Media and Misinformation....

In this glorious new internet age we are bombarded by the media. 24 hour news channels both online and television, online newspapers, online news sites et al. The sheer quantity of accessible information is staggering. Unfortunately not all of it is correct, and some of it is just outright lies. In this information age, misinformation is one of the biggest problems. People believe the media, believe what they read in the papers and online. They believe what they watch on the television, what they're told but, if the facts are wrong then there will be problems. For trans people, these problems can be huge, even deadly.

As you may, or may not know, there was a big misinformation campaign against a trans student by a US right-wing group called 'Privacy For All Students', featuring the Pacific Justice Institute. I'll not repeat it but you can read about it here. The story was picked up by US national newspapers and television stations, including some here in the UK. Amazingly, not one of these media outlets fact-checked the story. They just assumed it was true and it continued to spread. It wasn't until the story was fact-checked by Cristan Williams of The Transadvocate that the truth finally came out. The whole story was manufactured, false, but the damage had been done. The student in question ended up on suicide watch.

This is an extreme example of how the media can be manipulated and be made to serve others' malicious purposes. Here in the UK we have another problem. Not one of malicious, targeted campaigns, but one of long term, inertial misinformation.

Ever since the seventies and eighties, media outlets such as tabloid newspapers and mid-morning chat shows have portrayed trans people in a bad light, misrepresenting us in such a way that we became laughable, objects of ridicule to be pointed at in the street. For trans women it was worse. We became 'blokes in dresses', 'freaks' and 'weirdo's'. We were having sex-changes, being castrated, hormones were giving us instant female bodies. Tabloids were obsessed with what we were wearing, rather than our actual stories. There was rarely any reporting of the story behind the person, documenting the pain behind transition. The stories always seem to rest on the phrases "I felt like a woman" and "I always wanted to be a woman", making it sound like a decision taken one morning after breakfast. No-one took transsexuals seriously. It was seen as ok for us to be beaten in the street, have graffiti daubed on our homes. To be transsexual was to be an object, non-human almost, worthy of none but the most base attention.

Nowadays, things are different. Or are they? With certain newspapers the reporting hasn't changed all that much. Neither has the language used to describe us. Still the process of transition is glossed over, making it sound like something you do in your spare time. No information is imparted to the readers or viewers about what transsexuality actually is. The differences between Gender Identity, Expression and Role is rarely, if ever, mentioned or explained. We are still seen as the subject for salacious gossip and maliciously intrusive reporting. The case of Lucy Meadows is a case in point. No link between the reporting and her suicide has been established but there is no doubt, in my eyes at least, that it was a contributory factor.

I would appeal to the media, should any member of it read this, to change. Change the way our stories are reported. Do your research. Fact-check stories if and when they come in. Speak to trans organisations such as GIRES and Mermaids, (when reporting on trans children and teens). Rather than concentrating on what happens to our genitals, ask us how our lives have changed, how much better they have become. Listen to us, ask us questions and we will give you answers. We are the ones living our lives, the ones who can tell you how we feel, no-one else. Don't ask us what we wear day-to-day, ask us what we do day-to-day, how we live and work, and you will see how ordinary we are.

Remember: In our quest to become who we really are, we go through incredible changes, painful changes, in order that we might live ordinary lives. We suffer prejudice and bigotry, some of us on a daily basis, so that we may fade into the background and become someone you will pass on the street without a second glance. All we ask is the right to live without fear of hatred, to walk the streets and go shopping or visit friends without the fear of abuse and this can only come about with the help of the media.

After all, if its in the paper, it must be true.

Gender Identity and the Myth of Social Construction

Please Note: I use the word 'transsexual' rather than 'transgender' because it is a term I am comfortable with.

It takes a lot to get me annoyed. I admit I don't suffer fools gladly, I go nuts at blatant stupidity on the roads and I hate bad customer service. But there's one thing that really gets me seriously pissed off, and that is people who comment and pass judgement on my being transsexual without knowing all, or sometimes any, of the facts and, just lately, there has been a lot of that. I would like to try and provide some sort of education. This is an entry I've been meaning to write for some time.

The OED entry for "transsexual" is: noun: a person who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex. I don't like to say "I feel like a woman", since I don't know what a woman feels like. I only know what I feel like. I've felt like this since I was a child, (as far back as I can remember. See here ). I am now going through transition which, without reiterating details elsewhere in this blog, is physically and psychologically painful. Very painful.

