Roles: A Gender and Sexuality Forum

Roles: A Gender and Sexuality Forum

Third Annual Gender and Sexuality Conference
University of Birmingham,
10th May 2013

Key Note Speaker: Dr. Nadine Muller

This one-day interdisciplinary conference offers postgraduates the opportunity to present their research in a friendly and supportive environment. We invite applications for twenty-minute papers from researchers working within the fields of gender and sexuality studies.

Suggestions for presentations may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

- social policy, government legislation, and matters of the law
- cultural products: film / music / art / TV / literature
- media, representation, and social images
- sexuality, otherness, erotic practice
- the body: subject, object, identity
- theory, methodology, practice
- feminism and postfeminism: representation and invisibility
- queer and trans*: changing images of femininity and masculinity

Please send an abstract, including a short bio, of no more than 300 words to g.roles@hotmail.com by 10th March 2013.

Roles is an interdisciplinary research forum hosted by researchers at the University of Birmingham for the purpose of fostering discussion and debate. We hold regular seminars as well as our annual conference, and can be followed online: T: @groles, F:
/roles-a-gender-and-sexuality-forum, W: groles.wordpress.com, E:
g.roles@hotmail.com.

Gender, Sex and Power: Seminar Series

The wonderful Rob Clucas at the University of Hull has organised what looks like a really interesting seminar series.  it's called Gender, Sex and Power and the details can be seen below:

UK Government Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Consultation

A busy day has meant I'm somewhat late to the party on the Government's Response to same-sex marriage.  Twitter and the blogs are awash with some really thoughtful and interesting responses.  That said, you didn't think I'd let today go by without comment did you?

Well, let's firstly be clear what we've not seen today.  We haven't seen draft legislation.  We don't know what the bill will look like.  We don't know how these measures will be drafted and the potential problems/issues that will be raised or solved by such legislation.

What we do have is a Government response to a consultation.  That consultation - the Government reports - received the largest ever response to any consultation by the UK Government.  They received 228,000 responses (I was one) and 19 petitions (I signed one).  So, some folks may count multiple times within these stats but it's nonetheless impressive going.

Let's get down to the substance of the response.  The aspect that's grabbing the attention of the media is the so-called 'quadruple lock'.  The BBC reports that:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises 
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so 
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple 
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply

These seems pretty solid and certainly addresses the worries of the religious lobby.  Well, so you might have thought until the Church of Wales helpfully waded in after the announcement to say "sorry chaps, we're not so sure about this" (or words to that effect).

Civil Partnerships

Others have raised the issue of Civil Partnerships (see for example) and these proposals.  The Government seems to have made a bit of a fudge of this aspect of reform, and to my mind clearly set up  a legal challenge.   At page 21, the Government states:

'5.6 Having taken the range of views into account, we intend to proceed with the proposals in the consultation document to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples only, including continuing to allow civil partnerships on religious premises. This is because we acknowledge the important role that these unions play in the lives of many couples. Civil partnerships are a well understood union, which have been become part of people’s everyday lives and society in general. We see little benefit from removing them.

5.7 Civil partnership formation will continue with exactly the same administrative processes and rules as currently exist. This includes current rules around notice periods, parental consent, age and witnesses.

5.8 We have always been clear that the aim of this consultation and subsequent legislation is to enable same-sex couples to get married, rather than wider reform, and therefore there is no need to remove civil partnerships to fulfil this aim.

5.9 While we will recognise marriages between same-sex couples formed abroad as marriages, the retention of civil partnerships will enable us to recognise same-sex civil unions (that are not marriages) to be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK.'

So, Civil Partnerships stay for same-sex couples alongside new rights of same-sex marriage but different-sex couples who already (obviously) can enter into marriage will not be able to enter into Civil partnerships.  The careful logic for such obvious discrimination? They didn't intend wider reform in this legislation.  Well, they might not have intended it but that' surely the inevitable consequence.

I'm genuinely at a loss that the Government have chosen at this point to not extend Civil Partnerships to different-sex couples.  There is however an opportunity for Labour (or indeed someone else) to introduce an amendment introducing such a measure as part of the legislative process, and then campaign to secure cross-bench support.   I hope they show some real leadership on this.

