Once again I find myself astounded at the attitude to women over personal safety. The police are urging a self-imposed curfew following the murder of Jo Yeates. The Bishop of Bristol went as far as saying: "I think if I were a young woman, I would have a real anxiety about those moments between your car and your front door." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12125832 . The same article reports that “A University of Bristol spokesman urged students returning for the start of term next week to collect the free personal safety alarms that are offered by the institution”.
Of course, it sounds sensible; make sure you take all reasonable precautions to prevent yourself being attacked.
But lets think a little bit deeper. Why are we being told to protect ourselves?
We need to protect ourselves from being attacked. Surely the focus should be on the attacker and not on every woman? Surely the focus should be on persuading potential attackers not to attack rather than on potential victims to curtail their enjoyment of life?
Something has gone seriously wrong in this world.
Take recent taxi adverts, accusing women of inviting themselves to be raped by not ensuring they are using a licenced cab. Why is it acceptable to have sounds of a distraught woman being attacked in an advert? What is the real purpose of these adverts? To accuse women of making themselves victims?
But back to the self-imposed curfews: so women should confine themselves indoors during hours of darkness – they should become prisoners in their own homes. Well I had an idea. Instead of calling on women to become prisoners in their own homes, lets go back to stopping the attackers. Now we do not know whether Jo Yeates murderer was male or female, but based on statistical likelihood, it is most likely going to be a man. Immediately then we have a simple solution: impose a curfew on all men.
Take the recent convictions for gang grooming for sexual abuse. A former minister Jack Straw, actually tries to excuse these monsters: "Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12141603
“Fizzing and popping with testosterone”, but “Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits”? So not only blatant sexism, but also racism. So men can’t help it because of the testosterone? Simple solution then – remove the testosterone. If the truth is that they cannot help it because of the testosterone, then there are simple 3 monthly injections that will eliminate the testosterone.
Of course, that is not the solution. The solution is very simple: teach children the truth about gender; teach them the truth about sex and teach them the truth about respect for every single person.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Gender Equality - for all people
Just a reminder that this blog is just capturing unorganised random thoughts. It is not research, nor is it complete. I like to have somewhere to capture these random thoughts. They could be wrong, but it is only through setting them down that I will establish that.
I am concerned about equality. Gender equality is my main concern, although I am concerned that discrimination in all it's guises is eliminated. I came across this statement from the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg. I became confused about certain statements he made. Further, it crossed over certain beliefs I have about the problems of gender and legislation to prevent gender discrimination. I believe that the abolition of gender is necessary to bring equality. This does not mean getting rid of men and women – they are defined by their phenotype. What it means is getting rid of the socially constructed gender roles, enabling freedom for people to do what they want and to express who they truly are.
But more than that, I keep coming across a phrase I feel like a woman and the one in this article Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. These are phrases that I simply do not associate with. I was born female, and yet I cannot say that I feel female or experience a female gender identity. What I do experience is a societal expectation of how I should behave because I am classified as female.
My random thoughts are in normal typeface and are interspersed with the Thomas Hammarberg statement which is in italics:
The rights of transgender persons are still ignored or violated, but some signs of understanding now begin to appear. One example is the outcome, at long last, of Lydia Foy’s struggle in Ireland. She was registered as male at birth but has lived as a woman since 1992. This summer she finally succeeded in her battle for legal recognition by the Irish state as a woman and for a birth certificate that reflects this reality.
There is no question that the rights of many minority groups are still being ignored and violated. The question is whether or not altering the birth registration is necessary for providing equality or recognition of a person’s rights. A major failure of all equality legislation is that it is, in itself, discriminatory. It defines people into various groups and then says that they should not be discriminated against. In fact, the legislation should start from the position that all people are equal. If gender equality legislation was written in terms of people are equal regardless of gender, then would this situation have arisen?
Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. I struggle tremendously with this sentence. I have had to separate it from the rest of the paragraph because the issues raised here are so very complex. I have had such problems with this that I have been unable to get past this sentence. In many ways, this goes to the heart of the problem. I do not understand what is meant when he says that people “will experience a corresponding gender identity”. I am not sure that I ever experience a gender identity. I do not grasp what this gender identity is. I experience life as a person. I choose how I present to the world and I choose how I behave in that world, but I cannot say that I experience a gender identity. So I asked a number of other people to tell me about their own experience of gender identity. At first, I received some comments about gender identity being an internal belief in your own gender, but I explained that I did not want a definition but their experiences of being women and men who had no conflict with their gender identity. The silence swirled around the room strangling all the voices! Eventually, the best anyone could come up with is that gender identity is simply not experienced by people who do not have a conflict with it. Transgender persons, however, do not have such a corresponding identity and may wish to change their legal, social, and sometimes also physical status. And this is the point that others saw: as a woman who has no issues, gender identity does not even seem to exist, let alone be experienced. But for someone who is transgendered, there appears to be some conflict. And this is where the issues with the remainder of society exist, because the majority of society do not experience their gender identity, the transgendered community fail entirely to convince people that there is a conflict. After all, they are asking the remainder of society to buy into their conflict with something that a majority of people do not experience. But it is deeper than that. Gender is a social construction. As a social construction, this is a group of people seeking to change from one socially constructed gender role to another, because they feel they should belong in that other socially constructed gender role! Abolish these social constructions, and the problem goes away. If we were not so focused on these gender roles, then it would be possible for any person to adopt any gender role that they so wished, or more to the point, they could extract the elements of different gender roles that they wanted.
The case initiated by Lydia Foy in 1997 led to a High Court ruling ten years later that Ireland was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing recognition of Dr. Foy in her preferred gender. It took the Irish government another 2.5 years to accept that Irish law is incompatible with the European Convention. In June 2010 the Irish government withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court and will now recognise Lydia Foy as a woman.
