identified people within the United Kingdom. In the present format, the government consultation offers no suggestion the interests of any of these groups will be considered when legislation is passed to enable same sex couples to enter into civil marriage.
While this omission is possibly due to oversight (in that the needs of the socially invisible can very easily be overlooked and ignored), one must never forget the consequences of the inauguration of the highly discriminatory Gender Recognition Act (2004) which failed so many transpeople and in many respects made the legal position worse for those who fell outside its narrow remit who were effectively left behind.
Therefore I urge that the government ensure that proposals and measures are inclusive and that equality of access to civil marriage is indeed extended to ALL COUPLES within the United Kingdom.
Further, I ask that in response to the consultation the government are reminded that no one should be excluded from the legal right to marry as a consequence of non-conformity within the gendered societal structure http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
Copyright ©2012 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
While anticipating a further announcement from the IPS/Home Office on the United Kingdom government proposals to change the current discriminatory policy that forces non-gendered passport holders in the UK to deny our identity (a policy that renders non-gendered people unwillingly complicit in our social invisibility), a few items that might be of interest:
Civil Marriage
Following my last entry, posted immediately prior to launch of a government public consultation on civil marriage, I want to reiterate how important it is that non-gendered people are not excluded from a benefit the government intends to make available to everyone else.
If gender-specific documentation is required in order to register a Notice of Intent for civil marriage, then non-gendered people will still be forced to compromise and deny our identity in order to enter into civil marriage with our partner, whether gendered society regards the partnership as gay or straight.
The government proposes that opportunity to enter into a civil marriage should be open for “everyone”.
What has emerged so far is NOT equality for everyone and is not acceptable.
It is VITAL that EVERYONE who supports this issue makes reference to the current lack of non gender-specific identity documentation in their response to the government ‘s online consultation.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication
In the meantime, my partner and I have just celebrated our 21st Anniversary (21 years since the day we were first introduced – a pure chance encounter that changed both our lives forever). We have decided to register our partnership once I am able to enter into a civil marriage without the necessity to deny my identity – and we intend to marry on our Anniversary day.
Survey
Yet another survey, this one is being conducted on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/home/hom
The FRA helps to ensure that fundamental rights of people living in the EU are protected. It does this by collecting evidence across the European Union and providing advice, based on evidence, about how to improve the situation where fundamental rights are breached.
This EU-wide survey is aimed towards establishing the level of discrimination and disadvantage experienced by LGB&T within the EU while drawing comparisons between EU member countries.
Respondents are initially asked to state whether they are LGB or T. Non-gendered respondents should select T, because I understand the questions are tailored based on this first response. There is an opportunity to be more specific further into the survey.
The format is essentially the same as the UK government surveys from last year, except one can only add further comments at the end with a 250 word maximum.
Worth non-gendered participation, if you can spare 30 minutes or so http://lgbtsurvey.eu
Council of Europe
A landmark conference took place in Strasbourg on 27 March 2012 to promote the implementation of the Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 on measures to combat discrimination against LGB&T https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=16066
It is extremely unfortunate the European institutions’ level of awareness of the issue of human identity outside the gendered societal structure is at an embryonic stage, and the situation is not helped when individuals and groups with a broader remit who nonetheless purport to represent our interests instead use inappropriate labels such as “gender-queer” in reference to persons who identify as neither male nor female within the course of their dialogue with the various governing bodies (notably, a label also favoured by medical professionals who seek to pathologise the issue).
It is hardly surprising that there was no reference to the social exclusion and invisibility of transpeople who identify outside the gendered societal structure within the key speaker presentation, or indeed that our respective figureheads are unsure how to present the issue within a context that would encourage international support rather than public ridicule.
However, I am reliably informed the specific “challenges” faced by non-gendered people was raised during the less formal discussions that took place between the UK government representatives and other delegates later in the day.
Nepal
Another first from Nepal
A public facility reserved specifically and exclusively for the use of “third gender and others” is not exactly what I’ve been advocating for here in the UK, but offers food for thought nonetheless!
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
Copyright ©2012 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
CIVIL MARRIAGE
The government is due to launch a much publicised consultation on civil marriage later this week.
Unsurprisingly the media have reacted to the government intention to grant parity and equal recognition within the law to gay and straight partnerships. The religious backlash is under way and the heated debate has started already in what looks set to become a protracted battle for the heart and mind of the nation.
I have not seen the consultation draft but I understand that – should the proposal become law – the legal concept of civil marriage would become “gender-neutral” – which will make civil marriage equally accessible to both gay and straight couples. This is all well and good – for gendered couples.
But the concept of gender-neutrality in civil marriage does not help me – if there is still the requirement for both parties of a partnership to present personal identity documentation, and the accepted items of documentation all contain an inappropriate gendered reference at such time where there are no processes for non-gendered people to get these inappropriate classifications removed.