Whether they do or not, the stage looks set for a legal challenge on this - and I'm sure that at some point such a case will succeed.  The Government can't even be bothered rationalising the discrimination.

They state at 7.10 (page 26):  'This consultation was not aimed at being a wider process of reform of marriage and civil partnership legislation and therefore we do not consider that it is necessary to open up civil partnerships to opposite sex couples in order to enable same-sex couples to get married.'  This is also arguably further fuels the Equal Love Campaign.

Gender

A welcome aspect of the report is an apparent understanding of the complexities that arise with the intersection of the current Civil Partnership Act and Gender Recognition Act.

The Government states (page 28) that:  '8.12 The Government remains committed to enabling someone to change their legal gender while remaining in their marriage. Those in a civil partnership registered in England or Wales would have the option to convert their civil partnership without being seen as legally ending that union and rights accrued within the civil partnership would remain.'

So, if you are in a marriage and become legally defined as same-sex, you will have a choice of continuing to be married or entering into a Civil Partnership (although the document doesn't seem to specify, so you could potentially have an action from someone saying they should have the same choice as someone entering into a partnership contract for the first time) .  If you are different-sex, you have no choice, you must be married.  Thus, a same-sex couple in a Civil Partnership becoming a different-sex couple for the purposes of the GRA must convert their same-sex Civil Partnership to a marriage or dissolve the CP in order to achieve a Gender Recognition Certificate.

If that doesn't have legal challenge written all over it, I don't know what does. The Equal Love Campaign could therefore be plausibly joined/extended by a challenge to the Civil Partnership law via a Trans case.

Let's not talk about sex

The issue that first emerged from this report (or rather, first leaked) was the idea that the Civil Servants were rather baffled as to what to do about consummation (see my previous post here).  What, one was therefore left wondering, would the Government's response offer by way of resolution.  Here's what they say on page 31:  '9.10 Therefore, in respect of non-consummation, we are proposing to create an exception for same-sex couples in a marriage, meaning that they would not be able cite non-consummation as a basis for annulling their marriage. Same-sex couples cannot currently annul their civil partnership on the basis of non-consummation. Opposite sex couples will continue to be able to annul their marriage on the grounds of non-consummation. By maintaining this position, we are not altering the legal position unnecessarily.'

To put it another way:  Crikey, this one stumped us.  We've therefore decided to pretend it doesn't matter for the purposes of gay people.  Now, can I stop thinking about gay sex?  Thanks.

Far better to have gone further and stripped out the requirement for all marriages but the Government seem keen to only change the minimal possible sections of legislation to introduce same-sex marriage.  However, given the fudge on consummation, these poor Civil Servants then faced the question of adultery, which does involve the 'S' word.  Yes, more bewildering bonking and a legal question of what amounts to adultery.  The report comments:

'9.11 We are proposing to maintain the current position with regards to adultery in marriage. This means that anyone, including same-sex couples, will be able to cite adultery to end their marriage if the behaviours currently defined in case law are exhibited. '

This statement has the following footnote:

Adultery is currently defined as follows: there must be at least partial penetration of the female by the male for the act of adultery to be proved. The attempt to commit adultery must not be confused with the act itself, and if there is no such penetration, some lesser act of sexual gratification does not amount to adultery (c.f. Dennis v Dennis [1955] 2 ALL ER 51 2WLR 817).


So, funnily enough we're back at the question of penetration and how gay people have sex.  The Government try and resolve things a different way this time (page 31-32):

'In practice this would mean for a same-sex married couple that, where one partner had sexual intercourse (within the meaning of the law for these purposes) with someone of the opposite sex, the other partner could cite adultery as grounds for divorce. If the behaviour exhibited fell short of the current legal definition of adultery, it would remain the case that this could be cited as unreasonable behaviour, as is the case with civil partnerships. In this way we believe that the current legal position on the meaning of adultery need not be changed. It will remain the case that a same-sex couple in a civil partnership will not be able to cite adultery to end their civil partnership.'

