Trans people in India

Face Book, as Colin has noted, has been a great resource for LGBT people in Africa – and just recently the Trustees of Changing Attitude have begun to realise its potential.

I’m grateful to Face Book for this link relating to Trans people, posted by my friend Cameron Partridge, of TransEpsicopal, about the work of the Church Missionary Society with the transgender community in the Pune area of India.

http://mission.typepad.com/church_mission_society_cm/

During the podcast you will hear Stephen Edison refer to India’s trans people as the lowest social group of all – partly, it seems, because many of them have to rely on the sex trade to make a living - and yet, paradoxically, who are in demand still for their spirituality, especially blessings at weddings and at funerals.

Interestingly he doesn’t use the Hindu term ‘Hijra’ and seems to imply, incorrectly I would guess, that many Indian males seek castration because of same-sex attraction (though it is believed that this does happen in some societies, Iran for example, where homosexuality is unacceptable).

Scholars and activists debate whether Hijras and other cross-gender phenomena in traditional societies are the equivalent of trans people in the West. I’m sure that they are, and that one reason why this is questioned is a lack of historical awareness of cross-gender variance in Western culture, with the consequence that ‘transsexualism’ can be dismissed by some as a 20^th Century invention. Treatment options for trans people have certainly expanded in the last eighty years but ‘transitioning’ from one gender to another seems to have existed throughout human history.

Towards the end of the podcast Stephen refers specifically to ‘transsexual people’ as distinct from the broader term ‘transgender’ with which the item begins, which seems to continue the westernization of the client group.

As well as providing training so that clients can aspire to mainstream jobs he and his co-mission partner Lalita Edwards are trying to ‘change attitudes’ – YES, the phrase is actually used – so that employers will be willing to take them on. God bless the CMS!

Sonia

Sonia made a deep impression on me from our first meeting, in January last year, at a Rainbow Space evening at St Anne’s Soho, where she was then a member of the congregation. An entirely passable Trans woman, with a beautiful face, I was surprised to learn from her, on that occasion, that she was not living full-time as a woman but still worked as a male. Unnecessarily diffident about her feminine appearance/presentation and even about her work as a human rights lawyer, which we now know was of the highest quality, I had hoped, on that occasion, that she would join Sibyls, Christian spirituality for transgender people, which she subsequently did.

The last time I saw her was in June this year, over dinner at the Sibyls’ London meeting, following Evening Prayer at St Anne’s. With a mass of bubble hair, and a Zara shopping bag at her side containing her latest purchase, she looked lovely, and over the meal, characteristically, took a newer, younger, disabled member under her wing.

My husband and I sat opposite them, enjoying her company and the conversation, during which I learned three things that I did not know about Sonia: she and I grew up in the same part of England, where our paths could have crossed, but didn’t; that she too had been a student in Cambridge, Sonia being a few years ahead of me; which was the third thing I discovered about her that night - although I’d assumed that she was younger than me, she was in fact older by about five years. As the summer months passed I continued to hear from a friend about how well Sonia was settling into her new church where she had begun to participate enthusiastically in the life and ministry of the congregation.

Autumn arrived, the beginning of the dark months which, in my experience, have frequently led me into a period of personal upheaval and psychological shadow. A week ago, on Monday 25^th October, in the early evening, I was angry and agitated as I began undoing all the work I had been engaged in earlier that day and which was not right. I had no idea of course that at the very same time Sonia was in mortal danger.

The next evening, when Rob arrived home, he immediately drew my attention to the front page of the free London paper where the headline read: “Man in dress ‘pushed’ to his death on tube”. It seemed needlessly sensational, if not bordering on the offensive. Evidently there was a story here, and one that, whatever the details, was almost bound to have a trans-related angle. According to the reporters commuters had seen two women, one younger than the other, interacting excitedly with each other at the edge of the platform at Kings Cross underground station, one of whom then either fell, or was pushed, into the path of the oncoming tube train. Witnesses were shocked and travel chaos ensued. Police attending the scene discovered that the dead woman was a biological male.

