EUSA Reforms and Transparancy

I’ve uploaded a copy of the draft EUSA reform proposals which were sent to elected EUSA reps.

Students for years have been calling for EUSA to make available information about what they are doing.  But EUSA have always resisted this idea, using excuses like its too difficult to communicate with us and ask our opinions whilst developing policy.

Mike Williamson (VPAA, Defend Edinburgh) for one stood on a platform of increasing transparancy in EUSA decision making, and I for one am disappointed that he and the other sabbs are continuing this undemocratic tradition of denying students a voice in how our student union is reformed.  I call on Matt, Mike, Emma, and Philippa (the sabbs) to make the reform process open to all students, and that requires making their draft reform proposals accessable to all students so that we can comment on them, and start a real dialogue with all of us.  How can any EUSA elected officer represent our views about student union reform when EUSA is so secretitive about the whole reform process and what EUSA does?

Anyway rant over, and here are the documents.  And I’ll continue posting anything I can get from EUSA on my blog until EUSA starts doing it themselves.  Anyone on who is on the student council who wants me to put something up from EUSA please email me jayeware [at] hotmail.co.uk

Draft Democracy Schedule

Draft Democracy Schedule – Liberation Version

Schedule – Online Referenda

If you want to make comments to the sabbs then their emails are below.  I’m sure they do actually want to know what we students think.

president@eusa.ed.ac.uk (Matt McPherson)
vpaa@eusa.ed.ac.uk (Mike Williamson)
vps@eusa.ed.ac.uk (Philippa Faulkner)
vpsa@eusa.ed.ac.uk (Emma Meehan)

——————————————————————————————————-

Edit: I apologise to Mike Williamson  for comments I made in the original version of this post.  It was an uncalled for attack on Mike, based on a misunderstood comment made in private, and taken out of context.  Sorry.

Equal Marriage is About Trans* People Too

All too often the rhetoric surrounding the equal marriage campaign is about allowing same-gender couples to marry, and “opposite-gender” [sic] couples to form civil partnerships.  The impact of the current legal setup on trans*, genderqueer and gender-variant people is usually ignored or at best given a passing mention.

At present the legal situation for trans*, genderqueer and gender-variant people is that they can marry or form a civil partnership based on their legal “sex”.  This is either based on their birth certificate, or after lots of hoop jumping, a Gender Recognition Certificate which effectively allows a person to change their birth certificate from female to male, or male to female.

One of the requirements of getting a GRC, and gaining legal recognition, of your gender is to get a divorce or dissolution of your civil partnership – since obviously it would be unthinkable for a trans woman who was married to a woman prior to her GRC to have her same-gender relationship legally recognised as a marriage.  For many trans* people this means being forced to go through the costly and pointless process of divorce/dissolution followed by civil partnership/marriage, or the alternative of never having their gender recognised in law.

If that sounds complicated then I’m afraid it gets far worse from here on.  For trans*, genderqueer and gender-variant people who identify as a non-binary gender (i.e. something other than woman or man), or who refuse to go through the GRC process for whatever reason, the legal situation becomes blurry.  Really it needs a test case to go through the courts for a precedent to be established, but I’m aware of no such case, and so this is the best sense I can make of the mess that is the current law.

The way that laws surrounding trans*, genderqueer and gender-variant people is written assumes that they will all go through the GRC process and will all want to change their legal sex to either female or male.  And assumes that nobody falls outside of this.  As such, at present the law makes no explicit provision for a person who was male assigned at birth (maab) but doesn’t identify and/or express themself as a man, and has no GRC to marry or get a civil partnership.  It’s left to the discretion of a registrar (and likely the courts) to decide whether can legally marry a man or a woman (or neither).  Do they go by the birth assigned gender?  Do they go by how the person identifies (which might not be binary)? Do they go by how they express themself femininely, androgynously, masculinely or otherwise?  Or do they turn the person away and say “you don’t fit the rules for marriage or civil partnership”?

So what does this mean for equal marriage?

Simply by giving marriage and civil partnerships rights to all couples regardless of their genders, it  does away with all these complicated rules that govern trans*, genderqueer and gender-variant peoples present rights.  It does away with the need to get a divorce or disollution (only to get a civil partnership or marry immediately afterwards) to obtain legal gender recognition.  And it does away with the ambiguous position that people without GRCs or don’t identify or express themselves in a “conventional” female or male way.  It guarantees all trans*, genderqueer, and gender-variant people the right to marriage and civil partnership (which they might or might not already have) and it makes obtaining GRCs far simpler.

So the equal marriage campaign is all good and inclusive?

It’s good for people who want to get married or want a civil partnership.  And it’s inclusive of LGBT people.

But the campaign only recognises certain types of relationships, and in particular doesn’t give equal rights to those co-habiting couples who don’t wish a state sanctioned marriage or civil partnership, nor does it give equal rights to those in poly relationships.  But these issues deserve another post to do them justice, and will have to wait until another day.

We Can’t Let the Riots Move Us to the Right

I, along with most people in Britain, have been appalled that the recent riots occurred, and my heart goes out to all those affected.  But I’m also deeply disturbed by the reaction to them, in media, by politicians, and by the general public at large.  We’ve gone from a situation where we were having an intelligent debate on Welfare reform and social policy to a position of knee jerk reactions calling for draconian penalties for those who committed crimes in the riots, and by David Cameron for more police powers to deal with protests, which may well be used to curtail peaceful protest and freedom of speach.

I’m also deeply distressed by the racist responses that so many people have made, particularly from those who don’t usually sink to engaging in casual racism.  I’m also worried that a group called the “Enfield Denfence League” was established – whilst its stated aim was to protect their community, I doubt it is a coincidence that its name is so similar to the Scottish and English Defence Leagues.