Contrary to what some people seem to think we do not get up one morning and think "I want to be a woman". Its not something that suddenly comes on us out of the blue, or something that we have "picked up" from somewhere. Nor is it "just a phase" that we go through. Its something that is with us from birth. No-one can say exactly what happens in the womb, what goes wrong but, all foetus's are initially female until the introduction of testosterone for the boys and oestrogen for the girls. Maybe we get enough testosterone to develop a male body but retain a female mind. Who knows? What I do know is that the end result is growing up with what sometimes appears to be one of the most reviled conditions in recent times. Recent studies have shown that the rate of suicide attempts for transsexuals the UK is 34% (>1 in 3, N=872) and in the US it is 41% (N=7000). These statistics are not the result of transsexualism itself, but the result of the fear, depression and anxiety caused by society's intolerance towards it.

When we are born, the midwife or doctor looks between the baby's legs and, if there is a penis, assigns male, or a vagina, assigns female. Unfortunately, on occasion, they unknowingly get it wrong. As I said initially, as far back as I can remember, (about the age of four, I think), I have felt wrong. At that time I didn't have the knowledge to put it into words, but it was there. This 'wrongness' sat in my mind, nameless, for several years before I began to have an inkling about what it was. I had begun to learn about the physical and social differences between boys and girls and, during this learning period, the wrongness I was experiencing began to coalesce. I began to realise I was a girl. There was no getting around it. My body was wrong, that of a boy, but I was a girl nonetheless. I tried explaining it to my family, but they just laughed and told me I would grow out of it. I tried with my friends but they also laughed and started bullying me. At this time, I had several female cousins living not too far away, (practically next door, in fact), so I used to go round to see them. Eventually I plucked up the courage to tell them how I felt. They started to treat me as a girl almost immediately. It felt right for the first time. I can remember how it felt so normal to be treated as one of the girls and not a freak or a joke. Unfortunately my parents had to move and that was the last time for nearly forty years that I felt like a normal person.

What you have to remember, dear reader, is that at this time I really had no concept or knowledge of gender, of any kind of gender spectrum, nor of gender roles, presentation or identity. I didn't even have a word for how I felt, I just knew I was a girl cursed with a boy's body, end of. Laying in bed every night, praying that I would wake up with the right body, or hoping that if my parents saw me enough times as a girl that they would realise I was one. It never happened and, as it turned out, it was never going to.

My experience, along with the experiences of so many others, refutes the argument put forward by so many, that gender identity is socially constructed and can be changed. Gender presentation and gender roles are a product of society, almost certainly, but gender identity is innate, built in and unchangeable. I repeat:

Gender Identity is innate, built-in and unchangeable.

For those who have trouble understanding this I am afraid that there may be no hope for you, but I can come and shout it in your ear for a large sum in untraceable notes.

For most people their gender identity matches their physical sex, for others, transsexuals like myself, it doesn't. Where the majority of people grow into gender roles and have gender presentations that match their gender identities, transsexuals do not. We are forced into gender roles and presentation that fit our physical sex only and are labelled misfits, deviant or abnormal when we try to correct our physical problem. This is where the depression, fear and high suicide rates come in. This is where the education is needed. Society's disdain for us is caused by its collective fear of the unknown. Once the unknown becomes known then there is no need for fear. In this day and age there is no excuse for ignorance. There is no excuse for hatred and oppression. Parody is also a way of dealing with fear of the unknown. There is no need for this, (television and film makers please take note here). The knowledge is freely available, and if there is some doubt then please ask. None of us will bite heads off because someone asked a sensible question, but we do get annoyed at stupid questions.

I only hope that this goes some way to dispelling the misinformation about transsexuality and reducing the fear and ignorance surrounding it.

As for me? Well, I'm just a woman trying to make life a little easier for herself. If anyone has a problem with that well, come up and see me.

Labels and Liabilities....

Just lately, I have come to realise that there is a big, big problem within the LGBT community and it seems to reside largely within the T, or Transgender, part of said community. The problem is labelling. Who am I? What am I? For myself, I find it quite easy. I am a woman. Unfortunately one with a male body, but a woman nonetheless. In the medical profession this would classify me as a 'transsexual', an easy to remember term that denotes what I am without the need for long explanations. For others its not so simple. For the sake of clarity though, I will write within my own sphere of experience.

