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.

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.

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.

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.

Sexual violence is an issue that disproportionately affects women, and I’d never argue otherwise – the 2005/06 British Crime Survey reports that 3% of men and 23% of women experience sexual violence during adulthood.

However, there is one very important issue that is hidden by these statistics and that is the rates of sexual violence that non-straight people face.  A review of 71 pieces of US research (Rothman et al, 2011) found that the number of non-straight people who experienced sexual violence was around 15% of men and 23% of women – with a substantial number of perpetrators being (ex-)partners.[1]  Research also suggests that trans people face higher levels of sexual violence as well (Roch et al, 2010). And there are also cases of women being  sexually violent towards men.

I will leave the issues surrounding men’s sexual violence against women for others to speak about, and instead speak from my perspective as a queer agender/neutrois[2] person who is also a survivor of domestic violence and partner rape.

Speaking about sexual violence solely in terms of men’s violence against women ignores the experiences of rape survivors who are trans, genderqueer, men and survivors of female-female rape.  And it is not just Ken Clarke, but also the media and many others within society.  For example the recent feminist Edinburgh Reclaim the Night march, aimed at ending violence against women, distributed literature focusing on the simplistic, heterosexist idea that violence against women is about male violence.  Their leaflet went as far as saying that domestic and sexual violence that occurs between women is a secondary concern to heterosexual violence:

“When we can better deal with the effects of men’s violence against women and work towards a society where [men’s] violence against women is not condoned then we will be able to find solutions to address women who are violent towards men and same sex partners.”[emphasis mine].

This leaflet sends the  message to all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer women that their experiences sexual and domestic violence from female partners are less important.  This heterosexism is indefensible at an event meant to be about violence against all women.  And the justification they give is pretty feeble: “that 87% of domestic abuse related call outs are in relation to men’s violence against women”. Given that the vast majority of relationships are heterosexual, it isn’t surprising that same-sex domestic violence makes up a small proportion.

* * * TRIGGER WARNING * * *

*

*

*

*

*

As I mentioned earlier I am a queer rape survivor, which is perhaps why I’m particularly angry about this.  My only significant relationship was with a woman I fell in love with when we were at school together.  We started dating when I was 18 and it lasted for most of our undergraduate years.  During the relationship, she was controlling, manipulative, verbally abusive, aggressive, and a rapist multiple times over.  I not only fail Ken Clarke and Co’s “proper rape” criteria for being raped by my partner, I also fail for being raped by a woman and fail for not self-identifying as female.

Sex for me was always a bit complicated back then.  I felt uncomfortable about the “gendered” parts of my body including my genitalia, and I’m also asexual (I only experience romantic attraction to people without feeling any sexual attraction).  But I was in love with my partner and for me that was enough for me to willingly have sex with her.  And for the first few months of our relationship, we had consensual sex.

But things started to get worse when we started university and moved in together.  She would behave more aggressively towards me, she’d stop me seeing or speaking to friends, she’d make all the decisions (big and small) about our relationship, and she controlled my life.  As this continued I soon learned to do whatever she wanted me to do, just so that I could avoid the worst of her temper.  And that included having sex with her whenever she wanted it, simply in the vain hope that she wouldn’t take her anger out on me.  Thinking back, it feels like I was prostituting myself – giving my body in exchange for a bit less abuse.

This situation lasted until I eventually said “no” to her.  She didn’t respond well to that and raped me.   Or at least it felt like rape, though legally it was a sexual assault (a penis is required to commit rape in English and Scots law).  Following that I was always too scared to say no to her again, and she always managed to coerce me into sex anyway.  Those were the times that were worst, not so much the sexual assault/rape, but waiting for it.  Knowing that she was quite prepared to have sex with me against my will.  Seeing how much she enjoyed having that power over me.  Always being on edge whenever I was alone with her.  And waiting for it to happen again, just so it’d be over with.

From the time of that first non-consensual sex, it took me over a year to leave her.  During that year I have no idea how many times she raped and sexually assaulted me.  Much of my memory for that time is a blur, and I still haven’t got my head around what my choosing to have sex because I was too afraid of saying no, means in terms of my consent and rape.  I don’t think I want to know either.

I ended up going back to her, and it was a couple of years before she was finally out of my life for good.  By this time I was emotionally a wreck and struggling with mental health difficulties.  But when I eventually sought help I’ve had very mixed responses, often due to me identifying, at the time, as a lesbian trans woman.  A GP has basically ignored my experiences of domestic violence once she found out the gender of my partner.  Psychiatrists have decided that my mental health problems are because I’m trans and dismissed as irrelevant my difficulty coping with the abusive relationship.  Though probably the worst experience was with one counsellor who refused to acknowledge sex could be anything than penis-vagina intercourse, and she said that I should have expected the domestic violence because I’m trans.

There have of course also been supportive counsellors and others who have helped me a lot, and to whom I’m enormously grateful.  But the point I’m trying to make is that it is harder to get help when these cissexist heterosexist ideas of domestic and sexual violence persist.

My other point is that violence within relationships are not always due to the patriarchal oppression of women by men.  Of course given that we live in a sexist society that treats heterosexual relationships as the norm, it isn’t surprising that most domestic and sexual violence is perpetrated by men against women.  But stopping here leads to an overly simplified view of gendered-violence.  This analysis ignores the fact that not all men have the same level of power in society and nor do women.  There are other issues such as race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, gender-normativity, ability, age, etc that all have an impact on the position people have in society and in their relationships.  By reducing sexual and domestic violence, to a single issue of men oppressing women, all the other parts of our identities that intersect with our gendered selves are ignored.

Same-sex relationships are not immune to the common ideas in our societies about power in relationships.  That being the “breadwinner” is the dominant and most important role in a relationship.  That people can’t control their sexual desires and partners have a duty to satisfy them.  That drinking is a justification for violence.  That what a person wears means they are up for sex, and saying no is teasing.  These ideas are most often conveyed in a male-female gendered manner, but the messages still impact upon gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer people as well.  Also there are other issues specific to same-sex relationships that can altar power balances, such as controlling a partner through threatening to out them, and the use of homophobic, biphobic, acephobic, or transphobic verbal abuse.  Just because people are of the same gender does not mean that there can’t be a power imbalance between them, and as the evidence shows, this can and does lead to sexual and domestic violence happening.

Then there’s relationships involving trans* people.[3]  Gendered analyses, such as those used within man “men’s violence against women” discourses, typically only focus on gender-normative people.  Whilst there’s such a thing as male-privilege, this does not relate to trans* people in the same way that it relates to gender-normative people.  Trans men are regarded as “not real” men by many people; and male assigned at birth (maab) trans* people are forced to choose between pretending to be something they aren’t, or being seen by many people as less than gender-normative maab people.  [N.B. this is a short introduction to the intersection of trans* and male-privilege, and I make no claim that this in anyway covers the full complexity of the topic]

All trans* people are marginalised in our society and more likely to experience gender-based violence.  We face harassment and violence (verbal, physical and sexual) from strangers because of our gender.  We face not having our gender identities respected by partners.  We face the fear and reality of violence when we tell partners and others about our genders.  We face people wanting and expecting to have sex with us in ways that don’t respect our genders or how we feel about our bodies.  We are made to feel like we can’t leave our partners because we are told nobody else could love us.  We are pressured to not transition or express our genders in ways acceptable to our partners.  All these contribute to the sexual and domestic violence of trans* people.

For me feminism is about ending the oppression of women and others, caused by the heteronormative gender-binary, including people of all races, ethnicities, abilities, sexualities, gender identities, classes, etc.  For me feminism must necessarily be inclusive of queer, non-straight and trans* people (and even some men) who experience these oppressions.  Certainly feminism should focus on issues that disproportionately impact upon women and other marginalised genders (such as sexual violence, domestic violence, abortion rights, body image, street harassment, etc), but on these issues I believe feminism must speak for all people who face these oppressions – being exclusive does nothing but cause divisions.

When it comes to issues such as sexual and domestic violence, I acknowledge that other feminists have different views about whether or not men (and non-binary people) should be included.  This I can accept.  But what I find deeply problematic is claiming to speak for women but in reality restricting to white, middle-class, straight, cis (i.e. not trans*) and/or able-bodied women.

P.S. This is not intended to be in anyway an attack on men, feminists, white middle-class straight people, etc as a whole.  My aim is to point out some of the problematic ideas that are commonly expressed about sexual and domestic violence.

P.P.S I’m sorry for using a lot of trans* related words that are not in common usage.  It is very difficult to write about the topic with any justice, without resorting to language that may be unfamiliar.

[1] Quoted figures are the median percentages calculated using results from 71 separate studies, for women and men experiencing adult sexual violence

[2] Agender people feel that their gender is neither female, male, nor anything in between.  Neutrois people are agender but also feel the need to be without the physical characteristics associated with their assigned birth gender, and may seek hormone and/or surgical treatments.

[3] I’m using trans* as an umbrella term for all people outwith gender-normativity including: trans women, trans men, agender, neutrois, androgyne, bigender, polygender, two-spirit, third gender, genderqueer and other non-binary gendered people, gender-fluid people, genderless people, gender-variant people, gender non-conforming people, crossdressers, and other trans* people I’ve failed to mention.

References:

A Roch, G Ritchie, and J Morton (2010) “Out of sight, out of mind? transgender people’s experiences of domestic abuse”. LGBT Youth Scotland

EF Rothman, D Exner, and AL Baughman (2011) “The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual in the United States: a systematic review”. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 12(2): 55-66

…Ofcom acknowledged [the] softening of attitudes as it published research giving detailed guidance on public tolerance of bad language: “loony”, “nutter”, “poof” and “queer” can be used at any time of day while the F-word remains unacceptable before the watershed [of 9pm], it concluded.

The watchdog commissioned the research to help staff who deal with complaints from the public about TV and radio content by establishing “a barometer of potentially offensive terms”.

My major problem with this is the entire approach taken by this research.  Really, is what the public deems an offensive term, the basis on what derogatory terms should be allowed or disallowed?  What about the actual impact that these words have on people who are queer or have a mental illness.  What about the message that the media is sending to the public about homophobic and ableist terms being ok.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate the absolute ban on words such as “loony”, “nutter”, “poof”, or “queer”.  They are not always used in a ableist or homophobic context, and there are people who self-identify as these terms (including myself as queer).  And they are also sometimes used in a positive context within the media.

But in most cases that is not how these words are used – its not that rare for these words to be used casually on chat shows and shows for example.  And the Guardian were quite happy to print the words “looney”, “nutter”, “poof”, and “queer”; but not “fuck” even though all these words were being using in the same context of analysing media language.  (n.b. the part of the online version containing swear words was omitted from the print version).

This attitude of the Ofcom of using people’s tolerance of language as a barometer when dealing with complaints,  is very much inline with the rhetoric of the media itself.  So often arguments about acceptability of language are reduced to the single issue of offending people.  Constantly papers such as the Daily Mail moan about “political correctness gone mad” – that people and organisations are being forced to censor their language because it might offend somebody.

But that is not the issue at stake.  I’m not bothered about being offended; when compared with the harassment, bullying, poverty,  assaults and rapes that occur as a consequence of ableism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism and classism.  The Daily Mail et al should censor its language because the media does have a significant impact on public attitudes towards these things.  But of cause its not in their interest to do so since a predominately white, male, middle-class media does have a vested interested in maintaining the status-quo, and “political correctness gone made” is a convenient defence for them.

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.

And this was the prosecuter’s and judge’s decision to find the defendants not guilty, both dismissing the woman as having no credibility without bothering with that whole jury bit.

Is it any wonder that this country has such a low conviction rate for rape (around 5%) if a woman’s complaint is pretty much always dismissed if there is any evidence that she has had a sexual thought in her life.

Its trials such as these that really make a mockery of the attempt to reform rape laws 7 years ago.  If a person giving any indication that they might want sex with the defendant is deemed enough to damage their credibility in court, then consent is effectively not required.

– cross-posted to feministing.com –

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.

The whole notion of gender is commonly defined in terms of “biological sex”.  Interestingly very few people seem to see any need to decide what “biological sex” actually is, given that it has about a million different scientific meanings.  Transgender people don’t fit into these ideas of gender, so we are dishonest always.  I can’t say I am female without being accused of lying about what my assigned biological sex.  And I can’t say I’m male, because that isn’t my gender identity nor is how I’m usually perceived, so that of cause would make me dishonest as well.  And I certainly couldn’t say my gender identity is anything other than female or male, because those options don’t even exist in a lot of people’s eyes.  So yes I am completely dishonest, because I can’t even give an honest (cisgender) answer to what my gender is.

Thankfully comments along the above lines have become rarer at Feministing, and transgender people are less often accused of being dishonest about their gender.

But now with this recent post, there was a lot of people making comments based on similar thinking.  That transgender people should reveal their transgender status, because it’s something a partner needs to know.  Yet the reason usually given is that its relevant to the sexual orientation of the cisgender person.

But this argument has the same problems as that of defining a transgender person’s gender.  We have these artificial labels that people apply to themselves – heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or assexual.  And this is what defines us, but when it comes to transgender people and cisgender people having sex, these labels become ambiguous and we no longer have an “honest” labelling system – which is of cause blamed on the transgender person who caused this anomaly.

It is this system of labelling sexual orientations that is the problem.  The reality is that a human being is sexually attracted to some other human beings.  But we then feel the need to categorise people into heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or assexual.  But given that these categories are based on the gender of the person you are attracted to, this can not possibly be meaningful when the gender of a person isn’t straight-forward (when using the standard cis-only definitions).

The reality is that you can be attracted to somebody, without even knowing  what their gender (however you as an individual define it) or even being mistaken about the gender.  This situation clearly makes a mockery of the system we use.  Though I have no doubt that many people would just blame the person they are “mistakenly” attracted to for being dishonest about their gender.

And the other obvious anamoly which seemed to be completely ignored in most comments – that if a cisgender person is sexually attracted to a transgender person, then the attraction exists.  The cisgender person can’t then say that they aren’t attracted to trans people, that’s just a plain contradiction.  What of cause can be said is that the cisgender person chooses not to have sex with transgender people, which is of cause a valid preference – just as racism classism, biphobia, and ableism are also valid reasons for choosing sexual partners.

Now I realise that the above “systems” of defining gender and sexual orientation are very widely used in society.  But I am disturbed that on a Feminist blog, people are defending the use of these cisgender-only systems – systems whose consequence is to oppress transgender people.

To call a stealth transgender person dishonest (or worse) for having sex with a cisgender person is a defense of this transphobic system.  If people want to choose to only sleep with cisgender (or white/able/middle-class/non-bigots/liberal/conservative/etc) partners, then people should take care that their sexual partners satisfy their particular prejudices.

Even if a majority of people are transphobic (or racist/ableist/classist/etc) then that doesn’t justify obligating transgender people to partake in that oppression.  Surely the real issue is tackling that transphobic culture, pointing out the absurdity of society’s ideas of gender and sexual orientation, rather than accusing transgender people of dishonesty or sexual assault because we don’t fit society’s norms and expectations.

And to be clear, I acknowledge that it is possible to construct hypothetical situations that would be dishonest and/or sexual assault committed by a transgender person (just as the case for a cisgender person).  I am talking about the general idea of a cisgender and transgender person having sex.

And in this post I am not making any comment on the argument that being open about big things is important/necessary in a relationship – that is a seperate issue to this

– cross-posted to feministing.com –

– originally posted at my old blog –

Don’t get me wrong, I think that everyone can speak out on trans issues regardless of whether they are cisgender, genderqueer, transgender, or any other identity, stealth or otherwise.  And I really think that allies and stealth trans people can make a positive difference in changing society’s attitudes and tackling transphobia.  But without trans people actually giving there experiences directly and having a degree of visibility, progress will surely be slow.  And if society doesn’t visibly see trans people, then it makes it harder to convince people that we are “normal” instead of whatever caricature a person believes.

And in the past I’ve attempted to give my experiences of being transgender, while avoiding attributing them to myself (along the lines of “I have a trans friend  who…”).  But all I’ve found is that this often results in me being dismissed as “not knowing what I’m talking about”, particularly if it doesn’t fit a trans stereotype.

Certainly I don’t think it is a duty of trans people to educate, adovocate, nor out ourselves in the process, and hope nothing I’ve written above is misinterpreted as such.  It’s absolutely a personal decision, and there obviously are personal costs to it.

But for me personally, I’ve come to the decision that I don’t want to be silenced by my desire to remain stealth.  I haven’t quite figured out what that means yet, and am not quite sure the balance I want between being stealth and out.  But I am now willing to out myself in at least some situations (not just online), if it helps educate, advocate or tackle transphobia.

– cross-posted to feministing.com –

But what is fundamentally wrong with paying every family the same level of child benefits?  Or paying all citizens the same level of other benefits and pensions?  Universal benefits are a progressive part of a tax system – if all families get the same amount of benefit for each child that is clearly going to add proportionately more to a lower-income families budget than a higher-income family.  Same with pensions, if we ended means-testing and paid a single state pension to everyone, then that is still going to benefit a pensioner in poverty far more than it benefits a pensioner with a healthy additional income.

And there are obvious benefits of a universal system.  When labour shifted us to the tax credit system, the take up rate was far less – with about 80% of those entitled, getting tax credits in 2004/05[1].  And for pensioners its 70% who get what they are entitled to.  Also moving to a universal system reduces the stigma attached with “poor people” claiming more benefits, and combats that unintended of Labour’s policies where they created the perverse situation where a family would be financially better off not earning or saving more income.

And if we got rid of Tax Credits and replaced it with a universal welfare system then that saves the money used to administer this complex system, which sounds right up the main parties street.

Of cause, ending mean-testing would either require paying more benefits out in total, or a reduction in the rate that those on the lowest-incomes received. But actually when it comes down to it, I doubt many people will object to receiving more money for their children, and in their old-age!

To pay for this, all it would require is an increase in tax for middle/higher-income earners.  The dreaded idea that all 3 main parties desperately try to avoid, and which the Lib Dems especially have been trying to run from despite this being their policy in the not too distant past.

And to me, this seems the fairest solution.  Middle/higher-income earners, pay a bit more, and continue receiving support from our Welfare State.  For that is what having a Welfare State is about, a progressive tax system to pay for everybody to have equal access to healthcare, education, social security, and equal opportunities in life.

[Nick Clegg] is even prepared to examine means-testing universal child benefits, though he is cautious of destroying “middle-class solidarity” with the welfare state.

Nick Clegg says “he is cautious of destroying middle-class solidarity with the welfare state”, but that is precisely why we need a debate on the fundamental nature of our public services.  By definition, a welfare state, requires the more well-off members of society to contribute more, so as to achieve equal access to services for all.

But if politicians want “middle-class solidarity with the welfare state” then its necessary for them to convince middle/higher-income earners that it is right for them to pay towards it. And only giving lower-income households access to services such as child benefits, is obviously not going to appeal to them.  Why should they want to pay for a welfare state that doesn’t give them equal access to these services?

Surely its only human nature to feel hard done by if you’re expected to pay for something that you don’t actually get.  To me, asking middle/higher-income earners to pay more, while actually giving them something in return sounds far more palletable.  And a hell of a lot more honest.

But successive governments continue to by-pass this debate, wanting to have things both ways, and trying to deliver a welfare state on the cheap.  It just doesn’t work, and Labour’s experiment with means-testing demonstrates that.  Now is the time to have this honest debate and resolve the issue.  To what extent does Britain want, and pay for, a genuine and universal welfare system?

These results suggest that comparing the intricate physiological and emotional strata of the female sex drive with the blunt male urge to ‘Just do it’ is like comparing a tin opener with the Large Hadron Collider.

Always a good start, Everett immediately starts talking about “physiological urges” and how different men and women are.  And I especially like the whole linking of “emotional” and “female”.  Keeps it so much simpler than actually talking about the issue of conforming to society’s double standard that it’s normal for men to have an insatiable sexual appetite, whilst women are looked down upon for doing the same.

The book claims 84% of women have sex simply to keep their partners quiet or to get help with the chores.

You may feel shocked at the hint of prostitution – the bartering of our bodies for a bit of DIY – but within a committed relationship is it truly so different from any other trade- off which ultimately nets both participants what they want?

Women have always been practical when it comes to ensuring their comfort and security – and sex is an immensely valuable commodity.

This makes perfect sense, if you believe that sex should be treated as a commodity or a service.  That when a man has sexual “needs” then it is up to women to make sure that they are met. That young women should grow up with the idea that being successful is about being sexy and attractive to men (here).  That a woman’s sexual desires should be diminished to the point where sex is entirely about what a man wants.  That a man feels entitled to sex, regardless of whether or not it is wanted by a woman.

In this light, feminism’s eagerness to persuade women to have sex only when we experience knee-trembling desire seems naive. Endless books and articles have been written extolling our right to enjoy earth-shaking orgasms amid a whirring Rolodex of thrilling positions.

But they overlook the elephant in the room – long-term, a woman’s sex drive is rarely equal to a man’s.

This completely misses the point.  Feminism isn’t about telling a woman when or when not to have sex.  It’s about no longer treating sex and a woman’s body as a commodity.  It is about saying that all sexual relationships should be based upon a mutual respect and a mutual understanding of everybody’s sexual desires.  And its about sex being about sex, and not being a bargaining chip.