Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do?

What can I say, it’s a talent😌

My big brother taught me how to belch and fart at will when I was about three (much to the horror of mymcery proper mum).

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD

That’s hilarious. I don’t think that would be the female noises the AGPs would be banking on!

I’d let rip (loudly) then turn heels saying ‘that’s better’. It may give them the impression that’s this is what us women use the loos for (and consider going back to using the gents).

Honestly Fekko ?

Not use the toilets at work. Ever. Because of the risk of that happening.

We already have issues in schools where teenaged girls won't use loos they have to share with males, and it's causing issues around them not drinking enough so they don't need to go, and holding it for hours which is not good for them. This will quietly make public toilets somewhere that women no longer go.

So what if you feel the need, for example, to discharge a particularly smelly fart (oh come on we all do it). You think ‘I’m going to nip into the ladies and if there’s no one in there, let nature take its course’. But there’s a man in there! Your eyes meet in terror. He raises an eyebrow in a defiant and provocative gesture of ‘what are you gonna do?!’

What are you going to do?

Why would anyone ever comment on a woman changing their mind about using the toilet? And for anyone in the civil service to use it as a 'teaching' moment is quite incredible. It's an example of coercive control with an overdose of sexual intimidation of women. A real 'know your place'

I spend so much time telling my girls that if anything feels off just leave, don't worry about beign "polite" or upsetting anyone.

This message is the exact reverse of this.

It's awful, girls (and women) need to know that it's ok to feel safe, to not prioritise politeness over it.

It's scandalous really. I'm going to scare the pants off the men next week when I tell them how far we will go on this and how many women are fully aware of the discrimination and harassment that is negligently being introduced.

The idea that women must ignore, disguise their discomfort for the sake of mens feelings is nothing new.

It's the reason most women are very careful about how they handle men giving them unwanted attention in public. We are not supposed to be "rude" even to men who are interrupting / bothering us. To spare their feelings. There's also the underlying threat of an aggressive response if we do not handle men we interact with, in certain situations, very carefully. We learn this from when we're young.

The idea that a woman or girl MUST NOT show her discomfort if she walks into an empty toilet and what she perceives as a man is in there, and she must not leave, is really scary.

This reinforces the messages that we get that make it so hard to act when as girls eg some weirdo decides to talk to us on the bus and even getting up and moving sometimes feels impossible due to our socialisation.

I spend so much time telling my girls that if anything feels off just leave, don't worry about beign "polite" or upsetting anyone.

This message is the exact reverse of this.

It is ALL about erasure of female boundaries and putting men first.

The idea that silently leaving a toilet when seeing a man there, is not acceptable behaviour, is terrifying.

Aside from anything else, my instinctive reaction if I saw a man in the loos would be to assume I had walked into the wrong one, and do a speedy U-turn! It is not the job of women to validate mens feelings.

Thank you Trousering

PencilsInSpace Sun 24-Feb-19 22:50:17 wrote:

"Also posted to the PfC news list - <a class="break-all" href="https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20061116120000/www.pfc.org.uk/pfclists/news-arc/2000q2/msg00090.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">statement by the Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Group:

- Forwarded Message Follows -
From: "andrea brown"
To:
Subject: CAH group statement
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:05:39 +0100 (BST)

Hi Claire, Kathleen and Becky,

Here is the position statement from the CAH group for publication on the
lists.

Andrea

___

Dear Andrea

Apologies for the time taken to reply to your e-mail but the committee have been discussing the issues raised. We have read your message and strongly disapprove of a group such as GIRES proposing guidelines for a group of people for which they have little understanding. As stated to GIRES chairman, Bernard Reed on previous occassions, the CAH Group do not wish to be become involved with GIRES or it's policies.

We do work informally with groups such as Child Growth Foundation, AISSG and Contact a Family plus international CAH groups.

Copied below is our reply to GIRES chairman from our chairperson Sue Elford.

The same response to GIRES from AHN also do not wish to be become involved with GIRES or it's policies. AHN is another CAH support group I work with that provides support via e-mail for those with CAH.