I think that it was quite clear for a long time that Ireland was ignoring the European convention on Human Rights with regard to this issue. Obviously, there is a question for many people as to whether or not it is a Human Right for a person to be able to change their gender. But that is actually a flawed approach as we should be working, not to allow people to legally change gender, but to abolish the divisions caused by gender. If Lydia Foy had not been assigned male at birth, but was just recognised as a person, then there would never have been any kind of conflict and she would never have had to fight for legal recognition. Once again, the false focus on the importance of gender has caused an issue for a person, and denied them the right to live their life. If we abolish gender, then the problem goes away.
The Irish government will introduce legislation to recognise transgender persons in their preferred gender including the possibility for them to obtain new birth certificates. An inter-departmental working group has been set up by the Irish government to develop a legal framework which respects the human rights of transgender individuals. It is crucial that representatives of the transgender community as well as other experts be represented in this working group. This could become a good model for other states which are currently considering improving their legal framework for transgender persons, including Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands.
There is a danger in involving the transgendered community in this work. The danger is that there is such a wide variance in the needs and desires of this group. This could result in legislation being passed that enables a change of registered gender that is effectively outside of the gender binary, which is the desire of many in the transgendered community. The whole fight should be to abolish or minimise the whole concept of gender. Allow all people to just be people to just be people.
Still viewed as a mental disorder
Ireland is not the only country where transgender persons have faced obstacles in obtaining legal recognition of their preferred gender. Some Council of Europe member states still have no provision at all for official recognition, leaving transgender people in a legal limbo. Most member states still use medical classifications which impose the diagnosis of mental disorder on transgender persons.
Of course, changing recognition of gender for all people would solve most of the problem. As to the mental disorder, well this is a complex area. It needs to be classified by the medical profession in some way. A condition which causes distress to a person is usually classified under the mental health conditions. Treatment surely cures this distress and hence the individual moves on with their life without a ‘condition’ after their transition. But where else do you classify it? As a physical condition? A person states they are female, but has a fully operative and non-flawed male body. Where is the physical condition that needs treating? Surely the desire to remove perfectly sound organs is questionable and of the same order as someone who wishes to remove their fully functioning leg? This is body dysmorphia. Now I am well aware that people have cured their issues through transitioning, but removing the involvement of psychiatrists surely risks people transitioning who should not? And there are already too many people who regret it. There have been a number of well publicised cases and a gender specialist was taken before the General Medical Council because of certain people who later regretted their actions. Strangely, one thing that came out of most of the publicised cases was the fact that these people had circumvented the psychiatrists and headed abroad for surgery. Should it be a mental disorder? It certainly needs treatment in conjunction with appropriate mental health specialists, if only to eliminate other causes.
Even more common are provisions which demand impossible choices, such as the “forced divorce” and the “forced sterilisation” requirements. This means that only unmarried or divorced transgender persons who have undergone surgery and become irreversibly infertile have the right to change their entry in the birth register. In reality, this means that the state prescribes medical treatment for legal purposes, a requirement which clearly runs against the principles of human rights and human dignity.
Some positive legal developments can however be found. The Austrian Administrative High Court ruled in 2009 that mandatory surgery could not be a prerequisite for gender change, and in Germany the Federal Supreme Court indicated in 2005 that operative interventions as a precondition for the change of gender are no longer tenable.
Clearly, the state should never force people through things such as divorce or sterilisation. The first is simply resolved by having equality of relationship status for all people. This means that any two people can enter into a legal relationship. Sterilisation is the same as any non-necessary surgery: why should unnecessary surgery happen, let alone be forced onto people?
Full right to physical and moral security
All countries need to develop expeditious and transparent procedures for changing the name and gender of a transgender person on official documents, in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Just remove gender. This would be far more sensible than changing gender. People are people and not a gender. As to names, well a ‘rose by any other name ...’.
People should be free to use whatever name they wish to have.
In 2002, in Goodwin v UK, the Strasbourg Court’s Grand Chamber stressed that in the twenty first century the rights of transgender persons should be effectively protected by states. They should have the same right to personal development and to physical and moral security enjoyed by others in society. One cannot but agree.
This is not a right for transgendered people, but a right for all people.
Highlighting transgendered people may be the purpose of this article, but it applies to all people as opposed to just transgendered people. The implication of how this is written is that it is only transgendered people that suffer these discriminations, but it is not. I have recently debated the issues of equality with some transgendered people. They insisted that sex discrimination no longer occurs in this country. Subsequent transition sees them experiencing the discrimination that the rest of us have experienced as women. Of course, they cannot go back on their view that sex discrimination no longer exists and insist they are being discriminated against because they are transgendered.
There is a strong need for an informed dialogue about the widespread discrimination against transgender persons in Europe today. One contribution will hopefully be a comparative study, the result of which my office will present early next year, on continued discrimination in all parts of Europe on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
There is a need to remove all discrimination. While legislation continues to be worded so that you must belong to a defined group to receive legal protection, then the problems will continue. Once we start from the position of all people are equal and that any allowable discrimination must be allowed by legislation, then we will start to see equality. It can never happen while people are only equal if the law says they are. The law does not change hearts and minds. Discrimination just goes under ground until such time as hearts and minds are changed.
I am concerned about gender, because it negatively impacts my life. I am not free to just behave how I want, because I am expected to conform to the socially constructed gender role for an adult female. Why should I wear a skirt or dress or makeup? Conversely, why should a man be precluded from doing so?