The proposed changes to the legislative system governing civil marriage – effectively extending the legal ‘right’ of civil marriage to all consenting adults – will make no difference whatsoever to anyone who cannot identify within the gendered societal structure. We will still be forced to deny our identity (and forced into a situation where we become unwilling colluders in our own social invisibility) if we want to access a ‘right’ that others (the privileged gendered majority) can take for granted.
Every so often one makes a discovery that changes everything – as though a mountainous barrier had been swept away and what was unmoveable or unthinkable becomes suddenly possible and the prospect of change becomes real. Furthermore the change could have occurred some time ago – except that one was completely unaware that anything had changed (the revelation – some years after I started my campaign – of finding out the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs had been quietly issuing non gender-specific passports for some time springs to mind).
A more recent revelation came a bit like a bolt from heaven. I had always believed the law governing marriage in England and Wales required the presentation of an original birth certificate (or copy of an original obtained from the General Register Office). I was so absolutely convinced that I did not even bother to research whether this rule still applied (or that it had ever applied). And maybe it’s because my partner and I just don’t really move within ‘married’ circles but, on the occasions when I’ve raised the specific issue of documentation for registering a civil partnership/marriage, no one had ever disputed or questioned the assertion that a birth certificate was required until very recently when I was informed that a valid passport sufficed for civil marriage in Australia, and approximately at around the same time I discovered that a birth certificate was not required for civil marriage in New York City (a valid passport and other items were accepted).
It did not take long to get clarification from my local Register Office that a valid passport was all that was needed in the United Kingdom. My online research led me to websites that list other identity documentation that would also be accepted by the Registrar when a couple attend to register Notice of Intent.
I have previously advocated for a voluntary non gender-specific Statutory Declaration document that could be presented instead of (or in conjunction with) the birth certificate for all intents and purposes where a birth certificate is required but to supersede the birth certificate in that the inappropriate gendered classification on the birth certificate is rendered as nullified.
This is an important issue. There can never be equality when a gendered classification on the birth certificate is regarded as sacrosanct over and above the fundamental basic human right of legitimate identity for the non-gendered individual – or that a reference on a piece of paper is considered of greater significance in the eyes of the law than a non-gendered person’s entitlement to legal recognition within per core identity.
But insofar as civil marriage is concerned, where alternative forms of documentation are accepted, it does not need to be complicated while legal wrangles continue over the birth certificate. The remaining problem is of course that the accepted items also contain same inappropriate gendered references and therefore of no benefit to non-gendered people who are not prepared to compromise and deny a core identity in order to register a partnership.
Which now leads me on to – well, you can probably guess the direction this is going! : -----
‘X’ – (sex: “unspecified”) – A non gender-specific passport in the UK
As those who have read my previous entries on this website are aware, I’ve argued the case over the non gender-specific passport for some time.
The argument for non gender-specific passports is advanced considerably due to the existence of an internationally recognised agreement outlined in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) specification for Machine Readable Travel Documents where the non gender-specific ‘X’ indicator is specified as one of three values indicated for the data element relating to the ‘sex’ and the specific reference is “unspecified”. The other values are ‘M’ (“male”) and ‘F’ (“female”).
http://www.icao.int/Security/mrtd/Pages/D
Furthermore, as a legitimate option and in compliance with ICAO standards, ‘X’ should be universally accepted at international border controls. The deadline for countries to introduce machine readable passports was 1 April 2010 and I understand that just a few countries have yet to make their passport systems compliant but all have indicated an aim to become compliant by the end of this year. Therefore any problems experienced by travellers due to the non gender-specific indicator will be entirely due to bigotry and discrimination on the part of border agency personnel. It is the duty of the issuing country to challenge bigotry and discrimination and to uphold the rights of ALL its citizens who travel abroad – including those who are non-gendered.
When the government launched Advancing transgender equality: A plan for action on 8 December 2011, it was announced that the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) would undertake a review of the way gender identification is represented in passport application forms and passports. The review was due to begin in January of this year through to February 2013. I’ve repeatedly requested more information and understand there will be an announcement soon although nothing so far.
The passport now suffices as a common purpose identity document and fulfils many other functions in addition to its origination as a travel document. Therefore the removal of an inappropriate gendered reference from the passport will also remove many other bureaucratic barriers that serve to prevent non-gendered social proactivity within society where the ultimate effect is to deny to socially invisible non-gendered people any chance of proper participation within the gendered societal structure.
CALL TO ACT
Again, I urge EVERYONE WHO IS PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE and I also urge EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THOSE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE to WRITE to the IPS and DEMAND a CHANGE to a discriminatory policy that denies our identity and forces us to deny our own identity. A policy that excludes to non-gendered people the right of recognition that others take for granted.
Send your letters to:
Sarah Rapson
Chief Executive and Registrar General for England and Wales
Identity and Passport Service
2 Marsham Street
4th Floor, SE Peel Building
London SW1P 4DF
And don’t forget to write to your MP and urge support for this issue.
