PFC Newsletter Number Thirteen (August 1999)

Home sectretary Jack Straw, who announced a new working group on the status of transsexual people

Newsletter Number Thirteen
(August 1999)

In this issue

STOP PRESS!!!
A, D and G win appeal - right to treatment on the NHS is assured

The Royal Courts of Justice, London

This really is headline news - the biggest since the “P” victory gave us employment rights. Three transsexual women won a final victory at the Court of Appeal on July 29th, paving the way for a nationwide reappraisal of how the NHS funds gender reassignment surgery.

The Court upheld a ruling of the High Court in December that NW Lancashire HA’s decision to refuse treatment was unlawful and it had acted without consideration of what was “the proper treatment of a recognised illness”. Lord Justice Auld said in the judgment: “The health authority’s policy is flawed… it does not treat transsexualism as an illness but as an attitude or state of mind which does not warrant medical treatment.” Well done to Stephen Lodge of Tyndallwoods, who represented the women in this crucial test case.

Note: HAs around the country who refuse to fund treatment will now be obliged to take account of this precedent - and some are already reacting! For a full briefing see the Resource List, or read it online.

Lest we forget…

In April 99, Tracy Thompson, a 33-year-old transgendered woman died after being beaten to death with a baseball bat in Wilcox County in the heart of rural Georgia, USA. Authorities are investigating the beating as a possibly hate-motivated crime. Murders and beatings of trans people are still common throughout the world.

From the editor

Newsletter editor Alex Whinnom

I must first apologise to everyone for the lateness of this edition of the newsletter. This is mainly owing to illness, but as you will discover as you read, the campaign leaders have also been working flat out trying to influence the publication of the new Employment Regulations, and to place a comprehensive submission before the new Government Working Party on trans issues.

In between whiles we have helped to win some significant court cases, arranged for numerous Parliamentary questions to be asked and attended the Lib Dem and the TUC conferences. We have gained clarification on the death certificate, and have set up new working groups on prisoners and on the church. PFC members marched at London Pride, attended the Equality Forum and went to meetings with Charing Cross GIC administrators.

Local network campaigners continue to carry out sterling work with the police, Health Authority, local media and many other groups to negotiate for equal treatment and better understanding. We are fortunate in having finally recruited a Local Network Administrator, Jan Cobb (see pxx) who will be able to provide much needed support to people who work very much on their own.

The campaign is now so large that it is impossible to report on every achievement in a short quarterly newsletter. All members are strongly urged to try to access the Website now and again (see below), as there is much more space there to print fuller details. However current areas of the campaign are listed on pxx and you are warmly invited to contact us if you would like to know more about any of them. If you are thinking of taking action on anything do please check first as there may be others already working on the issue.

The campaign is now at a critical stage - we are talking with the government, and they may even be listening. The government working party could perform miracles on our behalf … or it could leave many of us worse off than before. I cannot stress too much how important it is that every PFC supporter takes action NOW. If every one of PFC’s 2,000 supporters spent just twenty minutes a month on key tasks, this amounts to 4 1/4 people lobbying full time for the whole month! This could make quite an impact where it is most needed.

Please do your bit to help the campaign!

Alex Whinnom

Twenty minutes a month

August | September | October

August: answers on a postcard

Sit down and think about the problems you experience in your life as a result of the inequality of trans people - we don’t know everything and we need to tell the government. Please write down your own “horror story” and send it to us at PFC. Perhaps you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or elsewhere? perhaps your partner or child is losing out because of your status? perhaps your privacy has been invaded? or perhaps you have had difficulty getting the advice and treatment you need? or something else?

September: lobby your MP now

As soon as your MP returns from their nice August break, go and visit them at their surgery. This is really important - many MPs have not yet been lobbied but they are the people who can exert influence on the government. Make sure your MP is aware of the working party and of the contents of the Press for Change submission (see below - take a copy with you). Explain how the issues affect you the constituent and your family personally. Ask them to find out how the working party will help you.

October: write to Jack Straw

By October we expect the working party to be making progress (it is meant to report at Easter) and we hope it will be progress in the right direction… Make your letter no longer than one side of paper and be courteous. Ask whether the working party has yet produced any recommendations, and ask what steps it is taking to consult trans people and their representatives. Send your letter to Jack Straw MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA … and send a copy to PFC.

Seven out of ten - for effort…

Employment Legislation to “protect” trans people???