So, what are these labels? In the context of this blog they are the words used to describe a person's gender identity in relation to their physical body. They are used to replace long winded explanations. For example, as I have said, I am a woman, but I am also inhabiting a male body and am undergoing male to female transition to correct this in the best way possible. Rather than saying all this each time I meet someone, I can just say "I am a transsexual woman". Thanks to the media, both social and audio/visual, most people I am likely to meet will probably have a simplified view of what a transsexual is and what it means. They may know the basics and need further clarification but, overall it gives them a starting point of reference.

Since the early '80's another term has slowly crept into use. This is 'transgender'. It is meant to be an umbrella term encompassing all those gender non-conforming labels. Unfortunately it has also become interchangeable with transsexual, and also become the seemingly preferred label. It has since been shortened to 'trans' or 'trans*', usually to denote a transsexual person but also to describe anyone who's gender identity or presentation is outside the 'norm', (whatever that is). It can be confusing. One can say "I am trans" or "I am transgender" but, does that mean transsexual, transvestite, gender-queer, agender, bi-gender, etc? You can see the problem there. For most transsexuals the problem with the trans* label can be relatively easy. A male-to-female transsexual, like myself, can also be a 'trans woman' and female-to-male is a 'transman'. Simples. I have to admit though, when talking to older people I still use the term 'transsexual' because its the term I grew up with.

It's with the usage of such terms that the problem I mentioned earlier arises. Unfortunately some within the trans community have become extraordinarily sensitive to usage of terms and is ever ready to jump up and shout whenever they are misused or misconstrued in public, in the media or anywhere else. Rather than helping, this approach tends to hinder the trans community by giving the appearance of weakness and insecurity. I know there is a possibility of me upsetting some people by saying this, (and I apologise in advance), but, jumping up and down like spoiled children every time someone misuses a term of reference creates and reinforces an image of uncertainty, of self-doubt. I know that misuse of labels and terms can result in problems, (it has for me, several times), but the correction needs to be made calmly and clearly, not by pouting and shouting. If the person being corrected acts like an idiot then, by all means, treat them like one, but we shouldn't act the same. We suffer enough problems as it is without creating more ourselves.

The requirement for labels is a distinctly human problem and is one of language. It gives us a point of reference to work from. It enables us to be more succinct and to the point in our speech. Language evolves over the years, words change meaning, new words come to the fore and each time we need to adjust. Mistakes will be made, misuse and misunderstandings will happen and will be corrected. People will be angry with the misconstruction's and mistakes and that can't be helped. What we need to do is remember this and make allowances. Only then will understanding and acceptance be forthcoming.

Otherwise the labels become liabilities.

Love, Hate and Violence....

Originally posted in my blog "The Girl From Nowhere", I thought it would be good to post it here as well. 

Over the last few years my eyes have been opened, wide. I knew, being transsexual that, when I transitioned, there would be prejudice and a certain amount of hate possibly levelled at me, but I hadn't reckoned with the absolute levels of hate and violence against trans people as a group, and the sources of it.

It seems that, having spent much of my life in a drunken stupor (see here), I had missed out on a huge chunk of what was going on. I was so, so naive. To me, church was a place you went to talk to an implausible being who was probably too busy anyway, a christian was someone who did this, turf was sheets of grass used to make a lawn, right-wing was something to do with politics and prejudice and discrimination happened to other people. How things have changed. How I've grown up. I've had to. Transition is not an easy journey.

There have been the changes socially. I get treated as a woman. Doors opened for me (nice), people talk to me more, especially other women, shopping is a much more fun experience, even silly things like male drivers letting me out at junctions. There are some not-so-nice changes, (I'm not complaining, just commenting), mainly things I took for granted pre-transition, such as being treated like I don't know anything in DIY shops, (having a pink toolkit recommended to me!), and car shops, but the best is computer shops where thirty years in the business gives me a chance to have fun.

But then there's the hate and the violence. The sheer immensity of it is staggering.

It appears that much of the hate for us is Right-Wing (largely) Christian led, mainly in the US, but there is a large component here in the UK. They run around, selectively quoting the Bible to justify their hatred and intolerance, pointing at us and calling us abominations, freaks, and worse. Then they say they can cure us, with love and God's grace but, when that doesn't work, its back to inciting violence and hatred.