A final word on civil marriage
Whereas the focus of the forthcoming consultation and subsequent legislation (at least where the media is concerned) is whether civil marriage should be legalised for gay couples in England and Wales, I will remind that the legislation needs to be drafted in a way that does not exclude and discriminate against non-gendered people.
A proposal for legal entitlement to enter into a civil marriage to be redefined as “gender-neutral” does not automatically imply that gendered roles are not part of the equation.
The legislative draft MUST use reference in “neutral” terms (eg. ‘person’, ‘people’ or ‘couple’) and the wording SHOULD NEVER make specific reference to gendered roles.
Any specific reference to gendered roles will automatically exclude non-gendered by definition unless people of non-gendered identity are specifically included in the draft wording (which, I have been given to understand, will not happen).
As quoted from my entry here from 18 December 2011,
“The present situation where a relationship between two consenting people can be formally recognised dependent upon production of a document that contains a gendered reference is clearly unfair and discriminatory towards non-gendered people. The government representatives appear to accept this point and are “looking into” the issue but are giving nothing away. If they really are committed to an ideal of equal access to CP/CM for all then I expect progress and will continue to pursue this item.”
This coalition government have committed to a series of bold initiatives where the core and underlying principle is fairness and equal treatment for all.
I am holding them to their word and will continue in my work until they deliver.
Primary Care Trust
I’ve been engaged in a protracted and very personal battle with my local PCT to get a gendered reference removed from my medical records and to have my title amended to Pr (pronounced ‘per’ and an abbreviation of person). My attempts to ensure my medical record is an accurate indicator of my identity has involved two government agencies and has proved to be emotionally and physically exhausting – very draining on my time and my energy.
Whereas the title was amended some time ago by my GP and the change was accepted by the practice system despite ‘Pr’ not being included among the list of preset titles on the national IT system, it was not at all straightforward – or easy – persuading the trust to remove the gendered reference.
The system has “indeterminate” as an unsatisfactory third option on a drop down menu underneath “male” and “female” but the national system automatically generates an override when a gendered role is not specified in the ‘sex’ category. This is apparently in order the patient should be allocated into a gender-streamlined screening programme – even when in my case I was receiving automatically generated screening appointments for body parts that were removed decades earlier.
The last time I visited my GP surgery it was noted the ‘sex’ category had been amended to “not known” which I find preferable to “indeterminate” but this default category is reserved for those patients who are not enrolled in the national screening programme. At some point I had been removed from the screening programme and this must have occurred quite recently. I had not been advised about my removal from the programme although, as I had indicated in my correspondence that the screening letters I received were not just pointless but offensive, it must have been assumed that taking me completely off the screening programme was the best solution.
I am relieved I will not receive further inappropriate requirements to attend gender-specific screening clinics but wonder how my removal from the screening programme might affect my access to any “gender-neutral” screening the government might deem necessary in the future, such as screening for certain types of cancer that present an equal risk to the entire population regardless of a person’s identity or gendered role.
While this might not affect me here and now in the present – I will need to ensure I am astutely responsible for my own healthcare at all times in the future – because without gender there might be no automatic provision for advance prevention.
Equal access to healthcare services? A victory of sorts but at what price?
And this is topical and ironic in equal measure – given that in the outline document for Advancing transgender equality: A plan for action, the government have committed a pledge to “Lead a dialogue between the transgender community, including non-gendered people, the medical profession and NHS commissioners, to share best practice and review how this group can shape health policy.”
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
Copyright ©2012 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
GOOGLE OFFERS NON GENDER-SPECIFIC OPTION!
Another step forward on the road to legal and societal recognition for non-gendered identity –
The giant Google Corporation has amended its registration procedure and now offers THREE OPTIONS in place of a mandatory requirement that users state a gendered role when opening an account.
If anyone wants to open a Google account, the options under the gender field are ‘male’, ‘female’ and ‘other’ – which is similar to the Indian passport application form.
While it would have been preferable for this question not to have appeared at all, it is nonetheless a major breakthrough in that an international corporation and a recognised global brand has acknowledged the existence of human identity outside the gendered societal structure and has made provision that ensures non-gendered users are no longer required to state a gendered role in order to access online account facilities.
Whereas ‘other’ is vague by definition and can be interpreted in various ways dependant on how or whether one wants to move forward in terms of establishing full and complete equality and a legitimate place for human identity outside the gendered societal structure (my particular problem with this being that the non-gendered identity cannot be a ‘gender identity’ and therefore by definition should not be clustered under a ‘gender’ banner – but one can argue over semantic issues at a later stage), my view is that ‘other’ does expressly indicate an identity that cannot be ultimately defined as ‘male’ or ‘female’ – and ‘other’ can incorporate non-gendered, bi-gendered and all of the self-defined variations of identity and expression – most definitely, ‘other’ is my preferred choice over and above the dreaded “I’d rather not say” which sidesteps the issue of human identity outside the gendered societal structure.