If you are a trans person living and working in England or Wales then I urge you now to go and get your diary, take a thick red pen, and put a big circle around 9th April 1999.

April the ninth was, you see, a historic date in this campaign. A date we are certain to remember, and which people may look back upon with somewhat mixed feelings. As the author of PFCs “Five Principles”, I’m personally feeling a bit sick at the moment. I know that my close colleagues are handling a range of emotions as well, ranging from displaced anger to the quiet sadness and resignation that accompanies battle-hardened cynicism…

Margaret Hodge MP

Thirteen months after the original DfEE consultation to which so many of you contributed (see newsletters 10, 11 and 12), the Under Secretary of State for Equal Opportunities in the Department for Education and Employment, Margaret Hodge MP, laid the “Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999” before the clerks of the House of Commons, utilising powers vested in her by the European Communities Act 1972. The Regulations constitute an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and came into force on 1st May, making formally illegal a whole catalogue of discrimination against trans people in employment. It is the first time ever that trans people have been specifically identified for protection by UK Parliamentary legislation.

Yet, on the Monday before Easter, we sat in the minister’s office with her and her officials, arguing from every angle that this legislation should not proceed - not without significant modification, at the very least. As late as 2pm on the afternoon of Thursday 8th April, I was still urging that line by telephone to very senior civil servants. On the face of it, you may think it truly bizarre that an organisation which campaigns for the equality of trans people should be arguing to the very last minute for a piece of anti-discrimination legislation to be stopped! It was certainly ironic to be in that position. So why weren’t we celebrating?

Well, we had seen that the domestic courts have had no difficulty at all up till now in interpreting the Sex Discrimination Act to protect trans people. Our position (backed up by the Equal Opportunities Commission and all the leading legal experts) was that the publication of guidelines was the most that was required - legislation was superfluous and could only succeed in reducing people’s rights. Sadly, we were right - we have already seen a number of cases in which trans people have experienced employment discrimination as a direct result of the new Regulations.

It is worth pointing out that the Minister was not compelled to legislate in order to meet her obligations, since the SDA was being used successfully. This is what Press for Change has argued for well over a year.

The Minister however stated in a letter to Dr Lynne Jones MP, chair of the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism, “I take the view that it is better for elected representatives in Parliament to determine legislation than for this to be settled by the courts”. Ironic again, in that elected representatives had no part in drafting or debating the Regulations.

There are some beneficial effects from the Regulations.

“A person (A) discriminates against another person (B)..[in employment or in vocational training] … if he treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons, and does so on the ground that B intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment.”

So the definition of people protected by the Regulations is a very wide one and doesn’t require that a person undergo any particular medical or surgical procedure. It covers people from the moment their intention (to change over) is made known, through the process of transition and beyond. Compared to the complicated and proscriptive definitions being bandied around last year, it is evidence of how far the politicians and officials have advanced in their learning.

The Regulations go on to tidy up legal loose ends over pay discrimination (so you’re covered for that too) and then move on to what are known as “Genuine Occupational Qualifications” (GOQs).

The SDA already contains a number of GOQs. These are clauses which spell out circumstances in which it is acceptable to discriminate by choosing a man or a woman for a particular job. The new Regulations address these existing GOQs for trans people by stating quite simply that: “no account shall be taken of a case where a man or a woman is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment”.

So far so good … and toilets aren’t mentioned once. But really must stress that these are rights we already had.

The remaining pages of the regulations are not so good. One of two main reasons why we have so hotly contested the regulations over the last few weeks has been that they add a number of new and special GOQs which apply only to trans people (though sometimes only during transition).

The first of these “special GOQs” seeks to exclude all trans people from employment in the police on the grounds that they cannot perform intimate physical searches. The Minister and her officials refused to drop this clause even though the decision in A v West Yorkshire Police showed that the search issue is a red herring - only nine intimate searches were conduced by women police officers in the whole of the UK during the previous year (there are over 20,000 women police officers). The tribunal concluded it was not reasonable to bar a trans person from a police career on the remote possibility that they might be one day placed in that position.

A second GOQ allows discrimination against any trans person in any job which involves living or working in a private home in circumstances where the householder might “reasonably object”. This is a pointless clause, as the circumstances are already covered by the SDA. But what it does do is to force trans people in such jobs automatically to disclose their status, or risk dismissal if it is discovered later.