It sounded a very strange case indeed. Never, though, even for a moment, did Sonia come to mind as the likely victim, but the next evening, by which time further information was appearing in the press, though not the name of the deceased, a friend from Sibyls rang to inform me that Sonia was indeed the person who had died. So began my grief at her loss, combined with disappointment and anger at much of the press coverage with its insensitive and inaccurate stereotypes of ‘a bloke in a frock’: an image far removed from the petite, fashionable woman I had known for the past couple of years. Commuters’ first impressions of her had been spot on, and whatever her anatomy might be, she was, in heart, and soul, and yes, when dressed, in body, a loving and lovely woman.

And even though she continued to present as a male in her working life, perhaps there too she operated as a female in masculine clothing; certainly, her family have emphasised that although she worked in male mode they would prefer her to be known as Sonia, because that is who she was. Meanwhile, her colleagues have paid tribute to her pioneering work as a human rights lawyer, and the landmark cases for which she was responsible, making her death not just the loss of a precious human being who will be sorely missed, but of a professional lawyer with a passion for justice and the marginalised who still had much to give to society.

This weekend, praying at the Eucharist with the Changing Attitude Trustees, I watched as leaves fell from the trees – light, delicate, beautiful – and thought of Sonia and the fragility of human life. She appeared physically fragile and yet, as her working life demonstrates, she had tremendous courage, strength and determination, and it is shocking that she should have died in the circumstances that she did, not gently, like the falling leaves, but violently and in public view.

Privacy, for all people, is a human right that promotes dignity and a sense of self-worth, and is particularly precious to Transgender people as they approach, hover on, or begin to cross gender boundaries, while negotiating this process with significant others in their lives; and yet, as the coverage of Sonia’s death shows, in late 2010, despite the media having being responsible for greater general knowledge about Trans people’s lives, in death a Trans woman can still be stigmatized by the press in the grossest possible way by referring to her as a ‘man’ or by the use of male pronouns. The Telegraph on-line report, somewhat surprisingly, was an exception, and exemplary in referring to Sonia throughout as a woman, which is what she was.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8086759/Murder-inquiry-after-woman-pushed-under-Tube-train-at-Kings-Cross-station-during-joke.html

Let’s hear it too for the journalist who knocked a dozen or more years off her age – Sonia would have loved that!

Changing Attitude's contribution to the House of Bishop's working groups

The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed two groups with four bishops in each, one broadly conservative, the other broadly liberal, which John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln and CA patron, has convened. He aksed Changing Attitude to send our thoughts and after consulting with our local groups and supporters online, the following comments have been forwarded:

Issues in Human Sexuality
Issues in Human Sexuality should be abandoned as a document defining Church of England teaching about the sexuality of LGBT people. Public perception is that the Church has a pathological pre-occupation with human sexuality. The official Church of England position is deeply at odds with what the majority of people in our congregations think and the practice of many bishops towards LGBT clergy and laity. For the majority of church goers human sexuality is not an issue. They want the church to welcome and grant equality to LGBT people. People find the church's teaching about homosexuality wrong or irrelevant, reinforcing the view that Christianity is irrelevant and repressive. The churches disapproval of homosexuality has driven many people away from its doors and caused considerable pain to others.

Positive same-sex ethic
The church should develop a positive ethic for same-sex relationships stressing fidelity and commitment.

Mission and evangelism - the gospel for LGBT people
What is the gospel of Jesus Christ for LGBT people as they discover that they are accepted by wider society? The secular world is setting the agenda for liberation in the UK and western cultures and society accepts LGBT people and grants equal rights. Conservative Christian attitudes lead many LGBT people who attend church to hide or deny their sexuality. Some LGBT people still experience bigotry, hatred, and prejudice. The church should speak out strongly against bigotry and prejudice.

