As you may or may not have read this week, it seems that under current travel regulations in Canada, transgender individuals can be prevented from merely boarding a plane. In a recent post, I wrote about the violations of every day rights faced by T* identified people, and this is a prime example.

This story was first reported by Christin Scarlett Milloy who highlighted the relevant section of the Identity Screening Regulations:

5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph

(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents

(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents

Damn it Canada, you used to be cool! This revelation comes hot on the tails of the widespread confusion over marriages of same-sex couples performed in Canada (for more see CanuckJacq’s post ) The current conservative government seems to be doing their best to remove any sort of “LGBTQ heaven” image that Canada has. These travel regulations were set in place by the Conservative Minister of Transportation, Denis Lebel, and the full set of regulations can be rea here (.pdf). As you can see, they further state:

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if

(a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact

With that section they are demanding that a Trans* person carry a medical document with them when they travel, which is a pretty unfair onus of responsibility to be putting on anyone-travel is stressful enough without having to remember a doctor’s letter, or more to the point, without the added stress of having to go to see a doctor to obtain the relevant document, which will probably also cost a lot of money, just for the appointment. And what then of the T* people who would not be able to obtain said documentation?

As Christin Milloy also points out in her blog post, summing it up better than I could ever hope to:

So for non-operative transgender persons, for gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and for the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons, it is literally impossible to obtain proper travel documentation marked with the sex designation which “matches” the gender identity in which they live.

This is obviously a ridiculous situation for people to be left in, and even though there’s be no reports that anyone has been stopped so far, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s a worrying precedent. It’s my second “Is this real life?” moment in under a week… I’m going to hide under a duvet now, wake me up when the world makes sense again.

There is a petition that you can sign if you want to take action.

Related posts:

1. Survey: Trans* people and online support
2. Let’s make trans people heard!
3. So that Canada thing, eh?

• This just in from Irene Greene, an Applied Psychology student at University College Cork:

For my final year project I’m conducting research into the effect online support has on the well-being of transgender individuals.

Research in general populations regarding the effectiveness of online social support has found mixed results, but very little research has been carried out looking at the impact of social support on groups such as the transgender community.

We’re interested in examining whether online social support may positively affect the well-being of transgender individuals, as it may provide some people with a greater sense of support than they experience offline.

We hope that this study will lead to a better understanding of the impact of social support on the general well-being of members of the transgender community.

I have a short survey which should only take 15 minutes to complete. It is important for the study to get a large number of respondents in order to achieve reliable results.

If you are willing to take part, you can find the survey here.

Related posts:

1. Survey from UCC: Gay people and online communication
2. Survey: Sexual minority women
3. Let’s make trans people heard!

The basic premise of the series is that, due to the recession, two men have to present and pass as women in order to gain employment because ZOMG IT’S A “MANCESSION” LOOK WE’RE SO HILARIOUS. They actually use the term “mancession” and blame the fact that they don’t have jobs on women… In the show, they are told that the pharmaceutical company will only hire women, as the doctors want to “nail” them more. (I really wish I was making this up, believe me.)

On account of how offensive and damaging the show could be to the general public’s perception of trans* people, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) urged a boycott and took out a full page ad in Daily Variety condemning the show. In a statement, the Acting President of GLAAD Mike Thompson said:

This show could contribute to the high levels of job discrimination that transgender Americans face and will give license for people to mock and ridicule those whose gender expression might not fit with what society considers the norm

and that

The media should use this as an opportunity to address the huge number of inaccurate or offensive images of transgender people in news and entertainment today. [http://www.glaad.org/workit]

This is all the more poignant when you go on to read in the same statement that currently in the US, members of the trans* community can be legally fired in 34 states, that 97% of self-identified transgender people reported being harassed or abused at work and 26% reported losing their jobs simply because they are transgender. In Ireland, things aren’t much better. Research from Mayock et al (2009) found that out of 46 trans* identified respondents, over 80% had been verbally insulted, and over 39% had someone threaten to ‘out’ them. The 2009 NLGF Burning Issues Survey found trans* identified respondents stated ‘Equal rights at work’ as their top issue of concern. Harassment and discrimination both in and outside of the workplace is the simple every-day reality faced by trans* people the world over; yet ABC has chosen to make a complete mockery out of this oppression.

The debate began when someone posted a link to an article condemning Work It, adding a comment saying how offensive the show was. On a page that is full of self-identified LGBT Activists, you would naturally assume that most members of the group would be outraged by the mere existence of such a show. Disappointingly, this was far from the case. The first few comments were people basically saying “Ah sure, stereotypes are hilarious, it’s only a bit of fun, people shouldn’t be so sensitive”. I bit my tongue and waited, as I was curious to see where the conversation would go.

I looked at the thread in disbelief for a couple of hours, as comment after comment defended the show and thought Work It was not offensive to trans* people, because it’s only “two guys pretending to be women”. Some group members trudged up comparisons with films and programmes of eras past, justifying that if something like this was funny before than it is harmless now. Others even implied that Work It might even be a platform from which to inform the public about trans* issues sensitively. I found it interesting that the conversation on this activists’ forum page focused more on a debate over if Work It was indeed offensive, rather than a discussion of how it offends, or the best way for us, as LGBT Activists, to take action.

This image sums up perfectly why we shouldn’t need a group to prove to us why something is offensive or oppresive:

Thankfully, the voice of reason soon appeared in the form of Sinead Dolan (author of this post ). After trying and failing to get the others to understand why this show was dangerous to the trans* cause through a serious of well reasoned posts, she came out with this statement, which I think summed up this issue in a brilliant and succinct manner:

This show is about men actually living their lives as women, which is a totally different thing. They are going to be using the same techniques that trans people spend literally their whole lives trying to perfect, and make them into The Biggest Joke. Imagine if you were trans, and had spent years working on the makeup, and the walk, and the voice, and the way you move, literally every tiny thing your body does is a learned skill, a way to make the world see you as you see yourself. Now imagine that ABC has taken all those tiny things that are so, so important to you, to your actual survival, and is using them as the butt of every joke in one of it’s sitcoms. That’s not only offensive, it’s wildly irresponsible.

And that right there is really the crux of the issue in my opinion. Whether intentionally or not (and that’s really not the point here) ABC has created and written a show that is essentially taking the piss out of some people’s actual lives.

To the people who watch the show who are thinking “ah sure it’s grand, it’s only a bit of fun cos stereotypes are hilarious” – well, they’re not. Being the butt of someone’s jokes is never funny, particularly when it is compounded by oppression and discrimination in a similar vein in
your daily life. And the people who think that it’s all ok because the show is “only” making a mockery of drag queens/cross-dressers, well guess what? IT’S STILL NOT OK! Drag kings and queens, cross-dressers and transvestites, as well as people who identify as transsexual, transgender, genderqueer or any other variety of gender identity or expression, are all part of the trans* umbrella and the wider LGBT rainbow. We are all part of the same community, and no one individual’s reality is less than another.

Last night, I forced myself to watch Work It. Sitting through an episode was like an endurance sport, and I honestly wanted to weep by the end of it. I quickly realised how this programme relies on sexism, racism and homophobia alongside its transphobia in order to get cheap laughs at the expense of those of us with marginalised identities. Less than one minute into it, there was a rape joke. The protagonist of the piece apparently regularly compares a prostate exam to the pinball scene in ‘The Accused’ (which if you haven’t seen it, is one of the most horrific rape scenes I have ever seen in a film) in conversation with his wife regarding medical checks. Stay classy, Work It. After hearing that “joke”, I knew it could only get worse. And it really did. Next we had the friend who was bitter towards women for causing the “mancession”, and later a lovely racist joke with “I’m Puerto Rican, I’d be great at selling drugs”. All the women that work in the office are portrayed as total airheads (obviously, because women working in an office isn’t real work). They also make jokes about everything from sexual harassment to someone being a lesbian…because clearly, as she is a lesbian, one of the protagonists can now feel free to hit on her. UGH. Fucking hell, HOW DID THIS SHOW GET GREENLIT?! It is honestly the most offensive show I have ever seen. And I used to watch Family Guy!! Emphasis on the used to part of that…

I’d love to get a good discussion of this issue going here. It’s a sad fact of the LGBT movement in Ireland that so often we ignore the inequalities faced by T identified people of the acronym. And that’s to say nothing of the invisibility of bisexual people, but that’s a whole other discussion we need to have.