And then there is the question of men being aggressive and dominant and women being submissive and demure. Why should that be the case? My observations show that many successful women have exactly the same traits as men, sometimes even more than their male peers. Where on earth do we get the idea that men and women need to have these traits and that these traits are linked to physical sex?
I believe we should be fighting for gender equality. Part of that is about fighting for women's rights, but much more than that, I believe in gender equality: equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of gender. Such equality would allow everyone to choose to live their life in freedom.
I am concerned about equality. Gender equality is my main concern, although I am concerned that discrimination in all it's guises is eliminated. I came across this statement from the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg. I became confused about certain statements he made. Further, it crossed over certain beliefs I have about the problems of gender and legislation to prevent gender discrimination. I believe that the abolition of gender is necessary to bring equality. This does not mean getting rid of men and women – they are defined by their phenotype. What it means is getting rid of the socially constructed gender roles, enabling freedom for people to do what they want and to express who they truly are.
But more than that, I keep coming across a phrase I feel like a woman and the one in this article Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. These are phrases that I simply do not associate with. I was born female, and yet I cannot say that I feel female or experience a female gender identity. What I do experience is a societal expectation of how I should behave because I am classified as female.
My random thoughts are in normal typeface and are interspersed with the Thomas Hammarberg statement which is in italics:
The rights of transgender persons are still ignored or violated, but some signs of understanding now begin to appear. One example is the outcome, at long last, of Lydia Foy’s struggle in Ireland. She was registered as male at birth but has lived as a woman since 1992. This summer she finally succeeded in her battle for legal recognition by the Irish state as a woman and for a birth certificate that reflects this reality.
There is no question that the rights of many minority groups are still being ignored and violated. The question is whether or not altering the birth registration is necessary for providing equality or recognition of a person’s rights. A major failure of all equality legislation is that it is, in itself, discriminatory. It defines people into various groups and then says that they should not be discriminated against. In fact, the legislation should start from the position that all people are equal. If gender equality legislation was written in terms of people are equal regardless of gender, then would this situation have arisen?
Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. I struggle tremendously with this sentence. I have had to separate it from the rest of the paragraph because the issues raised here are so very complex. I have had such problems with this that I have been unable to get past this sentence. In many ways, this goes to the heart of the problem. I do not understand what is meant when he says that people “will experience a corresponding gender identity”. I am not sure that I ever experience a gender identity. I do not grasp what this gender identity is. I experience life as a person. I choose how I present to the world and I choose how I behave in that world, but I cannot say that I experience a gender identity. So I asked a number of other people to tell me about their own experience of gender identity. At first, I received some comments about gender identity being an internal belief in your own gender, but I explained that I did not want a definition but their experiences of being women and men who had no conflict with their gender identity. The silence swirled around the room strangling all the voices! Eventually, the best anyone could come up with is that gender identity is simply not experienced by people who do not have a conflict with it. Transgender persons, however, do not have such a corresponding identity and may wish to change their legal, social, and sometimes also physical status. And this is the point that others saw: as a woman who has no issues, gender identity does not even seem to exist, let alone be experienced. But for someone who is transgendered, there appears to be some conflict. And this is where the issues with the remainder of society exist, because the majority of society do not experience their gender identity, the transgendered community fail entirely to convince people that there is a conflict. After all, they are asking the remainder of society to buy into their conflict with something that a majority of people do not experience. But it is deeper than that. Gender is a social construction. As a social construction, this is a group of people seeking to change from one socially constructed gender role to another, because they feel they should belong in that other socially constructed gender role! Abolish these social constructions, and the problem goes away. If we were not so focused on these gender roles, then it would be possible for any person to adopt any gender role that they so wished, or more to the point, they could extract the elements of different gender roles that they wanted.
The case initiated by Lydia Foy in 1997 led to a High Court ruling ten years later that Ireland was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing recognition of Dr. Foy in her preferred gender. It took the Irish government another 2.5 years to accept that Irish law is incompatible with the European Convention. In June 2010 the Irish government withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court and will now recognise Lydia Foy as a woman.
I think that it was quite clear for a long time that Ireland was ignoring the European convention on Human Rights with regard to this issue. Obviously, there is a question for many people as to whether or not it is a Human Right for a person to be able to change their gender. But that is actually a flawed approach as we should be working, not to allow people to legally change gender, but to abolish the divisions caused by gender. If Lydia Foy had not been assigned male at birth, but was just recognised as a person, then there would never have been any kind of conflict and she would never have had to fight for legal recognition. Once again, the false focus on the importance of gender has caused an issue for a person, and denied them the right to live their life. If we abolish gender, then the problem goes away.
The Irish government will introduce legislation to recognise transgender persons in their preferred gender including the possibility for them to obtain new birth certificates. An inter-departmental working group has been set up by the Irish government to develop a legal framework which respects the human rights of transgender individuals. It is crucial that representatives of the transgender community as well as other experts be represented in this working group. This could become a good model for other states which are currently considering improving their legal framework for transgender persons, including Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands.
There is a danger in involving the transgendered community in this work. The danger is that there is such a wide variance in the needs and desires of this group. This could result in legislation being passed that enables a change of registered gender that is effectively outside of the gender binary, which is the desire of many in the transgendered community. The whole fight should be to abolish or minimise the whole concept of gender. Allow all people to just be people to just be people.
Still viewed as a mental disorder
Ireland is not the only country where transgender persons have faced obstacles in obtaining legal recognition of their preferred gender. Some Council of Europe member states still have no provision at all for official recognition, leaving transgender people in a legal limbo. Most member states still use medical classifications which impose the diagnosis of mental disorder on transgender persons.