LGBT ordination and ministry
A vocation to the priesthood for LGBT people should be tested without reference to their sexuality. The recommendation sometimes made to become a Reader isn't a solution – some bishops impose ‘Issues’ as a requirement for Readers. The House of Bishops should adopt a policy that Canon C4 paragraph 1 (ordination) does not exclude men and women whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex, and who are "of virtuous conversation and good repute and such as to be of wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ". Many LGBT clergy are forced to live a lie and hide their sexuality because they fear disclosure may affect their chances of preferment or appointment to a new post within their diocese.

Relationships and Civil Partnerships
Faithful committed gay relationships have positive moral value and deserve the church’s support not condemnation. Civil partnerships should be celebrated and blessed in church. General Synod should approve a public liturgy for Prayer and Dedication of a Civil Partnership. Commitment to a life-partner should be equally acceptable for clergy and lay people. Acceptance of gay relationships does not weaken or undermine heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not the only place for children to be raised. Gay couples can be good parents too.

Nurture or nature
Homosexuality is not a matter of choice. Gay identity is real, not chosen.

Reparative therapy
The experience of LGBT people who have undergone reparative therapy is that it is harmful and should not be approved by the Church.

Intersex and Transgender
‘Issues’ is deeply flawed because it takes little account of intersex and transgender people. Both transgender and intersex are matters of gender identity rather than sexuality. Intersex is a medical condition not necessarily related to either gender identity or sexuality. Intersex disturbs hetero-normative assumptions about sex, gender and sexuality.

Anglican diversity
We need to affirm Anglican diversity, living with widely varying Christian attitudes. The church should allow room for pastoral and theological development. Reality is more complex than the habitual conservative/liberal dualism.

House of Bishops
There is a diversity of opinion and practice in the House of Bishops. Some bishops dissent from the Church's current official position. Bishops need to have the courage of their convictions and speak more truthfully.

Colin Coward

Changing Attitude needs all the help we can get to further our campaign to change Anglican attitudes. To contribute to our work by becoming a supporter, please click here; or to make a donation click here.

Do you believe that God has called you to this ministry?

This question, or something like it, is asked of candidates for ordination, frequently, and at various stages. It is the ultimate question: the only one that truly matters, though the call, or vocation, must be tested by the wider church, which usually involves a long and rigorous discernment process.

Why then should three Church of England Bishops be so concerned to screen out candidates who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LBGT)? And not just those who feel that God is calling them to ordained ministry but lay ministry as well; in fact, anyone who aspires to a leadership or public role in a faith community?

I am referring, of course, to the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter and Chester, who are said to be campaigning in the House of Lords to defeat the Equality Bill, lest faith communities find themselves accused of discrimination, as happened in the case of John Reaney, a diocesan youth officer, in the diocese of Hereford.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476862.stm

A rigorous discernment process, which the Church of England has in place, combined with professional interviewing and human resources processes, should be more than sufficient to ensure that those who are selected for training, or particular posts, lay or ordained, are indeed the people that God has duly called.

It is, therefore, an absolute disgrace to seek to prevent a person of faith from entering the selection process, or to disqualify them from a post, simply for being LGBT. It is, nothing less than an assault on their God-given humanity and a dreadful denial of the integrity of their faith journey.

Much has been heard recently from the bishops in the Lords about the need to balance individual rights with the rights of the faith communities, but we hear very little about the incredible gymnastics that goes on in the hearts and souls of faithful LGBT people who have to manage the call of God to service and membership of the body of Christ with such apparent rejection from their senior pastors. For some the tension is too much, and they turn to other, more welcoming churches, like the Metropolitan Community Church, while others turn away completely and begin to hate the Church with a passionate hatred, and who can blame them?

But the call of God continues – that, at least, cannot be frustrated by amendments to Parliamentary Bills. And God calls people – often indiscriminately, or so it might seem according to our prim and proper notions of who should and should not be called. God doesn’t seem to notice the labels that we attach to ourselves or to other people: he calls men and women, and - to quote playwright Jo Clifford – those who are ‘something in between’ (God’s New Frock) as well.

And there’s another thing that puzzles me about the current episcopal agitation. I’ll let Colin and others consider their amendments from the sexual orientation point of view, but twice now, within the last few weeks, in the House of Lords, bishops have pointed out that the Church of England has not yet made up its mind about ‘transgendering’ (by which, presumably, is meant transitioning). Indeed one of the three bishops I’ve mentioned stated that he would be willing to ordain or to officiate at the marriage of someone who had transitioned from one gender to another, though he admitted that he was aware of colleagues who would not be prepared to do this. In that case, if no agreement has been reached, why is it thought necessary to include transgender people in this list of exemptions at all? Evidently it has not yet become a matter of dogma on which all believers concur.

'A sign of a healthy and mature society'?

Dr Stephen Whittle, OBE (right) and his wife Sarah Rutherford:

married in June 2005 in Heaton Mersey Methodist Church.

The couple, who had been together for 26 years, have four children.

Stephen was born female and transitioned to male in the 1970s.

Yesterday, in the House of Lords, Baroness Thornton, speaking on behalf of the government, accepted two amendments to the Equality Bill relating to transsexual people: 58A from the Bishop of Winchester (moved in his absence by the Bishop of Southwark) and 58B (moved by Baroness Gould of Potternewton).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100119-0006.htm

These amendments were designed to protect clergy and ministers from claims of discrimination should they to refuse to solemnise a marriage where they had reason to believe that one of the parties had undergone gender reassignment.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 gives transsexual people who transition to their acquired gender the opportunity to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. If granted they can then apply for a new birth certificate that states their acquired gender, and thereby obtain the right to marry someone of the opposite sex to their acquired gender.

Prior to this Act transsexual people could pass through the entire process from male-to-female or female-to-male, and all their documents would be changed, except the birth certificate, which continued to record a gender the very opposite to the one in which the person was living. Producing the birth certificate, in these circumstances, was always the final indignity for the person who had undergone gender reassignment, and the anomaly of living in one gender yet remaining legally a member of another prevented someone who had transitioned from marrying a person who was the opposite to their acquired sex.

Thankfully, the Gender Recognition Act brought that situation to an end, but an exemption was included for Anglican clergy (in England and Wales) who objected to gender re-assignment on conscientious religious grounds, and who would otherwise have had to marry a couple, one of whom had transitioned, because they lived in their parish.

This exemption appears to have been overlooked in the current draft bill, and so the Bishop of Winchester’s amendment restores it, for the time being, to the legislation, while Baroness Gould’s extends its protection to clergy beyond the Church of England and the Church in Wales.

Back in 2003, Claire MacNab, Vice-President of the Transsexual lobbying group Press for Change, could not foresee a problem with this kind of exemption, not least because Press For Change is an organisation with a passion, not just for Trans peoples’ rights, but for Human rights generally, and therefore, had no desire to deny the rights of those who questioned the possibility of gender reassignment on religious grounds.

http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/409

Yesterday Baroness Gould took a similar line: ‘Surely it is a sign of a healthy and mature society that we can recognise someone’s true gender while also recognising that some people of faith – who undertake the important duty of solemnising marriage – may not accept that a man or a woman can change gender under law, due to their religious convictions’.

Likwise, Baroness Thornton, for the government, put it like this: ‘This is an area where the Bill should strike a balance. In striking that balance, we agree that, as under current law, people of faith who have the ability to solemnise marriages, should not be forced to go against their strongly held religious convictions’.

I can see all this about the balancing of competing rights and yet I am still troubled that there is something mean-spirited about such amendments – and horribly impractical too. How is a minister to establish their reasonable belief that the couple who have come to book their wedding are not a natal man or woman and that one of them has undergone gender reassignment? Wouldn’t it be hugely presumptuous or intrusive to suggest that they have done so? And how embarrassing if one were proved to be wrong: as the case of South African athlete Caster Semenya is demonstrating people’s gender is not always that easy to read.

Behind these amendments I detect the spectre of hostility to same-sex marriage for that, according to those who deny the possibility of gender re-assignment, is what such a marriage would be, were it to go ahead. Since, according to their beliefs, a woman cannot transition to become a man, nor a man transition to become a woman, then the couple sitting in the vicar’s study, or the parish office, are actually two women, or two men, depending on which of them has transitioned.