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
Copyright ©2012 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
HubPages
I’ve recently started writing on the HubPages website. This is an interesting outlet where I can raise awareness of issues and specific aspects surrounding the campaign and reach a new readership.
I will also get the opportunity to write about other subjects – topical issues, current affairs and items of general interest should appear over forthcoming months along with the odd wine review!
This LiveJournal site will continue in present format and shall remain strictly reserved for campaign related material.
For HubPages http://elan-cane.hubpages.com/.
Wake-up call
I’ve had some major health issues over the last few months (after having ignored obvious warning signs in the preceding period – that ‘ghostliness’ on my second YouTube video was not done for dramatic effect) and while not exactly fully recovered I believe I am at least starting to get to the bottom of what the hell has been going on and why at one particularly low point I felt my body was literally falling apart.
I have several weeks of physio ahead of me and I remain determined my campaign work will not suffer as I fight not just for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure but to regain my health – which right now feels far more important.
This experience has been something of a wake-up call (and my previous excellent health had long baffled many who’d once believed I’d not be around for this long).
Thanks to everyone who expressed concern and most especially to my truly lovely partner David.
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
Copyright ©2012 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
Advancing transgender equality: A plan for action
----------------------------
“Prejudice and discrimination not only blight people’s lives, they also undermine the principles upon which this country prides itself. This Government is committed to making transgender equality a reality.”
“This first ever Government transgender equality action plan forms part of our wider work to build an equal and fair society. It includes firm commitments to improve the lives of transgender people and support businesses and public bodies so they have the right tools to support transgender people.”
“We do not underestimate the challenges transgender people face and the actions in this document are just the first steps towards achieving this vision.”
----------------------------
The government has published the outline details of its action plan for Trans Equality. The Ministerial Foreword is encouraging – and that there is reference to non-gendered in the document foreword represents a fundamental achievement in itself!
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication
But it remains within the delivery of real and progressive change that the measures – and the people who have worked and given their time in order to bring the action plan to reality – shall be judged.
I became involved in the development of the plan from the perspective that some within the government had recognised that many transpeople were failed by the discriminatory legislation that was allowed to pass through under the stewardship of the previous administration.
I had lobbied my parliamentary representative for some time in addition to specifically targeting government divisions and public bodies with responsibility for areas where non-gendered human beings were relegated to a status that could be described as less than human due to policies that failed to accommodate the existence of non-gendered people, such as the Identity and Passport Service.
Eventually – and with persistence and a refusal to go away – my campaign led to a meeting at the Government Equalities Office and an invite to take part in the development of a forthcoming action plan.
I used the opportunity to define a critical list of areas where government measures (and legal enforcement where necessary) were urgently needed to enable non-gendered transpeople to have any chance to live fulfilled and socially functional lives within a gendered societal structure. I determined these measures were necessary if non-gendered transpeople were to have any chance of legal recognition and provision to acquire the correct documentation through the removal of inappropriate gendered references from identity documents and personal records and furthermore I determined these measures as necessary if non-gendered people were to have any chance of acceptance within the cultural mainstream because through these measures we would gain visibility within the social framework.
I have argued specifically that future government policy should enable non-gendered people to remove inappropriate gendered indicators from identification documents and from their personal records held by public and private sector organisations.
Most critical items that I’ve raised with the government over the last year would require new legislation or amendment to existing legislation in order to implement.
Here is a summary:
Non-gendered provision in Civil Partnership law
Birth certificate
Passport
Equality of access to goods and services
The NHS
Employment
Non gender-specific public bathroom facilities
Here is the detail:
Non-gendered provision in Civil Partnership law
Gender should play no part in Civil Partnership law.
The government are currently considering moves towards the harmonisation of the law with regards to access to civil partnership and civil marriage. This does not necessarily help non-gendered people.
The only way that equality of access to register a civil partnership or civil marriage for all can be achieved is through the removal of the requirement to produce a gendered identification document from the registration process.
The action plan makes reference to equal civil marriage. This is probably relative to the fact that gendered transpeople are forced to divorce in order to acquire a recognition certificate (married transpeople who did not want to terminate a formal recognition of their relationship were badly failed by the discriminatory GRA).
I understand there will be a public consultation on civil marriage starting March 2012 and this should give non-gendered an opportunity to express our views and state our needs.
There has been no government indication that measures to address specifically the situation of people of non-gendered identity will be included as part of the consultation on civil marriage.
I will continue to push very hard to ensure that non-gendered interests are not overlooked and ignored because we have rights as human beings. Human beings of non-gendered identity should not be forced to compromise the core identity in order to register – and have formally recognised – a personal relationship.
Birth certificate
A non gender-specific identification document where birth certificate is required (civil partnership/civil marriage etc.).
I have suggested the statutory declaration document as a possible alternative to the birth certificate until such times that legislation will progress to permit the issue of a birth certificate without a gendered reference.
There is nothing explicit in the plan document that refers to this item and I did not really expect anything specific to non-gendered transpeople to appear in the basic plan structure because everything happens in stages.