Of course, changing recognition of gender for all people would solve most of the problem. As to the mental disorder, well this is a complex area. It needs to be classified by the medical profession in some way. A condition which causes distress to a person is usually classified under the mental health conditions. Treatment surely cures this distress and hence the individual moves on with their life without a ‘condition’ after their transition. But where else do you classify it? As a physical condition? A person states they are female, but has a fully operative and non-flawed male body. Where is the physical condition that needs treating? Surely the desire to remove perfectly sound organs is questionable and of the same order as someone who wishes to remove their fully functioning leg? This is body dysmorphia. Now I am well aware that people have cured their issues through transitioning, but removing the involvement of psychiatrists surely risks people transitioning who should not? And there are already too many people who regret it. There have been a number of well publicised cases and a gender specialist was taken before the General Medical Council because of certain people who later regretted their actions. Strangely, one thing that came out of most of the publicised cases was the fact that these people had circumvented the psychiatrists and headed abroad for surgery. Should it be a mental disorder? It certainly needs treatment in conjunction with appropriate mental health specialists, if only to eliminate other causes.
Even more common are provisions which demand impossible choices, such as the “forced divorce” and the “forced sterilisation” requirements. This means that only unmarried or divorced transgender persons who have undergone surgery and become irreversibly infertile have the right to change their entry in the birth register. In reality, this means that the state prescribes medical treatment for legal purposes, a requirement which clearly runs against the principles of human rights and human dignity.
Some positive legal developments can however be found. The Austrian Administrative High Court ruled in 2009 that mandatory surgery could not be a prerequisite for gender change, and in Germany the Federal Supreme Court indicated in 2005 that operative interventions as a precondition for the change of gender are no longer tenable.
Clearly, the state should never force people through things such as divorce or sterilisation. The first is simply resolved by having equality of relationship status for all people. This means that any two people can enter into a legal relationship. Sterilisation is the same as any non-necessary surgery: why should unnecessary surgery happen, let alone be forced onto people?
Full right to physical and moral security
All countries need to develop expeditious and transparent procedures for changing the name and gender of a transgender person on official documents, in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Just remove gender. This would be far more sensible than changing gender. People are people and not a gender. As to names, well a ‘rose by any other name ...’.
People should be free to use whatever name they wish to have.
In 2002, in Goodwin v UK, the Strasbourg Court’s Grand Chamber stressed that in the twenty first century the rights of transgender persons should be effectively protected by states. They should have the same right to personal development and to physical and moral security enjoyed by others in society. One cannot but agree.
This is not a right for transgendered people, but a right for all people.
Highlighting transgendered people may be the purpose of this article, but it applies to all people as opposed to just transgendered people. The implication of how this is written is that it is only transgendered people that suffer these discriminations, but it is not. I have recently debated the issues of equality with some transgendered people. They insisted that sex discrimination no longer occurs in this country. Subsequent transition sees them experiencing the discrimination that the rest of us have experienced as women. Of course, they cannot go back on their view that sex discrimination no longer exists and insist they are being discriminated against because they are transgendered.
There is a strong need for an informed dialogue about the widespread discrimination against transgender persons in Europe today. One contribution will hopefully be a comparative study, the result of which my office will present early next year, on continued discrimination in all parts of Europe on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
There is a need to remove all discrimination. While legislation continues to be worded so that you must belong to a defined group to receive legal protection, then the problems will continue. Once we start from the position of all people are equal and that any allowable discrimination must be allowed by legislation, then we will start to see equality. It can never happen while people are only equal if the law says they are. The law does not change hearts and minds. Discrimination just goes under ground until such time as hearts and minds are changed.
I am concerned about gender, because it negatively impacts my life. I am not free to just behave how I want, because I am expected to conform to the socially constructed gender role for an adult female. Why should I wear a skirt or dress or makeup? Conversely, why should a man be precluded from doing so?
And then there is the question of men being aggressive and dominant and women being submissive and demure. Why should that be the case? My observations show that many successful women have exactly the same traits as men, sometimes even more than their male peers. Where on earth do we get the idea that men and women need to have these traits and that these traits are linked to physical sex?
I believe we should be fighting for gender equality. Part of that is about fighting for women's rights, but much more than that, I believe in gender equality: equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of gender. Such equality would allow everyone to choose to live their life in freedom.
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Back to school...
As a new school term and year looms, we are once again faced with the normal problems that beset every parent. Does the uniform still fit? Have they got all the school equipment they need? Then we all face the trauma; the apprehension as the unknown approaches the child. New teachers, new subjects, new classmates, will friends have changed over this extended holiday?
Like all parents, we have to deal with these problems. Unlike other parents, we have to face another problem and so does our daughter: being a lesbian couple with a daughter. The following article sets out the issues faced by many Back to School in the Gay Household.
We knew that many of these problems would arise, so we met with the headmaster when our daughter started in the school and advised him of the situation but the school were not prepared. I provided some information that was circulated to the teachers so that they knew what the situation was and how best to support our daughter. Since they have never had openly lesbian parents for one of their children, they had never thought about many of the implications.
Now preparing the school and preparing our daughter were critical in making her school life work. She is a very poplar girl, with lots of friends. Children talk about parents and our daughter had the strength and ability to tell her friends that she has two mummies. Some of her friends even think it is really ‘cool’.
Of course, I would be lying if I pretended that there were no problems: getting the school records right took a few attempts, but they got there in the end. We are lucky in the UK in that adoption by the non-biological mother has been allowed for some time and the new law means that both partners in a Civil Partnership can be named as parents on the child’s birth certificate now: it is a pity that option is only recent as it would have saved many heartaches in getting adoptions sorted. It did mean that the school had to acknowledge both of us as parents.
