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).

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.

DUDE Launches

Exciting times, DUDE: transmasculinity magazine from Australia and New Zealand is now available online.

They've also issued a Call for Submissions which I've reproduced below:

DUDE 2 CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS:

Deadline: October 31st, 2011

Theme: Body Image

Please note DUDE does NOT seek research essays, however brief articles/reviews/comments from trans theorists will be greatly received.

…
Be brave, bold and beautiful. Value everyone.

Is the trans movement celebrating body type diversity in positive ways? Does it further impose mainstream pressures on our body image? How can we celebrate all body types in healthy and constructive ways? And how do we do this without adding to the fetishisation of the sex
and gender diverse community?

We want to hear what your thoughts are on body image. What do we need to share with each other? What assumptions are often made and why?

Including but not limited to, body image in relation to:

• expectations of uber masculinity: both in the mainstream, such as media, magazines, movies; and on youtube and ftm forums
• various subcultures such as bears, lesbian, sporting clubs and codes, gyms, punks, S/M, leather, anarchist, activist, men-only spaces, SOP
• not being on T/natural transitioning
• butch-not-trans / butch-and-trans
• genderqueers or dykes who bind or have had top surgery
• people with (dis)abilities or people who are differently abled.
• sex
• genitals
• body size diversity and positivity
• substance use
• people with eating disorders
• scars
• femme ftms
• binding
• surviving sexual assault
• gender dysphoria
• dealing with health professionals
• strategic essentialism

Submissions from Australia and New Zealand will be highly regarded, but the call out is open to everyone world wide.

About Dude

Dude is a not for profit, creative resource on transmasculinity; a zine combining short articles, stories and imagery.

We encourage photo submissions from a diverse range of people who identify as male / trans /genderqueer / transmasculine / butch / femme ftm / ftm / m2m / especially people of colour / people who are chubby/ people with disabilities / freaks / people not on T.

Also, we love cock pictures.

TO SUBMIT

Length: No submission is too short: brief articles are preferred (less than 500 words) but longer text will be considered if relevant and well crafted.

Payment: At this time we are unable to offer payment for submissions.
Each contributor will receive a copy of Dude 2.

All submissions in electronic format to dudetranszine@gmail.com
Include with subject line SUBMISSION DUDE 2: PHOTO/TEXT (as appropriate).

Text in .doc format
Images: JPG format, higher quality the better. Please note that colour
images will be converted to greyscale.
If you have further enquiries, email with subject line “ENQUIRY DUDE 2”

This call out is on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=261928483834260

Thank you.
http://dudemagazine.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/call-out-dude-2/

Gender and Sexuality in the News

Couple of great stories that I wanted to flag up with you all. First off, an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday called 'A Change of Heart' (different title online) which asks what it's like to discover that you are married to someone who is gay. It's an interesting piece and can be read here.

Secondly, there was a surprisingly well informed and engaging piece in the Daily Mail yesterday which Jane and Andrea. Jane was until the start of this year, John, a well known journalist and Andrea is standing by Jane. When I heard Jane and Andrea were doing the piece I thought in the words of Yes Minister's Sir Humphrey Appleby, it was a 'courageous decision' but I'm pleased the piece has turned out well. Take a look here.

Equality Bill 2009

The Government's new Equality Bill has it's first reading on Monday and LGBT Labour are asking for views on the bill via Twitter as part of an apparent effort by Labour to promote something that isn't to do with the economy. They are running with the slogan 'Make Equality a duty, not an option' which will do much to tackle the ever growing vision of a controlling Government. Meh, perhaps not.

It even has it's own campaign website which can be viewed here. Given there wasn't much of a campaign for the bill the Government now appears to be manufacturing a campaign for the bill, which they will then satisfy as if by magic with this wonderful bill. To be fair to Harriet Harman in particular the bill does include some provisions that have been floated for some time but they've been pulled into a rag bag that is the Equality Bill.