The present situation where a relationship between two consenting people can be formally recognised dependent upon production of a document that contains a gendered reference is clearly unfair and discriminatory towards non-gendered people. The government representatives appear to accept this point and are “looking into” the issue but are giving nothing away. If they really are committed to an ideal of equal access to CP/CM for all then I expect progress and will continue to pursue this item.
Passport
‘X’ is the permitted non gender-specific option under international regulation* for transpeople and intersex identified people where gendered options male and female are not appropriate for the passport holder.
Following a Home Office announcement earlier this year, in the aftermath of an Australian Federal Government decision to recognise the rights of Australian citizens who need to use non gender-specific ‘X’, it was unsurprising to see included in the plan that the Identity and Passport Service are to “review” how identification is represented in passports and passport application forms. I expect there will be a public consultation in the early part of 2012.
We are on the way but not there yet.
If you are non-gendered or otherwise affected by this issue, again -
I urge that you write to the Identity and Passport Service and demand a change of policy.
The IPS address details can be found here http://elancane.livejournal.com/9210.htm
And contact your parliamentary representative and enlist their support for the measure to introduce non gender-specific ‘X’ (unspecified) as a legitimate passport option in the United Kingdom.
(*) The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations. It sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity. It is within this remit the ICAO defines the standards of data element requirements for the machine readable passport. The ICAO standards permit three value options under the ‘sex’ category: ‘M’, ‘F’ and ‘X’.
Equality of access to goods and services
The banning of commercial organisations use of gendered roles in the provision of goods and services.
This discriminatory practice is down to companies requiring a ‘customer profile’ in order to assist future target marketing initiatives and has nothing to do with providing good service. There are no legal requirements that determine it necessary for companies to require a gendered role in the process of offering their goods and services, and this unnecessary and offensive question frequently puts such services off-limits to non-gendered identified people who are not prepared to deny the core identity.
On a personal note, I have campaigned on this specific issue directly over the years and challenged companies within the commercial sector on a number of occasions. I have noticed a decrease in requirement to state a gendered role but the requirement continues at an unacceptably high level. When I make a complaint to an organisation I will point out that my custom will be with their competitors (on the basis there is a competitor company that does not require a gendered role when offering essentially a similar service – such as an online shopping account for instance).
The government position is that this item does not necessarily require legislation. On the basis the government does not want to burden business with more legislation, and that the chances of any demand to remove the question becoming law will be resisted by other government departments that represent different interests, I understand that corporations are to be ‘encouraged’ through published government recommendations and guidance on this issue.
I have yet to see the detail but will remain on their case as I am now officially ‘engaged’ with the government.
The NHS
There is no officially sanctioned provision or treatment path for non-gendered transition.
Appropriate treatment lies at the discretion of the medical professional involved in an individual patient’s care and many within the profession would not support the non-gendered patient’s right to transition in the way the patient feels is right and appropriate when a non-gendered identity is not recognised within the gendered societal structure.
There is discussion at the moment regarding incorporating non-gendered into the Standards of Care although no decision has been reached. I hope to have more news on that in due course. And the issue has been acknowledged by WPATH in their latest Standards of Care version, despite the inappropriateness of the terminology they use to define non-gendered and bi-gendered identities
In the meantime, the process has already begun to determine appropriate treatment paths for non-gendered patients who present for reassignment.
In July I had an approach from the South East Coast Specialised Commissioning Group - the national lead for England - in what was referred to as an informal enquiry into how non-gendered transpeople accessed healthcare services in order to enable the physical transition.
http://elancane.livejournal.com/8429.htm
As is now apparent from the action plan listing under ‘Health and social care’, non-gendered provision now looks set to become part of an ongoing formal process of dialogue concerning healthcare policy.
“Lead a dialogue between the transgender community, including non-gendered people, the
medical profession and NHS commissioners, to share best practice and review how this group
can shape health policy.”
Another specific part of this critical item concerns the NHS ‘gender streaming’ of patients.
Streaming limits access to healthcare treatment for non-gendered.
In regard to healthcare and problems that are not identity related but where streaming occurs this is still very much an issue.
A patient medical record has traditionally recorded the sex of the patient as if it were a mandatory identifier along with the patient name, address and date of birth. The sex appears on the medical file and when a patient is referred to another NHS division the sex would be recorded on another record.
The government action plan lists a range of measures to be undertaken by the Department of Health where the details are rather vague in presentation but the measures appear to go towards encouraging greater NHS transparency and ensuring better access for transpeople including those sections from within the transpopulation who were excluded in the past.
“Take active measures to ensure that the views of transgender users shape the Government's Care
and Support White Paper and create a care market that is more responsive to diverse needs.”
On a personal level, I have noticed there appears to be less gendered categorisation on patient forms in some NHS departments although some forms still retain this classification even when the specific healthcare issue does not require reference to the patient’s biological sex. Following a pelvic injury with ongoing complications I have had my own healthcare issues this year and as a result have had more contact with healthcare service providers than at any time since my transition and I’ve noticed a discernable improvement in that the medical professionals and front line staff are generally sensitive and respectful when I tell them I am non-gendered. There appears to be a level of awareness – and appreciation – of the issue that was absent in the past.
At the same time I still await confirmation from the Primary Care Trust that an inappropriate gendered reference has been removed from my medical record.
Employment
Employment – lack of access to employment due to discrimination as experienced by a high percentage of transpeople across the spectrum. For non-gendered this is compounded by lack of legal recognition, social invisibility and a broad societal ignorance of the issue.
It is clear from the document the government intends from next year to instigate a series of positive measures aimed at helping transpeople to find work and remain in work. While not underestimating the challenges that lie ahead, this is extremely welcome news for all transpeople who have experienced rejection for a job application as soon as they arrive for an interview – it is fundamentally important the issue of employment and the attitude of employers towards transpeople is addressed because poverty due to employment inequalities lies at the heart of many other areas where transpeople are subject to discrimination and disadvantage. The problem of poverty can only be addressed through ensuring that transpeople have access to salaried jobs.
Again the presentation in the plan document is vague on detail and I am interested to know more about the “bespoke” support referred in the foreword for this section. Some measures under Section 2: ‘A fair and flexible labour market’ cover state pensions – while not unimportant and I recognise this is a major issue for some gendered transpeople who are fortunate to be in work, it is not of much use to the many who cannot find employment at all and this is furthermore part of a wider government strategy to equalise the national retirement age.
Employment really does represent the major challenge for the government because it is workplace discrimination and negative employer attitudes towards transpeople that keep many transpeople out of the workplace. The battle for hearts and minds can only be addressed through the carrot and stick approach. The carrot being the positive presentation of transpeople, not just in the media but as part of government initiatives to establish a dialogue between employers and transpeople – possibly the facilitation of meetings where transpeople can explain to representatives of blue chip companies how it is possible to be trans and make a positive contribution among other things. The stick element involves acting upon existing legislation that prevents discrimination against transpeople. The legislation however needs to be amended as it should be specifically stated that all transpeople including non-gendered transpeople are protected under the legislation – otherwise the situation of non-gendered remains unclear. When an employer acts in a way that is in breach of the law, there needs to be an adequate mechanism where the victim of employer discrimination can seek redress.
I have urged that supportive measures to help transpeople find and retain work are targeted towards all transpeople of working age and not just the young who have time on their side. Many older transpeople have already experienced years running into decades of discrimination, sometimes leading to long term unemployment, and their situation also needs to be addressed. An employment history that appears poor and erratic on paper and a lack of references are further barriers for many transpeople and consideration needs to be given by employment providers as to the circumstances rather than blame the victim and compound their problem.
For non-gendered transpeople, it is only through visibility that we will not be forced to either deny our identity or feel the need to explain the issue to a prospective employer (or an existing one).
Non gender-specific public bathroom facilities
My suggestion as made to the government in order to resolve the problem experienced by non-gendered people (also experienced by gendered transpeople who avoid public facilities through fear of hostility from other users) is there needs to be a fundamental change to the standard accepted design model, moving from gender segregated communal facilities to a single unit design model that can be used by all.
This design would consist of non gender-specific standard sized cubicles with washbasin and dryer inside the cubicle rather than in a communal area. A smaller version of the model currently provided for disabled access (note: the disabled access facility is symbolised with a wheelchair and the common belief is these cubicles are reserved for disabled users – the legal position is that the chair symbolises the facility is accessible for wheelchair users but the facility can be used by everyone however this legal right is not publicised. I personally feel rather uncomfortable using a facility that is assumed as provided for disabled use only – and I feel that maximum provision should be given to disabled users and that it is not right that provision for able bodied transpeople is made at the expense of disabled people – the issues are separate and provision should be in accordance to needs. Therefore a non gender-specific single unit design model comprising standard size cubicles along the lines I have suggested is the best and the fairest option in order to resolve this problem).
Unsurprisingly this item was not incorporated into the action plan. The feedback from the government representatives earlier in the year indicated that bathroom provision could not be addressed in any way within the immediacy due to cost and logistics.
I had known when I raised public bathroom provision as an issue there would be minimal chance of getting this item into the action plan at this particular moment in time – but I maintain on the basis that we all need to use such facilities at some point when out of our respective homes – that equality of access to public bathroom facilities is something to be aimed for and I will continue to raise.
Synopsis
This is a start.
For non-gendered transpeople in the United Kingdom the action plan is the first evident sign that the governing authorities here can actually acknowledge our existence.
I did not manage to get all the items on my critical list into the plan and did not expect to.
But it is a start and it is encouraging. And I will keep pushing for the items that were not addressed this time around and I will work to ensure that non-gendered issues are not discarded when it comes to implementation for the items that have made it into the plan despite the odds.
Towards the end of last year – shortly after learning about the forthcoming government action plan – I wrote an entry that was reflective and more personal than usual
To live with hope and dare not feel – A moment of reflection http://elancane.livejournal.com/4760.htm
I knew what I wanted and that this was the first and the best chance I would have to be involved in the process of change. I was afraid the reality of any outcome would inevitably disappoint but could not let go of the idea that – whatever the outcome – the fight for non-gendered equality must continue.
Meanwhile – over the rainbow – we can find the land of Oz
1st SGD Human Rights and Dignity Conference –Australasia. 2011 – For those unable to attend, further consultation remains open until 31 December 2011.
http://www.sageaustralia.org/linked/reco
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered.
Copyright ©2011 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved.
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
Advancing transgender equality: A plan for action
The coalition government have now launched ‘the plan’ and announced a series of measures in an ongoing effort to improve the lives of transpeople in the United Kingdom.
Home Office website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/l
The Plan:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication
A short posting – I’m extremely busy – I will put forward my thoughts on the document in more detail in near future when I’ve had time to analyse but noted the reference to NON-GENDERED in the plan and it looks as though a consultation over the passport issue will start early next year!
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Lynne and the team at the GEO for getting us this far.
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered.
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
As the long wait for government announcements indicating measures they will undertake to improve the lives of transpeople in the United Kingdom draws to an end, I need to make a point concerning use of the content on this site and also remind there are laws to protect against the unauthorised reproduction of another person’s written material.
Ever since I started this ‘journal’ in 2008 its content has been lifted and has often reverberated around the bloggersphere. The originators usually had the courtesy to obtain my permission before lifting entire entries or excerpted text from an entry and have treated the material with respect. And until now I had turned a blind eye when I came across something where permission to copy was not sought because I was happy that people were engaged and wanted to spread the word.
Unfortunately it appears that my recent speaking of mind about something on which I hold an opinion – an opinion that I am prepared to stand by – has upset a few people who then felt they had the right to lift parts of my material in isolation and use it in a wildly distortional way in order to express their opinions.
I appreciate there are some people – those individuals who like to whinge and whine and critically undermine the hard work of others who strive to make a positive difference, and are not capable of contributing anything of value but can only live to take – who will hold very different views to mine.
These individuals – as evidenced in unnecessary reference to my age – can never grow up and they do not even particularly want to experience real equality because they would not be able to handle the responsibility that goes with it and they tend to get very hacked off when I assert through my writing that, as a human being and a transperson of non-gendered identity, I do not want anything less than EQUALITY of status – parity with the privileged gendered majority.
I will stress that the antics of these individuals are not representative of the majority of people who read this site and are supportive of my work as they are supportive to the issue. Most people are respectful towards me even when they do not agree 100 per cent with everything I say.
However, thanks to the efforts of a few troublemakers, I have to make a request that material is not lifted from this website either in full or in part unless my written permission has been obtained.
There is a facility to establish a direct link to a single journal entry. Just click on ‘link’ at the bottom of the selected entry. This creates a new URL which can be pasted into your blog or into an email: eg.
http://elancane.livejournal.com/9210.htm
And if you are affected by this issue and have not written to the IPS, it is not too late and I ask again that you write and make a positive contribution in the fight for non-gendered equality.
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered.
Copyright ©2011 Christie Elan-Cane
All rights reserved.
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
WPATH Standards of Care Version 7
FEEDBACK – ADDENDUM
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care V7 are now published and WPATH are requesting feedback – essentially from within a ‘professional’ context but as a stakeholder (non-pathological buzz word of the moment) I feel it is appropriate to comment.
And I strongly urge all who care about this issue to comment.
For it is after all the complexities of OUR LIVES (complexities entirely resultant from the failure of the gendered societal structure to accommodate human identity outside the dominant gendered social model) that these people make their living. And ‘professional’ people can make a very good living in determining outcomes for others. The medical professionals involved in this field making their living from OUR BODIES. We have the right to inform them when they get it wrong. But in my previous posting, I admit that I got it wrong.
I made an error in my submitted feedback to WPATH regarding their use of the term “gender queer” in the WPATH SoC V7 document, reproduced in previous entry here.
In correction, please scrub:
“I THOROUGHLY OBJECT to the use of the term “gender queer” in this document. As a human being and a transperson of NON-GENDERED IDENTITY, I find this term INAPPROPRIATE AND OFFENSIVE. It is furthermore a stupid and MEANINGLESS term. I wonder how the highly privileged people who continue to apply this most inappropriate label to a socially invisible and disenfranchised group of human beings would feel if the same label were applied to them!”
And replace with:
I THOROUGHLY OBJECT to the use of the term “gender queer” in this document.
As a human being and a transperson of NON-GENDERED IDENTITY, I find this term INAPPROPRIATE AND OFFENSIVE.
It is a STUPID AND MEANINGLESS term.
I wonder how the highly privileged people who continue to apply this most inappropriate label to a socially invisible and disenfranchised group of human beings would feel if the same label were applied to them!
I request WPATH STOP using this inappropriate term to reference non-gendered transpeople – transpeople – human beings – who do not identify as male or female (a non-gendered core identity).
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered.
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure
----------------------------------------
WPATH Standards of Care Version 7
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care V7 are now published.
The document is essentially WPATH recommended guidance for the medical professionals involved in the treatment of patients undergoing the physical process of transition.
WPATH are inviting feedback from the profession and it is vitally important that feedback is provided by transpeople in order to shape future versions of this evolving document.
You can find the free online version of the document and email your feedback from the WPATH site
http://www.wpath.org/
My Feedback on WPATH SocV7
WPATH SoC V7 Glossary: “Gender nonconforming: Adjective to describe individuals whose gender identity, role, or expression differs from what is normative for their assigned sex in a given culture and historical period.”
The vague and broad term used throughout WPATH SoC V7 – ‘gender nonconforming’ - essentially means different things to different people (much as ‘transgender’ had widely different connotations until adopted as a universal umbrella term – and now pretty meaningless). My understanding is that ‘gender nonconforming’ applies to a person who is gendered but does not present/behave in the way typically associated with their gendered role but cannot really be described as a transperson because the core identity aligns with the appropriated gendered role (and usually no desire or need for surgery), it is just the presentation that differs from the cultural stereotype associated with that person’s gendered role.
The early 1980’s has several iconic examples where the term might apply although predominantly this was guided by fashion at the time and proved in many cases to be temporary (eg. Annie Lennox) although others were, for want of a better term, more genuine in that there was a semblance of permanence which became more muted over the years (eg. Boy George, Grace Jones) and others for whom the term still applies (eg. Pete Burns is someone I would feel this label probably applies).
To use gender nonconforming in the context used in WPATH SoC V7 would imply some sort of acceptance of an appropriated gendered role whereas, as a transperson of NON-GENDERED IDENTITY, this is not the case for me. I believe it is important to clarify the difference between gender nonconforming and a non-gendered identity because, having read through the lengthy WPATH document, this distinction is not made clear. Furthermore ‘gender nonconforming’ is referenced throughout the document whereas the non-gendered identity is not referenced at all.
I did note a brief reference that the ‘binary’ model should not be imposed by medical practitioners and that is a welcome addition but I would have preferred also that the SoC document contained an affirmative acknowledgement that some transpeople who present themselves for surgery have an objective to remove gendered characteristics rather than acquire new ones. I did note the WPATH recommendation that some surgical procedures should be available without prior administration of hormones to patients who were unwilling to take hormones but no cross referencing to human identity outside the gendered societal structure, or any reference to transpeople who reject the characteristics of male and female gendered roles within those paragraphs of the document.
I THOROUGHLY OBJECT to the use of the term “gender queer” in this document. As a human being and a transperson of NON-GENDERED IDENTITY, I find this term INAPPROPRIATE AND OFFENSIVE. It is furthermore a stupid and MEANINGLESS term. I wonder how the highly privileged people who continue to apply this most inappropriate label to a socially invisible and disenfranchised group of human beings would feel if the same label were applied to them!
I am NON-GENDERED. I am not gender anything and I am most certainly not queer. I am trying to achieve legal recognition and visibility for the non-gendered identity against almost insurmountable odds due to the all-encumbering nature of the gendered societal structure as the dominant social model of western culture. I aspire to legal recognition, social visibility and to be treated as an EQUAL within society rather than as though I were something less than human. The use of such inappropriate language can only serve as a barrier to the acceptance of valid human identity outside the gendered societal structure as its very use in this context instantly sets non-gendered human beings apart from the cultural mainstream.
I request that WPATH stop using this inappropriate term to reference non-gendered transpeople – transpeople – human beings – who do not identify as male or female (a non-gendered core identity).
My other issue with terminology concerns use of ‘gender identity’ as the definitive term of reference rather than ‘identity’. The non-gendered identity cannot possibly be a gender identity and non-gendered transpeople are thereby excluded by definition when a gendered identity is implied.
I have written about this in more detail on my website entry dated 11 July 2011 (entries are in reverse chronological order and earlier entries can be found by scrolling forward) and my second YouTube video is focussed on the specific issue of inappropriate terminology if anyone is interested enough to read/watch/listen.
The V7 document does contain some positive developments: “Diversity, not pathology” – very welcome and I certainly agree with that. I have always tried to stress in my campaign this (legal recognition and social visibility for non-gendered identity) is a human rights issue and not a ‘health’ issue. It is our misfortune we have to interact with whatever health services are available in order to achieve our legitimate objective to be able to live as the people we are destined to be. This does not (should not) imply that we are ill.
Overall, WPATH are going in the right direction but could – and should – do better.
Christie Elan-Cane
NON-GENDERED – Fighting for Legal Recognition
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Christie170?b
The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered.
