For the evaluation of legislative proposals
covering transgendered people in the United Kingdom.
August 1997
Soon after the general election in Britain this year,
Press for Chang began a wide-ranging consultation to
determine people's opinions about the way ahead in
dealing with the new government. We wanted to know,
mainly, how people thought we should conduct the
campaign, and where the emphasis should be.
One spin-off from this process was a set of guidelines
to form, in advance, our bottom line ... a litmus test
for any proposal made to us ... a means of checking
whether a piece of legislation included all the people we
represent in an acceptable fashion.
1/ Is the legislative instrument on offer motivated
by a recognition of the need to correct an incorrect or
premature assumption of sex or gender identity,
subsequently discovered to have been invalid?
We put this principle first, because it reminds us
that if we've failed to establish such a fundamental
about our case, and we're being offered something that's
aimed to humour and facilitate what is still
(fundamentally) believed to be a "change" to a previously
correct record, the rest will, at best, be simply
ameliorative .. and (at worst) minimalist or prescriptive
by nature. The other reason for insisting on a test of
this type is that it then sets down the basis for
interpreting the intent of the actual bill, if and when
ambiguities or points of law need to be tested.
2/ Is the effect of the legislation inclusive of
the needs of ALL transsexual people, including (but not
limited to) pre- and post-operative people, FtM's,
non-operative MtF's, those already married, those retired
or aged, legal minors, disabled people, EC citizens,
citizens living overseas, etc..) ?
We have included the above named categories, as a
permanent and unavoidable reminder of our obligations to
the WHOLE community whom we serve as unelected
representatives
3/ Does the effect of the legislation specifically
ensure that transsexual people in the United Kingdom are
protected according to the principles embodied in the
European Declaration on Human Rights?
This is really a shorthand way of asking if it covers
marriage, family, work and privacy rights.
4/ Does the legislation establish self-definition
as the principal and overriding qualification for
correcting a previously recorded sex/gender
status?
This ties in with principle P1, but is to remind us
that the single biggest threat we must guard against is
the establishment of medical or legal "gatekeepers" with
the power to impose their values on applicants. We had to
concede this during earlier attempts to define
legislation, as it was an idea ahead of its' time, but
that's why we should develop these principles as our
"stake in the ground".
5/ Does the legislation provide REAL privacy and
recognition for people, or will it still enable exposure
and consequent discrimination to be continued by other
means?
This is our reality check. It's there to remind us,
for instance, that a change that isn't grounded in
principles 1, 2 and 3 still permits DEFACTO obligations
for self-disclosure to persist ... within the insurance
industry, for instance. We have to remember that we're
seeking legislation to achieve a result, not just to put
in place a few specific legal changes for what we've
historically seen to be the main CAUSES of
discrimination. Cause and enablement are two very
different things. An unchanged birth certificate may
directly CAUSE many problems ... a change to status and
papers that doesn't tie up the loose ends properly may
still ENABLE discrimination by other means.
This text is also available on the Press For Change
website at:
www.pfc.org.uk/campaign/princpls.htm
