Another Small Victory.
Writer and sexual rights activist, Jane Fae, was today celebrating what she described as a “small but significant victory” for women, for the transgendered – and for anyone else who would like to change their name but finds themselves all too quickly enmeshed in bureaucratic red tape.
This was her reaction to news that two government departments have now backed down and agreed that their use of the term “legal name” is wrong and misleading.
Jane explained: “I am putting together a research paper on name changes in the UK. The problem is that in law, there is no such thing as “legal name”: your name is the name you are known by.
Last week, I discovered that the section on the direct.gov website dealing with name change for passport purposes refers to “legal name”. I raised this with officials at the Home Office, and this morning received an admission that “there is no such thing as a “legal name” in any IPS policy or guidance, it appears to be an error on Directgov and should state “the name you use for official purposes”. We apologise for this error and will amend this immediately.”
Jane went on: “The fact that even major government departments are starting to acknowledge that they have got the law wrong is good news.
“However, when it comes to changing your name, the present situation is still deeply discriminatory and highly sexist. Banks, Utilities and quite a few local government institutions will swear that they can’t do so without all manner of official documentation for a range of reasons, from “personal security” to “preventing money laundering”.
“In fact the truth is far more mundane and far more unacceptable. What it boils down to is lazy bureaucrats, quoting non-existent laws – and too many computer systems written and designed by blokes.
“I am not going to leave this one alone.”
-
1
August 3, 2010 at 17:26 -
You can call me Attila The Fun.
-
2
August 3, 2010 at 18:13 -
I am Spartacus
-
4
August 3, 2010 at 18:38 -
So you write your own press releases. Great. But what’s it doing here?
-
5
August 3, 2010 at 20:11 -
Was this article by Jane Fae or quoting her?
And who is Jane Fae, anyway?
Why, she’s the person interviewed in the article by, er, Jane Fae.
She is, perhaps, a self-made woman.
Just puzzled, that’s all! -
6
August 3, 2010 at 22:09 -
Any ‘victory for the ‘transgendered’ is a contradiction in terms.
-
7
August 4, 2010 at 20:44 -
You seem to have a problem with people who are transgendered. Are they less human because of what they are? Should they not be accorded the same freedoms as those who do not have to go through what they do?
-
8
August 4, 2010 at 22:54 -
You seem to assume that people who chop their bits off, or try to add a few, should be free from criticism, afforded special rights, because of their ‘victim status’.
You seem to assume the high and mighty position of ‘Defender of the weak’, when in actual fact you speak in defense of the perverse. You seem to have a problem with people who are sick of listening to psychotic weirdos, and their even more disturbed cheer-leaders, who think that they can cow their opponents with the threat of the word bigot? (Or rascist, or homophobe, or Islamophobe, etc, etc, ad nauseum)
Oh, I see! They should get special treatment, because they’re weird.
Really, your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me.
-
9
August 4, 2010 at 23:29 -
I did not say that the transgendered should be granted special rights/treatment – merely that they are human as well and should be treated no better – or worse – than anyone else. The judge in the case you mention as well as another in another recent case were both wrong: there are other transsexuals in our gaols and the prison service manages to deal with them so would have dealt with these two cases as well.
My goal was simply to confirm what I thought to be my understanding of your position on the matter. It is not a position that I will ever find myself agreeing with but I will not resort to name-calling over the matter.
I will however say that contrary to your assertion that the transgendered are a ‘perversion’, or ‘psychotic weirdos’ (sic) etc that many are regular tax-paying members of society just trying to get on with their lives like everyone else.
-
-
-
-
10
August 3, 2010 at 22:12 -
“Brian Spartacus today read a blog post by Jane Fae and realised that was 2 minutes of life he would never get back. Isn’t life unfair?
-
11
August 3, 2010 at 23:43 -
English Viking:
Any ‘victory for the ‘transgendered’ is a contradiction in terms.That’s a witty and acute observation.
I’ve never come across a sexual rights activist before. Perhaps Mr Smudd is one as well as Jane Fae? We may never know? Could this trigger a limerick?
-
12
August 4, 2010 at 00:09 -
Spartacus has left the building.
-
13
August 4, 2010 at 08:50 -
What’s the fuss about? The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family had no problems with their name change.