But what I want to write about is the Left’s response to all this.  We have to combat the rise in far right sentiment that’s been expressed lately, and the SDL & EDL are real threats that have to be countered.  But I fear that in responding to the far right, the left will be drawn into debating the merits and demerits of racist and draconian policies – immigrants are not welcome, more police powers, give benefits to only people we approve off, use rubber bullets and water canons.  These have to be countered, but we can’t let this become the centre of debate.  We can’t let the right determine public discourse.  We have to keep the argument about an alternative to the present society at the fore.

It is only by presenting an alternative to the Britain we live in today, that real change can occur.  If our message becomes to much about articulating the problems of todays society – the racism, the sexism, the elitism, the queerphobia, the ablism – then we will fail to deliver an alternative that will be convincing to the population at large.

Yes, we must march and protest against racism, queerphobia, sexism, ablism and elitism in all it forms.  But we must never lose sight of the fact we believe in alternative future for Britain.  One where the free market doesn’t run wild advantaging the few and widening the wealth gap.  One where all people have power in decision making, and all people have the full range of opportunities to be part of social, political and economic Britain.  One where combatting discrimination and privilige is seen as responsibility for all, and for the benefit of all.  One where power isn’t invested solely in corporations, the City, and the governments in Westminister, Cardiff, Holyrood and Belfast.  One where the family you were born into, or the school your parents could afford to send you to, doesn’t determine your opportunities in life.  One where the wealth that the countries of Britain generate is shared by all and not the few.  One where people have free access to all education to enable them to have the same opportunities in life.  One where the wealthy contribute their fair share to our countries’ wealth rather than keeping for themselves and their children.

The left needs to continue presenting a positive and optimistic message to have appeal to the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.  We don’t just need to oppose racism and xenophobia against black, minority ethnic, and immigrant communities.  We need to also present a positive alternative to unite all people – whether they be working class, black, minority, ethnic, women, queer, disabled, claimants – to create a Britain that is fair and equal for all.  We can’t let the debate be about immigration vs no immigration, or about taxpayers vs. welfare claimants, or the place of different ethnic communities.

So yes, march against the SDL and EDL, but we most prioritise convincing the general public that there is an alternative to turning against black, minority ethnic, disabled, women, queer, and/or immigrant people; and that there is an alternative to “dog eat dog”.  We must continue fighting and for that equal and fair society, and bring that to the foreground of public discourse.

“Proper Rape” and “Violence against Women” (Trigger Warning)

Trigger Warning: This post discusses sexual and domestic violence in detail

I am one of those rape survivors who has never experienced “proper rape”, as Ken Clarke so aptly put it.  But let me assure you that I have been severely affected by it –reliving those experiences night after night; unable to sleep due to flashbacks and nightmares; panic attacks when in crowds and triggered by an unexpected touch; countless days spent in hospital receiving treatment because of self-harm or attempted suicides; and desperately trying to avoid returning to my past eating disorder or drinking problem.  So don’t anybody dare tell me that what I experienced wasn’t proper and severe rape.

Ken Clarke made the misogynistic, cissexist, heterosexist claim that “proper rape” involves a man using physical violence against an unwilling woman.  The reality is that rape is traumatic regardless whether the rapist is a stranger hiding behind a bush, a date, or a partner.  Rape is traumatic regardless of how much physical violence there is or if you freeze instead of fighting back.  Rape is traumatic regardless of whether you are physically forced, or forced through coercion.  And rape is traumatic regardless of whether the survivor is a woman, a man, or any other gender.

Offensive Language in the media

The UK’s media regulator Ofcom has just published research on public attitudes to swearing and offensive language, reported in the guardian.
They basically conclude that homophobic and ableist terms are acceptable whereas swearing isn’t.

A Woman’s Fantasies End Rape Trial

Just saw this UK news article.  It seems now that a woman’s past fantasies as well as her “sexual behaviour” are enough to get rapists (or gang rapists in this case) of the hook.

Her just “entertaining the prospect of group sex” was enough for the defendants to be found not guilty, without bothering to look at any issues to do with actual consent.

Being Transgender is dishonest

A recent Feministing post on transgender people having sex with cisgender people attracted many negative comments focusing on the “dishonesty” of transgender people.

First of I’d like to say that I completely agree that it is dishonest for a transgender person and a cisgender person to have sex, full-stop.  We live in a world where notions of sexual orientation and gender are defined from a cisgender persective.  Since transgender people don’t fit neatly into these cisgender definitions, we are always going to be dishonest.

Being Silenced by Stealth

I made a decision a while back to distance myself from me being transgender.  I moved to a new city where no people knew my past, and since then have largely remained silent.  The only people I told my secret to were in the LGBT community and mostly transgender people at that.  And I thought living stealth was what I wanted, but it really handicaps speaking out on any transgender issue.  Not least because of the fear of outing myself.

In Defense of Universal Benefits

Nick Clegg has suggested further means-testing of Child Benefits and not paying it to middle-class families.   Now clearly something has to be done with our budget deficit, but the way the 3 main Westminster parties are talking, you’d think that tinkering with cutting spending in all areas was the only way to go.  Certainly can’t have a debate on actually making major changes to the way public services are paid for.

The Daily Mail on “Why Women Have Sex”

Yet more anti-woman rubbish from the Daily Mail, with Flic Everett comments on a soon to be published book “Why Women Have Sex”.  She takes this book’s conclusion that passion and romance aren’t the only reasons women have sex, as proof that women just aren’t meant to be sexual because of our biology.