|
Memorandum submitted by Anonymous (E 20)
THE EQUALITY BILL: PROVISION FOR TRANSGENDERED
Introduction: Definitions and
Terms of Reference: I am a Dual Role Transvestite and agree with the campaign
objectives of the PFC- Press For Change Organisation which protects and
campaigns for the rights of Transgendered people and
Transsexuals in the
Dual Role Transvestism (F64.1) means:
1. I adopt the role, behaviour, Clothes of the Opposite Sex on a full time or temporary basis.
2. There is no desire for body Modification or a permanent change to the opposite sex
3. There is no Sexual motivation to the Cross dressing
This is different from Transsexualism (F64.0) has three criteria:
1. The desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment;
2. The transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years;
3. The disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality
A Gender Continuum
1. It is best to think of a long Continuum between the two broad Groups. So at one end is Transvestism and at the other Transsexualism. Dual Role Transvestism is in the middle.
2. Transgendered: Covers Both Transvestites and Transsexuals. The Transgendered covers Transsexuals who for whatever reason, sometimes choose not to go the full way and have medical surgery, but may alter their bodies through cosmetic Surgery and who live in role Twenty Four Hours a Day- Seven Days a week.
3. There are some Dual Role Transvestites/ Transgendered who seek," Body modification, through use of Hormones, Minor Cosmetic Surgery, Laser Hair removal", to look as much like the opposite Sex as possible.(The One opposite their Birth Gender). I for one take Hormones and live in Role as much as possible, outside of work as a member of the Opposite Sex. I do not know if I ever will Transition. I am working to that Goal, as I have changed most of my legal documentation, and even came out in the Workplace.
4. Volume One S.7 of the Equality Bill, currently uses Gender Reassignment to include all "people who are pursuing Transsexual treatment, but also any people who are living permanently in their new Gender Role. It also includes anyone who is perceived to be either Transsexual or living permanently in their new Gender role, as well as providing protection to anyone victimized in the Workplace because they support the rights of a person who is Transsexual, or living permanently in their new Gender role.
5. PFC recognises that," this is within the Limits of protection afforded by EU law". I agree with PFC‟s view that it does not go far enough and that the UK Government could extend this definition to include all Groups who considers that they are Transgendered.
6. Currently there are Transvestite or Cross dressers who are not protected under the Equality laws, and who could face the loss of their jobs, because of discrimination in the work place if it was discovered. While they may not choose, to be identified in the workplace and may Cross dress One or Two days a week in their Social and Private Lives. If this was discovered in the workplace, then they could face Dismissal. This is less than Living in role Twenty Four Hours a day and Seven Days a Week.
7. There are also Groups of Transgendered. For example Dual Role Transvestites and Transgendered, who live twenty Four Seven, as a woman, but have not undergone SRS - Sex Reassignment Surgery of body modification or Medical Surgery and have no Gender Recognition Certificate. They may have had Minor Cosmetic Surgery, or changed their name and legal documentation.
Case Study of How Employers Can Choose To get round Volume One Section Seven of Equality Bill.
1. I tried to
Transition in my Workplace, and I wrote a letter to state my intention that I
intended to Transition, after receiving a Diagnosis of Transsexualism
from a private Gender Specialist. This contradicted the diagnosis of Dual Role
Transvestite given by
2. I had to disclose my Transgendered identity in the workplace as it would have been eventually discovered by a Routine Civil Service Security Review for my DV Clearance. They could have threatened to withdraw my clearance, and I would have been dismissed because I was a Dual Role Transvestite. I disclosed knowledge to my employer because there was a risk that I could be blackmailed. I had to inform a few colleagues of my status including my father to reduce the security vulnerability of Blackmail. In so I doing I was complying with Cabinet Office Guidelines that governs the behaviour and Conduct of Civil Servants.
3. Some Employers if they so wish can choose to use inappropriately The Discipline and Misconduct procedures in the workplace. Often this is because of Bullying of Transgendered people once the identity or disclosure has been made. Therefore they may receive poor appraisal box markings. This then could lead to removal of The Transgendered within the workplace from their Jobs. So the Equality Bill in my view, as it currently stands, does not protect Trans people in the workplace and provides limited provision and protection. I would like to see it extended to all Trans people whether or not they undergoing Gender Reassignment.
The Equality Bill: Re: Transgendered Children and Adolescents in Schools who are Undergoing or Undergone The Process of Gender Reassignment.
1. I welcome as does PFC (Press For Change), The Equality Bill's protection of Transgendered Children/ Adolescents in School. I agree with PFC's view that the Term Gender Reassignment needs to be changed or rephrased. Some may or may not Choose to undergo GRS- Gender Reassignment. Many within Primary Schools may choose to take Anti-Androgen blockers, and delay use of Hormones to puberty. The evidence indicates that the earlier this is done, for Transsexual Children, the better the prospects for those who want to successfully transition. Although not all of the Medical establishment are in agreement on this.
Should Schools/Colleges be allowed to Stigmatize Transgendered Adolescents and Children?
2. I agree with PFC's, view, that the terminology could stigmatize Transgendered Adolescents and Children. Gender variant or TG, or Trans, as a status on the School Role- Third Gender could be preferable, if children wanted to use it, or whatever definition they prefer to use including prefixes: He or She in the classroom. There are some Transsexuals who would not necessarily agree with this, and prefer to keep Gender Reassignment wording to distinguish themselves from those who are not seeking this option and from Children who are Cross dressers. This is because it would afford Greater Legal protection than if it is not included.
3. There is a large amount of evidence that indicates that Transgendered bullying and other forms of bullying for LGBT population as a whole which can seriously damage the Self Esteem and educational prospects for advancement and affect their life and job prospects.
Equality Bill and Qualified Exemptions for Service Providers in providing Services and Access to Trans People
1. I share PFC Press For Change's concerns about the exemption to the protection to trans people in the use of ‟Single sex Service‟ contained in S. 24 and S. 25 (1) of Vol II, Sch. 3 Part 6. Gender reassignment: Single Sex Services.
2. I feel that in my view there should be no exemptions for Businesses and Service providers. They may use the "legal loophole" within the Bill as currently stands, to deny Services on the grounds that they may not be able to provide reasonable adjustments. The recent example of a Clothes Shop denying or allowing a Trans person to use a changing room is clearly an unacceptable infringement of Trans Peoples rights under European Union Convention Law and Human Rights Law. The denial of disability access rights has quite rightly been criticised and it is now illegal. In the same way I hope MPs take the opportunity to tighten the Legislation so no legal loopholes exist. In this way Trans people cannot be denied there rights or be treated less favourably on the Grounds of Gender.
3. I believe that Workplaces need to have Service provision need to provide Toilet and Changing facilities for Trans people. Whether that be Disabled Toilets, or a Toilet within a female Washroom. It would be degrading for Trans people to use Male Toilets, and they could be arrested for sexual propositioning of men under the Law. Also Trans people need to be able to use a female changing room or cubicle within Stores to try on Clothes. In my view, there custom should be as valuable as anyone else's, and therefore Stores need to provide access and Services to accommodate their rights. They after all work hard too for their money like anyone need to receive equal, fair treatment in terms of their Consumer rights.
Provision for Trans People, in Volume Two, Schedule Nine Work: Exceptions, pt One, General: Occupational Requirements, ss 1-3: Employers, partnerships, Personal Offices, require a prospective employee/partner/personal office holder is not a Transsexual person
1. I agree with PFC
views and would also contend that this exemption will again provide Employers
with a "Legal Loophole" in the Law. Many employers such as the army or military
might choose to use this exemption. A very large number of Transsexuals
surprisingly enough can be found in the armed forces. Catholic or other
2. This is because many Transsexuals and Transgendered people try to hide their status by doing "hyper masculine" jobs with sufficient risks attached, to convince others that they are more "male than male". Others are Car Mechanics, or Computer Engineers, others get married and have Children in the hope it will cure the condition. It does not and they too have to eventually Transition. I personally feel that no exceptions or exemptions need to be provided in the law. Many employers will use the provision to "deny access to their services", and for their Trans Gendered Employees. It will leave to full justification for "positive vetting" in favour of those who are not in the Recruitment process. There are no barriers or restrictions on Women being employed in traditional male jobs. In the same way I feel that Trans people should not be excluded from certain professions on the grounds of Gender.
3. The evidence is that "diverse workforces" actually enhance the company and its image and credibility to consumers accessing its services. A Trans gendered employer is no more expensive to employ than one who is not. They may have to take more time off, in order to Transition, but that does not mean that they are less effective than those who are not. Many are very highly educated people with high IQs, in professions as diverse as Banking, The Legal Profession, Doctors. For Example Doctor Richard Curtis, a GP Female to male who transitioned.
4. At the moment the definition is those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment Surgery or intend to. Some Transsexuals choose not to or content to live as women but with no surgical intervention.
5. I believe that there should be no exemptions and that definition should be extended to include Transsexuals and Transvestites who are at risk in the workplace if their identity is discovered and who have no legal protection.
Volume II, Schedule Nine, Work Exceptions Part One Occupational Requirements 5,ss(4) States that a "person commits an offence by knowingly or recklessly making a statement such as sub-paragraph 3(a) which in a material aspect is false or misleading.
1. This would mean all Trans people including those with a GRC would be legally obliged to state they were Trans if applying for vocational training. I and PFC Press For Change believes that it is "It is clearly contrary to European Union and European Convention Law". I do not feel that any trans person should ever face criminal action for failing to disclose the fact that they are trans, for a vocational training place, except where they have to for example working with Vulnerable Children for a Criminal Records Check.
June 2009 |