Then there are words: ‘lesbians are disgusting’ was one thing said to our daughter. Another that she hears too frequently are phrases like ‘that is so gay’ or ‘don’t be so gay’. The word ‘gay’ being used as a derogatory word, particularly against boys. Even seeing two of the girls hugging brings shouts of ‘lesbians’.
But the worst problem of all started with a word our daughter used when talking to some of her friends. Another child overheard this word, a word that was so dreadful, so very unacceptable, that the child, at 9 years old, had no idea what this word meant. And the word? The dreaded ‘L’ word. Yes, our daughter caused a storm by referring to her parents as lesbians.
There is much to do. Schools do not have the resources nor the knowledge to address the issues of children from lesbian and gay households, nor from single parent households. In these days of much greater family variance, it is really important that these needs are addressed.
Like all parents, we have to deal with these problems. Unlike other parents, we have to face another problem and so does our daughter: being a lesbian couple with a daughter. The following article sets out the issues faced by many Back to School in the Gay Household.
We knew that many of these problems would arise, so we met with the headmaster when our daughter started in the school and advised him of the situation but the school were not prepared. I provided some information that was circulated to the teachers so that they knew what the situation was and how best to support our daughter. Since they have never had openly lesbian parents for one of their children, they had never thought about many of the implications.
Now preparing the school and preparing our daughter were critical in making her school life work. She is a very poplar girl, with lots of friends. Children talk about parents and our daughter had the strength and ability to tell her friends that she has two mummies. Some of her friends even think it is really ‘cool’.
Of course, I would be lying if I pretended that there were no problems: getting the school records right took a few attempts, but they got there in the end. We are lucky in the UK in that adoption by the non-biological mother has been allowed for some time and the new law means that both partners in a Civil Partnership can be named as parents on the child’s birth certificate now: it is a pity that option is only recent as it would have saved many heartaches in getting adoptions sorted. It did mean that the school had to acknowledge both of us as parents.
Then there are words: ‘lesbians are disgusting’ was one thing said to our daughter. Another that she hears too frequently are phrases like ‘that is so gay’ or ‘don’t be so gay’. The word ‘gay’ being used as a derogatory word, particularly against boys. Even seeing two of the girls hugging brings shouts of ‘lesbians’.
But the worst problem of all started with a word our daughter used when talking to some of her friends. Another child overheard this word, a word that was so dreadful, so very unacceptable, that the child, at 9 years old, had no idea what this word meant. And the word? The dreaded ‘L’ word. Yes, our daughter caused a storm by referring to her parents as lesbians.
There is much to do. Schools do not have the resources nor the knowledge to address the issues of children from lesbian and gay households, nor from single parent households. In these days of much greater family variance, it is really important that these needs are addressed.
Friday, 27 August 2010
When is equality not equality?
What exactly is equality? I always thought that it meant that everyone should be treated equally. That is, everyone should be treated in exactly the same manner as everyone else. It seems sensible to me, after all, why should a non-white person be treated any differently to a white person? A Christian different to a Jew? A woman different to a man? A gay man or a lesbian different to a straight person?
Why should anyone be treated differently to anyone else?
But they are. Look at the Government statistics for employment rates for disadvantaged groups and see the problem. Of course, I am primarily interested in gender discrimination. Gender discrimination in employment is still very strong. If it wasn’t then the statistics quoted in my post The Gender Pay and Opportunities Gap would not exist.
Forty years of gender equality legislation and it still does not exist in the work place. Of course, the reason for this, or so we are led to believe, is because women do not desire careers, but make other choices in life.
Remembering that legislation is in place, then how can discrimination still exist? How does it happen?
Take a simple example of two people of the same age that leave school, go to university, and then start a job at the same time. Both of these people achieved first class honours from UK universities and found jobs in the same department and office. They both started work in the same week and come from middle class families in Surrey. Two very similar people. Except that I forgot to mention that one of them is female and the other male.
Initially, they go on intensive training at the same time and pass their professional qualifications at the same time through the intensive programme. Then they really settle down into work. They are assigned to the same management group. Work is allocated by the senior manager in the department.
Initially, they are both given similar cases to work on, sometimes even collaborating. The only noticeable difference is that the woman clears her workload and leaves the office at the end of the working day, whereas the man tends to stay longer into the evening, as he has not kept up with the work rate.
More complex cases start to arrive, and a choice has to be made as to who should get these cases. The Senior manager allocating the cases does not intentionally discriminate, but chooses the man to take n the more complex cases. He struggles with the more complex work and extends his working hours to cope. The woman starts to seek additional work as she is completing her less complex cases in a faster time than originally.
Now appraisal time arrives and the man is rated higher than the woman, after all, he is taking on more complex work than the woman. This seems fair, after all, he is doing more complex work. But is it fair? Why is the woman not doing some of the more complex cases? Why is she not being given the same opportunities as the man?
Of course, this means that the man is promoted sooner than the woman and all of a sudden, the differences between their career paths becomes clear. What started as two equals soon changes simply because of the actions of one person.
The senior manager allocating the work did not intentionally discriminate, but chose the man as he happened to be still working outside normal working hours – working late because he was behind. ‘More dedicated’ was one of the comments from the senior manager. ‘Determined to get on’ was another. Never was the ‘struggling to keep up’ ever thought about. Of course, every Friday, the man was down at the bar drinking with the other men, whereas the woman headed home to prepare to go out. After all, work clothes are not party clothes for a young woman.
Equal, but unequal. Equal in terms of ability, but unequal in terms of opportunity.
Why should anyone be treated differently to anyone else?