We hope this is of help.

Yours sincerely

Melissa Cull
Adult Support Co-ordinator
CAH Group

& Founder of AHN (Adrenal Hyperplasia Network)

Dear Bernard

Thank you for your e-mail and I have looked at your very well set up and informative website.

However I do not believe there is any real connection between a genetic biological condition such as CAH and people with gender identity problems, such as transsexuals. CAH is regarded as an intersex condition as many of the girls are born with ambiguous genitalia. This is usually corrected within the first year of life.

They are genetically female.

We focus on getting information on the condition to families via conferences, newsletters and family support. Having a chronic medical condition that requires continuous lifelong medication is the hardest fact to accept. Parents worry about whether their children will reach normal height, will become fat due to taking steroids and whether any illness, such as the flu, chickenpox or even a cold will endanger the lives of their children. Gender identity is most certainly not a consideration.

I have spoken to various committee members and we do not believe there can be any benefit in our Groups working together. I do however thank you for contacting us and wish you luck.

Sue Elford
Chairman
CAH Group"

Fucking hell, if someone walks into somewhere and doesn't feel safe for whatever reason, they should absolutely feel able to walk back out. It doesn't matter why, no one should be forced into a situation where they feel unsafe just to spare someone else's feelings.

As a teen I was full on goth/punk, and I was aware that occasionally people would avoid me thinking I was some sort of risk to them. I was aware I was no risk, and sometimes felt put out by their assumptions, but I would never have dreamt of forcing them to ignore those feelings in favour of making me feel better. The way to make them feel less threatened was never ever to impose myself on them!

The legal firm behind the class action equal pay claims going on in supermarkets etc make millions out of it. This is a route to explore.

Mmm..

There's clear evidence that the Civil Service used GIRES definitions of intersex despite the explicit rejection by groups represnting people affected by intersex conditions.

Due dilligence wasn't done.

Cross post with R0.

I also increasingly feel it's unfair and confusing to include intersex people in policies around 'trans' (commas as this is such a woolly term). This should be covered by a separate policy imo.

Trousering that's brilliant - I hope you are successful in opening their eyes to the injustice of situations like these.

PencilsInSpace Sun 24-Feb-19 22:36:53 (from same thread) wrote:

"PfC's objections to the way GIRES was attempting to work with intersex groups seem quite different from the objections of the intersex groups themselves.

An open letter by Claire McNab of PfC makes clear that the main objection was that GIRES were consulting with medical professionals rather than intersex people themselves. Claire writes as an individual however this seems to be PfC's position as a whole. At least I haven't found anything contradicting Claire's position from anyone else in PfC.

The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) UK on the other hand, objected to the appropriation of intersex to further the trans agenda. <a class="break-all" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20170117130415/www.aissg.org/15_ANNOUNCE.HTM#14%20May%202000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Here's their statement in full. This was also posted to the PfC news lists.

14 May 2000 - AISSG UK's 'GIRES Statement'

A Position Statement Concerning GIRES (Bernard Reed) by the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group UK (AISSG UK):

Introduction

The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) is a peer information/support organisation established in the UK in 1988 (formalised in 1993) and which achieved UK charitable status in early 1999. We are completely autonomous but are affiliated to the Genetic Interest Group (GIG) and Contact a Family.

We have around 120 subscriber members (and many more contacts) in the UK (mostly adults but many families too) affected by intersex conditions such as AIS, XY gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer's syndrome) and 5 alpha reductase deficiency; with some XX female members who have Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser (MRKH syndrome, Mullerian dysgenesis/aplasia, vaginal atresia etc.

We have representatives in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, S. Africa and Spain. Our website at www.aissg.org has received much praise, from people with AIS who come across it after years in the wilderness (having not been told about their condition) and from medical specialists in the intersex field.

Summary

After extensive email correspondence with Bernard Reed of GIRES during mid March to early April 2000, we decided not to work with GIRES at the present time. Overall, we wish to disassociate ourselves from GIRES and to state that they do not represent us.