My advice to any Trans person who wishes to be married in church, where there is no legal impediment, would be to find a minister who you know is likely to be sympathetic. It’s easy enough to establish this. Don’t go to a church where you’re bound to be rejected. Word on the street will tell you which church is likely to be inclusive and welcoming to those who are different. And then be honest with the minister about one’s past, for the minister’s sake, as well as for your own and your partner’s sake. It’s safer that way: if the people who need to know are in the know. For what you are planning is going to be the happiest day of your life, which you’ve probably awaited for a very long time, and neither the day, nor indeed its preliminaries, should ruined by the minister’s views, however conscientiously they may be held.

Shepherding the sheep: Trans people's right to protection

The Bishop of Chester, Peter Forster, has made an interesting speech, during the Lords Second Reading of the Equality Bill, in which he rightly highlights how the widening gap between rich and poor in the UK represents a fundamental inequality that is hardly touched by the extensive provisions of the Bill.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-12-15a.1432.5&s=speaker%3A13253#g1448.0

Well said, Bishop Peter.

Where I began to feel less comfortable with the Bishop’s words was towards the end, where he says that the Bill tends to see society as a collection of individuals with rights, rather than as an ‘interplay of individual rights with the rights of other individuals, and the broader rights of society and the socio-cultural and religious communities in society’.

The example he brings forward, and hence my concern, as a Changing Attitude Trustee for Trans people, are ‘the provisions in relation to those who are undergoing, or have undergone, a change of gender’.

The Bishop continues: ‘society holds different views about the basis of gender reassignment, and there are different views in some of the faith communities’. Even if the latter point is true - and Chapter 7 of Some issues in human sexuality does indeed document, what are basically two ‘opposing’ Christian views, one in favour of medical intervention, with hormones and or surgery, the other antagonistic to this approach - it seems disingenuous to imply that they command ‘equal’ weight and endorsement. We don’t really know what the majority in the Church think about the basis of gender re-assignment because this conversation has hardly begun.

However, what we do know is that society at large, in the UK and beyond, seems to have accepted the validity of Trans people’s experience, and that a gender transition, is, in many instances, a therapeutic and authentic journey to make. Think only of popular culture: For many years now a Trans person has been a much-loved character in a television soap opera; a Jewish Trans woman won the Eurovision Song Contest in 1998; and millions voted a Portuguese Trans woman – a Roman Catholic Christian, who often prayed on screen – as the Big Brother winner in 2004.

We have come a long way from the freak show reporting of the tabloids of yester year, and while red tops can still slip in the occasional sensational headline, most people seem to recognise the normality of gender reassignment for those who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria - a persistent dis-ease or dis-comfort with one’s assigned gender.

To his credit, the Bishop says that he accepts the possibility of gender dysphoria and the psychiatric and medical treatments on offer for it. What troubles him is that the Bill, if passed, would extend legal protection to those who express an intention to transition, or who do so without recourse to medical intervention or supervision. In fact, these are the most vulnerable type of transgender people you will come across, and they are badly in need of whatever protection is going.

In this instance, I think, the Bishop is being misled by the drafters of the Bill who have opted for the phrase ‘gender re-assignment’ - perfectly applicable in the case of transsexual people who do transition - but here in the legislation used inappropriately, as a catch-all term, to include anyone who adopts a gender variant expression, and which could, in certain circumstances, provoke physical or verbal abuse. See my earlier post on this problem of terminology

http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/2009/06/black-man-or-white-woman.html

Anyone at the beginning of transition, who must dress in the clothes of the gender to which they aspire, but without the benefit of the hormone therapy that will masculinise or feminise their face and body, can be a prime target for such abuse. So too can the occasional cross-dresser, who represents a very different constituency from that of transsexual persons who transition. What the Bill is trying to do, albeit clumsily in its use of words, is to offer protection to as many Trans people as possible.

That, I would argue, is the main motivation for this section of the Equality Bill, not, as Bishop Peter suggests, simply to safe-guard individual rights, but because Trans people are regularly attacked and murdered simply because of their gender variant behaviour and expression.

I hope to discuss the rest of the Bishop’s remarks on this subject in a second post (after Christmas), but for now I would just like to note that Jesus once told a parable about a shepherd who left ninety-nine sheep in order to search for the one that had gone missing.

Likewise, we look to our shepherds, the bishops, to speak up for minorities who are bullied and picked on just because they are different.

An Interview with a transgender Anglican lady

There’s a fascinating interview with a Christian trans woman on the conservative website Virtue on Line

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11098

In the introduction David Virtue explains that this was his first face-to-face encounter with someone who has transitioned; in this particular case from male-to-female. The interviewee - identified only as M - also a conservative Christian, had not stated beforehand the reason for the meeting, and David had no idea, when they first met, that she had undergone gender re-assignment. Thanks to modern medicine she ‘passed’ – in her case, as a woman - as many people do after transition.

Once transition is ‘complete’ – albeit that it is also a life’s work – most people prefer to ‘live by stealth’, as it often called, and to blend into society. Those who are prepared to acknowledge their trans status, either publicly, or, as in this interview, anonymously, usually do so to increase understanding about the condition of gender dysphoria, the dissonance between one’s perceived gender and one’s internal sense of gender identity, a conflict that is usually successfully resolved by a medical transition that involves hormone therapy and, possibly, surgery, though there are people who opt for a non-medical transition.

In the interview with David Virtue, M talks mainly about transsexualism, often seen as the extreme limit of gender dysphoria, when a person’s cross gender feelings and behaviour have become so intense that they have an overwhelming desire to transition. M does not use the sort of language I have just used. She has a more matter-of-fact approach, which is fine. For her transsexualism is a birth defect, a medical condition, that needs to be, and can be, sorted, and I liked the way that she dismisses the idea that transsexual people are confused about their gender. Trans people know what their gender is, she explains: their problem is that it doesn’t match their birth sex.

I’m a little uncomfortable, though, with the way M’s clear-cut approach seems to drive a wedge between transsexual people and transgender people, not least because all concerned will be experiencing gender dysphoria to a degree, and ‘transgender’ often describes a stage when people are exploring who they are, and whether they should transition, as well as being a valid form of transition in its own right for those who cannot, for whatever reason, proceed with a medical transition.

Similarly, M is keen to distinguish transsexualism from homosexuality, on the ground that the former is about gender, that latter about sexuality. But this kind of sharp distinction between sex and gender is somewhat simplistic, and indicates that M is talking mainly from a male-to-female perspective, given that many trans men have lived as lesbians before transition. Agreed, the LGBT alliance is not about saying that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are all the same, but we often face similar issues, one of which came up in the interview. Reparative therapy for lesbian and gay people is a hot topic at the moment, and M was asked to comment on an organisation that claims to offer a psychological ‘cure’ for transsexualism. Her robust dismissal of this option is great.

As a conservative, Anglican, Christian M, who fathered two sons, and is now divorced, upholds ‘traditional’ biblical teaching that sex is permissible only within heterosexual marriage and her review of the relationship options for post-op trans people is, understandably, inconclusive. She herself is celibate, and David Virtue was shocked to hear that M had been thrown out of two churches, ‘one Episcopal, one Anglican’ after informing the minister concerned about her journey. Sadly, this has all too often been the experience of trans Christians.

The interview is a very respectful piece of journalism by Virtue On Line and this was true, more or less, of Hans Zeiger’s coverage of last year’s Lambeth Fringe seminar ‘Listening to Trans People’.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8711

Perhaps, as M implies, Christians are more comfortable talking about gender, than they are about sexuality (though it is hardly less controversial, given the issue of women bishops); and if you approve of the gender binary, as conservative Christians evidently do, then people who transition appear, helpfully, to reinforce it. (In his book, Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, Jeremy Marks has noted that some Evangelical pastors, unable to countenance same-sex relationships, on biblical grounds, have more readily accepted people who have transitioned).