But they are. Look at the Government statistics for employment rates for disadvantaged groups and see the problem. Of course, I am primarily interested in gender discrimination. Gender discrimination in employment is still very strong. If it wasn’t then the statistics quoted in my post The Gender Pay and Opportunities Gap would not exist.
Forty years of gender equality legislation and it still does not exist in the work place. Of course, the reason for this, or so we are led to believe, is because women do not desire careers, but make other choices in life.
Remembering that legislation is in place, then how can discrimination still exist? How does it happen?
Take a simple example of two people of the same age that leave school, go to university, and then start a job at the same time. Both of these people achieved first class honours from UK universities and found jobs in the same department and office. They both started work in the same week and come from middle class families in Surrey. Two very similar people. Except that I forgot to mention that one of them is female and the other male.
Initially, they go on intensive training at the same time and pass their professional qualifications at the same time through the intensive programme. Then they really settle down into work. They are assigned to the same management group. Work is allocated by the senior manager in the department.
Initially, they are both given similar cases to work on, sometimes even collaborating. The only noticeable difference is that the woman clears her workload and leaves the office at the end of the working day, whereas the man tends to stay longer into the evening, as he has not kept up with the work rate.
More complex cases start to arrive, and a choice has to be made as to who should get these cases. The Senior manager allocating the cases does not intentionally discriminate, but chooses the man to take n the more complex cases. He struggles with the more complex work and extends his working hours to cope. The woman starts to seek additional work as she is completing her less complex cases in a faster time than originally.
Now appraisal time arrives and the man is rated higher than the woman, after all, he is taking on more complex work than the woman. This seems fair, after all, he is doing more complex work. But is it fair? Why is the woman not doing some of the more complex cases? Why is she not being given the same opportunities as the man?
Of course, this means that the man is promoted sooner than the woman and all of a sudden, the differences between their career paths becomes clear. What started as two equals soon changes simply because of the actions of one person.
The senior manager allocating the work did not intentionally discriminate, but chose the man as he happened to be still working outside normal working hours – working late because he was behind. ‘More dedicated’ was one of the comments from the senior manager. ‘Determined to get on’ was another. Never was the ‘struggling to keep up’ ever thought about. Of course, every Friday, the man was down at the bar drinking with the other men, whereas the woman headed home to prepare to go out. After all, work clothes are not party clothes for a young woman.
Equal, but unequal. Equal in terms of ability, but unequal in terms of opportunity.
The Gender Pay and Opportunities Gap
The Equal Pay Act 1970 introduced the requirement for equal pay between men and women where they are employed on equal work. This has been followed by a number of other pieces of legislation requiring equal treatment regardless of gender.
Despite all of this legislation, there remains a significant difference in pay and opportunities for male and female employees. But are these differences due to discrimination or are they due to differences in personal choices? Even if the reasons for these differences are due to differences in personal choices between male and female employees, are these voluntary or enforced choices?
The gender pay gap still exists and, in 2010, the Government is seeking to introduce additional legislation to address this inequality. The 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1) revealed a 25% difference in average full time earnings for male and female employees. A carer benchmarking survey in the Accountancy profession published in 2010(3) revealed that males earn 60% more than their female counterparts.
The pay gap is not, however, the full story. A survey for the Guardian Newspaper in August 2009(2) revealed that, while 90% of companies surveyed had an equality policy, only 3% of executive directors are female. This suggests that opportunities for female employees are less than for their male counterparts. The Bow Group produced a report(7) claiming that 36% of boys stay on at school to take GCE/A levels compared with 44% of girls. This difference questions why there are fewer women making it the highest levels of business.
There are claims that the gender pay gap is not the result of discrimination, but due to other factors such as qualifications, work experience, values and preferences. Shackleton states that “Employer discrimination is not a major factor: the size of the pay gap depends on a range of factors, many of which are probably beyond the influence of government as they depend on the values, preferences and choices of individual men and women.”(4). He goes on to say that “When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be explained without reference to discrimination”(5). The higher number of women that are part time employees may contribute to the apparent reduced opportunities available to them. In the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1), 89% of male employees worked full time compared to 59% of females.
Other research by the Fawcett Society “shows that whilst legislation has eradicated some of the most blatant forms of discrimination, it has not been entirely successful in changing hearts and minds. The widening pay gap, decline in women leaders, and resurgence in workplace ‘sex-object culture’ are all testament to the fact that equal opportunity policies and discrimination legislation alone are ill-equipped to close the gender equality gap”(6).
With a significant amount of legislation already in place, will additional legislation improve reduce the gender pay and opportunity gaps? Is it discrimination or other factors that is responsible for these differences? If it is the latter, is this due to voluntary personal choice, or is it the result of other factors?
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/23/women-business-harriet-harman-equality
(3) a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half. http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/portal/site/rh-uk/menuitem.b0a52206b89cee97e7dfed10c3809fa0/?vgnextoid=8a43852d76d17210VgnVCM1000003c08f90aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0198ad657c762110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD
(4) J R Shackleton (p104) Should We Mind the Gap? http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(5) J R Shackleton (p12) http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(6) Just Below the Surface: gender stereotyping, the silent barrier to equality in the modern workplace? http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Just%20Below%20the%20Surface.pdf
(7) Boys: A School Report by Chris Skidmore http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/BoysASchoolReport%5B1%5D.doc
Despite all of this legislation, there remains a significant difference in pay and opportunities for male and female employees. But are these differences due to discrimination or are they due to differences in personal choices? Even if the reasons for these differences are due to differences in personal choices between male and female employees, are these voluntary or enforced choices?