We have already established mutually beneficial relationships with several groups of clinicians and are working with them on AIS-related research projects and the provision of multi-disciplinary patient care. We collaborate on joint projects with other related support organisations (e.g. the UK Turner Syndrome Society, the Anorchidism Support Group) via a consortium set up by the Genetic Interest Group. Within this consortium (set up in 1999) we have recently published a leaflet for clinicians to give to parents on receipt of a 'genetic diagnosis' and have obtained a grant from the Baring Foundation to enable one of the clinical psychologists with whom we work to carry out counselling skills training for the three groups' helpline volunteers. We also work very closely on an informal basis with the UK's Adrenal Hyperplasia Network (AHN) and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) Group.

We do not foresee that an association with GIRES would follow the same spirit as those above, so do not wish to join forces with Reed. We believe that Reed's desire to change the medical management of intersex, although reasonable in itself, is based firmly on the discourse of gender dysphoria (transsexualism/transgender, often referred to as 'trans') and moreover masks an underlying attempt to exploit physical/biological intersex so as to provide an authenticity to that scenario, an authentication that it doesn't need.

The historical perspective is as follows:

GIRES Approaches AISSG in 1999

Reed emailed us in July 1999 introducing a UK organisation called the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) of which he is chairperson and wanting us to enter into a working relationship with his organisation. We read the hardcopy information that he sent and were put off by several things, but mainly by the fact that:

a) GIRES's heritage seemed to be as a trans, rather than an intersex organisation.

a) Reed seemed to be making a case for trans to be considered as a biological intersex condition. We felt we did not have enough scientific information to know whether this was valid.

While generally agreeing with GIRES's wish to change the medical management of intersex (including childhood 'corrective' surgery), we weren't sure about their claims that transsexualism was "an intersex disorder of the brain" and that the term 'transsexualism' should be abolished and it should be considered as an intersex condition. They also seemed keen on lobbying government to allow birth certificate changes for post-operative transsexuals (not an area of great concern to us, although some of our members would like to have a category of 'I' for 'sex' on official forms/documents in general). It all seemed rather political and we as a group are wary of taking political stances. We did not communicate with Reed further, other than to thank him for his information.

Approached Again March 2000

In March 2000, the person who runs our helpline received a phone call from Reed and, having forgotten about our reservations about GIRES, agreed that he could attend an AISSG group meeting a week or so later.

We emailed him to ask why he wanted to attend and it seemed from his response that he wanted a) to see what happens at our meetings, b) to do a presentation, with slides, on GIRES, and c) to discuss possible joint ventures. We explained that our agenda was already fixed (and full), that our support meetings were not the forum for all this anyway, and asked him not to attend (but suggested we might meet on another occasion). At that time he also urged us somewhat insistently to collaborate with him a) to influence what was to be covered in a TV documentary that the BBC wanted to make for the Horizon series, and b) to form a joint policy, along with the UK's Adrenal Hyperplasia Network (AHN), on what we would all present at a British Association of Paediatric Urology meeting in Sept 2000, to which all three organisations had been separately invited by the association (we accepted our 'invitation to speak' in October 1999). He was also excitedly recommending organisations like the Intersex Society of N. America (ISNA) to us, as if wanting to act as a catalyst between us, and possibly not realizing we'd already been in touch for some years.

The Dialogue Starts

We started asking questions about GIRES's policies and aims, about the nature of its membership and its credentials as a mouthpiece for intersex people. There followed a number of emails from Reed giving information about GIRES and asking for our comments on some GIRES guidelines for the medical management of intersex and on a draft synopsis of the issues that GIRES thought the BBC programme should cover.

Throughout his emails, and in his guidelines/synopsis, Reed would employ the phrase "gender identity and intersex conditions" as a means, it seemed to us, of slipping gender dysphoria into the picture without explicitly saying so. While many of the points in GIRES's management guidelines made sense at first sight in terms of intersex, we were wary of this "Trojan horse" approach to including trans within these recommendations because whatever aetiological considerations might link these, in terms of medical treatment there is a world of difference between purely gender issues and the issues faced by intersex children. We did not comment on the content of the guidelines/synopsis.

We noted several other things during the exchange:

a) Reed wrote that "We don't ask our members what conditions they have" and "I am confident that the majority of our members have no condition at all and nor does any member of their families. I estimate that only 7% of the charity's income is derived from those with a condition or the parents of such persons." It seemed strange for someone representing an organisation so underweight on the intersex side of things to be throwing so much weight around in that sphere.

b) names of well-known researchers and clinical experts seemed to appear 'overnight' against the various topics on further drafts of his 'BBC synopsis'. At least one of them (a consultant gynaecologist in the team at the UCL/Middlesex Hospital, London, who are our main collaborators on research/clinical aspects of AIS) had no idea she was itemised in this way and was quite annoyed; so we surmised that others possibly hadn't been consulted either.

The BBC Approaches Us

Meanwhile, Heike Rebholz at the BBC had already contacted us by email wanting to talk about how we might take part in the Horizon programme. Our understanding was that the idea for the programme came out of recent publicity about the "John/Joan" (or "Money vs Diamond") case, so it was to cover the issue of childhood genital surgeries.

An intermediary (an AISSG member with media experience) reported back that Heike was looking at the issue of 'corrective' surgery in Britain. And that she wanted to know whether the group had any members with 'partial' form of AIS (PAIS) who'd had surgery for a large clitoris/micropenis and now wished they hadn't, or someone who felt the surgery took too much away and left them with loss of sensation. And whether there was a spokesperson from the group who could say what the group's feeling was regarding surgery for so-called ambiguous genitalia - whether it should be left until puberty etc.

Our Response to BBC

We reported back to Heike, via our intermediary, that we didn't know how many of the 30 or so Partial AIS (PAIS) women/children on our list had undergone clitoral reduction surgery, but we knew of some adult PAIS women who definitely had not, and who are quite happy with that state of affairs. We had no contacts who had complained to us about this type of surgery. We had one recent overseas parent contact whose newborn was more or less given surgery without the parents having much say in the matter. The mother had subsequently discovered our group, read "negative things" about such surgery in our newsletter (ALIAS), and become very depressed and angry. We explained to Heike that the overwhelming majority of our contacts (several 100) had Complete AIS (CAIS) for whom clitoral size/surgery is a non-issue anyway.

We told Heike that on ethical, social, philosophical grounds we were against any surgery without fully-informed consent (which meant no cosmetic surgery of this nature on infants/children) and that society should overcome its fear of non-standard genitals rather than forcing infants/children to conform to some 'standard' that is patently contrary to that which Nature actually provides, and that we also saw such surgery as yet another tactic (in tandem with secrecy regarding diagnostic information) in trying to cover up the very existence of intersex.

But we had to tell her that we didn't have the direct experience or voice from our members to qualify us to participate; and that we were more concerned with issues of truth disclosure, lack of emotional support, childhood gonadectomy without informed consent, osteoporosis, poor treatments for vaginal hypoplasia, lack of availabilty of carrier testing etc., issues that would presumably dilute the programme away from the topic of 'corrective' genital surgery.

We Decline GIRES's Call to Collaborate

We also sent the above information to Reed and added that we were uncomfortable with GIRES's blurring of biological intersex with gender dysphoria. We were unhappy about the possibility of a programme that set out to consider the specific question of childhood surgery being turned into one which addressed the wider issues of "gender identity" as represented, partly at least, by gender dysphoria (i.e. a group of people who were never likely to have had genital surgery forced on them in infancy/childhood). We felt that in the same way that we didn't have enough direct experience of the question of childhood surgery, we also didn't have knowledge of any scientific evidence that transgender/transsexualism was a physical/biological intersex condition. We felt that the potential inclusion of trans issues in the BBC documentary carried a risk of confusing the general public even more, the question of childhood surgery being complex enough on its own. We told Reed that we were unable to co-operate with him further on these issues.

The BBC not Swayed by GIRES

We expressed our concerns to the BBC about GIRES muscling in on the planning of the programme in a rather assertive manner. Heike replied, saying she was concerned about this too, and informing us that her agenda was still very much open and that she still wanted to talk with us.