-
14
August 4, 2010 at 15:54 -
Banks, Utilities and quite a few local government institutions will swear that they can’t do so without all manner of official documentation for a range of reasons, from “personal security” to “preventing money laundering
And the news today that the Royal Bank of Scotland was just fined £5.6mio for not complying with money-laundering regulations gives some insight into why banks demand “official” documents. Silly moo.
-
15
August 4, 2010 at 23:18 -
Why is this self-proclaimed “sexual rights activist” (WTF?) crayoning all over Anna Raccoon’s otherwise excellent blog? I come here to read insightful analysis and opinion, not self-publicity.
-
16
August 5, 2010 at 01:16 -
A N Other,
Because, quite simply, Anna Raccoon has invited her to do so.
Because she is a first class journalist who brings a useful insight and analysis to a subject matter that is often misunderstood and treated to a knee jerk reaction from people who, unlike Jane Fae, don’t actually know what they are talking about.
Because I like to get to the truth of issues rather than merely rant based on a media perception.
Anna-
17
August 5, 2010 at 02:18 -
Never had you down for a les, Anna.
-
18
August 5, 2010 at 02:33 -
Quite right too, I am very happily married. I don’t quite understand the point of your comment.
-
19
August 5, 2010 at 13:53 -
I was being provocative, deliberately so. I never had you down as a flag-waver for the perverse. I assume I was wrong, as you have given space for this ‘lady’ to promulgate her shite.
-
-
-
20
August 5, 2010 at 10:08 -
Fair enough.
I for one, and others too, I dare say, were puzzled to find you giving house-room to a sexual rights activist (SRA) writing about herself in the third person like a first class journalist.
I’d have expected your blog first to have been unaware that there might be such a thing as an SRA, second to find out what an SRA does and who pays the wage, and third -in all probability- to have a bit of a laugh while looking forward to the slashing of the budgets that allow SRA’s to practise and proselytize.
I have no problem with being surprised, though.
-
21
August 5, 2010 at 10:50 -
Mick,
No one ‘employs’ Jane Fae as a sexual rights activist. She supports herself through her free lance journalism – she was previously known as John Ozimek the distinguished legal writer – and first class journalist – on the Register……..
There is no budget to be slashed that I can laugh at in this case.
There is just one woman who is able to throw light on a subject which is much misunderstood. I choose to help her do so.
I could, I suppose, have rewritten her press release which concerned a small victory for freedom from regulation, something I very much support, had I had the time. Perhaps that would have offended you less.
-
-
-
-
24
August 5, 2010 at 00:03 -
Shame that their taxes don’t even come close to covering the costs of their ‘corrective surgery’, eh?
They are human, I don’t hate them, but I refuse to be dictated to by their kind, as though a mental illness should afford someone immunity from criticism, when that illness is used to further their own aims.
PS People are not ‘transgendered’ (except in a very, very, small amount of cases of genetic mutations.) They choose to become so, by doing awful things to themselves.
PPS I never said they were not human, you implied that I said it. You see how you appeal to emotive reasoning, don’t you?
-
25
August 5, 2010 at 09:41 -
Their taxes don’t cover the cost? Really? Someone on £25k a year will pay approx £5,825 in income tax and NI per year. Assuming no increase in salary/income tax/NI that equates to approx £233k over 40 years… a figure that is more than enough to cover the costs associated with transition. How about those who don’t choose to follow the unwieldy and bureaucratic path dictated by the NHS that makes getting treatment difficult? They go private and save the taxpayer money by paying their own way.
I have not met any trans person who would call being trans a mental condition and the classification of it as such under the DSM-IV is a source of annoyance. Indeed to get a referral for surgery you have to get two people to confirm that you are sane enough to know what you are doing. My current understanding of the matter is that it won’t be in DSM-V.
The genetic mutations that you refer to are ‘intersex’ individuals – who used to be referred to as ‘hermaphrodites’. They are different from the transgendered and are as upset at being put in the same category as them as the transgendered are at being put in the same category as homosexuals. In the end however those are all labels and boxes used by others to differentiate between people (often negatively).
I’ll agree that you never explicitly said that the transgendered are less than human… that is simply the opinion I have formed having read your negative comments on this and other blogs.
PS. Yes, my mistake on the ‘sic’. The spell checker simply doesn’t recognise ‘weirdos’ as a valid English word.
-
26
August 5, 2010 at 13:51 -
The figure you give does not account for the fact that taxes are not ‘ring-fenced’ for the individual that earned them. Taxes have to be spent on defense, policing, roads, hospitals, education (primary, secondary and tertiary). The list is endless.