The gender pay gap still exists and, in 2010, the Government is seeking to introduce additional legislation to address this inequality. The 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1) revealed a 25% difference in average full time earnings for male and female employees. A carer benchmarking survey in the Accountancy profession published in 2010(3) revealed that males earn 60% more than their female counterparts.
The pay gap is not, however, the full story. A survey for the Guardian Newspaper in August 2009(2) revealed that, while 90% of companies surveyed had an equality policy, only 3% of executive directors are female. This suggests that opportunities for female employees are less than for their male counterparts. The Bow Group produced a report(7) claiming that 36% of boys stay on at school to take GCE/A levels compared with 44% of girls. This difference questions why there are fewer women making it the highest levels of business.
There are claims that the gender pay gap is not the result of discrimination, but due to other factors such as qualifications, work experience, values and preferences. Shackleton states that “Employer discrimination is not a major factor: the size of the pay gap depends on a range of factors, many of which are probably beyond the influence of government as they depend on the values, preferences and choices of individual men and women.”(4). He goes on to say that “When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be explained without reference to discrimination”(5). The higher number of women that are part time employees may contribute to the apparent reduced opportunities available to them. In the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings(1), 89% of male employees worked full time compared to 59% of females.
Other research by the Fawcett Society “shows that whilst legislation has eradicated some of the most blatant forms of discrimination, it has not been entirely successful in changing hearts and minds. The widening pay gap, decline in women leaders, and resurgence in workplace ‘sex-object culture’ are all testament to the fact that equal opportunity policies and discrimination legislation alone are ill-equipped to close the gender equality gap”(6).
With a significant amount of legislation already in place, will additional legislation improve reduce the gender pay and opportunity gaps? Is it discrimination or other factors that is responsible for these differences? If it is the latter, is this due to voluntary personal choice, or is it the result of other factors?
(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/23/women-business-harriet-harman-equality
(3) a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half. http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2258629/female-accountants-paid-less
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/portal/site/rh-uk/menuitem.b0a52206b89cee97e7dfed10c3809fa0/?vgnextoid=8a43852d76d17210VgnVCM1000003c08f90aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0198ad657c762110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD
(4) J R Shackleton (p104) Should We Mind the Gap? http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(5) J R Shackleton (p12) http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book442pdf?.pdf
(6) Just Below the Surface: gender stereotyping, the silent barrier to equality in the modern workplace? http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Just%20Below%20the%20Surface.pdf
(7) Boys: A School Report by Chris Skidmore http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/BoysASchoolReport%5B1%5D.doc
Gender - What is important?
There are three elements to gender: physical gender, gender identity, gender role and presentation.
Gender Identity
This is internal to the individual. It is about how they consider (or do not consider) themselves. It is entirely hidden from the world, as it is completely impossible to see into someone’s head. What a person considers their own gender identity to be is irrelevant.
Why irrelevant? Because you do not interact with the remainder of the world based on your gender identity. In fact, most people do not even give their gender identity a second thought. Certainly it is not a male/female binary; a black or white choice, but is an infinite variety of shades in all directions, not just female and male. I am not, therefore, even interested in what a person’s gender identity is.
Physical Gender
This is just the physical body that you have and how it compares to the biological ‘standard’ of either male or female. Of course, this is assumed to be a binary, but it may actually be something uch more complicated than that. There are far too many intersex conditions that lay waste to the idea of a physical gender binary. There are many conditions which mean that a person’s body may not fit wholly within the binary. We must, therefore, consider physical gender (or sex) to be a large spectrum as opposed to a binary. Most people, however, simplistically see that external male genitals means physical sex is male and lack of external male genitals makes the individual female.
So far, I have concluded that people can think of themselves (gender identity) across a spectrum of identities and they may have a body that could be on a spectrum with female at one end and male at the other. Female and male are just the extremes of the identity. An obvious question is whether or not there is any correlation between physical gender and gender identity, but I suspect that is a question that may prove impossible to fully answer.
Gender role and presentation
This is the way that a person interacts with the world. It is the way they dress and talk. It is about their mannerisms and deportment. This is the element of gender that actually matters. It matters, because it is how we interact with the world and how the world interacts with us.
In a world in which we have divided everything into a simplistic binary of female and male, we also have divided gender roles and presentation into a binary which correlates with a person’s assigned physical sex, based upon their external genitals.
In countries such as the UK, there is an expectation that women will dress in skirts and feminine clothing; that they will be demure and submissive. Men are expected to be dominant and aggressive, to wear more rugged clothing and certainly not skirts. In Scotland, the traditional dress is a kilt. Call it a skirt at your peril: it is a kilt NEVER a skirt. There are many more elements as well, such as makeup, shoes, ways of talking and so on. There are all these different traits and clothing choices, all of which appear to be divided between male and female.
But why are they divided? Why is it wrong for a man to wear a skirt? What is it that means a woman is demure and a man aggressive? Is this something biologically programmed into us before birth, or is it something that is constructed from societal expectations?
Gender Identity
This is internal to the individual. It is about how they consider (or do not consider) themselves. It is entirely hidden from the world, as it is completely impossible to see into someone’s head. What a person considers their own gender identity to be is irrelevant.
Why irrelevant? Because you do not interact with the remainder of the world based on your gender identity. In fact, most people do not even give their gender identity a second thought. Certainly it is not a male/female binary; a black or white choice, but is an infinite variety of shades in all directions, not just female and male. I am not, therefore, even interested in what a person’s gender identity is.
Physical Gender
This is just the physical body that you have and how it compares to the biological ‘standard’ of either male or female. Of course, this is assumed to be a binary, but it may actually be something uch more complicated than that. There are far too many intersex conditions that lay waste to the idea of a physical gender binary. There are many conditions which mean that a person’s body may not fit wholly within the binary. We must, therefore, consider physical gender (or sex) to be a large spectrum as opposed to a binary. Most people, however, simplistically see that external male genitals means physical sex is male and lack of external male genitals makes the individual female.
So far, I have concluded that people can think of themselves (gender identity) across a spectrum of identities and they may have a body that could be on a spectrum with female at one end and male at the other. Female and male are just the extremes of the identity. An obvious question is whether or not there is any correlation between physical gender and gender identity, but I suspect that is a question that may prove impossible to fully answer.
Gender role and presentation
This is the way that a person interacts with the world. It is the way they dress and talk. It is about their mannerisms and deportment. This is the element of gender that actually matters. It matters, because it is how we interact with the world and how the world interacts with us.
In a world in which we have divided everything into a simplistic binary of female and male, we also have divided gender roles and presentation into a binary which correlates with a person’s assigned physical sex, based upon their external genitals.
In countries such as the UK, there is an expectation that women will dress in skirts and feminine clothing; that they will be demure and submissive. Men are expected to be dominant and aggressive, to wear more rugged clothing and certainly not skirts. In Scotland, the traditional dress is a kilt. Call it a skirt at your peril: it is a kilt NEVER a skirt. There are many more elements as well, such as makeup, shoes, ways of talking and so on. There are all these different traits and clothing choices, all of which appear to be divided between male and female.
But why are they divided? Why is it wrong for a man to wear a skirt? What is it that means a woman is demure and a man aggressive? Is this something biologically programmed into us before birth, or is it something that is constructed from societal expectations?
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Rape - a Man's right?
“If you wouldn't have been running around with those little dresses on it would have never happened.” That is not the response you would expect from your father when you are raped, but that is what is reported in this story.
It is sad that any person would make such a comment, let alone a relative. It does, however, highlight some of the problems still to be resolved.
When a woman is raped it is NEVER her fault: yes means yes and no means no. It is that simple. If a woman does not consent, then it is rape. The person at fault for that rape is her attacker.
I covered my feelings on this fairly recently, following the rapes at the Latitude Festival Why are women blamed for getting themselves raped?, but it just keeps coming up.
I also talked about clothes What is wrong with the clothes I wear? And here we are once again with a story that blames women for putting themselves at risk because of the clothes that they wear.
Of course, we are told that men just cannot help it, after all, it is just their natural reaction to a pretty woman to want to have sex with her. I don’t have personal knowledge of those kind of feelings, so I cannot easily challenge it, but I can challenge the idea that people should act on that feeling.
Let’s be honest, many of us at one time or another have felt jealous of someone else. Perhaps it is the new car, the money, the house or the job. Perhaps it is their partner, or their looks. All sorts of things raise emotions in us that may make us think “why should I not have that as well?” But do we act on it? Laws help, but our moral codes are the ultimate determiner of our actions. Most of us do not succumb to these temptations. Why should rape be any different? Just because it is sex? Because men have an inalienable right to have sex with women, whether or not the women truly wishes to do so
An inalienable right? How can I claim that many men believe that they have this right? Take a recent story Councils pay for disabled to visit prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs from £520m taxpayer fund. The paper is making a point about council’s wasting money, but that is not what I want to focus on. I want to focus upon the idea that this 21 year old man with learning issues had an inalienable right to have sex with women, and because he could not get a woman himself, he should be able to seek sex with a prostitute. Where does this right come from? The paper reports his social worker as stating that “Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.”
That is deeply worrying: it is a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Not only is it a woman’s fault for wearing the wrong clothes, but it is also a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Does that mean that rape must be a woman’s fault? After all, she cannot say no to a man’s inalienable right to have sex with a woman.
It is sad that any person would make such a comment, let alone a relative. It does, however, highlight some of the problems still to be resolved.
When a woman is raped it is NEVER her fault: yes means yes and no means no. It is that simple. If a woman does not consent, then it is rape. The person at fault for that rape is her attacker.
I covered my feelings on this fairly recently, following the rapes at the Latitude Festival Why are women blamed for getting themselves raped?, but it just keeps coming up.
I also talked about clothes What is wrong with the clothes I wear? And here we are once again with a story that blames women for putting themselves at risk because of the clothes that they wear.
Of course, we are told that men just cannot help it, after all, it is just their natural reaction to a pretty woman to want to have sex with her. I don’t have personal knowledge of those kind of feelings, so I cannot easily challenge it, but I can challenge the idea that people should act on that feeling.
Let’s be honest, many of us at one time or another have felt jealous of someone else. Perhaps it is the new car, the money, the house or the job. Perhaps it is their partner, or their looks. All sorts of things raise emotions in us that may make us think “why should I not have that as well?” But do we act on it? Laws help, but our moral codes are the ultimate determiner of our actions. Most of us do not succumb to these temptations. Why should rape be any different? Just because it is sex? Because men have an inalienable right to have sex with women, whether or not the women truly wishes to do so
An inalienable right? How can I claim that many men believe that they have this right? Take a recent story Councils pay for disabled to visit prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs from £520m taxpayer fund. The paper is making a point about council’s wasting money, but that is not what I want to focus on. I want to focus upon the idea that this 21 year old man with learning issues had an inalienable right to have sex with women, and because he could not get a woman himself, he should be able to seek sex with a prostitute. Where does this right come from? The paper reports his social worker as stating that “Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.”
That is deeply worrying: it is a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Not only is it a woman’s fault for wearing the wrong clothes, but it is also a breach of human rights for a man to be denied sex with a woman. Does that mean that rape must be a woman’s fault? After all, she cannot say no to a man’s inalienable right to have sex with a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)