The LGBT movement is never going to progress if we don’t fight for the rights of the entire community. We’re either a community or we’re not, we’re either activists or we’re not. We need to wake up and realise that we can’t *just* fight for the rights of lesbian and gay people, we have to fight for equal rights for all. The roots of homophobia and transphobia are the same, in the end we have a shared experience in the LGBT community of breaking gender role stereotypes. Whether we do this through our gender identity or expression, or through our romantic and sexual relationships, we are all punished by wider society for breaking these norms. We will never eradicate homophobia as long as there is transphobia. After all, it was the trans* members of the LGBT community that kicked off the entire global LGBT rights movement in Stonewall over 40 years ago. Without them, where would we be today?

The last couple of years have seen some great leaps forward for the Irish trans* rights movement, when LGBT NOISE started campaigning on trans* issues. A trans* activist spoke at the March for Marriage, raising awareness about the Gender Recognition legislation, and how trans* people are being excluded from Civil Partnership legislation. It seemed that people were finally recognising that the trans* community has stood in solidarity with LGB efforts in Ireland for ages, and realising that we all need to work together to combat transphobia and homophobia. I was hopeful that the situation was improving, that people were coming on board, educating themselves and properly putting the T in LGBT – but then this discussion happened.

I need your help, and your suggestions. What can we do, as an LGBT community, to address this problem? How can we counter the apparent apathy among so many LGB people towards trans* issues? And, most importantly of all, what can we do to educate people on trans* issues?
For information on being a good trans* ally, please see:
http://web.mit.edu/trans/allies.html
For more information on trans* issues in Ireland, visit:
www.teni.ie
To begin exploring the concept of cisgender privilege and how it operates, check out:
http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/

Related posts:

1. Missing Pieces: Parent & child, other issues
2. There’s something Queer around here
3. Let’s make trans people heard!

• Here’s another article from one of our new writers, Tole. Enjoy!

As a young gay (and by young, I mean, fresh off the train, wearing short pants, clutching my suitcase with a wide eyed stare as I entered an unknown village), I had great expectations that I would soon be charming women every night of the week and giving off the impression that I was some type of modern day Casanova.

So when this did not come to fruition, I was greatly surprised. It took me a while to figure out the root of my failings, but when I did, it came down to a number of crucial things:
 

• It appeared I had an inability to converse with people, something I had hitherto excelled at.
• When I did speak, it was often nonsensical and delivered at a very high pitch so that it seemed I was interested only in communicating with seagulls.
• Anybody I did manage to talk to with any motive of intent, was already coupled up or proved stranger and more high pitched than I was. And I couldn’t be dealing with that sort of competition.

So a chance purchase of an L Word box set (which I figured would surely teach me everything I needed to know) also happened to contain three months free membership for an online dating site. This little card gave me some hope that I could navigate the world a bit better from the comfort of my home, where I had control over my actions, free of occasional squawking noises and the like.

So, I now had the opportunity to be an ever dashing charmer with an unlimited amount of messages to woo these potential suitors with. No “soz babes I’m outta messages, if you fancy a chat add me on msn-smiley face, lol” woes for me.

However, the stress of it all proved too much after a while. The excellent banter back and forth only for it stop abruptly, the occasional drink with somebody who turned out to be incredibly boring, or bumping into that hot girl you took seven hours composing a two line message to, only to never hear anything back. My nerves quite simply weren’t able for it. And so I hung up my online lady killer boots which to my shame, never managed to get all that dirty for a finish.

Having upped my social skills a tad since then (I don’t come off as wanting to live my life on a beach anymore), I recently found myself back online. It may have been exam time. It may also have been the month I discovered a love for the unnecessary filing of all my photos in order of the number of people present in them. But if I was to be at my computer ‘revising’, I thought somebody should at least be entertaining me while I did so.

And it certainly was entertaining for a while, as I discovered that many of the same lovely faces were still online. Yet like a solid old man’s pub, they had refused to move with the times. Many of them were still “just out of a relationship, only looking for fun” (which to be fair, is always a bit of a winning statement), “still really new to this, not sure what to say” (really? But it’s three years later), while the amount of people (“new age kids” I like to call them) who spell their names with both letters and numbers was astonishing.

Of course, there were also a few gems of people in there, fun and witty. However, for the most part, it would seem that we all sat around logged in, yet not saying much. I mean, I can’t prove this for definite, just that the masses didn’t seem to be messaging me, which I found strange, given that I had personally awarded myself 4/5 stars for my new profile.

Whatever about communicating with people in real life, I’ve always found that online, you have time to think, to open and reply to a message with a great answer, and if not great, at the least, relatively engaging.

Some of the profiles provide great material to start a conversation, plenty of interests and quirks that can arm you with something slightly original to say. But yet, a lot of people continue to open with ‘Hi, how are you?’. Given that we live in Ireland, surely it’s only natural that a response to this would also include a comment on the weather, followed by an inquiry into the health of the person’s ailing grandmother and before you know it, everybody has lost interest.

I gradually became more annoyed by these messages. I just couldn’t bring myself to reply to them. And so, I asked that, if people were feeling charitable enough to message me, then dear Jesus, make it worthwhile and something that I might actually respond to.

It has kind of worked, I think. Or else I just come across as so demanding that the ‘hi how are you lol’ people, a wily bunch, know I’m probably not worth the effort. But I’ve had some good banter with a few people and have progressed towards ‘friendly acquaintance’ stage.

And just so you know, things online move like this these days:
 

• As usual you chat, and this can range from a few hours, days or weeks.
• You then become friends on Facebook to prove that neither of you is insane/a murdering kidnapper.
• You may find out that you have a few friends in common, but that you are not in fact related. Good to go.
• You maybe meet for a drink and get on well. Excellent.

This is surely the holy grail of online dating. You arrange to actually meet the person. Anything that happens after that is either terrifying or pleasant (it can always go either way to be honest).

The important thing is, that if you plan to while away a number of hours online, then make yourself interesting (although don’t lie about it. If you’re boring, then that’s just how it is), be engaging and if you are really so concerned about the person’s health, or how their weekend went, think how overly concerned you’ll be about them if you actually end up meeting and liking them. Better to open about their penchant for Anne Doyle and the vigil they now they keep for her by their bedside.

Sounds like a winner to me.

Related posts:

1. Survey: Trans* people and online support
2. A new way to flirt with April Mail
3. Survey from UCC: Gay people and online communication

Campaigners: Australian PM should represent the 71% of her supporters who want gay marriage

Australian campaigners have “demanded” the Prime Minister act in accordance with public opinion on gay marriage, after a poll which shows 71% of the Prime Minister’s Labor Party voters are in favour of the move.
The statement comes after the Prime Minister re-affirmed her opposition to marriage equality and proposed a conscience vote on the matter.

From Australia to Brazil and the ctpost reports

Brazil grants residency based on same-sex marriage

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Brazil’s government for the first time has granted a foreign citizen the right to live permanently in the country based on a same-sex relationship with a Brazilian citizen, according to a notice published Monday in the country’s Federal Register.
Spanish man, Antonio Vega Herrera, and his Brazilian partner live in the town of Aracatuba in Sao Paulo state.

In Massachusetts ,Transgender Rights Bill Headed for Vote

The bill would amend the state’s non-discrimination statute and existing hate crime laws to include gender identity and expression. Thirteen other states and Washington, D.C., have passed similar bills.

Iowa Baker Refuses To Bake Lesbian Couple’s Wedding Cake

In Iowa, bakeries aren’t among businesses that are impervious to the tumultuous effects of the downturn economy. Still, one Iowa bakery owner had no hesitations about refusing to bake a wedding cake for one lesbian couple.

“I said, ‘I’ll tell you I’m a Christian, and I do have convictions.’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry to tell you, but I’m not going to be able to do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right, and it’s not to discriminated against them. It’s not so much to do with them, it’s to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer [to] Him for.”

Barbara Grier, Publisher of Lesbian Books, Dies at 78

Those scientists are at it again Female orgasm captured in series of brain scans

Scientists have used brain scan images to create the world’s first movie of the female brain as it approaches, experiences and recovers from an orgasm. The animation reveals the steady buildup of activity in the brain as disparate regions flicker into life and then come together in a crescendo of activity before gently settling back down again.

For gay, lesbian workers, Canadian workplaces pulse with change

Donna Renn began her career in the military — and in the closet. But today, the 50-year-old IT business analyst for TD is the poster girl for coming out in the workplace.

Over to Ontop Magazine where Chaz Bono is featured.

Chaz Bono has said he was terrified at transitioning in public.
The 42-year-old Bono was honored Saturday at the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center’s 40th Anniversary Gala and Auction with the group’s Board of Directors Award for his transgender activism.