The NHS is already failing to care for people with terrible diseases, through lack of funding. The utter waste of cash to allow perverts to fulfill their fantasies is a disgrace, particularly as their taxes (after the above expenses are accounted for, like everybody else) most certainly do not cover the cost of this procedure, nor the endless sessions of psychiatric ‘treatment’ for years before and after.
If you’ve read Joseph Heller, you’ll understand why I think that wanting the procedure is evidence of insanity and therefore any person requesting it should be automatically denied on the mental health grounds. You know, Catch 22.
-
27
August 5, 2010 at 14:36 -
The extension of your argument therefore is that no-one who requires medical assistance for things that cost lots of money (eg cancer) should be allowed to have it on the basis that they haven’t paid enough to cover the cost of the treatment.
I can accept that – but it means that the NHS has to die and be replaced by a system of medical insurance first. Until that happens denying anyone treatment on the basis of ‘disliking it’ is a slippery path into the realms of things best avoided.
As regards your continuing assertion of mental illness, I’ve yet to meet anyone undergoing transition who has spent any time on a psychiatrist’s couch (other than to get a confirmation of sanity). I’d therefore like to know what leads you to believe that “endless sessions of psychiatric ‘treatment’ for years before and after” occur?
-
28
August 5, 2010 at 16:08 -
Psychiatric evaluation and counseling was required during the period that the person involved was living as the opposite sex openly, but had not started ‘treatment’ yet. This was a period of 2 years, but I am thinking of a case I know of from some years ago, so perhaps the situation has changed now?
I don’t agree with your conclusion to my argument. I think that because some people will require expensive, life-saving drugs or surgery, at a cost that far outweighs their contributions, such treatments should be restricted to pathological illnesses only. Allowing people to live out their fantasies courtesy of the tax-payer is not what Bevin had in mind, neither is it what a great deal of taxpayers expected, particularly those who are dying through lack of treatment or drugs from the NHS.
Please don’t tell me that this kind of surgery is life-saving too, because the ‘patients’ may become so traumatised that they either mutilate or kill themselves. Holding yourself hostage, with threats of self-harm if you do not get what you want, is further evidence of the insanity that afflicts these people, not evidence of their need to have expensive surgery.
You’re not a bloke, are you?
-
-
-
-
-
29
August 5, 2010 at 00:07 -
The above is (was) supposed to be a reply to Clarissa @ 23:29.
PS Don’t ‘sic’ me when I haven’t made a mistake. It makes you look daft.
-
30
August 5, 2010 at 16:36 -
31
August 5, 2010 at 14:09 -
32
August 5, 2010 at 14:43 -
Anna,
As a result of this discussion I am considering writing something on the whole subject of the ‘transgendered’ (or at least a quick guide as I won’t claim to understand every facet of what is a complicated issue) for your blog. If it is something that you might consider publishing please let me know.
Thanks,
Clarissa -
33
August 5, 2010 at 16:22 -
I wasn’t being perverse (I hope). I was being provocative.
You are correct, I do believe that ‘trans-genderism’ is a life-style choice. That’s up to them, I guess, but please don’t ask the public purse to pay for this nonsense, nor normalise it by trying to pretend that they have some kind of physical defect that needs surgical correction. I admit, I openly believe, that they are ill, that they need treatment; but for mental illness, nothing more. Those with REAL physical defects, such as the S. African runner who is (allegedly) a hermaphrodite are not viewed in the same way (by myself) and should get all the help they need to decide which sex they wish to live as. They are not the same as the Danny La Rue types who are, quite frankly, bonkers.
Your logic is faulty with regard to the fat and the tattooed; they may very well be perverts, but they are not at the hospital to have their perversities massaged. Their perversions and their illnesses are not related.
-
34
August 5, 2010 at 16:56 -
If you wanted to pick an example then Danny La Rue was a bad one. The label (although I hate to use them) for people like Danny is ‘drag queen’ (or king) and they do not tend to seek medical aid.
-
35
August 5, 2010 at 17:12 -
36
August 5, 2010 at 17:34 -
Hello again, EV,
Out of curiosity, would you permit people to undergo sex change operations at private plastic surgery clinics?