So, we're not sure what would be adultery in these circumstances but it doesn't matter anyway as you could use unreasonable behaviour in these circumstances anyway.

It's a fudge but it works.

Education

One of the issues that has seemingly pre-occupied some Tory backbenchers is what teachers will be forced to teach.  Worry ye not bigoted Tory.  Help is on hand via page 34:

'9.27 Every school is required to ensure pupils are not taught anything that is inappropriate to their age, religious or cultural background. This will not change and pupils will continue to receive broad and balanced advice on marriage.

9.28 In addition, teachers, particularly in a faith school, will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same-sex couples to get married. They must continue to act within the current parameters of legislation on hate speech and discrimination law.'

Yes folks, it's still perfectly possible for a gay kid attending a Church of England School to be told that marriage means marriage between a man and a woman.  This truly breaks my heart.  It's a back way in for prejudice, and raises serious questions about the continued freedom that religious schools have in England and Wales.

So, there we go.  Lots of issues for further exploration and in need of resolution.  Bring on the Bill.

Key Links

The Parliamentary Statement can be watched in full via the Parliament website here.

Hansard (a transcript of the Commons Statement) can be read here.

The full Government Response can be viewed/downloaded here.

A pretty PowerPoint presentation on the reforms produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be viewed here (looks like someone was let loose on work experience).

Inherently Brief

The ever-excellent Inherently Human blog produced a really helpful 'round up' of recent stories relating to gender and sexuality from around the world.   Check it out here.

Beyond the Binary: legal recognition of sex and gender diversity in the ACT

Many thanks to Bruce Arnold for making me aware of this Australian development. The Law Reform Advisory Council of the Australian Capital Territory was asked in January 2011 to examine the legal recognition of transgender and intersex people in the Territory. It's now published a report which you can read in full here.  Thirty-five recommendations are contained in the report, and are as follows:

In ACT legislation generally:

1. reference should consistently be made to ‘sex and gender diversity’, ‘sex and gender diverse people’, and ‘people in sex and gender diverse communities’. [p32]

2. when necessary, specific reference should be made to ‘transgender’, a ‘transgender person’, and ‘transgender people’ to refer to people who, having been born as physiologically either male or female, have changed or are changing their identity from one sex and gender to another. [p32]

3. when necessary, specific reference should be made to ‘intersex’, an ‘intersex person’, and ‘intersex people’ to refer to people who, because of their physiological characteristics at birth, do not identify only as female or only as male. The term intersex should not be used to refer to or include people who have changed or are changing their identity from one sex and gender to another. [p32]

4. it is not necessary or appropriate to define ‘female’ or ‘male’. Those terms do have an ordinary binary meaning and legislation is not necessary to confirm that. It is, however, appropriate to define terms of sex and gender diversity that are outside these binary terms, so that diverse sex and gender identity is given recognition as a part of a process of its being normalised. [p32]

5. the 2003 ACT Report audit of ACT laws which require a person to identify their sex and gender should be updated and extended to laws and practices, and that the need for those requirements should be reviewed with the intention of removing whenever possible a requirement that a person identify their sex and gender. [p43] In the Legislation Act 2001:

6. the definition of ‘transgender’ is appropriate and sufficient. [p33]

7. in the definition of ‘intersex’, reference to a ‘a genetic condition’ as the reason for a person’s intersex status is inappropriate, and it is sufficient to refer to the fact that an intersex person’s reproductive organs or sex chromosomes that are not exclusively male or female. [p33] In the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1997 and Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulation 1998:

8. the sex of a child born in the ACT should continue to be recorded by the Registrar-General, subject to recommendations for changes to the timing for notification and registration, and to the available categories of sex. [p34]

9. to give legal recognition to sex and gender diverse people who are not defined by the female/male binary, wherever the BDMR Act and BDMR Regulation refer to two sexes, male and female, they should be amended to recognise three sex and gender identities: female, male and intersex. [p33]

10. having regard to 1-3 above, the BDMR Act should be amended to replace the term ‘transsexual’ with reference to sex and gender diverse people, and to sex and gender diversity, unless it is necessary to refer specifically to transgender people. [p33]

11. the sex of a child when it is notified (s5 BDMR Act; s4(1) BDMR Regulation) should be any of female, male, intersex, to be advised, or indeterminate. [p35]

12. the option ‘indeterminate’ should be used only in circumstances anticipated by s9(2)(b) BDMR Act when it is not possible to determine the sex of a premature still-born child; it should not be used to when a child is or could be intersex, in which case one of the other four categories should be used. [p36]

13. at the time that the sex of a child is notified as ‘intersex’ or ‘to be advised’, the parents and any health practitioners involved in caring for the child should be provided with printed information, advice and resources, developed in consultation with representatives of the intersex community and expert health practitioners, which explain intersex and set out considerations for decisions that can be made about the child’s sex and gender identity. [p36]

14. the current 60 days allowed for the registration of the sex of any child (ss9 and 11 BDMR Act; s5 BDMR Regulation) should be extended to 180 days. [p36]

15. to give legal recognition to intersex people, the available categories for the registration of a person’s sex should be any of female, male, intersex and indeterminate. [p36]

16. the Registrar-General should be empowered to issue a birth certificate which shows a person’s sex as ‘unspecified’, in circumstances where a person is in the process of changing their identity from one sex and gender to another (‘transitioning’), or does not identify as having a sex. [p38]

17. the requirement in the ACT for a person to undergo sexual reassignment surgery to change the record of their sex should be abolished. [p38]

18. the requirement for a person to register a change in their sex and gender identity should not be more onerous than it is in the policy of the Passport Office. [p40]

19. when an intersex person seeks a change to the record of the sex on register, whether to female, male or intersex, the person need only rely on medical confirmation of their intersex status. [p40]

20. the requirement for a person to register a change in their sex and gender identity is a matter of policy for the government to decide, from among suitable and available options which range from self-identification to self-identification accompanied by corroboration by various classes of people. [p33 and p43]

21. it is not appropriate at this stage to prohibit, more broadly than the Discrimination Act already does, requests for disclosure of gender identity without a demonstrated legitimate need. [p43]

22. in light of the practice of the Registrar-General to issue a change of name certificate which does not show the person’s sex or former name, no changes to current law and practice under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act need to be made to ensure protection of the privacy of a person who has changed their sex and gender identity. [p46]

23. the current restrictions – in the BDMR Regulation and Office of Regulatory Services Policy – on access to a record of a person’s sex in the register are adequate, but information provided by the Territory from its register to another State or Territory, and access to the register provided by the Territory to another State or Territory, should be subject to the same restrictions on access as are set out in the BDMR Regulation and Office of Regulatory Services Policy. [p46]

24. s29 BDMR Act should accept an Australian passport or Document of Identity, in addition to an ‘interstate recognition certificate’, as evidence that the person mentioned is of the sex as stated in it. Further, reference in s29(3) to an ‘interstate recognition certificate’ should not be limited to a certificate ‘in relation to a person who has undergone sexual reassignment surgery’. [p47]

25. a Certificate of Particulars is a desirable mechanism to ensure equal access for ACT residents to reforms that are designed to guarantee legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people without reliance on inhumane eligibility requirements. [p48] In the Discrimination Act 1991:

26. having regard to 1-3 above, where the Discrimination Act refers to the attribute of ‘gender identity’, it should be amended to refer instead to sex and gender diversity. [p33]

27. protected attributes should include: i. a person’s identifying as intersex, as a sex other than their registered sex, as having no sex, and as being in transition for one sex to another ii. the record of a person’s sex having been altered under the BDMR Act or equivalent law or practice, and iii. a person’s physical presentation (including physical features, manner of speech, and dress) when it is not consistent with the person’s recorded birth sex or with the conventional physical presentation of a person of a particular sex. [p49] In the ACT public sector:

28. when an ACT public authority identifies and/or records a person’s sex: i. the person is entitled to inspect the record, and to have their sex identified and/or recorded (and if necessary amended) in accordance with their sex as registered under the BDMR Act) ii. no liability should attach to a person who, on behalf of an ACT public authority, incorrectly records a person’s sex in good faith. [p44]

29. if, as recommended, the available categories for the registration of a person’s sex under the BDMR Act are to be any of female, male, or intersex, then at least those three categories should be used in all ACT government activity. [p44]

30. when it is relevant for an ACT public authority to require a person to identify their sex – other than for notifying and registering a birth and for changing the birth record of their sex – the person should be asked their ‘sex and gender identity’, and should be given the option of identifying as any of: a) female b) male c) intersex d) none of the above. [p44]

31. the proposed changes to law and practice to give legal recognition to sex and gender diverse people will need to be accompanied by investment in public authorities for: i. programs of education and training about sex and gender diversity ii. the conversion of systems and documents to reflect the formal recognition of sex and gender diversity iii. funding to ensure that the legislative changes are part of a broader program of social inclusion. [p50] In the ACT:

32. to monitor and report on progress towards legal recognition for sex and gender diverse people in the ACT, the ACT Human Rights Commission must be sufficiently resourced to address the underreporting of discrimination against transgender and intersex people, and to support employers and service providers with information about their legal obligations under the Discrimination Act 1991 and the Human Rights Act 2004. [p50]

33. to address issues of unemployment, discrimination, poor physical and mental health outcomes, and low rates of social inclusion and participation among sex and gender diverse people: i. support and advisory services should be provided to sex and gender diverse people and their families ii. recurrent education and training programs should be provided to service providers, employers, workplaces and educational institutions. [p50] Nationally:

34. while the ACT is acting to remove legal obstacles for sex and gender diverse people across all its legislation, cooperation with the Commonwealth and with other State and Territory governments will be important in developing a national approach that addresses both the legal and social recognition difficulties faced by the gender diverse community. [p50]

35. it is desirable for the governments of the States, Territories and Commonwealth to audit their laws and practices for provisions which require a person to identify their sex and gender, and to review the need for those requirements with the intention of removing whenever possible a requirement that a person identify their sex and gender. [p48]

Sex & Desire across the Disciplines

Call for Papers: Forthcoming Feminisms: Gender Activism, Politics and Theories

Readers may be interested in the following CFP.

Call for Papers: Forthcoming Feminisms: Gender Activism, Politics and Theories
Organised by the BSA Gender Study Group & the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies (CIGS), University of Leeds 

26th October 2012: Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, University of Leeds

Keynote Speakers: Julia Downes (Durham); Sasha Roseneil ((tbc) Birkbeck); Imogen Tyler (Lancaster) 

'Forthcoming Feminisms: Gender Activism, Politics and Theories' seeks to explore the contemporary landscape of gender politics and theory at a crucial moment of feminist resurgence. Against the backdrop of political economies of austerity, in which women are disproportionately disadvantaged, and in challenge to ‘post-feminist’ cultural prophecies, current times indicate a renewed interest in, and commitment to, feminism. In academic climates, while women’s and gender study programs face threats of closure, the popularity of such programmes continues to grow; reflecting the continuation of feminist and gender theory as a flourishing and dynamic arena. This conference speaks to these political and theoretical paradoxes and flows in exploring varied (and sometimes opposing) feminist cultures, values, ethics, knowledges, challenges and aspirations across the levels of the social and cultural. The conference aims to examine these issues in relation to temporality: how do current feminisms speak to those of the past and how might we imagine feminisms’ future?; the micro and the macro: how do grass roots feminist politics respond to structural processes and materialities?; the local and global: what are the similarities and differences – the uniting and dividing features - of national and international feminisms?; place and culture: how are feminisms formed through, and in opposition to, fields of habitus and spaces of public/private; citizenship and recognition: who can – and who can’t – find a place within feminism, who is – and who isn’t – able to ‘belong’?; equality and diversity: to what extent has feminism been mainstreamed?, what are the effects of this on gender studies and politics in and outside the academy?; intersectionality: how do social identities and material positionings impact on feminist commitments and lived experiences?, how do patterns of inequality bear on feminist aspirations and imaginings?; difference: how can feminism productively interact with trans and queer politics, theories, and communities?, how can feminism account for embodied diversities? Papers that address these questions through the following themes are particularly welcome: • Sites of Activism • Political Agendas • Knowledges and Ethics • Spaces and Places • Gender Mainstreaming • Feminisms at the Local and Global • Intersections of Class, Race, Ethnicity, Faith, Age, Gender, Sexuality and Embodiment • Feminist Times and Generations • Agency and Affect • Political Economies • Inclusions and Exclusions • Transgender and Queer Feminisms • Representation, Media and New Technologies

Presenters will be invited to submit papers for a Special Journal Edition Please send your abstract + brief bio to Sally Hines: s.hines@leeds.ac.uk and to Zowie Davy: z.davy@lincoln.ac.uk by 27th July 2012 Registration fee: £30 non-BSA members, £20 BSA members. Registration will be free for 5 PG students/activists on a first come, first served basis.

Irish 'Romeo & Juliet' Law

The Irish Independent carried a fascinating story this week in which a case re-asserted that teenage boys can continue to be prosecuted for underage sex in Ireland while teen girls are exempt.

The Independent states that: He was charged with having underage sex with the girl under the Sexual Offences Act 2006. Section five of this act states that a girl under the age of 17 will not be guilty of an offence by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse. When he took a challenge to his prosecution in the High Court, he claimed he was being discriminated against on grounds of gender. His lawyers argued that his constitutional and European Convention rights had been breached. The High Court dismissed the challenge. Upholding that decision yesterday, the Supreme Court also awarded the costs of taking the case against the State and the DPP. The court unanimously ruled the law was constitutional, because lawmakers could take account of the danger of pregnancy for teenage girls in such cases.

Read the full story here.

The Sun and possible breaches of Editors’ Code

A worrying story emerges on the excellent blog run by writer and activist Jane Fae.  She highlights an intervention by Trans Media Watch and the Press Complaints Commission after the Sun, despite promising to mend its ways last week, appeared yesterday to commit or be in the process of committing several major breaches of the Editors' Code of Conduct over the story of a trans man reported to have had a baby. A reference back to the Leveson Inquiry is also being discussed.

Read her full post here.

Interestingly, the Sun have hit back at the claims with Managing Editor David Dinsmore, providing an interview to Jane for Pink News.  Well worth a read.

Definitive guide to costs of gender re-assignment

Here's a really wonderful resource for all those interested in transitioning.  Jane Fae has released a definitive guide to the costs of gender re-assignment in the UK. This is published in part as a response to a growing spate of news stories that get these costs (very) wrong - often by quite significant multiples, and was compiled in consultation with some of the leading clinical experts in the UK on these issues.

She notes on her blog that for the vast majority of MtF trans people seeking treatment, who do not undergo surgery, the overall cost to the NHS is unlikely to exceed £1,000 over the person’s lifetime. For those who do go on to seek surgery, the cost to the NHS is likely to be around £2,500 in respect of hormone and endocrine intervention and around a further £11,000 for the surgery (both figures aggregated over a twenty year period). The corresponding figures for FtM transition are £15,000 and £50,000, due to the generally more complex nature of procedure involved. However, the typical figure for the latter group is likely to be much closer to £20,000.

You can read more on Jane's blog and download the full report directly from there.

It's All About the Willy?

Men are often accused of thinking with their willy. The penis becomes a powerful symbol of something less human, of an animalistic, un-thinking, reflex orientated existence. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was significant for defining the existence of men without a penis, and women with a penis. This is a concept that every year drives my students at the start of the course to near mental collapse. Yet, even though the penis serves as an important cultural marker of identity, it is rarely divorced from the man. Perhaps an exception to this is in the context of public sex.

Even in dogging, the man becomes a 'penis', the woman a 'mouth or vagina', and collectively, they serve to observers, pikers, as a 'display', a 'show'. In cottaging/tearooms, where a glory hole might be used - the hole acts to anonymise the encounter, reducing a player to a penis, anus, or mouth. Law has - and continues -to challenge this behaviour at the same time as privileging marriage and civil partnerships which bring with them a social, if not a legal expectation of a context to sexual activity which comprises of the whole human being. All of these meandering thoughts were in my head as fascinating new Tumblr was flagged up to me which features a man presenting his large penis. That's it. It's photographs of his willy. He does not reveal his name, job, sexuality or face, reducing himself to a penis with the Tumble name of Calboner (so I'm guessing he is based in California and these are pictures of err, well you can work it out).

This is who he is defining himself as. More than that, he is celebrating this appendage. His penis is something to visually share, rather than remain hidden from view. When one ponders this for a moment, it is rather fascinating. It is of course familiar to those who use gay networking sites in which many men define themselves first by their penis, and secondly by their face, although in conventional sexual coupling rituals, the reverse is true. This Friday evening, millions of people will engage in a social dance smiling, displaying interest with their face in a bid to find a mate, whilst millions more will be online seeking to entice people will an attractive penis. In both settings, the primary aim for many will be a one-off sexual encounter, and yet, when we are freed from the conventionalities of public corporeal space, and emersed in the alternative values of the virtual, males seeking same-sex partners commonly choose to re-prioritise our identity along genital lines.

Sharif Mowlabocis explored many of these fascinating themes in his 2010 text, Gaydar Culture which I strongly recommend.  earlier this year, former New York Congressman, Anthony Weiner (rather unfortunately named) had to resign after it was revealed he had sent a photograph oh his penis bulging through underwear (a picture that would be too tame for Calboner), once again highlighting the transgressive nature of an image crossing from the virtual to the corporeal world.  You can encounter Calboner and his strictly NSFW, explicit, not inconsiderable penis here.

Yates Murder and a Predictable Rant

The news broke this evening that Vincent Tabak has been found guilty of murdering 25 year old Jo Yates.  The case had, we are told, a sexual dimension but it was Tabak's use of porn - which was not admissible in the case - that has set the twitter and blogging world alight.  Julie Bindel  - the ever controversial feminist was quick (amazingly so - almost as if it was pre-written) to get her copy in to the Guardian.  She has written a piece which - for me at least - is pretty much astonishing in its ill-thought out proposals and analysis.  It is based on misunderstandings and misapprehensions and these are dealt with in the extensive comments to her post that have already appeared.  Rather than repeat them here, read her piece, read the comments and decide for yourself.

Objectifying Men

My Twitter timeline exploded last night as the British nation collectively exploded at the prospect of a natural milky treat - thanks to a Yeo Valley advert.  PME200 picks up the story on his clog and puts this latest advert into a wider narrative of the exploitation of men.  It's well worth a read; check it out in full here.

UK Passport Reform?

After the excitement of the recent Australian passport reform proposals on gender comes news of possible reform here in the UK.  The ever impressive campaigner, author and thinker, Jane Fae broke the story about new gender rules on her blog (check it out here), and as Jane later commented, the story grew like topsy in the mainstream media and became spun within an inch of its life.  Check out the Pink Paper take on things here (with no reference to Fae).

Trans Gender Embodied States of Recognition Research Project

Readers may be interested in this call for participation.  The project is aimed at trans and/or gender variant people 18 years or older.  I am not involved in this project, so please direct all queries to the organsiers as indicated.

Call for Partipation From Tre Wentling

You are invited to participate in the Trans Gender Embodied States of Recognition research project, which explores recognition and experiences using personal identification documentation (IDs). The survey, which may take 10 to 30 minutes to complete, includes questions about your gender identification, IDs and experiences using them, name and pronoun recognition, your transition-related decisions, how you have felt in the past week, and basic demographic information. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TG_States_of_Recognition

As a transguy, I am personally affected and committed to positive contributions regarding trans research. My goal is to provide information that can be used by social justice advocates to help improve our lives. One benefit of this research includes contributing to existing gaps in current research on recognition. Specifically, I hope to provide more evidence and support of the diversity among trans people in order to expand our legal recognition. Please feel free to contact me or my advisor with any questions you may have about this research or your participation. I may be reached by email at tlwentli@maxwell.syr.edu. My advisor, Andrew London, may be reached by telephone at (315) 443-3252 or by email at anlondon@maxwell.syr.edu.

If you have any further questions regarding your rights as a participant, or if you have any questions, concerns, or complaints that you would like to address to someone other than the investigator and project advisor, or you cannot reach either, you may contact the Syracuse University Office of Research and Integrity Protections by phone at (315) 443-3013. This research has been approved by the Syracuse University IRB (reference # 11-125).