And in case you missed it at the weekend on our Facebook page,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkOQw96cfyE

Related posts:

1. A Suppa Earl Gae
2. A Suppa Earl Gae
3. A Suppa Earl Gae

The Big Deal at Project Arts Centre from projectarts on Vimeo

• What? The Big Deal
• Where? Project Arts Centre
• When? Until 5 Nov 2011 at 8:15pm
• How much? Tickets €16/14/12

Dear Cathy,

It’s 10.30pm on Tuesday night. I have just finished your recent email. You are now on the way to recovery. You are here now as you should have been and will be until the day you die. So whilst I struggle slowly onward and upward, you are already there.

Love Deborah

Following the hugely successful premiere of The Big Deal at The Kilkenny Arts Festival 2011, Una McKevitt (Victor and Gord, 565+) brings us an extraordinary real life story of two women who knew from a very young age that they were born into the wrong bodies.

Scripted from original material provided by the contributors – including journals, poems, songs and interviews –The Big Deal charts the incredible personal gains and losses each has made to become the women they have always been.

Gaelick’s HAL spoke with Una McKevitt about the play.

HAL: So, tell us all about the play.

Una: The show presents the real life experiences of two women and charts the personal gains and losses each has made to become the women they have always been. The show is performed by two actresses, Una Kavanagh and Shani Williams.

The two contributors have provided all the text in the play, both kept diaries whilst undergoing gender re-assignment surgery detailing the physical and emotional journey that entailed. The diaries were a departure point for the production but through interviews each contributor has also shared details of their lives before surgery; how the different challenges they have encountered and how their relationships with their loved ones; parent, siblings, partners, children; have shaped their lives.

Our work in this production has been to try and express theatrically the stories the contributors have shared with us and, in turn, with the audience. The contributors are close friends, this friendship is an important feature of the play, and both women have made a decision to share their stories anonymously to protect the privacy of both themselves and their families.

HAL: Where did you come across these women’s stories? When did you think “This will make a good play”?

Una: The contributors are friends of mine and knew of the work I do in documentary theatre. We often spoke together of the theatrical possiblities of a journal that includes correspondance between them and thisispopbaby gave us the opportunity to present a work in progress during their Queer Notions Festival at Project Arts Centre in December 2010. With the help of An Arts Council grant we were then able to develop this work and premiere it at The Kilkenny Arts Festival 2011.

HAL: Without giving too much away, can you tell us their stories?

Una: Whilst we do present details of the physical surgery the women went through during transition, the real heart of the play lies in the details of the women’s friendship and the impact their transition has had on their relationships with their families.

It is also a personal account of the resilience of the human spirit and the profound significance of personal realisation which is something we believe everyone can relate to.

HAL: Did you talk to other trans* people when getting the play together? Do you feel any pressure to represent the trans* community here, as there is very little representation out there?

Una: We wanted to present the stories of two individuals rather than attempt to make a statement about the wider transgender experience and so the personal histories in the show are particular to the two contributors.

We hope through this microcosm we are presenting a story that resonates with anyone who has come through difficult challenges in their personal lives.

It is of course important to us that this production reaches out to the transgender community here in Ireland and we are following the matinee November 5th with a panel discussion ‘We Are Family’ chaired by TENI director Broden Giambrone to highlight the different supports in place for Transgender people and their families.

• The Big Deal runs at the Project Arts Centre until 5th November. Tickets are priced at €16/14/12.

More information:

• The Big Deal at The Project Arts
• The Big Deal on Vimeo
• Una McKevitt on Gaelick
• Una McKevitt’s blog
• Una McKevitt on Facebook

Related posts:

1. Dublin Pride needs your arty side!
2. GAZE 2011: Dublin International LGBT Film Festival
3. Review: Becoming Chaz

Previously, we looked at the family home and finance and immigration and legal procedures. Today in the final of our Missing Pieces articles, we examine the issues affecting parents and children, as well as other miscellaneous issues.

• Parent and child

The findings of Marriage Equality’s audit reflects the concerns already raised by the Ombudsman for Children over the Civil Partnership Bill. Marriage Equality describes “a legal vacuum affecting children being raised in same-sex headed families”.

25 differences in relation to the legal relationship between a parent and their child are identified. For example, adoption: same-sex couples cannot jointly adopt, even though individuals may be considered for adoption regardless of sexual orientation.

Another example relates to guardianship and custody: it is not possible for same-sex couples (or a partner of a same-sex couple) to apply to the courts for these.

An additional example is maintenance: all children, including non-biological children, of married couples are covered by maintenance rules, but this is not the case for children raised by same-sex couples.

Marriage Equality states that there is a deliberate omission of existing provisions in family law which recognise non-biological children (for example, step-children) as dependent children, within married families.

The organisation supports the view of the Ombudsman for Children, who has drawn attention to the serious consequences for children that this approach will have and that this differential treatment of children under the Civil Partnership Act – especially when compared with the relationship between children and step-parents under Irish law – could violate international human rights instruments, to which the Ireland is party.

• Miscellaneous

The final section of the audit covered all remaining provisions identified in the review of existing legislation. 17 differences were found, and focus mainly on the age of majority and administrative provisions in relation to the making and keeping of records by the State.

On the age of majority, the report highlights that, as civil partnership is only available to people 18 years and over, the rights which flow to a person under the age of 18 and who is married, are not accessible to young LGBT people in the same situation (for instance, being able to apply for a passport in their own name without a guardian’s signature).

Also revealed is the fact that civil partners do not have the same rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), a serious issue particularly following the death of a partner. For instance, a bereaved civil partner cannot apply under FOI to correct personal information, unlike spouses. (See also Office of the Information Commissioner.)

• Some notes:

- A “Constitutional Convention” is due to take place next year to look at various constitutional issues – including, perhaps, the concept of marriage?

- The Supreme Court has yet to rule in the Zappone and Gilligan case, due to be heard later this year.

- Marriage Equality is due to release a separate report on the Social Welfare Code and the differences between civil partners and married spouses next year. Due to the extensive legislation and rules which govern Social Welfare, a separate audit and report is needed.

- MarriagEquality: Website / Twitter / Facebook / YouTube

• Previously:

The Family Home and Finance

Immigration and Legal Procedures

Related posts:

1. Missing Pieces: The Family Home & Finance
2. Missing Pieces: Immigration & legal procedures
3. Civil Partnership: “An abdication of legislative responsibility”

Yesterday, we looked at the family home and finance. Today, we examine the issues of immigration and legal procedures.

• Immigration

A key factor in immigration procedures generally is the fact that decisions are made largely on a discretionary basis (i.e. under non-statutory administrative procedures by the Minister for Justice or his officials), rather than based on legislation. In effect, therefore, those in civil partnerships are reliant on discretion due to the absence of legislative immigration provisions relating to civil partnership.

The findings of the Marriage Equality report highlight the gap between official policy – that civil partners will be treated equally to spouses for immigration purposes – and the legislative reality, and reveals over 22 differences in treatment under immigration law and regulations.

Legislation: Only two sections in the Civil Partnership Act relate specifically to the immigration status or entitlements of civil partners:

The first concerns diplomatic immunity, and extends such immunity to civil partners.

The second provision relates to refugees. Under the Refugee Act, a person who is recognised as a refugee has the right to apply for family re-unification. The Civil Partnership Act allows such persons to make an application for family re-unification in relation to a civil partner.

(This is somewhat curious, I think: typically, family re-unification applications relate to family members who are not in Ireland. Ireland’s Civil Partnerships can only take place under Ireland’s jurisdiction, however. So how could it arise that a refugee in Ireland would have a civil partner abroad? Unless the person has entered Ireland for the purposes of the civil partnership ceremony and (maybe) has subsequently left? Or perhaps the couple has been married/partnered/unioned already in another jurisdiction and are seeking to have that recognised by the State as a civil partnership? Is that likely? But I digress..)

A person who does not meet the criteria of being a refugee, may nevertheless qualify for what is called subsidiary protection. (For instance, a person may not be persecuted for a particular reason, but may still be at risk if they return to a situation of armed conflict.) As with recognised refugees, a person who is eligible for subsidiary protection may apply for family re-unification, including their spouse. Notably, this right has not been extended to include civil partners.

So, if I’ve got this correct, this leaves us with the following situation regarding people who are entitled to international protection: heterosexuals can apply to have their spouse join them in Ireland if they are a refugee or have been granted subsidiary protection; homosexuals can apply to have their civil partner join them in Ireland if they are a refugee, but not if they have been granted subsidiary protection.

Lawyers, sharpen your quills!

Ministerial discretion: Apart from the issues of diplomatic immunity and recognised refugees, in all other immigration matters (including the above subsidiary protection issue), the equal treatment of civil partners depends on the exercise of discretion, rather than legislative entitlement.

A significant finding of the audit is the failure to include civil partners in the definition of ‘qualifying family members’ under EU free movement regulations. This may mean the Irish government is in breach of their obligations under this EU directive. (The EU directive is implemented into Irish law by regulations.)

Furthermore, in the event of divorce or annulment between a non-EU and EU citizen, under the same EU directive family members retain their right of residence. The regulations in Irish law are silent, however, when it comes to the dissolution of a civil partnership.

This potentially means that, an ex-civil partner of an Irish citizen is liable to deportation upon the dissolution of their registered civil partnership, and is reliant on discretionary immigration policy to ensure that is not the case.

As a result of the approach taken to deal with civil partnership immigration issues through the exercise of discretion, rather than by amending immigration legislation, the Marriage Equality report highlights that civil partners are left without the protection and certainty of the law.

• Legal procedures

The audit of legal procedures covered a broad range of legislation, including: the formation and dissolution of marital relationships; minimum age; recognition of foreign marriages; gender identity; and testimony during legal proceedings.

The audit uncovered 62 differences between the treatment of married and civil partner couples. Many of the differences have symbolic significance as well as legal and practical implications for same-sex couples who have registered a civil partnership.

Engagement: There is no equivalent legal status to engagement for civil partners. This means that provisions within the Family Law Acts governing disputes in relation to gifts and property of an engaged couple who end their relationship have not been extended to same-sex couples planning to register a civil partnership.

Minimum age: Someone under the age of 18 can marry where they acquire a waiver from the court. There is no provision under the Civil Partnership Act for a person under the age of 18 to acquire a court waiver to enter into a civil partnership.

Foreign marriages and civil partnership: Unlike marriage law, there is no provision allowing the courts to recognise foreign civil partnerships and same-sex marriages. Instead, that power is reserved for the Minister for Justice: the Civil Partnership Act allows the Minister to designate certain classes of relationships entered into abroad as having the same legal effects as an Irish civil partnership. There is no obligation on the Minister to recognise a class of foreign relationship, however; rather (and this is comparable with the situation regarding immigration and discretion), the Minister has a power to do so using statutory instruments (i.e. secondary legislation).

The effect is that if the Minister has not included a certain jurisdiction in the statutory instrument, then a couple seeking recognition of their foreign marriage/partnership/union from that jurisdiction will have to wait until (or, if) the Minister does include it at a later stage.

In any event, a foreign same-sex marriage will only be recognised as a civil partnership (as, for example, in Canada, Spain or the Netherlands, where there is full marriage equality).

Trans* rights: Currently in Ireland there is no legal mechanism to recognise a person’s preferred gender identity other than the gender that was recorded for them at birth.

The Gender Recognition Advisory Group (GRAG) – established to advise the government on gender recognition legislation for Ireland – has recently published its report and proposes establishing a scheme for legal recognition, however.

Disappointingly, their proposals include a recommendation that applicants who are married be excluded from the scheme. This means that an already married transgender person will be required to divorce their spouse before they can have their preferred gender legally recognised.

Likewise, any transgender person who is in a registered civil partnership will need to dissolve their civil partnership, if they wish to apply under the scheme.

Read more about the GRAG report here.

Interestingly, Marriage Equality notes, GRAG stated that registered civil partners acquire less protection from registering their partnership than spouses acquire from civil marriage: In outlining their argument to exclude a civil partner from the right to apply to be recognised in a different gender, it stated that “such a scenario would effectively result in a State-recognised opposite-sex relationship that does not benefit from the full protection afforded to marriage”.

Separation and dissolution: While married couples have the option of executing a separation agreement, obtaining a judicial separation, or obtaining a divorce, the Civil Partnership Act makes no provision for civil partners to apply to court for a judicial separation.

This means that, while civil partners can execute a deed of separation, if no agreement can be reached they have no choice but to apply for dissolution of their registered civil partnership.

In practice, separated opposite sex couples do not always opt for the finality of a divorce and prefer instead to legally separate. This may have to do with the economic dependency of one partner on the other or where children are involved, to avoid further distress or change for them.

Whatever the reason, judicial separation provides these couples with a mechanism to legally sort out the issues surrounding their separation; this is not available, however, to civil partners who wish to separate.

Period of separation: Civil partners must be living apart for 2 of the previous 3 years in order to apply to dissolve their partnership, whereas spouses must be living apart for 4 of the previous 5 years to apply for a divorce.

Marriage Equality’s report notes that while this is not equal treatment, it may be more sensible treatment and partly helps to make up for the lack of option to apply for a judicial separation in the Act. It reinforces, however, the greater importance afforded to marriage by the Irish State, with more onerous criteria to be met in order to dissolve a marriage when compared with a civil partnership.

Mediation requirement: To obtain a divorce there is a constitutional requirement for the married couple to consider mediation, and divorce legislation obliges solicitors to advise clients about what mediation services are available.

There is no such requirement in respect of civil partners who wish to dissolve their partnership and therefore no such obligation on solicitors, again demonstrating the greater importance afforded to marriage by the State.

In fact, when the Civil Partnership Bill was making its way through the Oireachtas, the then Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, justified this difference in treatment by reference to the risk of “upsetting the constitutional balance” and to “maintaining a distinction between marriage and civil partnership”; he did not elaborate on that, beyond referring to (though not specifying) advice received from the Attorney General. He stated that the government was “erring on the side of caution” by taking this approach.

Children: An example of the almost total lack of provisions relating to the children of civil partners emerged in this section under the laws governing dissolution. (Marriage Equality dealt with the overall issue of parents and children separately, however. See our next article on issues relating to parents and children.)

Criminal trials and the giving of evidence: Legislative provisions relating to the giving of evidence in a criminal trial highlight serious differences in treatment of the marital relationship versus civil partnerships.

A legal principle exists that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another. Two main justifications for this are: the principle of unity, i.e. the principle that for some purposes (although not all) husband and wife were considered as one by the law; and that there is a public interest in avoiding discord within the marital relationship – a recognition that testifying against one’s spouse, particularly if compelled to do so, would risk disharmony within the relationship.

These provisions have not been extended to civil partners, meaning that a civil partner may be compelled to give evidence against his or her partner, despite the potential problems this may create between the couple.

Next:

• Parent and Child, and Miscellaneous Provisions

Previously:

• The Family Home and Finance

Related posts:

1. Missing Pieces: Parent & child, other issues
2. Missing Pieces: The Family Home & Finance
3. Civil Partnership: “An abdication of legislative responsibility”

Let’s start with sport cause our ladies seem to be doing alright in the Solheim Cup. The Irish Times reports Europe quietly gain upper hand

GOLF: SERENADED OFF the first tee with lyrics adapted to the rugby anthem, Ireland’s Call, and also a peculiar version of Danny Boy with a golfing twist by a supporting choir donned in curly blue wigs, Europe’s golfers for much of a long day let their clubs make their own sweet music in this 12th edition of the Solheim Cup.

Staying with sport, I know I know, but its all go this weekend, Irish Central reports New York Ladies GAA team aim for history at All-Ireland level

The New York Ladies football side head to Ireland on Wednesday, September 21 with the junior All-Ireland title in their sight. They play Wicklow on Sunday as the curtain raiser at Croke Park. The ladies intermediate and senior finals will follow.

and finally I can actually mention Westmeath and Gaa in the same sentence without being embarrassed, it seems our intermediate ladies are doing better then our senior boys

Westmeath to prevail

Of course the big one is the Women’s Senior Football final with the nearly always present Cork playing Monaghan. You can catch all 3 games tomorrow on TG4 from 12.

In Britain, Lesbians Separate at Half the Rate Heteros Do

Bad news for those looking for unequivocal proof that gays just simply aren’t cut out for this whole marriage thing: According to a U.K. government analysis, lesbians couples in civil partnerships (the training wheels for real marriage) separate at a shockingly high rate of … 2.5 percent, according to The Telegraph.

Girl with Dragon Tattoo offers deja vu [Trailer]

Intense and familiar are two words that come to mind upon viewing the extended trailer for David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” which of course tells of magazine-man Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) teaming up to solve a decades-old murder on a remote Swedish island.

Didn’t see the first one so I suppose I should start there.

‘Entourage’ star says Lynch’s lesbian joke wasn’t fair

“A lot people are very curious as to why I’m a lesbian — ladies and gentleman, the cast of Entourage,” she cracked.
But was the “Glee” star off the mark about the testosterone-fueled series? Kevin Dillon, aka Johnny Drama, thinks so…

“It was funny, but I think it’s not fair at the same time,” Dillon told me at the HBO party at the Pacific Design Center. “We all have good senses of humor but I think the men of ‘Entourage’ treat women well for the most part.

Again I’ve never seen an episode of Entourage so I can’t comment. I’ve got Rizzoli and Isles, Glee and The Good Wife to keep me amused, there’s not enough hours in the day sometimes

And in junk science of the bleeding obvious this week NU study finds bisexual men attracted to both genders

A new study conducted by Northwestern researchers found bisexual men are sexually stimulated by images of both genders. For Medill senior Chris Garcia, the results confirm what he’s known for years: he’s attracted to men and women.

I kid you not. I wonder when they do the same study on women will they get the same results? I’ll be here. On the edge of my seat.

Lawmakers Push Sex-Change Bill in Argentina

BUENOS AIRES – Legislators from Argentina’s ruling party are pushing debate on a bill to allow sex-change operations without previous judicial authorization, the press reported Sunday.

and with him yet to secure a nomination, David Norris heads the pack in the race for the Áras, according to the latest opinion poll.

Related posts:

1. A Suppa Earl Gae
2. A Suppa Earl Gae
3. A Suppa Earl Gae

'Still waiting' - Copyright Lisa Tiffany Photography

It was with a mixture of anticipation and excitement that I made my way to the official release of the Report from the Gender Recognition Advisory Group (GRAG), by Social Protection Minister Joan Burton yesterday morning.

A full 14 months has passed since the GRAG was established, 10 months since the closing date for acceptance of submissions on gender recognition legislation, and almost 9 months to the date when I presented my views on gender recognition to a panel of 3 government representatives, I finally held in my hand the document that should have culminated all that work. Instead, the disappointment of trans* individuals, allies and friends hung in the air.

The report was not made publicly available until after the launch this morning, meaning that we all only had a frantic 10 minutes flicking through the document until the launch began. With bated breath, everyone poured through the 65 pages, in the same way that you would your exam results; all hoping for the best outcome, but fearful of hidden surprises. The only sounds punctuating the room were exclamations of ridiculous inclusions, and the turning of pages.

Yesterday should have been a landmark day in Irish Trans* History. Instead, it was a huge letdown for the vast majority of people in the community.  In the few hours since its release, I’ve been angry, upset, hurt, in tears, and have come back to optimism again; because realistically, what else can you do?

Dr. Lydia Foy (right) stated in her address, that it’s not what we were hoping for, but as with civil partnership, it is at least a stepping stone in the right direction for trans* rights. Or is it? If we waited this long just to get gender recognition, who knows how long this ‘stepping stone’ will last. It may never be changed, or those who need and want the changes now may not be around to see it. Later is not good enough.

As Minister Burton stated in the press conference, this report has been read and approved by the cabinet, so the legislation should be implemented in the near future. However, some major discussions will soon be underway in the Oireachtas regarding the official implementation of this legislation.

“I am delighted to announce that I intend to bring forward legislation later this year providing for the recognition of the acquired gender of transgender people.  The High Court’s ruling in the Foy case that the State was in breach of its commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights in its failure to provide this recognition was delivered in 2008.  This Government is determined to implement legislation in this matter as soon as possible.”

So what can we expect from the gender recognition legislation?

(1)   Applications accepted from: Irish nations, Irish residents and those on the Foreign Births Register.

The issue with this is that there is no provision made for refugees, including those fearing persecution due to gender identity, as person must be an ordinary resident for two years prior to application.

(2)   The minimum age for application is 18 years.

(3)   A statutory declaration that they intend to live in their preferred gender for the rest of their lives, is required.

(4)   The applicant must have completed a minimum of two years “real life test”, living 24/7 as their preferred gender prior to application.

However, they do allow this period to begin from the age of 16 years, meaning that you can have all your documentation in order by your 18^th birthday and potentially get your GRC. The unfortunate addition to this clause is that, to be able to use any period of time prior to your 18^th birthday, the panel will require evidence from the applicants treating mental health professional stating that the applicant “had the requisite mental capacity at 16 and 17 years to understand the nature and effect of the treatment he/she was undergoing”.

(5)   Medical criteria: The applicant must have EITHER (A) a diagnosis of GID (plus “confirmation that the applicant is not suffering from any debarring mental health condition”) OR (B) have undergone gender re-assignment surgery.

If (B), you need your surgeon to have provided a formal declaration. Otherwise you will be required to have a physical examination by a medical professional to confirm this, which a lot of people are understandably distraught about. Surgery is (at least) not a requirement, but has been included so that many of the trans* individuals in Ireland who have already opted for surgery, can automatically avail of GRC.

Although it supports your case further, and should be provided if you have it, you do NOT need to have undergone hormone therapy etc. Other additions to support your application, that fall into this “relevant evidence” category are things such as electrolysis, waxing, vocal coaching….. (Remind me to write an article outlining these when the legislation comes through!); though there is something absurd about trans people having to give evidence of leg waxing to get a piece of paper declaring they’re a woman.

Possibly the worst addition to the report is the following,

(6)   The applicant cannot be in an existing valid marriage or civil partnership.

This means that in order to obtain a GRC, the applicant must be single. Annulment is not mandated for, as it goes against the Irish constitution, so the only way is through divorce, which requires a 4 year separation period.

When questioned on this topic further by two separate women, both in loving relationships with children, the reasoning from Minister Burton was “Failing to exclude people in an existing marriage would be constitutionally unsound”. GRAG Chairperson Oliver Ryan stated if the legislation was introduced without any reference to marital status, it could “in effect” be regarded as bringing in same sex marriage; further admitting the proposal left couples in “a practically impossible situation”.

“It leaves two [married] people who want to stay together in a practically impossible situation,” admitted Mr Ryan.

As read out by Minister Burton,

“For the majority of transgender persons who were married in their former gender but have since transitioned to the opposite gender, the marriage will have broken down by the time the transgender spouse wishes to apply for gender recognition…respondents…suggest that there is likely to be a small number of cases where the spouses wish to stay together…(the state) cannot be required to make allowances for the small number of marriages where both partners with to continue”.

Therefore, according to this statement, they believe that this decision to exclude those in marriages is compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. But because it’s going to be a supposed ‘small number of cases’, it’s ok. As far as the government is concerned, this issue has been put to rest.

(7)   Intersex people are excluded from legislation on the basis that they (apparently) have no way of official diagnosis (as with GID). Inclusion “required more research and medical expertise than was available”.

The enforcement of a medical diagnosis means that intersex individuals cannot access legislation due to ‘a pre-occurring condition’, despite the fact that the lives of these two communities overlap considerably. In some cases, it is the fault of the medical ‘professionals’ that their gender identity and assigned gender doesn’t correlate, as doctors have been allowed to choose a gender for the child, sometimes conducting ‘corrective surgeries’ when the gender was not immediately certain. No allowances will be made in legislation at all; not even a diagnosis of being intersex or a chance to explain their situation to the GRC panel.

As I said with my own personal submission to GRAG, and what was voiced by another emotional activist, Minister Burton could have made her legacy in trans* rights with this report, ensuring that our legislation is at the forefront of European Human rights with regard to gender identity, and set a precedent for other countries to follow suit. Instead, it seems like we got an almost copy of the UK legislation; a few things a little better, and others a lot worse.

Flipping through the pages, you have no idea how upsetting it is to see excerpts from my proposal in every “it was suggested” section, and yet almost none of it get actually implemented. It seems like my ideas got all the way to the final panel, and then were over-ruled for more conservative suggestions. They heard us, but they didn’t listen.

When questioned about the medicalisation implemented in this report (either diagnosis or surgery required), Mr Ryan had the audacity to say something to the effect of ‘well some countries even require sterilisation and we didn’t include that’ in a tone that said to me take what you’ve been given, and be thankful. When it was asked why they didn’t take the chance to be a leader of human rights legislation, and follow in the footsteps of other countries such as the new draft of the German gender identity laws (proposing a sworn affidavit for gender recognition, which can be legally upheld, is cost effective and qualifies under EU human rights policies.), the response was one of “(their legislation) hasn’t been changed yet”.

Although they reference the recent case of Louise Hannon, the report states that “the existing legislation….(is) adequate to discourage and prevent discrimination against persons who are making the transition from one gender to the other”; further clarifying this point in panel, saying that no provisions will be made for discrimination on the grounds of trans* status. This should have been provided for in the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act.

Another nugget of interest is that “the bill should provide for a revocation and correction process for GRCs”; a point that is not clearly explained anywhere in the report, that I can see. Who gets to decide on revoking GRCs? Presumably the government aren’t going to leave a legal loop that will allow anyone other than the applicant to revoke their GRC?! But after the mistakes made in this document, nothing would surprise me.

There is also the concern for trans* youth. Setting the age of gender recognition to 18 years, this could become an issue for Trans* youth in schools when registering their preferred name and gender. There is already a mountain of pressure surrounding young people in schools without accounting for bullying and transphobia.

Minister Burton did state that this was not in the original scope of the gender recognition advisory group, but having come across the mounting evidence that this will become a huge issue, they have instead chosen to pass on the information to the Department of Health and Children to be dealt with at a later stage, rather than ensuring that provisions are in place for these minors now. The “medical professional” consulted on this issue states in the report that “there is evidence from the literature that minors who desire a gender change frequently change their minds as they reach adulthood”; a claim that I would really like references for, as I can’t find a single source.

Everything in this report has been put ‘on the long finger’,  to be done “sometime in the future” (maybe); the future probably being at some later date, when the rest of the world has done it first and there is mounting pressure on Ireland to follow suit. The Minister made it clear to me that they were laying down legislation to comply with the Lydia Foy ruling, doing what needed to be done, but no more. After all, why would they, when they don’t ‘have to’? That’s just not good enough, Ireland.

So, being optimistic, what can we take from the report?

(1) There is no fee to obtain the GRC

(2) The process with be predominantly administrative. In the vast majority of cases, there should be a form to fill out, along with photocopies of all the required documentation. This will then be passed on to a panel to examine and decide on each application, in accordance with criteria outlined in the bill. The panel will be composed of a person with medical expertise, one with legal expertise and a third “lay-person representing wider civil society as chair”. Only in exceptional circumstances will the applicant be called forward for an oral meeting with the panel, but they may be accompanied by a person of their choosing.

(3) If unsuccessful, an appeals process will be set up to deal with claims and re-evaluation.

(4) If successful, the panel will pass this information on to the general registrar via confidential means, who will then contact you regarding providing your new certificate.

(5) The link between the original birth entry and the new GRC entry will be maintained confidentially, similar to adoptive records.

(6) The original birth certificate will be flagged so that it may not be obtained by anyone without owners consent; unless required for legal reasons (eg. Criminal investigation)

(7) The new GRC will be identical to the certificate produced in the year of your birth, meaning if you were born in 1945, the style of certificate used in that year will be implemented. This will ensure further privacy.

(8) Parental rights are completely unaffected by the GRC (I can’t, however, find information on adoptive children, or children by marriage).

(9) Once your GRC has been processed, you may marry / have a civil partnership, and obtain the full rights issued by those institutions.

At the launch, Minister Burton affirmed her commitment to the process, noting that there is an “open door”. She welcomed submissions on the legislation for consideration until legislation has been passed.

So there is still some hope, however slight. If you’re motivated to do something right, please read the report in full, sleep on it, and present a FEW points that you’ve researched well to Minister Burton(joan.burton@oireachtas.ie), as they explain their rational for each decision in the report.

A few strong points make a bigger impact than an essay. Reference the report, debunk their reasoning and provide a method of implementing your opinion, (preferably without breaking constitution) and most importantly, write from the heart.  A simple idea has more ground to get included, but can make a profound difference to the lives of our trans* family.

Related posts:

1. Let’s make trans people heard!
2. Missing Pieces: Immigration & legal procedures
3. Ireland to Host European Transgender Forum

Right, the news I hear you cry. The women’s world cup kicks off this weekend and Gooner will be covering it for us, but in the meantime its causing headlines for all the wrong reasons.

In African Women’s Soccer, Homophobia Remains an Obstacle

Over the past two years, as Nigeria progressed toward the Women’s World Cup, which begins Sunday in Germany, Uche said that she has used religion in an attempt to rid her team of homosexual behavior, which she termed a “dirty issue,” and “spiritually, morally very wrong.”

“The issue of lesbianism is common,” said Uche, who previously played in the World Cup for Nigeria and described herself as a Christian who is married and a mother of two children. “I came to realize it is not a physical battle; we need divine intervention in order to control and curb it. I tell you it worked for us. This is a thing of the past. It is never mentioned.”

Just what we need,a whack of the bible across the head and voila, we turn straight.

Same-sex couples with children show dramatic increase

According to the latest data released by the U.S. Census Bureau, a startling picture of California is unveiled.

Nepal lesbian wedding inspires Bengal, Kerala

The first public lesbian wedding in Nepal, held this week under the aegis of the republic’s gay rights icon Sunil Babu Pant, has inspired the gay communities in West Bengal and Kerala to seek help to host the two states’ first public gay rallies next month.

Thanks to AfterEllen for this gem from Olivia Wilde

Olivia, we love you.

CEO Says Ladies Get Paid Less Because We’re Always On Our Periods

“Why do they take the most sick leave? Women do in general. Why? Because once a month they have sick problems, not all of them but some do. They have children that they have to take leave of therefore their productivity…(it’s) not their fault. It may be that they have not got it sorted with their partners where the partners take more responsibility for what happens outside work.”

You are a peach Mr Thompson.

Google hides Gay Pride rainbow

This made me chuckle. Your Gaydar May Improve With Ovulation

Seriously? Do psychologists have nothing better to do?

I AM: Trans People Speak is a multi-media campaign aimed at raising awareness about the diverse communities of trans individuals, families, and allies.

That’s all folks! Whatever you get up to, have a happy and safe Pride!

Related posts:

1. A Suppa Earl Gae
2. A Suppa Earl Gae
3. A Suppa Earl Gae

Mischief  is a new night which started in The George bar a few weeks ago. Taking place every Friday, the idea behind the night is that each week has a different theme, and so far the organisers have gone all out to give the clubbers in attendance the best experience possible.

The theme of the initial Mischief was a Thai Full Moon Party, which was basically a UV paint party, and was an excellent night. There were literal buckets of alcohol!  The following week featured a Jagerbomb Party, last week was a Eurovision Party and this week showcases the first Beach Party ever held in the George.

The Beach Party@The George looks set to be the most elaborate theme yet, with the club promising:

Massage Huts!
Tanning Booths
Free lays on arrival
Drinks served in neon buckets
Beach Balls!
21 Degrees inside the club!
Paparazzi
Very best beach party tunes!
Fire Dancers
Fire performers

It looks like Mischief will continue to bring a diverse range nights and themes to the scene, so I would recommend people go along and check it out.

For a chance of getting on the cheap list/VIP guest list, comment on the Facebook event wall here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=131317056943585

Related posts:

1. Kelis in the George, June 23rd
2. From NYC straight to The George
3. Rescheduled: Alexandra Stan to Play The George

This is an open invitation to all members of the transgender community to join TENI
for a consultation with the Rights Now campaign:
Monday 21st February
6-8pm

Exchange Dublin (Exchange Street Upper, Temple Bar, Dublin 2)
For more information: office@teni.ie or (01) 873 3575.
Safe space and everyone is welcome

The United Nations Universal Periodic Review of Ireland is an important opportunity for us to highlight the gaps in human rights protection within Ireland. This is your chance to hold the government accountable for the lack of legal recognition, protection and visibility of transgender people.

What are the issues that matter to you? What are your experiences? Your input is the only way we can provide evidence of the current human rights situation for transgender people.

We ask that you consider your experiences with regards to the example questions below.

>Do you want to attain legal recognition of your preferred gender? (e.g. changing birth certificate)
>Have you had difficulty changing documentation to reflect your preferred gender? (e.g. passport, drivers license, medical cards, bank/credit card, student cards, etc.)
>Have you had difficulty or faced discrimination when accessing healthcare because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you had difficulty with medical insurance because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you had difficulty or faced discrimination when finding accommodation or keeping accommodation because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you had difficulty or faced discrimination when trying to find employment or keep employment because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you had difficulty or faced discrimination when accessing social welfare because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you faced discrimination in the education system because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you faced harassment or violence because of your gender identity and/or expression? (E.g. verbal abuse, derogatory statements, bullying, physical violence, sexual assault, etc.).
>Have you had ever tried to report a hate crime to the Gardaí?
>Have you had experiences with the criminal justice system related to your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you felt like your privacy has been compromised because of your gender identity and/or expression (e.g. have you been ‘outed’ against your will)?
>Have you been denied access to your children because of your gender identity and/or expression?
>Have you been denied access to adoption services or assisted reproductive technologies because of your gender identity and/or expression?
This is not an exhaustive list and we want to hear from you!

The consultation will be completely anonymous and confidential. No information that you provide will be linked to you as an individual and all identifying details will be removed when compiling the report.

This consultation is open to all transgender people. We would also like to invite partners, family members, friends and allies to contribute insight into their experiences. We want to include as wide a range of experiences as possible.

We recognise that some people may not feel comfortable discussing these issues in public or may not be able to attend a consultation in Dublin. We still want to hear from you. We are looking for diverse experiences from across Ireland. Please contact us at info@teni.ie or (01) 873 3575 and we will support you to tell us your story.

Make your voice count!

Related posts:

1. Trans* people could be barred from flying in Canada
2. Trans Day of Remembrance
3. Survey: Trans* people and online support

The conversation is different with the trans community.