AISSG Withdraws

However, by that time we were so exhausted by the whole thing that we backed off completely. The day-to-day operations of our group are run by only three people, all of whom have busy full-time occupations and who thus have to devote most of their spare time to support group work. In the end we just got fed up with being constantly pressurized by Reed, and found dealing with GIRES an unnecessary distraction when we had many other tasks to address at same time. We decided we were content with the progress our group was making, we were quite capable of speaking up for ourselves, and were building good relationships with clinicians and with other patient support groups, and thereby significantly influencing research and patient care in a more collaborative and less radical manner.

PFC Approaches Us

On 9 May 2000 we received an email from Andrea Brown of "....Press for Change in the United Kingdom which set up the organisation known as the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) approximately two years ago..." asking for our opinion of Reed's activities; and this is what has prompted this statement. We'd like to thank those members of PFC who have showed concern over this matter and given us an opportunity to make our position clear.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) UK
www.aissg.org

A number of other patient support groups issued similar statements around this time."

I'm sure you have a number of highlighters and copies of various documents at the ready Trousering!

The groups who have written the policies should not have been given such unscrutinised power.

2016 document 'Terminology'
Acknowledgement
'The above information includes terminology copied with the kind permission of GIRES, Gender Identity Research and Education.'
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503663/Workplace_Guide_CSEP_revised_Final_V1_.pdf

See issues with GIRES, Press For Change and Intersex organisations:
PencilsInSpace Sun 24-Feb-19 wrote:
Now who knew that GIRES was set up as the charitable arm of Press for Change?

Me!

Who knew PfC and GIRES parted ways in 2000, in large part because of the way GIRES treated intersex people and support groups?

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20061116120000/www.pfc.org.uk/pfclists/news-arc/2000q2/msg00084.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Relationship of PFC and Gires

Dear Colleagues

With great regret the Press for Change Vice Presidents publish the statement below. We are aware that some people will wish we had taken this decision sooner whilst others will wish we had not taken it at all. It is not a hasty decision, and the publication of this statement has been delayed further because of our efforts to obtain all the facts and to listen to as many points of view as possible. We are grateful for the patience of those who would have liked an earlier decision. In the event it has still not been physically possible to speak to all those affected, but in the circumstances we feel that we have no choice now but to publish first and talk about it afterwards. We would be grateful if everyone would read the statement in full, and we will gladly answer any questions you have. We would like to stress that this decision is intended as a constructive action in a difficult situation and that we do not wish to attach blame to any individual involved.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS FOR CHANGE VICE PRESIDENTS: 18th May 2000
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRESS FOR CHANGE AND THE GENDER IDENTITY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY

At the 1996 Press for Change Planning Meeting it was decided to look into setting up a subsidiary charity which would have the mandate of providing education and information about trans issues. As a charity it would be enabled to obtain tax refunds on subscriptions and donations and raise money from sources not accessible to Press for Change (which as an overtly political organisation cannot apply for charitable status in its own right) and it was hoped it could eventually take on - and expand - the.work of Press for Change in the areas of publication of information, education and training, research and support for students.

It was later agreed to establish the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (Gires). Gires was registered as an independent charity in February 1998 with no formal relationship to Press for Change. A separate entity was required under charity law and was thus the easiest arrangement. However almost all the Gires trustees were (and are) also members of Press for Change, and the Charity Commisssion agreed that it would be acceptable for Gires to use the strapline "Working alongside Press for Change ". Later a "contractual service agreement" was agreed between Press for Change and Gires which cemented a close relationship.

In January 1999, GIRES' charitable objects were agreed by its founding members to be:
To advance education into gender identity and intersex Issues, and in particular:
a. To initiate, promote and support research particularly to address the needs of those in whom there is a strong and ongoing desire to live and be accepted as a member of the sex opposite from that assigned at birth;
b. To publish the outcomes of such research and other relevant information in order to inform interested parties and the general public;
c. To enable the public to achieve a wider understanding of these issues and thereby equal treatment within society of those whom they affect.