Then there are the TERFs, (TransExclusionary Radical Feminists), feminists that want people like me dead, who would look upon a trans suicide as a victory, who see us as nothing but men in dresses raping women. Feminists like Cathy Brennan, Janice Raymond and Victoria Brownworth to name but a few. I have read some of the TERF websites and Twitter postings with a kind of horrified fascination that this sort of thing could actually exist.

But the worst hate of all is the fear and hate generated by ignorance. The fear that some people have of the unknown. This is the hate that kills, the hate that destroys lives. This is the hate that is fed upon and encouraged by the Right and Christian Right and TERFs, the hate and fear that is turned into violence and murder. The hatred that causes the 44% level of suicides of trans people and makes stepping out the front door a nervous journey into unknown familiarity for many more. The hatred that has killed more than two hundred trans people in the last year for no better reason than who they were, and has given rise to an annual Day of Remembrance.

The hatred and fear is real, visceral. The only weapons we have are law and education. Knowing a thing removes the fear of that thing. We can only show that we are people trying to get on with our lives. We only shout and make a fuss when we are treated less than any other, when we are pushed to the back of the bus. Otherwise we want to live without fear of being killed simply because we are truly ourselves.

Transition Truths and Bathroom Lies....

(Copied from my blog "Passing The Speed of Light")

I don't normally blog about things outside the UK but the problems in other countries, most notably the US, regarding the treatment of TS people, are becoming to big not to. Probably no-one will read this, or maybe some will but, if it helps to change even one life then my time has been well spent.

There are several items that seem to be high in the US news at the moment but, in this entry, I will concentrate on two. One is AB1266, the so-called "bathroom bill" in California. The other is the case of the Florence High School student in Colorado, (known as "Jane Doe"), who has allegedly been harassing students in the girls bathroom. This has since been proven false by Cristan Williams of the TransAdvocate website. Both stories have involved the Pacific Justice Institute, a "Christian" organisation seemingly devoted to eradicating anyone and anything that doesn't fit their world view, along with the Traditional Values Coalition and The Privacy For Students Coalition (of which PJI is a member). All of these organisations are right-wing, allegedly Christian organisations who seem to see gay, lesbian and transsexual people as some kind of threat that needs to be destroyed.

I suspect that much of their problem is based in ignorance of what being transsexual actually means. I also suspect that they don't want to know because, in their eyes, acceptance would mean realising that we are not the enemy and are not out to destroy families or corrupt children. All we want to do is be like everyone else and work, earn money, pay taxes and bills, go on holiday and live our lives as we see fit within the law of whichever land we live in.

I. Minds, Maps & Transition

I'm only going to concentrate on transsexuality here since the two stories I previously mentioned (and will speak about further), are about that.

A transsexual is a person who's gender identity does not match the body they have. It's not a choice as so many people think. It's something we are born with and grow up with. The mind's internal map of the body is confused because the body doesn't match. The map cannot be changed as it is an intrinsic part of the mind.

Imagine a sat-nav which has one map, a map that cannot be changed without destroying the sat-nav and losing yourself forever, but the map doesn't match the roads you are on. Rather than destroying the sat-nav and becoming irrecoverably lost, its easier, with a lot of work and time, to change the roads to match the map. That way the sat-nav works and you can navigate with no problems. Changing the body to match the mind is far less problematical and less fatal than trying to change the mind to match the body.

From the UK Home Office Guide: The Workplace and Gender Reassignment:

In medical and scientific disciplines, gender dysphoria is increasingly understood to have a biological origin and is strongly associated with a neuro-developmental condition of the brain. Studies, such as those conducted by Professor Van Gooren, of a region in the hypothalamus of the brain which is smaller in women than in men showed that in M-F transsexuals this region was of female size or smaller. The view that the weight of current scientific evidence suggests a ‘biologically-based, multifactorial etiology’ for transsexualism is supported by articles in journals, the press and popular scientific works. Transsexualism is therefore innate, not acquired. It cannot be ‘cured’ by psychological or psychiatric treatments alone, although psycho-social factors may play a role in the outcome. It is a medical condition and transition to the preferred gender role, thereby confirming the individual’s core gender identity, may be the only solution.