The nature of the trans community itself makes visibility extremely difficult. Many trans people aspire to live post-transition as though they’d never lived otherwise. That means they become invisible — exactly their goal, and totally their right. And while visibility and understanding can also increase awareness in larger society about the struggles and rights of trans people, for many trans people, standing up and being counted simply isn’t an option.

Remember we talked about butch women? I said, at the time:

a woman who spends her life presenting as other than “how a woman should look” is a lightening rod for hate and violent rhetoric.

That in itself is as much about the control of women and femininity as it is about anything else. But it’s also about the fact that society in general really, really hates it when their assumptions are either incorrect, or they are unable to make an assumption. It makes people nervous and afraid. And that fear makes people angry.

Fear makes me angry too. When I saw the front page article that outed a woman as trans last week, I was terrified. Not for myself, but for people I know and love. I was afraid for the woman involved as well, although I don’t know her. My fear made me angry. I’m still angry.

They named her, published photographs and used words like TRANSSEXUAL and FELLOW in big, scary caps. At least, it probably scared the writer, Gary Meneely, who, frankly, should be struggling to live with his conscience right about now.

The woman he outed had never done anything to him. She wasn’t living a lie, or even living deep stealth. She wasn’t rude when she refused to be part of a tabloid’s “case study”. On the board of a trans rights organisation and known for giving talks on the subject, the “revelation” hardly qualified as the “WORLD EXCLUSIVE” the rag touted. But still,until this, she had control over who knew. The tabloid took all that away from her.

Perhaps this story may help us understand why so many trans people chose to erase their pasts entirely. Post-transition, a lot of people make the painful decision to cut off family and old friends. They move, and start a new life where nobody knows. They alter childhood stories and discard photographs, cards, letters, diplomas — anything containing any kind of clue about the past.

Let’s clarify some terms first. Let’s say stealth is living where your neighbors and community don’t know, but you have friends that you maintain contact with that do.

Deep stealth is when you drop all the past, rather erase it. You begin completely new, like you landed on this planet full grown, with no real past.

Since everyone has to have a past, you must make one up, but how? First rule is don’t make up anything too interesting, for if you do, people will talk about this made up past of yours. For example, if I had said that I was a Ph.D. student that dropped out of school and my parents disowned me, people would think, ‘ she must be really smart, or a liar, she must have some mean parents’. You want people not to think anything.
TSRoadMap

There are a lot of reasons people want to live this way, as hard and painful and lonely as it can be. It’s significantly safer. There are economic, social and romantic benefits.

There’s a 2006 UK study done about the discrimination faced by trans people. One striking statistic is that 42% of people wanting to transition did not do so because they feared they would lose their job or be harassed at work. Unfortunately, the statistics from those who did transition and work at the same time prove their fears correct. Many people transitioning in work have been harassed (one in ten) and often are made to use the wrong toilets (one in four). 6% of respondants were physically assaulted at work as they transitioned.

More recently, the an American study was just released with very sobering statistics, including that 41% of the more than 6000 people they interviewed had attempted suicide. 90% had been mistreated at work. 35% had been physically assaulted while in school, and 12%, sexually assaulted. The study found that trans people in America were four times more likely to live in poverty than the general population.

I’m not saying that outing gay people is not a bad thing. We certainly are targeted as well. But the consequences faced by trans people when they are outed can be different in orders of magnitude. I remember several years ago when a women and her family were hounded out of a large European city when she was outed as trans to the wrong person. She said it never leaves her mind that it might happen again, so she has never felt settled where she is.

An outing like the one last week shouldn’t be tolerated. It should be condemned everywhere. Preferably, without outing her again in the process.

Related posts:

1. Have the ethics of outing changed?
2. Fear and loathing in the Rebel City
3. Ireland to Host European Transgender Forum

First — As you could probably discern from the title, this post is about sex. If that worries you (or your employer if you’re at work ), here’s a link to some cuddly pets.

Now, everyone else with me? Let’s talk about sex.

Sex can be complicated. It can be especially complicated when one or more of the people involved have less than happy feelings about the equipment they were born with. It can also be complicated if that equipment doesn’t behave in the way we expect it to.

Complicated, however, does not mean stressful or boring or not worth the effort. It just means you need to use your most useful sex organ of all: your brain.

Some of us have been there. You find a woman attractive and your attentions are reciprocated. You’ve discussed it. You know what to expect. You’re over it if you had a problem with it in the first place. But then you’re actually getting down to business and suddenly you’re confused. Communication, as we all know, is a big part of great sex. In the case where you may not even know where to start, communication is all you have.

Until now, the internet couldn’t even help you.

This is where the ezine “Fucking Trans Women” comes in. Written by trans dyke Miranda Bellwether, it reads like a (long, but artfully presented) letter to a lover. She wrote it because she “got tired of waiting for someone else to write it for me, so I decided to write it myself.”

Her vision is this:

Trans women are told things about our sexualities all the time, but only rarely are we given the opportunity to say something about our own sex lives. Sex is a very important part of my life, a very important part of all our lives, but so very little writing has been done on the sex lives of trans women that doesn’t write us off in one way or another. I found myself looking for a guide, an instruction manual, anything beyond essays on gender and problems. Fucking Trans Women is that guide.

Miranda doesn’t ignore gender or problems. She meets several complicated issues head-on and expresses her own personal preferences while making clear that these aren’t universal. She explains her own choice of words and admits that others will prefer things said differently. She addresses the fetishisation of trans women and the fears that lovers may feel about being a “tranny chaser” or a fetishist. She’s emotionally honest about her own stuff, too. But I think the important part is that she’s opened up this conversation.

It’s not just theoretical, either. FTW is instructional (and illustrated). The author/editor focuses in her own writing on sex with non-op or pre-op — women who still have an identifiable penis and testicles — but encourages post-op women to contribute to future issues as well.

But the project I had in mind wasn’t “Fucking Mira Bellwether,” it was Fucking Trans Women, and for that reason and many others, my hope for this zine is that it can become a collaborative project. It is designed to expand to fit the needs of all sorts of trans women by letting us talk about our own sex lives and practices with one another, and also our lovers. I hope it will become a community resource, something that we can share with our lovers and our dates to generate productive, shared conversations.

Have a look. (not even kind of safe for work)

Related posts:

1. Trans Day of Remembrance
2. Let’s make trans people heard!
3. Survey: Sexual minority women

One was our poll asking whether people would agree with the Irish government deporting (non-Irish) LGBT people to countries where same-sex acts are criminalised.

There was also our article on the removal of any reference to sexual orientation from a UN resolution on extra-judicial executions. This despite the fact that several independent experts have reported to the UN about the grave abuses perpetrated in particular against LGBT people.

Yes, human rights – or, more accurately, human rights violations – are quite topical for us who are dykes, queers, faggots, deviants, possessed, witches, criminals, unnaturals, against God’s law, et al. There remain countries in the world where this is how we are viewed, including scores of countries where we are criminalised for who we are, and in six of these the penalties include execution.

When LGBTs flee such countries to seek asylum, will we get protection? How does Ireland treat asylum seekers who fear persecution because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?

Unfortunately, it’s not just in far-away countries that LGBTs are threatened. Problems in Europe – including in Ireland – persist. Added to the worrying events of recent years (just look at Bulgaria, Lithuania, Russia), there are some very sinister developments.

Europe

In Sweden, a lesbian couple who applied for refugee status has been threatened with deportation to Iraq. If returned, the women fear (among other things) that they may be subjected to so-called “honour killings”. In a bid to prevent the women being removed by the Swedish authorities back to Iraq, an emergency application was made to the European Court of Human Rights (under its “Rule 39″ procedures) to put a hold on their removal pending their cases being examined by the Court.

It is up to the Swedish government to honour the Court’s request and not return the women. The matter is ongoing, and only one of the women has received confirmation that she will not be deported, for now.

In the Czech Republic, gays – that is, gay men – are being subjected to “gay tests”. This is not a joke. Some refugee claimants who base their application on the grounds of their sexual orientation have been put through “phallometric” tests: the men are shown straight porn videos and, well, their anatomical responses are measured. The Czech government has defended the procedures.

The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency has strongly criticised the practice. According to PinkNews:

The FRA said the practice violates international human rights laws which prohibit torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. It may also violate provisions around the right to a private life.

In addition, it questioned whether asylum seekers could consent to the test if refusal is taken as proof of lying.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that:

self-identification as LGBT should be taken as an indication of the individual’s sexual orientation

I’d bet my next pay-cheque that no asylum applicant anywhere in the world, ever, has had their sexual orientation called into question when they’ve claimed to be straight.

Ireland

In Ireland, there is very little information in the public domain about the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers here. Although Gaelick is aware of cases where worrying decisions have been issued refusing refugee status – and at least one case where a deportation order has been signed – the anecdotal evidence available cannot be disclosed to protect individuals’ identities and to ensure their privacy and safety.

Amnesty Ireland’s LGBT group brought our attention to one case in the media, however. Last month, a gay man – who was an unaccompanied child at the time of his initial application for refugee status in Ireland – won his challenge to a deportation order signed by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern. The only problem is that the deportation order was issued in 2009, and the deportation was subsequently carried out and the man was returned to his country of origin.

The Evening Herald reported:

The man, who cannot be identified and is referred to as ‘A’, was deported last year after several other challenges were rejected.

Mr Justice Sean Ryan yesterday [12th November 2010] quashed the Minister for Justice’s decision of July 28 last year to refuse to revoke his deportation order for the man.

The man is still in Nigeria and yesterday’s decision does not mean he can come back to Ireland until the minister re-considers his decision, legal sources said.

In Nigeria, same-sex activity is a federal criminal offence country-wide. In individual states in the north of the country, Shari’ah law also applies. Elsewhere the majority of people practice various forms of Christianity, often mixed with elements of traditional religions including juju. Therefore, not only are there serious criminal sanctions in place, but societal attitudes are very strongly opposed to homosexuality.

How many other LGBT asylum seekers have been deported to unsafe countries where they may face torture, death or other forms of serious harm? Perhaps our next poll question should be: Why is Ireland deporting LBGT people to countries where they are criminalised and persecuted?

Persecution and seeking international protection: the good and the bad

A couple of months back, Orange wrote about developments in refugee cases, where asylum seekers were challenging through the UK courts refusals they received in their refugee applications. The refusals were issued with the reasoning that if those people returned to their countries were “discrete” (i.e. if they concealed their identities, or remained closeted) that would be an acceptable way for them to avoid being persecuted. The countries we’re talking about here are – wait for it – Cameroon and Iran. Iran.

Thankfully, the developments developed and sanity prevailed when the UK Supreme Court ruled on the matter in July of this year. (The court’s decision is equally applicable in Ireland, as human rights and refugee law is basically the same worldwide.)

The key part of the ruling emphatically dismisses the idea that lesbians or gay men should in any way conceal their identities and not “flaunt” who they are, or that they are required to be discreet. The ruling essentially boiled the correct approach down to a number of questions:

• When someone claims they fear persecution because they are gay, does the evidence indicate they are, or might be perceived to be, gay?

• If so, does the evidence show that “openly” gay people in that country may be persecuted?

• If so, what would this claimant do if returned to the country?

• If s/he would live openly and therefore be at risk of persecution, then s/he is a refugee – even if s/he could avoid the risk by living “discreetly”.

• If, however, s/he would live discreetly, the question must be asked why they would do that.

• If s/he would live discreetly simply because that his how s/he wishes to live, or because of social pressures (e.g. not wanting to distress or embarrassment to family or friends) then s/he is not a refugee.

• If, however, the reason for living discreetly is because of a fear of persecution, then s/he is a refugee.

The court explained:

To reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the [Refugee Convention] exists to protect – his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution.

It is that simple.

Related posts:

1. Altering your sexual orientation
2. Human Rights: Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN
3. The Kaleidoscope Trust

Related posts:

1. Visible Lives: Older LGBT people in Ireland
2. Government transgression
3. Let’s make trans people heard!

Not only is this untrue, I think it’s dangerous to progressing the cause of LGBT rights at the international level. So, what are the rumours, and what are the facts?

The rumours

Screaming headlines such as, “Countries vote to accept execution of gays” from PinkPaper.co.uk (not to be confused with PinkNews.co.uk), tweets and Facebook updates a-plenty; even the kind-of-but-not-really-accurate headline, “UN votes against protecting gays from execution”, from The Raw Story – these all misrepresent what actually happened at the UN.

The facts

The facts are there to read for yourselves, if you visit Reuters, or Evelyn Leopold’s excellent article at HuffPo – or even over at Queerty, with the not-really-misleading-but-it-actually-kind-of-is article headline, “Why It’s No Big Deal Gays Weren’t Added To The United Nation’s Special List Of People Not To Slaughter”.

In short, what took place was that a draft resolution against on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions was being put to a vote for final approval. The resolution included a list of particular prohibited reasons, and groups who were to be protected from such unlawful killings, such as: racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons; and killings of refugees, indigenous people. Included in the resolution, according to Evelyn Leopold, were paragraphs urging investigations of all killings “committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation” (actual or perceived).

On behalf of Islamic and African nations, respectively, Morocco and Mali proposed an amendment to the resolution to delete the words “sexual orientation” and replace that phrase with “discriminatory reasons on any basis”. The amendment was passed – by less than a handful of votes.

Arguably, then, LGBs are still protected under the resolution, although not specifically mentioned. (Notably, it seems that there was never any mention of gender identity, or similar wording, so that trans or intersex people were not specifically listed. I’m open to correction on that, however.)

That’s not to say, of course, that things are rosy and that what happened at the UN isn’t deeply worrying.

The entire point of the resolution was to protect specifically persecuted groups. Report after report has been prepared and submitted to the UN by independent experts (known as Special Rapporteurs), including reports detailing killings of LGB people. After the vote, Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch told Reuters:

It’s a step backwards and it’s extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence.

The UK delegation at the vote read a statement into the record saying that killings of gays is “a continuing cause for concern.”

It should be mentioned that a lot of lobbying work goes on at the UN, by NGOs and expert organisations; and also by two notable entities. One is the Vatican (or Holy See), which is not a member state at the United Nations, but does have permanent observer status. The other is the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). Each of these lobbies heavily to influence the content of UN resolutions, treaties, motions, reports and so on. Sometimes – almost incredibly – the Vatican and OIC work closely together in their lobbying. The most obvious example are their joint efforts against the inclusion of any references to sexual orientation in UN documents.

Why are the rumours about this resolution dangerous?

In my view, at least, the shrill hyperbole irresponsibly circulating at the moment accuses the United Nations (as a single entity, it should be noted) of virtually signing the death warrants of gays around the world. This is dangerous, I think, because it detracts from the real challenges faced by gays around the world. It also misconstrues the resolution, even with its amendment, as being weaker than it actually is.

The UN resolution: Where does Ireland stand?

I contacted the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the UN in New York to ask about their involvement concerning this resolution.

A spokesman replied to Gaelick late last night to outline Ireland’s position:

Ireland has traditionally co-sponsored the draft resolution on “Extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions” and actively participated in the informal negotiations on this most recent version in New York over the last six weeks. Ireland participated in meetings of the co-sponsors of this resolution, where it was decided to oppose attempts to delete the reference to “sexual orientation” in the text, which has been included in the resolution since the 57th session of the UN General Assembly in 2002.

Ireland voted against the amendment brought by Morocco and Mali (on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the African Group respectively), which removed the reference to sexual orientation. Regrettably, the amendment was narrowly passed by 79 votes in favour, with 70 votes against and 17 abstentions.

The resolution as a whole was then voted on and, given the overall importance of this traditional resolution, Ireland voted in favour notwithstanding our reservations on the deletion of the reference to sexual orientation. The amended resolution was adopted by 165 votes in favour, none against and 10 abstaining.

Related posts:

1. Study: Screen Gays are Stereotypes
2. Republican Candidates at it Again & Undercover Gays
3. LGBT Noise – March for Marriage 2011

If you are aged under 23 years this group is for you!

Meetings take place:

6pm-8pm
Every Wednesday
11A White Street, Cork

What’s On Offer at Phoenix?

• Art as a Therapy
• Come Dine With Me – Cooking on a budget!
• Mind body & soul
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Group Support
• One-to-one counselling service

• LINC Is a Community Resource Centre For Women Who Identify As Lesbian Or Bisexual. We Provide Information, Help & Support Either By Telephone or Personal Enquiry.

Web: www.linc.ie
Email: info@linc.ie
Tel: 021 4808600

Related posts:

1. BLT Sandwich (7-10 Nov)
2. Fundraiser for Outhouse

Of course, if you plan on recording or watching one of the re-runs later, then avert your eyes! Otherwise: join us. We’ll get things started from around 9:30pm.

Everything will happen over on our live blog. How to join in? There are two ways:

• If you have a Twitter account, you can use Twitter as normal – just be sure to use our hashtag #GaeLip and your tweet will be automatically included.

• Or else you can comment directly on the live blog.

You can follow Gaelick on Twitter at twitter.com/gaelick.

And don’t forget that if you want to keep up with the thousands of other viewers across the UK and Ireland, the official Lip Service hashtag on Twitter is #LipService.

Related posts:

1. Filming Lip Service season 2
2. True Blood Finale
3. Where’s the Service?