The bill apparently focuses upon two aspects of the LGBT agenda - bullying in schools and transgender equality. Teachers will have to promote equality. That seems a sensible aim but what does that mean - what about someone who challenges civil partnerships and marriage on queer lines? What scope is there for questioning? I'm keen to see how the legislation has been drafted on that issue. Yes, school bullying is an important issue and as a former school governor, I'm well aware of the importance of anti-bullying policies but the Government needs to make sure it helps schools, teachers, parents and LGBT youth rather than introducing a well meaning but badly drafted clause that fails to help.

'Gender reassignment' will be covered in the Goods and Services legislation. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a sensible step. I did have some serious concerns about the Goods and Services legislation but I have to admit they do not appear to have been realised. That said, nor do they appear to have made a major impact.

The bill will also apparently include provision to amend 'the laws surrounding discrimination and incitement to hatred will be extended to cover ‘affiliation’ with the transgender community. Given that transphobic discrimination occurs just as much to those considering or beginning gender reassignment as to those who have already undergone reassignment, this will be an important part of tackling inequality and levelling-up the law to align with other forms of protection'.

Again, this sounds interesting and I'll be keen to see how the legislation is finally drafted.

Daughter for Beatie

The Guardian reports today on the truly remarkable story of Thomas Beatie who has now given birth to a baby girl. The Guardian draws attention to previous media headlines, notably that of the Daily Star: "Bloke: I'm having a baby!". The Guardian ends with: 'expect to see father and baby pictures spread across a glossy magazine on your newsstand some time soon.' Whilst I'm torn on the issue of whether that is a good or bad thing for the child I think that in these initial weeks and months it probably is for it will help create a climate of 'normalcy' longer term which the child will benefit from. If on the other hand the media becomes an ever present force, at birthdays and so, then I think that will be a bad thing. Ultimately, it's up to Beatie and his wife. There are some interesting comments attached to The Advocate announcement on this story. I have little doubt that Beatie and the photograph on the right of this post will become one of the defining images of changes attitude to gender and sexuality and a defining image of the twenty first century.

Gordy Gets Serious?

About 30mins a go Gordon Brown finished delivering a sort of mini Queen's Speech. He rattled through the measures but through the wonder of technology the full document is now online. I heard him mention "equality" during the speech but he was going so fast that I couldn't work out what he was saying. This was further compounded by the confusion int he chamber as Tory members complained they did not have a copy of the speech. You do wonder about the effectiveness of these measures if the Government can't even get the proposals to MPs. Anyway, having now read the full doc, the Government does indeed intend to introduce a new Equality Bill. The doc states (p43):

• Making Britain fairer through a single equality duty which will require public bodies to consider the diverse needs and requirements of their workforce, and the communities they serve, when developing employment policies and planning services;
  
• Making public bodies more transparent. If inequality remains hidden, it can’t be measured and progress cannot be made;
  
• Improving enforcement;
  
• Allowing political parties to use all-women election shortlists until 2030;
  
• Making the law more accessible and easier to understand, by bringing together nine major pieces of legislation and around 100 other laws in a single Bill
  

What on earth does this mean? The All women shortlists is simply a measure to help Labour int he run up to the General election. The other measures are utterly meaningless as they stand. Improving enforcement? How?

The document goes on to state that the Government will also seek to:

• for the first time, a Government target to close the gender pay gap, included in the Equalities public service agreement;


• improved data collection on equality, providing a better evidence base to support further progress;


• work to increase the number of black and minority ethnic women councillors;


• work collaboratively with business, trade unions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission on ways to improve equality in the private sector.

More meaningless measures that don't require legislation. From an equality perspective the close of the pay gap is to be welcomed and does require legislation to be effective so why is it in the additional section? Pulling the equality measures into one document is a tidying exercise which is rather pointless. Finally we have the continued binary understanding of gender - men and women. If they introduce a new law that does indeed close the pay gap it will presumably do by defining the legislation in terms of men and women. Or will it be radical and bold (not words you generally associate with the current Gov) and go further? Will a new Equality Act seek to re-define existing measures in a more progressive framework that recognises intersex and transgender? I think we know the answer.


View the full document at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7372/7372.pdf

Politics and Legal Reform

Apologies for more politics on the blog but there is just so much going on at the mo. Obviously over in the States we have Clinton determined to derail the Democrats hopes of winning (and with it any hope for a more progressive policy and law agenda) as she drifts into megalomania. Over here we have the new London mayor who can be described as many things, though not I think a megalomaniac (feel free to comment below if you disagree!). He has now announced (or rather a rep has) that he will indeed be attending London pride this year and of greater importance for me, continues to make use of high profile out gay men. Pink News, reporting on this provide a link to the brilliant blog of Ian Dale (in my view a name everyone will be familiar with in the future as I'm sure he will eventually be a Cabinet Minister in a Tory government) who provided pics of Tory candidate for Brighton Dr David Bull (also bit of a media celeb) and his float at Brighton Pride last August along with some topless male dancers. Yes sexy gay men can now be Tories. Pink News speculates that the Tories might have a float at London Pride. I hope they will, but I hope even more they will adopt a genuinely progressive freedom based agenda.

Clearly, the Conservative party has changed, and is changing but the real test will be whether there is a shift in attitudes to an emerging rights agenda on transgender and other marginalised communities. For example, the Gender Recognition Act continues to rely on a binary interpretation of gender - you are male and become female or female and become male. Yet biology and psychology refuses to conform to this binary divide so why does the law (supposedly now reformed) insist on this. I've had a brilliant undergraduate dissertation student this year who has been exploring this very issue but there needs to be more debate at a national and international academic level.

Similarly, the Brown case remains in-force with regard to S&M behaviour, limiting consensual practices and the Tory party has given no clear sign that it would seek to repeal, if elected, the proposed new legislation on violent pornography. Both constitute an attack on a silent section of society, often unable to form large high profile political bodies for fear of encountering the prejudices of society. The work of groups like Outsiders, Backlash and the Sexual Freedom Coalition deserve credit for the campaigning they do.

Speaking of which the campaign group Backlash and their supporters planned to gather last night in Parliament Square with some planning to chain themselves to a headboard, to symbolise the state's unwarranted intrusion into people's private consensual activities. I've not seen any updates on the web about how the event went but I did flick through the news channels at 5pm (when it was scheduled) to see if anything was reported. Shock horror, not a sausage. I've also done a search through Lexis for all UK newspapers and media outlets and again nothing. It's a real shame that such an important community can not be heard when the miss-judged violent-pornography legislation will affect them the most. Madness.

New Trans Report

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)-Europe and TransGender Europe have published a 'Transgender Eurostudy' which focuses upon the legal and health care experiences of those who identify as Transgender in Europe. It's a really impressive report and should be read by anyone interested in this subject. It will be required reading on the course next year! The report has been written by Stephen Whittle and others and can be viewed at: http://www.ilgaeurope.org/europe/publications/non_periodical

A little miracle?

Thomas Beatie, the transsexual at the centre of the 'pregnant man' story (see my earlier post here) has continued to be in the headlines this week. Not least for appearing on the Oprah Winfrey Show yesterday in the States.

You can view a clip from the show on the Oprah website and another shorter clip on the BBC news website here. I was really struck that the Oprah player has a caption saying 'Is it a boy or a girl?' and that Beatie refers to 'she' and 'her' has their baby. Is it only me who finds ironic that such a conventional and conservative view of gender is being used in this pretty extraordinary circumstance? That certainly isn't a criticism of Beatie. Unlike O'Reily on Fox News who called this a 'freak show' last night, I think it's an amazing and wonderful thing. He also expressed concerns about a 13 year old viewing this interview. I think a 13 year old should watch this interview and should have a broader more thoughtful understanding of gender and sexuality.

This story also, at least for me, brings back the issues of maternal and paternal definitions within the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently before Parliament (see my earlier post here). I only wish some MP would raise these transgender issues in Parliament in the context of the Bill as it raises some very real questions about the limitations and appropriateness of the proposed definitions.

Pregnant Males

The Advocate includes a fascinating article that considers the issue of a guy who is transgender, legally male, legally married and pregnant. Read the story at:http://www.advocate.com/issue_story.asp?id=52664&page=1

Trans Resource

The following page recently came to my attention. It's a really brilliant trans resource and well worth taking a look for anyone doing any research in this area.

http://www.library.uiuc.edu/wst/Transgender%20Bibliography/transbiblio.htm

Still Black

I've just been sent details about an experimental documentary currently in production that investigates the lives of six black transmen. You can check out the rough-cut trailer and more about the film at: www.stillblackfilm.org

This looks a really exciting project and I wish them every success.

Transgender Day of Rememberance

Readers may be interested in the following announcement from FORGE:

In honor of the 2007 Transgender Day of Remembrance (November 20, 2007), FORGE is pleased to announce the release of two new handouts individuals and organizations are invited to download and distribute: "Keeping Yourself Safe: Anti-trans Violence Awareness and Prevention," and "SOFFA Victims of Anti-Trans Violence.""Keeping Yourself Safe" acknowledges that while victims are never to be blamed for violence against them, there are tactics transgender and SOFFA (Significant Others, Friends, Family and Allies) individuals can use to keep themselves safer. The handout lists 12 safety tips, such as carrying a whistle and wearing clothes you can breathe and move easily in. "Keeping Yourself Safe" is available in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format at http://www.forge-forward.org/docs/KeepingYourselfSafe.pdf, or in web format at http://www.forge-forward.org/transviolence/safety.phpSOFFA Victims of Anti-Trans Violence" gives vignettes of eleven SOFFAs who were killed or seriously injured in anti-trans violence. All too often, Transgender Day of Remembrance events have acknowledged only trans victims of transphobia, even though many SOFFAs have also lost their lives due to transphobia. In some cases, SOFFAs were killed along with their trans loved ones but are no longer remembered nearly as well as their trans co-victim, such as Lisa Lambert and Philip DeVine, who were killed along with Brandon Teena. Other SOFFAs, like Pvt. Barry L. Winchell, were targeted specifically because of their connection with a trans person. Still other SOFFAs, like Willie Houston, were attacked because they were (erroneously) believed to be trans. "It's important that we recognize transphobia is dangerous to everyone, not just trans people," FORGE director michael munson said, "And this handout is designed to raise that awareness." The SOFFA Victims handout is available in PDF format at http://www.forge-forward.org/docs/SOFFAVictims.pdf or in web format at http://www.forge-forward.org/transviolence/SOFFAvictims.phpThe new handouts can also be accessed by clicking on the links at the upper right-hand side of the FORGE homepage, at www.forge-forward.org

Why the T in LGBT is here to stay...

A response has been published to John Aravosis's article on the US Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It's worth a look: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/transgender/

How did the T get in LGBT?

Interesting story on the US site Salon. The story explores the idea of LGBT and asks how the T got in there. The article also explores the ongoing US debate surrounding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/

ECHR Transexual Victory

Interesting ECHR case reported on PinkNews: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5423.html

They report that 'A Lithuanian transsexual has won a case at the European Court of Human Rights over claims that he has been blocked from completing his gender transition. The seven judges also ruled that Lithuania must implement new legislation on gender reassignment within three months or pay damages'. The case succeeded on article 8 grounds and is well worth a look.

DIY Castration

I've jsut learnt about this story on a newswire but it was reported in The Sun newspaper last week. See: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007360723,00.html

Apparently, Howard Shelly had been told he would have to wait two years for gender re-assingment surgery so he used the internet to find a DIY guide and then used a kitchen knife on himself. Now rather than suggesting (as the Sun seems to do) that this is a failure of the NHS this demsontrates the NHS safeguards. I find it deeply worrying that a section of the British media can take such a superficial, misguided view. Then again thes tory is headed 'Builder Loses Nuts and Bolts' so waht do you expect?

20/20 - My Secret Self

One episode of the American series "20/20". It features Barbara Walters as she interviews the families of young transgender children (here in five parts).

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5