Transition is a choice of sorts that eventually befalls us, but not much of one. With most transsexuals its a choice of transition or a descent into a life of excruciating depression and mental anguish. With many its a choice of transition or die. Transition brings its own problems: Ridicule, physical or verbal abuse, difficulty with employment, housing and finances, loss of family and friends. Along with learning new behaviours, hormone therapy, extremely painful laser and electrolysis treatments, voice training, and eventual surgery, it's not something that can be undertaken lightly. So why the groups I mentioned earlier want to make things harder is beyond me.

II. Bathrooms and Beyond

I'm not really sure if the case of the Florence High School student, "Jane Doe", and the opposition to AB1266 are as much about use of the bathroom, (toilet or loo in the UK), by TS students as they are about the hatred and distrust of the unknown and the frightening refusal to learn the facts about that unknown.

It seems that, in the Florence HS case, the facts were totally ignored in order to manufacture a situation that would promote hostility to Jane Doe, and therefore force her removal from the school, or at the very least, prevent her from using the bathroom of her gender. (I'm not going to dance around the fact that she is female, and presents as such). Since, thanks to some in-depth fact-checking by Cristan Williams, it has been proven to be a false claim, the PJI and the PrivacyForStudents coalition have taken to attacking her in other ways, even though she has been put on suicide watch due to death threats received after Fox News aired the story (again, without any fact checking whatsoever). Even the UK media picked up on the story, most notably the Daily Mail, who, along with most other media outlets, after receiving correct information from TransAdvocate and Cristan Williams, removed the story from their web pages and online newspapers.

Along with this, the PJI, Traditional Values Coalition and The Privacy For Students Coalition have also resorted to underhand tactics to try and get AB1266 repealed. These tactics include a manufactured story about a trans student in LA who allegedly peeked over the top of the stalls in the girls bathroom. This, also, has been proven to be false, fabricated because, as with Florence HS, one parent disagreed with a transgender student being at the school and the PJI et al, jumped on the story and twisted it to fit their own ends.

Now they appear to be using even more underhand tactics to scare people into signing a petition that, should it reach the required number of signatories, will open the vote on repealing AB1266. These scare tactics include saying that AB1266 will open the way for gay men to use the ladies bathroom and that it will facilitate rape and molestation by trans children.

III Opinion

Looking from the outside, in, it seems to me that there is a lot of blind ignorance, hatred and simple bigotry going on over the water. What amazes me even further is that many of these organisations claim to have a Christian basis and operate to Christian values. I have many Christian friends, both practising and non-practising, and none of them can understand the attitude of these organisations. In fact, most of them reacted with disbelief when I told them what was happening. I also live in an area with Muslims, Hindu's, Sikh's, Buddhists, Christians and various other religions and have good relations with all of them and I am accepted by them as a woman. So, religion itself doesn't appear to be the problem.

It would appear to me that, as I have said before in this article, it boils down to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear caused by lack of understanding and fear of understanding and finding there is nothing to fear. This fear then gives rise to such hatred and bigotry, disguised by a thin veneer of religion, attempting to give it a socially acceptable face. Take away the fear and the whole house of straw would drift away on the breeze, leaving behind the knowledge that we are trying to live our lives as best we can, to become ordinary in somewhat extraordinary circumstances.

I am not asking for anyone to give up their beliefs, nor am I trying to denigrate any religion. I am just asking for understanding, some compassion and maybe, just maybe, for people to open their minds a little and see us as the men and women that we are.

Its not too much to ask, is it?

Apocrypha and Apocalypse

I took a walk out yesterday and, despite the high temperature and humidity, (having worked in hotter countries, the humidity in the UK still gets to me), it was a lovely day. The sky was pale blue with not a cloud in sight, birds sang, people gathered in the parks to enjoy the sun, children played, the traffic flowed and all seemed well in the world. This troubled me. How come married couples were walking hand-in-hand in the parks and streets, and children playing happily, (well, most of them anyway)? Where were the plagues of rats and mice? Where were the floods, destroying the towns and cities and the terrible diseases to accompany them? Why weren't husbands and wives murdering each other in the streets, while the children ran rampant and feral, attacking all and sundry. Why wasn't society destroying itself in an orgy of insane violence?

After all, Same-Sex Marriage was signed into law last week.