There are other items in this interview that I hope to return to another time, but what strikes me today is how important it is that these conversations are going on; thank you David, and M, for allowing us to be ‘a fly on the wall’ of this one.

Christina Beardsley

Listening to Trans people

The Changing Attitude banner and presence at the General Synod in York looks great. It’s a pity, though, that we were unable to send anyone to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, taking place in Anaheim, California at the same time.

And it would have been very appropriate, on this occasion, if Changing Attitude’s Trustees for Trans people could have been at Anaheim, given that five Trans inclusive resolutions have been put forward there. No matter, the Integrity team at General Convention are well aware of the love, support and prayers of Changing Attitude, England, and I am in close touch with the Trans members of that team.

‘Listening to Trans People’ was the title of the seminar I convened and chaired as part of last year’s Lambeth Conference Fringe, where I was joined by the Revd Dr Cameron Partridge of TransEpsicopal and Integrity; Mia Nikasimo, the founder of Trans Afro, Stephanie Sheppard of the Methodist Church, and Steven, a member of the UK based group for Transgender Christians, the Sibyls. The Lambeth Bishops’ programme was intense and relentless, but several bishops made a real effort to join us (they should have been at provincial meetings) for what proved to be a moving contribution to the listening process.

From what I can tell, a similar profound listening seems to have happened in the committees of General Convention where the Trans resolutions have been presented. It is not automatic for resolutions to reach the main convention. Each one is scrutinized carefully in committee, and additional evidence reviewed before a decision is made.

The Trans resolutions are of two kinds. One set, heard before the committee on National and International Concerns, invites the Church to support transgender civil rights. The other set, heard by the World Missions Committee, calls on the Church to include “gender identity and gender expression” in its ministry non-discrimination canon.

Two hearings on transgender matters in just twelve hours was exhausting and exhilarating for the Trans Christians who gave their testimonies, but it is obvious that they felt heard, sometimes by committee members for whom the whole idea of Trans was relatively new.

The Episcopal Church is often demonised for pushing ahead with an inclusive agenda in defiance of the rest of Anglican Communion, but the World Missions Committee was the setting for the resolutions about ordination precisely to look at the global implications. There, Cameron was able to point out that there have been transgender priests in the Church of England since at least 2000. And as Mia’s evidence to the Lambeth seminar showed last summer, Trans people are to be found in African churches and culture and not just in the West.

In Changing Attitude we wait and pray hopefully for further gracious listening when the resolutions come before General Convention.

Christina Beardsley

Time for T

It took over thirty years, but finally, in 2004, the British Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Act, and at long last, it was ‘time for T’.

After years of struggle by trans activists – notably Stephen Whittle, Christine Burns and Claire McNab, of Press for Change - transsexual people in the UK, who have undergone gender re-assignment, and swear to remain in their ‘acquired gender’, are allowed, under certain conditions, to change their birth certificate.

This was not so much the granting of new rights as the restoration of rights that were withdrawn in 1970 by the notorious ruling of Mr Justice Ormrod in Corbett versus Corbett, known as the April Ashley case.

http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/319

It is well-documented that prior to that ruling unofficial changes were made to the birth certificates of transsexual people who had transitioned (or ‘changed sex’ as people called it in those days), some of whom went on to marry.

The stunningly beautiful April Ashley (whose birth certificate had not, in fact, been amended) had the misfortune to marry an eccentric aristocratic, who, when they divorced, argued that the marriage was null and void because his former wife was still a man. The judge agreed, and transsexual people endured three decades of discrimination, only relieved in 1999 by an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act which protects the employment rights of those about to undergo, who are undergoing, or who have undergone, gender re-assignment. Before that, many Trans people were dismissed by their employers once they began to transition.

The 2004 legislation isn’t perfect, and there are various anomalies, principally its implications for married couples, which I won’t go into now: maybe another time, because it would be relevant to raise it here, at some stage.

The point I want to make is that many Trans people in the UK can now complete their transition, and get on with their lives. Not so in the US, where the struggle for Trans rights continues in various States, and hence there are two Transgender resolutions at this year’s General Convention of The Episcopal Church, one from the Diocese of Michigan, the other from the Diocese of Massachusetts, calling on the Church to support secular civil rights legislation. In addition, there are three other resolutions which call on the Church to end discrimination in relation to gender identity and expression. More of all this, I hope, in another post, but the message is clear: at this year’s General Convention, Trans Christians and their allies are hoping and praying that it will soon be ‘time for T’.

Christina Beardsley

A black man or a white woman?

It was early in 2008 and the television show host was talking about the Democratic Party’s leadership contest: “It looks like the Democratic field has really narrowed down. It’s going to be a black man or a white woman.” The opportunity seemed too good to miss, so he went on: “A black man or a white woman. You know, this is the same decision Michael Jackson has to face every morning of his life.”

There was shock and dismay from the black community when Michael Jackson first began to ‘lose’ his colour, but that particular change seems to have arisen as a consequence of the condition vitiligo, which causes de-pigmentation of the skin, rather than alienation from his Afro-American roots. As Jackson explained to Oprah Winfrey, whether to be ‘black or white’, to quote his own lyrics, was not something over which he had any control.

It is, of course, an exaggeration to imply that Jackson was faced with a daily dilemma concerning his gender identity, but the gradual feminisation of his face, followed later by implants to produce a manly cleft chin, suggest that he oscillated, quite dramatically at times, in his self awareness as masculine and feminine. He was, though, without a doubt, gender variant in his self expression.

And so are lots of other people. Not just transsexual people, many of whom go through the once-in-a-lifetime process of transition from female-to-male, or male-to-female. Gender variance can be found in cross dressers and among those who choose to defy conventional stereotypes of what it means to be a man or a woman. It is common among intersex people, some of whom identify with both genders, while others find it difficult to relate to either. There are people whose sense of gender identity is fluid and shifting, as Michael Jackson’s seems to have been. And, of course, gender variance is not unknown among lesbians and gay men. Indeed, studies show that gender variant children – tomboy girls and ‘sissy’ or effeminate boys - are more likely to grow up to be lesbian and gay as adults rather than transgendered.

During the recent reading of the Equality Bill, MPs tried to get across to the Minister this huge range of gender expression, and that the term ‘gender reassignment’ – hitherto used specifically of transsexual people – used in the legislation, should be replaced by the broader concept of ‘gender variance’, so that the Bill’s protection could be extended to anyone who is victimised because of their gender expression.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s03.htm

In her reply the Minister said that she was not aware of any specific evidence of discrimination against this wider spectrum of gender variant folk. Really? Snide tabloid attacks on the ‘gender bending’ behaviour of celebrities like Michael Jackson, and, more recently, Cristiano Ronaldo, are very public expressions of the transphobia that does exist in our society (as well as a deep underlying misogyny).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1193715/Fashion-red-card-Ronaldo-metrosexual-strikes-Gucci-man-bag.html

The Sibyls, who offer Christian Spirituality to the Transgendered, could cite many examples of people who have been rejected by their churches simply because they did not conform to gender norms. Nowadays, though, mainstream churches seem more ready to welcome those who are different, including those who are not gender normative. Long may that continue: and let there be no resorting to ‘ecclesiastical exemptions’ to the Equality Bill, provisions which only serve to frustrate Christ’s invitation and welcome to all.

On the night Michael Jackson died, Paul Gambaccini, a personal friend of the star, as well as an authority on pop musical history, was at pains to point out that Jackson was tall – over six foot. Other friends emphasised his firm handshake and that in private he did not speak in the high-pitched voice that he adopted in public. In other words, he was not really girly at all. One can understand the desire to ‘protect’ his friend at that painful moment, but in the cold light of day, it has to be said, that being girly – or butch for that matter - is not something to be ashamed of - not at all.

Christina Beardsley