For many reasons, things have not turned out as originally envisioned.

Gires has never been in any practical sense a "subsidiary" of Press for Change, nor has it restricted its activities to raising money for the educational work of Press for Change. Rather, it has developed into an organisation in its own right with a clear direction of its own.

Because of a policy of trying to draw funds from new sources, rather than from existing supporters of Press for Change (who can and do donate directly to Press for Change), Gires has raised most of its funds from outside the trans community and more than half of its membership consists of non trans people. It has to date been unsuccessful in securing much funding which could be used directly to subsidise the educational work of Press for Change, and responsibility for this must be shared by Gires and by Press for Change, which because of pressure of work has been unable to invest the necessary time into providing Gires' trustees with the direction and information they required. Instead however Gires has set up medical and social "research panels" consisting overwhelmingly professionals who are not trans people. It has also become increasingly involved with policy making rather than straightforward education and research. The nature of the research panels has damaged Gires' credibility as a supporter of the trans community and its involvement with policy has created difficulties as it has strayed into areas in which Press for Change and other groups representing trans people are already working.

Gires' position as an organisation of mostly non trans people could be and at times has been a strength, in that having non trans people support or speak in favour of equality and respect for trans people adds weight to our case. Unfortunately it can also be a weakness if it appears that Gires is exceeding its mandate or is failing adequately to represent or consult with the client group it exists to serve.

In particular we have been alarmed by the recent involvement of Gires in intersex issues, which has caused widespread offence amongst intersex people and the existing groups which represent them. Press for Change regrets this very much. We fully support their right to represent themselves, or not, as they see fit, and have advised Gires to proceed with great caution with any further work in this field.

We have also advised Gires to ensure that any further work they do in representing the interests of trans people to others, especially to public authorities and decision making bodies, is only carried out in full collaboration with other existing groups such as GenTrust, the FTM Network, Mermaids, Change, G & SA and Press for Change, and that we consider it at all times inappropriate for Gires to appear to be negotiating on behalf of the wider trans community, which is in itself already diverse.

The Press for Change Vice Presidents have decided that it is wise at this point to end the current semi-formal link between the two organisations. We believe that this link is no longer of any great benefit to either organisation and has the potential to lead to a serious conflict of interest. We feel Gires needs to be free to pursue its own agenda without formal reference to Press for Change and that our attempts to direct and advise Gires are increasingly leading to friction which is damaging personal relationships and taking time and energy away from the campaign itself. Press for Change, for its part, will no longer be in any way accountable for the actions of Gires. However if current differences of approach can be resolved, we very much hope it will be possible to collaborate with Gires in future, most especially in the areas of research and education where Gires is well placed to undertake some good work.

We hope very much that the separation of the two organisations will free both of them to concentrate on their primary objectives - the achievement of equality and respect for all trans people through education, legislation and social change.

Christine Burns
Claire McNab
Mark Rees
Sarah Rutherford
Alex Whinnom
Stephen Whittle"

from important thread about the long history of lobby groups' influence:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=5

Yes indeed miffy. It is a bit scary. Completely understand the need to lay low.

I've got a QC, an employment law solicitor and an HRD all together in a room next week. This will be an interesting discussion.

Hi I've nc, I am just posting a message from the OP as she's understandably concerned about being outed / doxxed for her query and concerns. I personally feel it's shocking we feel we have to communicate queries in this way.

She is going to lay low for a bit, so whatever action she decides to take probably won’t be mentioned here.

Obviously this doesn't stop anyone else leaking / whistle blowing / querying key points within the policy as this is a civil service wide document on a public government website.

She very much appreciates the advice and comments given within this thread and will continue to read.

I work at a Russell group uni so that's going to be funny. HR whistleblowing on an HR policy. Good luck with that trousering. I would be really interested to hear what the QC has to say because this stretches my brain beyond where it was ever meant to go. There just must be some way of organising a concerted legal effort against these crazy 'guidance' documents and the distorted thinking behind them?

Immediately? I am.