Given that I do not really care what people do or do not do with their own bodies, it is irrelevant to me if someone wishes to make themselves appear like the opposite sex, or if they want to have surgery so that they look like a cat, or to have a limb amputated, because it offends them in some manner or other. So, for me, it is entirely irrelevant what motivates someone to undergo these procedures (provided it is not under threat of violence from others).
What is your opinion on plastic surgery (Jodie Marsh types) generally? And, what is your feeling on matters such as religious alteration of the body (such as male circumcision), or the ritual scarring practised by certain South American tribes?
-
37
August 5, 2010 at 18:46 -
I do know the difference, but I’ll bet there were a grand total of zero ‘trans-sexuals’ who did not start with wearing the other sex’s clothes.
-
38
August 5, 2010 at 18:49 -
Danny La Rue (and the others like him) are merely manifesting the initial stages of the mental illness and do not go on to complete the process by emasculating themselves.
In my book, it’s all pretty much the same type of thing.
-
39
August 5, 2010 at 18:49 -
I do not really care what people do or do not do with their own bodies.
I’d be inclined to qualify that a little and concede readily that it’s none of my business what people do or do not do with their bodies. I think I’ve heard of people who want to amputate perfectly sound limbs and I think that that’s terribly sad.
Indeed I think it’s altogether dreadful for people to feel so ill at ease with their physicality that they look to surgery for a solution that I think surgery is poorly equipped to provide.
-
40
August 5, 2010 at 19:11 -
Hello indigomyth, I knew you’d be out there somewhere.
People can (and do) do whatever they like to their own bodies, at their own expense. I object to NHS funds being spent on an open perversion and I object to the insidious attempts at forcing self-censorship on those who still have enough sense to speak out against this attention-seeking, mental illness. If you want to chop your bits off, be my guest; just don’t be surprised if I think that you are either sexually perverse, mentally ill, or both. Don’t be surprised if I try to explain to others why this is not normal, natural. Don’t be surprised if I object to some of my taxes being spent on it.
My opinion on plastic surgery is pretty much the same, with the exceptions of deformities and injures, namely; if you want to look like Joan Rivers, knock yourself out; don’t be surprised if people point and laugh and please, please don’t ask me to pay for your bigger boobs. I have my personal objections, but I am not stupid enough to think that these would, or even should, become the law.
I object (if that is the right word) to the ritual cutting and general disfiguring of the human body amongst differing tribes, but feel sorry that men and women feel the need to do such things to themselves, either to conform to society or to a false image of bodily perfection. I don’t have a problem with male circumcision, as it doesn’t not affect sexual performance (some say it improves it) later in life. I wouldn’t do it, but that’s not my culture. I totally disagree with FGM, as this causes untold misery, even death, and does affect sexual pleasure. I also believe that it generally performed for the benefit of the selfish males, with no regard for the female.
You know that I profess to be a Christian, an therefore you’ll understand that I may see things differently to some others. Man (and women) are created in the image of God. Satan hates God, and he hates the image of him replicated in man and does all in his power to deface that image, whether by tattoos, cutting, piercing, surgery, etc. The plastic surgery thing is combination of this and vanity. IMHO.
I’ll sit back and wait for the cries of ‘…and you think trannies are mental?’
-
41
August 5, 2010 at 18:53 -
42
August 5, 2010 at 19:22 -
‘All’?
One of the main reasons that that particular fad did not lead to other, more insidious things was that society was bright enough to never have allowed those things to be viewed as anything other than utterly perverse and most undeserving of public funds.
Silicon implants and a meat cleaver don’t maketh the woman, either.
-
43
August 5, 2010 at 23:18 -
A common trait that continued on beyond Victorian times. Indeed, somewhere in the family photo album there is a a picture of my maternal grandfather aged under five dressed in this way and that was the 1920s.
-
44
August 5, 2010 at 19:49 -
EV,
I see no particular reason why people would object to your political position. We disagree on the issue of the very existence of the NHS, yet alone how it is to be used.
//I’ll sit back and wait for the cries of ‘…and you think trannies are mental?’//
Not from me. I disagree with you, but then we disagree about many things.
//I have my personal objections, but I am not stupid enough to think that these would, or even should, become the law.//
This ought to be the motto of civilisation.
-
45
August 6, 2010 at 00:24 -
Read the above.
(If it stays ‘above’, comments are all over the shop).
BTW, you didn’t answer my question; are you a bloke?
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }