There has been a heated debate going on in a group I'm in, about the relative merits of being 'stealth' and being 'out'. Being a wishy-washy liberal type, I can see some merit in both positions, and personally take the middle road, being neither loudly opaque nor invisible; don't ask, don't tell. Except for here, of course...
...some 'out' transfolk can tend to arrogate to themselves the moral high ground; "Stealth transwomen enjoy the advantages of any change for the better which we bring about, without doing anything themselves." To which a stealthy woman might reply, "I am demonstrating in my person that I am a normal and socially assimilated woman, which is surely what it's all about. And by the way, do not presume to speak for me".
That is a problem; if you aren't out there, then someone else may just do that. Like, as a recent example, Rebecca Dittman, Chair of the Gender Trust, writing about Iranian transsexuals on the Woman's Hour messageboard ...it's not a major thing, but I felt uncomfortable reading it and hoped that people would not assume that she was indeed speaking for all of 'us'. The existence of a TS 'community' is also a debatable matter. As has been pointed out, sharing a medical condition does not a community make...
Coincidentally, I'd just resigned from the Gender Trust, which I'd joined, filled with the urgent desire to make the world a better place, after having just won my Employment Tribunal. After a while, I realised that I just don't work the same way that the GT does.
There is quite a growth industry in Equal Opportunities at the moment; much hammering out of policies and attempting to work out ways of monitoring workforces -there is an obvious difficulty in working out how many transsexual people there may be in a workforce if their trans status is, as it should be, confidential.
Take, for instance, this attempt by ACAS to 'audit' attitudes among a workforce towards 'transgendered' people.
Now, picture the scene. The questionnaire is handed out. A potential or actual harasser ticks all the boxes that say that they quite enjoy harassing people actually, and then hands the questionnaire in to their manager.
I don't think so, somehow.
And this is an audit of attitudes? -After which the company in question can say, "We have a demonstrably good policy in place" and everyone is happy.
Right.
When I began to put together my case for sexual harassment against P&O Ferries, I felt rather daunted at the prospect of going it alone. So I wrote to the Equal Opportunities Commission, to a member of Press For Change (the TS campaigning organisation) and to the RMT (whose departmental rep had threatened me with violence).
They weren't interested.
So I did it with the help and support of my friends.
No doubt the apparachniks of this brave new equalities world believe that they're doing good work; I recall a breathless account of the TUC's LGBT meeting, written by a transwoman who had been invited to participate. It reminded me somewhat of John Reed, in Ten Days That Shook The World, describing a Bolshevik meeting in Petrograd, where the delegates enthusiastically vote to ban smoking in the meeting... and then carry on smoking...
What I find worrying is the likely case of someone who also finds it daunting going it alone but after the refusals of said campaigning and official groups , feels unable to take the matter further. That seems to me to be a dereliction of duty.
ReplyDeleteAs for people speaking on behalf of TS Groups. I thought most of these people had the sense to say' I'm speaking from my own perspective' I can't speak for everyone'
Then again you will always have people perceive it as if he/she was talking for everyone. I think on balance I'd rather some people put themselves out there and said something. (that's just my view of course)
I'm certain that there are plenty of people in that position, Charlie; apart from the sheer amount of information you need to take on board (I could never have done it without a heap of research (thank you, internet...)) the time scale can be daunting; it is in a company's interest to spin a grievance procedure out as long as possible; if I'd known at the time that it would have taken nearly two years to prosecute my case, it might have seemed unbearable...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that people should speak on their own behalf. I have written a few Angry of Bristol letters to the papers myself.... But when someone tags on their title and the name and address of the organisation in which they hold office, the inference is clearly to be drawn, and intended to be drawn, that they are acting as a spokesperson.
Plenty of people maybe but there are also a significant amount of people who wouldn't even start! I know people who are daunted by writing a letter never mind putting a case together!
ReplyDeleteIf someone tags on the organisation,Then I took it to mean they are speaking for that organisation and that organisation only. (unless they state otherwise)