Australia in Passport Gender Reform Move

Exciting news from Australia and passport reforms relating to gender.  Pink News reports that under the new passport rules, 'gender may be recorded on passports as ‘M’, ‘F’ – or ‘X’. Additionally, trans individuals no longer need to undergo sex reassignment surgery in order to be issued with a passport in their preferred gender, nor – as is currently the case in the UK – will they need to undergo an intrusive review by a government body (gender recognition panel) before they can have that gender accepted. Instead, according to foreign minister Kevin Rudd, Australians now have “the option of presenting a statement from a medical practitioner supporting their preferred gender”. The ‘X’ status is reserved solely for intersex people – meaning that the Australian government appears to be the first in the world to legally recognise intersex people.'

Read the full story here.

Guest Post: The Intersection of Men, Metrosexuality and Disability

I'm pleased to present this abstract from Quiet Riot Girl, promoting her post on The Good Men Project, which you can view here.

'There has been much written by feminists on pressures on women caused by ideals of feminine ‘beauty’, as promoted by the media. Ever since Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth (1991) it has been accepted that we should be critical of how women’s Body Image is affected by representation. But less thought or attention has been given to men in this regard.

According to Mark Simpson, originator of the term and key theorist of ‘metrosexuality’, it’s not about flip-flops and facials, ‘man-bags’ or ‘manscara’. Or about men becoming ‘girlie’ or ‘gay’. Metrosexuality is about men becoming everything. To themselves. In much the way that women have been for some time’.

So if men are starting to enjoy being ‘objects of desire’ just like women, it is likely that they are also becoming subject to the pressures of the ‘body beautiful’, just like women. How do these pressures manifest themselves, particularly for disabled men?'

By Quiet Riot Girl www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com

QRG's interview with Mark Simpson: http://lawandsexuality.blogspot.com/2011/06/metrosexuals-of-world-unite-and-bend.html

Event: St. Mary’s Centre 10th Annual Conference

Readers may be interested in the forthcoming event:

The St. Mary’s Centre 10th Annual Conference is taking place at Manchester Town Hall on the 23rd and 24th February 2012.

The theme will be Sexual Exploitation: Protecting the Vulnerable.

St. Mary’s Centre was the first sexual assault referral centre in the UK and our conferences have become key annual events for the discussion of new ideas, and a forum for networking within the growing sexual assault aftercare community.

The conference will be addressing a number of issues, including looking at the extent of the problem; prosecuting sexual exploitation cases; protecting young children – child trafficking/exploitation and sexual exploitation among the elderly.

There will be a number of workshops and master classes, including court room skills and surviving cross-examination; successful approaches to tackling sexual exploitation; the challenges of working with children and young people and the latest forensic examination techniques.

It is aimed at, amongst others, social care providers, police, doctors, nurses, counsellors, the legal profession, the third sector and forensic physicians.

Speakers include:

Tim Loughton, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families
Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor, Greater Manchester
Dr. George Fernie, President of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (FFLM)
Mary Newton, Former Senior Scientist, Forensic Science Service
Dr. Bernadette Butler, Associate Specialist / Sexual Offences Examiner, The Haven, Camberwell

A detailed programme will soon be available online at www.stmaryscentre.org

Finally, if you register your place by the 31st October, you will ensure an early bird booking fee!

The Sex Lives of Men

Monique Roffey, author of 'With the Kisses of his Mouth' has written an interesting little piece in the Guardian today. She ponders why it is that women like her are willing tow rite openly about their sex lives, but few men feel able to do the same. Read it in full here.

The Internet is cluttered with gay and bi men writing about their sex lives but these do not appear in 'commercial' texts so I wonder if this is actually a rather more complicated picture than Roffey suggests? Are straight men different in this regard? Thoughts?

Gender Trouble and the Coalition

The Guardian has lots of interesting analysis around women and the UK coalition government in today's paper. A useful starting point can be found here and there are links to the other related stories down the right hand side. Well worth a read and ponder!