I'm glad Stonewall now has trans people's backs. Transphobia must be exposed

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/18/stonewall-trans-people-transphobia-exposed

Version 0 of 1.

Stonewall, the UK’s foremost advocacy group for gay, lesbian and bisexual people is widening its remit. From now on it will be actively campaigning for transgender equality too. The exact ways in which it will do so are explained in a detailed report, the 18-page result of a long and thorough consultation with a broad range of UK trans people.

I was one of those to take part in a couple of meetings, as an individual not a journalist. I can attest that CEO Ruth Hunt was so committed to getting the report right, she’d meet with anyone face-to-face – even if, like me, you essentially started by saying, “I only came out two years ago, could you fill me in?”

The news of Stonewall’s expansion might come as a slight shock to you. Because, also like me, you might be surprised to learn that until now Stonewall didn’t campaign for LGB and trans people.

In fact, trans advocacy was led for years by Press for Change. Stonewall kept a distance. Except when it occasionally didn’t, like in a video it made for young people where the only reference to trans people was someone using the word “tranny” as a joke to signify something he’d never want to be. But as times change, so do leaders, and when Hunt took charge, the organisation’s trans problem was something she quickly acknowledged and sought to address.

This acknowledgment and subsequent sincere apologies sent shockwaves – which ultimately proved soothing – through the UK trans community.

Ruth and I are from the same generation, which I think is reflected in the fact that, for her, leading an LGB group that didn’t campaign for trans people felt as odd as it did for me to be a trans person who couldn’t look to Stonewall for support.

There are interesting debates to be had about important distinctions between sexuality and gender. However, one contributor’s quote in the report reflects my own conviction that Stonewall should be for LGB and T people:

Homophobia, transphobia and sexism are intrinsically linked, and not acknowledging this has perpetuated society’s apathy and misunderstanding of trans* people.

Such misunderstanding was on show on this very website a few days ago. This letter to the Observer, signed by 130 academics and personalities, highlighted “a worrying pattern of intimidation and silencing of individuals whose views are deemed ‘transphobic’ or ‘whorephobic’”.

In other words, the letter was ostensibly about protecting free speech on campuses. However, to anyone familiar with some of the individuals cited – not to mention the wider phenomenon of trans-exclusionary feminism – it read like a deliberately vague attempt to excuse actual, well-documented transphobia (which is like homophobia, ie not made-up, but directed at trans people). It’s less of a letter and more of a tactical move to gain legitimacy. Intimidation, from whichever perspective, is not OK and does not need protecting. But I’m a lot more worried about those who get open letters published in newspapers, books published in print and plenty of public speaking engagements, than those driven to angry outbursts on Twitter and email.

I know I was not the only trans person particularly saddened to see familiar names of those I respect, like Mary Beard, Jeremy Hardy and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell on the list of signatories.

There was a sense that, surely, these people didn’t understand the implications of what they were signing or who they were signing with. The list and the letter include other people who have repeatedly used their many public platforms to say hateful and harmful things about trans people.

Tatchell has since confirmed that the letter was edited from the version he saw, while Beard has taken time to explain her perspective. (Tatchell has also explained his position more fully now here.)

So, what does Stonewall’s positive news have to do with a depressing letter?

I think that had Stonewall been campaigning equally for trans equality, in schools and workplaces, for as long as it’s been campaigning for LGB people, such letters wouldn’t see the light of day. Stonewall’s lack of advocacy for trans people – the demystification legwork at which it is so good – means that a crucial point is missed by those sincerely calling for freedom of debate. The point being that the subject up for debate, the opinions demanding to be heard, are in fact living, breathing people who happen to be trans.

Related: We cannot allow censorship and silencing of individuals | letters

It bears repeating; trans people are people. We are not gender theory. Our lives and experiences are not abstract ideas. Demanding that trans lives are, in fact, nothing more than theory or an “-ism”, is a cynical attempt to reduce them to as much. After all, a theory can be disproved while people – at least in a free society – cannot.

Do the letter writers care why trans people and their allies are uninterested in debate? My own answer would be that I don’t fancy debating my subjective reality today or ever. How about you?

The flip-side of “no platforming” – denying someone a platform to debate – is a vulnerable and silenced trans person, running scared from being the subject of or participant in such debates. The person for whom the continuation or not of debating is, quite literally, the difference between life and death, either by their own desperate actions or someone else’s violence.

Or perhaps, like me, they simply don’t want to live in dread of that debate; of turning a page or clicking a link to be explicitly told that they don’t exist, are delusional, or don’t deserve respect and equal rights.

It’s hard to get this alternative perspective across when most people can’t relate to being trans, and when it isn’t yet a broadly accepted human variation.

It’s also tough when there’s a good chance you’ll get accused of “attack” if you speak too loudly. Such frustrating accusations (also known as “gaslighting”) remind me that there’s a long and inglorious history of minorities being accused of getting hysterical or speaking out of turn ...

But right now, since I have your ear, I’ll tell it how I see it and how I hear other trans people seeing it; none of this should be up for debate at all. Those protecting free speech and or advancing radical feminism can do so without attacking trans people. Likewise, if the mere physical presence of a trans person, including in gender-segregated areas, upsets you, that is entirely your problem. Our humanity and safety deserves the same protection as yours. Our mere existence poses no threat to anybody.

I am loth to draw cheap comparisons, but it seems a few people are in dire need of simplicity. So, there are some things – including but not limited to race – physical ability, sexuality and gender that should never be used for intellectual target practice. Public debate perhaps, in certain settings and with certain goals and intentions, but not denial of rights and recognition masquerading as discourse.

I’m glad that Stonewall has trans people’s backs from now on. My hope is that, before long, toxic debacles such as this letter will be a thing of the past, because the existence of trans people will be as normal and unequivocal as the existence of gay people and other social minorities. For this change to occur, it has to become part of the social makeup. It’s this kind of embedding and “behind the scenes” campaigning that Stonewall prides itself on. Also, it’s quite good at coming up with pithy campaigns such as, ‘Some people are trans, get over it!’

Hopefully soon, no one will have the time or inclination to debate whether every person’s gender (or “sense of self”, whatever you want to call it) must be dictated by their genitals. Just as most people no longer debate whether reproduction must be the deciding factor in attraction.

If trans is new to you, I highly recommend Transparent and Orange is the New Black for starters. I also write a weekly column about the everyday experience of one trans person’s life.

Of course, the fact will never change that we could debate these things. But there comes a time, as progress marches on, that society decides it would rather not, and for trans people that time is coming.