A third GOQ, applying only to people intending to undergo or in the process of undergoing gender reassignment, allows discrimination where “reasonable objection” could be taken to them sharing accommodation and facilities, on the grounds of preserving decency and privacy. The employer has to be able to show that it is not possible or reasonable to make alternative arrangements. This exclusion appears to be aimed at the armed forces. One problem with this exception is that the regulations never define the “end” point for gender reassignment. We offered a simple definition, but it was declined. The result is that, for trans men in particular, it may never be possible for some individuals to assert that their treatment is finished.

A fourth GOQ, again applying only to people in transition, concerns trans people involved in the provision of personal services to “vulnerable people”. This is perhaps the most dangerous clause of all so long as “vulnerable” is not properly defined. Again, we tried to mitigate the damage by offering a clear definition, but again our suggestion was rejected.

A fifth GOQ allows religious organisations to discriminate if “a significant number” (undefined) of their members object to employing trans people on religious grounds.

Where do we go from here?

This is perhaps a good point at which to say sorry for the necessary secrecy during the negotiations. Not our choice - it was a precondition of being consulted at all. If you think that we have been unusually quiet over the last months, now you know why.

Despite the problems, Press for Change continued to work with the government to try and influence the guidelines which have been published to accompany the regulations. The guidelines have no legal force, but allow the government to indicate the spirit in which it intends the legislation to be applied. To the DfEE’s credit, these do try to convey the general principal that discrimination against trans people is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. They draw heavily on the guidelines produced by Press for Change for the Parliamentary Forum.

We do not intend to let the matter rest. The discriminatory GOQs appear directly to contradict the Equal Treatment Directive and so can be challenged through the courts if they are applied. We are already assisting a number of individuals to bring such cases. We are also considering a challenge to the Regulations themselves. On a larger scale, hopefully the responsible and ethical way in which PFC approached the confidential discussions may lead to further and more fruitful cooperation in resolving other trans issues in the future.

As negotiators on behalf of a large and diverse community, our commitment to you is stated clearly in the form of our “Mission Statement” and “Five Principles”, and we try to obtain the very best result for all trans people. We know already, however, that the Employment Regulations do not deserve high marks, and we have to start again with the words “must try harder ” ringing in our minds.

I’m only sorry that we didn’t achieve more this time round.

Abridged from an article by Christine Burns.

The Legislative Process

The Regulations which have been tabled take the form of a “Statutory Instrument” (SI) which ministers use to alter the effect of existing “Primary Legislation”. The 1975 Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) is an example of such “Primary Legislation” - a complete Act of Parliament which has been introduced by government, debated in the Commons, picked over by committee, voted upon, referred to the House of Lords, debated and picked over again … and given Royal Assent. The Parliamentary time required means relatively little legislation is primary legislation.

Yet legislation must be updated all the time to give effect to new policies. Hundreds of SIs are therefore tabled every year. Most SIs pass by “negative resolution” - they are not debated, but go through automatically a short time after being tabled.

In the case of P v S and Cornwall County Council, the European Court of Justice ruled that discrimination by reason of gender reassignment is “sex discrimination” under the Equal Treatment Directive (ETD). The ETD is an important European Community law and every member state must enforce it; states achieve this by bringing domestic law into line and the European Communities Act 1972 gives ministers the power to do this using SIs. In the UK the relevant domestic equivalent of the ETD is the Sex Discrimination Act; it is this law which the courts have been (successfully) using to cover trans people since “P”, and which has now been amended.

Interestingly, since the ETD takes precedent over domestic legislation, the Regulations, in so far as they introduce limitations to the protection provided to trans people by the SDA, are probably in themselves illegal, and could be challenged if used as a justification for discrimination.

Germaine Greer

In case you didn’t know… Germaine Greer (who cruelly “outed” a transsexual colleague in the media last year) has just published a new book, The Whole Woman. While much of it is completely offensive to trans people (and to AIS women) we tend to feel she is best ignored.

NHS Prescriptions

A report from a Press for Change member explains how to make the transition from a private psychiatric consultation to receiving treatment on the NHS. She was initially refused hormones by her GP:

I talked to the pharmacist at the LHA who is the person who administers prescription policy. He said he had not refused permission for my GP to give me NHS prescriptions; if my GP was either a) accepting clinical responsibility or b) sharing care with the psychiatrist, he could prescribe on the NHS. My GP said he was told by his practice manager that the LHA would not allow him to prescribe for me. He contacted the pharmacist and all was well. NB The pharmacist has stated that I have not set a precedent here as every case has to be taken on its merits.

Harry Benjamin Standards

In January HBIGDA president Dr. Richard Green announced the appointment of a new Standards of Care committee. The previous Committee listed several unresolved issues including: #Surgery for HIV+ persons #Reproductive technologies #Mastectomy and orchiectomy in patients who are not perceived to have GID #Reduced fees #Requests for sex workers to have both breasts and a penis #Real life experience in sex workers. As a transsexual committee member, I feel a special responsibility. I invite you to write to me with comments and suggestions for changes or improvements.
Thank-you. Anne Lawrence

Abridged from an announcement on Dr Anne Lawrence’s website.

Note: Dr. Lawrence doesn’t provide a postal address, but people who wish to make comments may write c/o PFC.

USA

Oregon’s Health Services Commission voted unanimously in Feb. that it will not make GRS available to low-income state residents. Dr. Eric Walsh, who chaired a subcommittee on the question, said he’d read some 300 studies, but found most flawed by a large number of participants dropping out after surgery. Of 26 studies reviewed, evidence was lacking that the surgery prevented suicide attempts, reduced other psychological problems, or improved socio-economic status.

PFC resource list

See separate webpage.

Government working group on transsexual issues

Dr Lynne Jones MP

House of Commons written answers, Wednesday 14th April 1999, Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): “To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans the government has to review the legal status of transsexual people.”

MR STRAW: “My officials will chair an Inter-departmental Working Group on transsexuals. This will have the following terms of reference:
“To consider, with particular reference to birth certificates, the need for appropriate legal measures to address the problems experienced by transsexuals, having due regard to scientific and societal developments, and measures undertaken in other countries to deal with this issue.

“Membership:
Department for Education & Employment
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Department of Health
Home Office
Lord Chancellor’s Department
Office of Law Reform, Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland General Register Office
Office for National Statistics
Scottish Office
Scottish General Register Office
Department for Social Security
Welsh Office

“I have asked the Group to report its findings to Ministers by Easter 2000.”

A LETTER TO JACK STRAW
April 99

Dear Home Secretary

Re: Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People

We very much welcome your statement that Home Office officials are to chair an inter-departmental working group on transsexual people. Almost thirty years after the courts created this problem; we welcome this opportunity for a comprehensive examination of all the legal difficulties faced by transsexual people. We know that you will want the working group to be fully informed of the range of problems, and to draw heavily on the expertise which exists in the community in devising solutions. We would ask you to give serious and favourable consideration to including representatives of Press For Change amongst your advisers… . etc etc

Yours sincerely,
[signed by the Vice Presidents]

We were given a tight deadline to provide a written submission [see below] but our offer to provide Press for Change legal experts to sit on the working party has so far been rejected, despite initial assurances that representatives of the Parliamentary Forum would be invited to join the group. It is usual for such working groups to include, besides civil servants, both “experts” and representatives of those affected by the brief. For example, the recent working group on disability benefits included representatives from all the national disability charities. It is difficult to see how a positive conclusion could possibly be reached in a vaccuum, without intensive discussion with trans organisations, especially with Press for Change, so the refusal is worrying. However we will continue to provide written material and will continue to ask politely to talk face to face.

Written submission to the Government Working Group

After a few weeks of very intense work, Press for Change’s initial submission to the Working Group was completed and sent to the Home Office. The report is called “Recognising the Identity and Rights of Transsexual and Transgender People in the United Kingdom” (available in printed form at £10 — see the resource list or from the PFC website).

The key points included are summarised below. But before commenting please do read the document in full, and we also ask you to bear in mind that the document is a response to the previously defined remit of the working party - not a comprehensive “wish list”.

The general objectives set out in the submission include:

Stepping up the pace of work to eliminate gender-based distinctions from legislation.
A standing task force to examine any difficulties experienced by trans people in the maintenance of their privacy.
All Government Departments should cease to rely on birth certificates as a means of identification.
Government should acknowledge that transsexualism falls within the normal scope of intersex conditions and hence that it should be necessary neither to establish a definite biological reason for its existence, nor a “test” for it, before recognising the right of any citizen to assert for themselves which gender they are.
There should be one single and consistent point of recognition for the official change of an individual’s gender for all purposes.
A short Act should be drafted to give effect to paragraph 5 above and to provide for issue of a short form birth certificate, and other necessary changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act (1953), to enable trans persons to marry an individual of the opposite gender; and that this should operate realistically for those who have already long since completed reassignment, as well as those transitioning now and in the future.
In recommending (6), the Working Group should take care not to disadvantage those whose marriages, conducted in their former gender role, have survived.

“7 Key Wishes”

Not to have to disclose details of our gender reassignment unnecessarily.
To have the right to marry a member of the opposite gender, and to have all the benefits that accrue with marriage for ourselves and our partners (e.g. spousal exemption from inheritance tax, spousal pension, the right to jointly adopt children, the claims that can be made upon separation or divorce.)
To have the right to retain a marriage celebrated before gender reassignment was undertaken
To have the freedom to enjoy a job without fear of dismissal or harassment because of our gender identity, our gender presentation or our gender role change.
To have the right to use the legal process to protect ourselves in all aspects of our life in our new gender.
To have the right to a social parental role, and to formalise it legally, in our new gender role.
To have the right to be acknowledged at death as being a member of the new gender group, whether on registration of death, or in the consideration of wills, matters of intestacy, or inheritance.

PFC’s submission to the Inter-departmental Working Group continues our established practice of seeking negotiated outcomes where possible, and of working with those in authority to achieve them. By presenting government with a comprehensive and thoroughly researched explanation both of the problems and of the solutions, we hope that we will ease the path towards a report from the working group which achieves the two key things that group can do: proposing solutions which work for all of us, and making it clear to ministers that these objectives can be achieved

BBC TV ’Paddington Green’

There has been a mixed reaction from trans people to the featuring of a transsexual woman in this new docu-soap, with a few people fearing that we will all be stereotyped as prostitutes just because Jackie talks frankly about how she worked to pay for her op. But there has been huge positive coverage in the mainstream press and the public have taken this very nice young woman to their hearts. She deserves our respect and gratitude.

Does your mum remember your birth?

Joella Holiday

If so please help! Remember Joella’s case? (see Newsletter no. 12). We need volunteers to seek a formal amendment to their birth cert, using the Joella case as a precedent under current legislation. The best volunteers would be post-op transsexual women (to avoid making the case unnecessarily complex) and would have at least one supportive parent still alive plus a supportive doctor.

What to do:

Obtain a statutory declaration from your parent and your doctor (at least one of whom must have been present at your birth) stating that there was in their belief a mistake made in the registering of sex at birth. How they justify that seems irrelevant - the legislation is very basic in what it requires.
The statutory declaration should be sent to the registrar’s office in Southport with a request that your birth certificate is amended.
Please let Press for Change know if you go ahead with this.

Proof of ID?

Helpful MPs have been asking about birth certificates in the House of Commons.

The Ministry of Defence told Jamie Cann MP that the ministry “may request birth certificates … to establish proof of identity”. Funny - the Govt Dept with most reason to be careful about security accepts as ID a document which the issuing govt agency insists is not proof of identity.
The DfEE tells Sir Robert Smith MP that “the Department must verify identity, age and nationality. Candidates have the option to produce a birth certificate to fulfil this requirement”. So the DfEE also accepts as proof of ID a document which isn’t actually proof of ID.
The Scottish Office tells Sir Robert that “My Department and its agencies require to see birth certificates of prospective employees…”. He insists that this is only to confirm nationality, yet doesn’t offer the option to produce a passport instead.

These replies and others demonstrate the government has no clear policy on what a birth certificate is, what it can prove, when it should be requested, and when other documentation will suffice. Yet the judgement of the ECHR in the case of Sheffield & Horsham records that: “31. The Government point out that the use of a birth certificate for identification purposes is discouraged by the Registrar General, and for a number of years birth certificates have contained a warning that they are not evidence of the identity of the person presenting it. However, it is a matter for individuals whether to follow this recommendation.”

Big thanks to those who’ve organised for these questions to be tabled; as you can see, it is a very useful thing to do. If you would like a question for your MP to table, please contact Press for Change.

How to change your birth cert in Canada

In March in MONTREAL a transsexual man won a precedent-setting legal battle to have the sex designation changed on his birth certificate.

His victory in Quebec Superior Court clarifies what medical procedures are required for the province to recognize a female-to-male sex change: hormone treatment and surgery to remove “female characteristics”, including removal of the breasts and ovaries. Although phalloplasty was not required, this system, similar to that which applies in Germany, is not the one we would want to see in this country. Recognition of an individual should not be dependent on their undergoing any specific medical or surgical procedure; any decisions on treatment should be made on personal and medical grounds.

Roy loves Hayley

Hayley and Roy, bride and groom

No doubt all but the most hardened of us are aware that a rather special marriage took place on Coronation Street earlier this year.

Thanks to the help of the PFC advisor, every detail of the wedding was authentic. The wedding made four magazine covers - TV Quick, Inside Soap, Woman’s Own and Woman, and had big features in TV Times and What’s On TV. Public support was huge and Julie Hesmondhalgh (patron of PFC and a strong advocate of trans rights) and David Neilson, who plays Roy, did numerous interviews.

It is perhaps no co-incidence that it was exactly one week earlier that the government chose to announce a working party on transsexual issues [see above], and we believe the imminent wedding was the reason for the sudden indecent haste in tabling the Regulations.

In Death as in Life?

Press for Change has received welcome clarification regarding the recording of sex on the death certificates of transsexual people. The ONS seems willing to take a pragmatic view and to register people in their current identity.

From Richard Woodward, General Section, Room D209,Office of National Statistics, Smedley Hydro, Trafalgar Road, Birkdale, Southport, PR8 2HH:

“The particulars concerning a death required to be registered are those prescribed in Form 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987. This includes “Name and surname” and “Sex” of the deceased, neither of which are prescribed in more detail within the regulations. As the registration of a death (or birth or marriage) is a record of the event, the particulars recorded are those which were relevant at the time of the death as supplied to the registrar by the informant. In the case of the death of a transsexual, as with any other person, the name and surname recorded should therefore be those by which the deceased was known at the time of death. The record of the death is used largely in connection with the settling of the deceased’s estate, for example in claims for inheritance, insurance, pension and probate. The facility exists, therefore, to record any other names by which the deceased is or has been known, where these are provided by the informant. Birth, death and marriage records are not linked or cross referenced in England and Wales…”

If the informant is a transsexual person, there is no need for them to disclose either.

Treatment of transsexual prisoners

Parliamentary question, 8 Feb 1999, Mr. Keith Vaz: “To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department: (1) what is the planned timetable for the drawing up of guidelines and consultation on the treatment of transsexual prisoners; what consultation is planned with non-convicted transsexual persons; who is to be responsible for drawing up of the guidelines; and if the guidelines will cover prisoners on remand; [69230]
(2) what guidelines are provided to prison service clinicians in respect of the treatment of transsexual prisoners. [69231]”

Mr. George Howarth: “The Prison Service’s Directorate of Health care is currently drawing up guidelines for the care, management and treatment of prisoners with gender dysphoria. The Directorate expects to begin consultation on a second draft of these guidelines shortly and will set a timetable for their completion and issue in the light of the outcome. The Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism and the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, both of which have previously contributed to the development of these guidelines, will be amongst those invited to comment on the second draft. The guidelines, which will refer to both convicted and unconvicted prisoners, will supersede the current arrangements whereby prison staff seek advice from the Directorate of Health Care as required.”

Note: Nothing further has been heard since February.

Penfriends

If anyone is willing to be a penfriend to a trans prisoner, please contact PFC.

We have a new Key Activist on Prisoners, Vikki Collins, assisted by **** ******* (Scotland) and Siobhan Jones (Probation).

Today in the USA, tomorrow in the UK? - case law update

PRIVACY:: In a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April 99, the court finds that transsexual prisoners are entitled to privacy. The court said that divulging that information would jeopardize their safety. Prisoner Dana Kimberly Devilla alleged violations to her right to privacy and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. In the ruling, the court wrote that “Transsexualism is the unusual condition that is likely to provoke both an intense desire to preserve one’s medical confidentiality, as well as hostility and intolerance from others.” The decision went on to state that “The excruciatingly private and intimate nature of transsexualism, for persons who wish to preserve privacy in the matter, is really beyond debate.” A corrections officer at Albion Correctional Facility told other staff and inmates that Devilla was transsexual and HIV-positive. The appeals court said that prisoners have a right to privacy, and that this can be abridged by jail authorities only if there is a legitimate safety issue. The court ruled that in the case of Devilla, there was no “legitimate penological interest” and the disclosure in a prison atmosphere could precipitate violence.
MEDICAL TREATMENT:: A federal court has ruled that California Dept. of Corrections officials “denied, delayed and intentionally interfered” with the delivery of medical care for a transsexual inmate when it withheld hormone therapy. Judge David Levi, of the U.S. District Court, ruled that the inmate, Torey Tuesday South, is entitled to a jury trial in order to ascertain damages.
STRIP SEARCH:: In San Francisco a jury awarded $755,000 to a transsexual woman who was strip searched in 1996 by sheriff’s deputies. The seven-member U.S. District Court panel awarded Victoria Schneider $750,000 for emotional pain and suffering and imposed $5,000 in punitive damages against Deputy Fred Lew for ordering the search. Schneider said the strip search was unnecessary because deputies at the same jail had searched her after a 1993 arrest and determined she was a woman. She said she implored them to look at their records but they refused. Initially booked as a male for prostitution, she protested that she was a woman and said she feared for her safety if placed into a cell with men. City employees and other detainees laughed and jeered her, Schneider said.

A v. W. Yorkshire Police

In March we welcomed an employment tribunal ruling that West Yorkshire Police had contravened the Sex Discrimination Act by refusing to offer employment in the office of constable to a transsexual woman.

’A’ had applied fully disclosing her transsexual history. She advised the police to check for any possible legal difficulties but was repeatedly assured there would be no problem. Only after 14 months, at the final stage of the recruitment process, did the Police raise concerns and reject her application. In particular, they were concerned about her ability to conduct searches in accordance with the law.

The employment tribunal found that such legal difficulties would arise only in limited and exceptional circumstances, concluding that: “In our judgement, the risks to the respondent in permitting the applicant as a transsexual to carry out the full range of duties including the searching of women are so small that to give effect to them by denying the applicant access to the office of constable would be wholly disproportionate to the denial of the applicant’s fundamental right to equal treatment.”

This finding reverses the 1997 industrial tribunal ruling in the case of “M versus West Midlands Police”, in which the circumstances were broadly similar but the issues of legal liability were not examined in such detail.

Unfortunately the government chose this moment to table the Regulations, which create a specific GOQ barring transsexual people from serving in the Police. The case is now going to appeal

Note: no further news yet on the cases of Lynsay Watson and Claire Ashton

Use of Leisure Services

Many trans people are uncomfortable or even afraid to use public swimming and sports facilities, yet exclusion from such facilities is discriminatory and, we believe, illegal under both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act.

PFC was recently approached by a leisure centre manager in Leeds, and has collaborated in the drawing up of good practice guidelines for access to sports and leisure facilities by transsexual people. The guidelines have been adopted in Leeds and have also been published in the national trade press by the Institute of Sport and Recreational Management with the status of advice to facility managers. Whilst the guidelines are not binding on members, those which are pro-active are likely to adopt them. Trans people who use or would like to use public leisure facilities, and local campaigners, are asked to check that your local centres have seen and adopted the guidelines. Copies are available from Press for Change - see Resource List.

The DDA

The Disability Discrimination Act part 3 comes into force in October 1999; this covers access to goods and services, including e.g. education, housing, public buildings etc. PFC would like to hear if anyone has recent experience of discrimination with regard to goods or services, and whether the issue was resolved in your favour.

(The full text of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is available on the HMSO website)

Toilets (Canadian)

A gay bar in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $2,000 (Canadian) in Jan for banning a (“pre-op”)transsexual woman from the women’s restroom after female patrons objected to her presence.

According to the tribunal: “Transsexuals in transition who are living as members of the desired sex should be considered to be members of that sex.”

National Campaigns

PFC activists are involved in a wide range of campaigns on a national (and international) level. The following are currently especially active and would welcome new people. If you would like to know more or would like to help, please contact PFC:-

Birth Parents Working Group
Prisoners Working Group
Scottish Parliament lobby
Welsh Assembly lobby
European Liaison (and lobbying the EP)
Equality Forum (rainbow coalition of campaigning GLBT groups
Media Network (people who will speak to the media)
Medical Working Group
Legal Professionals’ Forum
“Conference Crashers” (willing to staff stalls at assorted conferences)
Party Conference Lobbying Group (for September)
Women’s Space Campaign
Trans Catholic

General dogsbodies also in demand!

We would also welcome help with the following:

Providing/installing IT for campaigners without it
Marketing and publicity
Fundraising
Answering the post

Local Network

Despite our inability up till now to provide people with the support they need and deserve, excellent work continues to be done by local campaigners. The areas of work most commonly tackled are:

Local Media Watch (challenging offensive material)
Liaison with local police and probation
Working with local Health Authority to agree and develop an acceptable protocol
Talks to local groups
Publicising PFC

Co-ordinating the network

Jan Cobb

We have been fortunate enough to recruit a new Local Network Administrator in the form of Jan Cobb, herself a seasoned local campaigner. Jan is getting round to contacting all current network members to introduce herself and explain some new arrangements for more efficient networking and sharing of information. If you would like to contact her in the meantime, or have any problems or queries, she can be reached by email at local.network@pfc.org.uk.

Expenses

Please note that expenses (postage, local travel etc) for local campaigners are now available through GIRES. Registered campaigners on low incomes are eligible. Claim form available on the GIRES website or by post from PFC.

Annual planning meeting & AGM

Manchester, Sunday 3rd October 1999, 11am-6pm

All PFC members are very welcome to attend. “Signed up” activists, whether working on a national or a local level, are entitled to vote and are warmly encouraged to come if you possibly can - last year 35 people came from all over the UK. The format for this year’s meeting will be a little different in that we will spend part of the time in smaller groups planning particular aspects of the campaign - this should allow more people to play a fuller part. There will also be a full update on current legal challenges and parliamentary work. There is of course no charge for attending.

It is very important that we know numbers and areas of interest in advance, so if you would like to come you must book in formally by writing or emailing to Alex Whinnom.

Delegates will receive joining instructions, programmes etc nearer the time and we will try to co-ordinate lifts for those who need them. For those who prefer to travel up on the Saturday we hope to arrange some kind of informal social/networking event.

… don’t miss it!

Donations

If it weren’t for your donations, Press for Change could not continue. Please send a donation now, however small, or better still, ask for a standing order form and make a monthly contribution. Even £1 a month soon adds up. Thank you.

Contact us …

You can contact us:

By post at: Press for Change, BM Network, London WC1N 3XX
email: letters@pfc.org.uk

Press for Change On Line

The Press for Change Website http://www.pfc.org.uk/ contains a wealth of information regularly updated, and links to other sites, and now receives over 8,000 visits per month.

E-mail lists

To join the Press for Change News list, send a blank email to pfc-news-subscribe@lists.pfc.org.uk You will receive regular news bulletins plus an email version of this newsletter.

To join the Discussion forum, send a blank email to pfc-discuss-subscribe@egroups.com. This list is for those for those campaigners who are already members of UKPFC-Forum and who would like space to debate more theoretical or personal issues.

More details of the Press For Change mailing lists are available from our website. If you have any difficulties, please email the list administrators at listadmin@pfc.org.uk.

Who are we?

PFC is staffed and run entirely by a network of volunteers - we have no office base and are funded mainly by donations. Around 80 people are currently of “key” or “local” activist status. Membership is hard to quantify but currently stands at around 2,000.

PFC has seven Vice Presidents who are jointly responsible for leading the campaign. They are: Christine Burns, Claire McNab, Mark Rees, Sarah Rutherford, Mjka Scott, Alex Whinnom and Stephen Whittle.

For a full list of key activists and areas of responsibility, see our Who’s who page.

How to get more involved

Membership of Press for Change is open to all transsexual and transgender people and any member of the public who wishes to support the aims and work of the organisation. No membership fee is charged.

People on the Press for Change or Boys Own mailing lists are deemed to be members unless they ask not to be. Members receive the newsletter free of charge, may request resources and advice, are asked to take action collectively on issues relating to civil rights when necessary, and may if they wish volunteer as Key Activists or Local Networkers.

The most significant difference between “members” and “activists” is that an activist agrees to take responsibility for an aspect of the campaign. Activists agree in writing to support the aims of Press for Change and to follow policy while campaigning. They are invited to the annual Planning Meeting and are entitled to vote at the AGM.

Please note if you receive the newsletter occasionally via another support group, you may NOT be on our list and so not be a member. If you’d like to ensure you receive more regular news and/or would like to get more involved in the campaign, please write in to the PFC address. All contact details are kept totally confidential and are never passed on to anyone without your consent; Press for Change mailings come in plain brown envelopes to the name and address of your choice.

» email this page | printer friendly version

Primary links

Secondary

Search

Related links

Navigation