Following many of the articles in the online press and reading many of the comments, from the members of the religious communities and the far right, regarding SSM, has been a constant source of both amusement and amazement, frequently at the same time. Many of the early comments focussed on the "Why change marriage when there are Civil Partnerships" argument here in the UK. Others focussed on the 'death of society as we know it' and some just became abusive. Around the world the harbingers of doom came out of the woodwork, (closet-shaped, of course), to proclaim everything from plagues of rats and mice caused by gay people and gay marriage to full on end-of-the-world-in-six-months caused by the defeat of DOMA and Prop 8 in the US. And then there's the Westboro Baptist Church, but the less said about that lot, the better.

But once again, the predicted doom has not come about. Oceans are not rising up, rats and mice are not flooding into cities and eating the citizenry, there isn't a sudden rush on storms and tornado's to destroy gay-friendly towns. There have been two earthquakes this week in China but, since China has no plans on introducing same-sex marriage, I doubt even the WBC could ascribe these to anything other than stress-relief in the Earth's crust (although they'd probably give it a go).

Nope. All we have is 18 countries where same sex marriage has been legalised (I've included the US even though its not nationwide yet). 18 countries where society still flourishes and grows, changes, updates, moves on. This gives me hope that, despite the recent law changes in Russia and despite the problems suffered by gay and transgendered people in Greece and other countries, the human race is moving, albeit very slowly, in the right direction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum

I'd started this entry with a whole host of quotes from various different people on the subject of Same Sex Marriage, and my replies, but it sort of changed as I went along, (which probably explains the stilted writing style). I have kept a couple below, along with links to their sources and other information:

One notable comment came from Dr John Semantu, the Archbishop of York regarding SSM and civil partnerships (BBC News 11th March 2012):

"There's a difference - and people don't these days want to talk about difference - there's a difference between a civil partnership and marriage, and that difference doesn't mean one is better than another, but they're different."

I wondered if he realised what the SSM bill was all about. CP's are different from marriage. That's the problem. They're supposed to be equal but one is more equal than the other. (See The Lords of Orwellian Change). That's the whole point of the government introducing the SSM bill, to make things equal.

Gerald Howarth, MP for Aldershot (my home) was even more off the wall and, seemingly, target as well (Aldershot News 8th Feb 2013):

"Civil partnerships offer virtually all the benefits available to married people. The vote last night will not secure equal marriage as the government suggests; it will create two forms of marriage."

Um, two forms of marriage? Marriage and, er, marriage? The two forms will be straight marriage and gay marriage which, eventually through the natural evolution of language, will become 'marriage'. CP's offer "virtually all the benefits"? From that we can infer that they don't actually offer all the benefits then.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, however, went down the 'death of society' route (BBC News, 4th June 2013):

The traditional concept of marriage will be "abolished" under plans to allow same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned, ahead of a crunch vote on the issue.Speaking in a debate in the House of Lords on Monday, the Most Rev Justin Welby said that marriage was the "cornerstone of society" and that what was being proposed was "neither equal nor effective".

The Archbishop denied that his opposition to the bill was a faith issue, insisting it was "about the general social good".

Hmm, "cornerstone of society", "the general social good". It makes me so annoyed that my teeth itch. It's simple arrogance, coming from the leader of a church that came into existence by an Act of Parliament because a monarch wanted to get a divorce. If marriage is the "cornerstone of society" then society, as a whole, is doomed. The divorce rate was 42% in 2011 and there were approximately 2 million victims of domestic violence according to the ONS, so Justin Welby's 'cornerstone' is crumbling quite badly. Maybe it can be shored up with the addition of Same-Sex Marriage.

In Russia, the leader of the Orthodox Church is claiming that same-sex marriage, having been legalised in so many countries, is the harbinger of the apocalypse:

“This is a very dangerous and apocalyptic symptom… It means that people are on the path of self-destruction.”  

Not really sure where to go with this one. Russia has been recently criticized for its introduction of anti-gay laws and the recent imprisonment of four Dutch tourists for "spreading gay propaganda to children".

Unleashed, but Barely Alive and Breathing

There's an old saying in the tech world: "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer". Having spent some time reading various articles on the DWP's Universal Credit system, and having been one of the techies waiting to start work on it, (now not working on it at all due to changes made by the DWP), I sincerely believe that the saying should be modified to read: "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a government".

The whole idea of Universal Credit was an admirable one. Collating and simplifying payments to benefit claimants into one monthly payment, linking it into the HMRC system so that there was no need to sign on or sign off when leaving or starting a job, levels of benefit changing depending on the salary received, reducing fraud, all wonderful things promised by a sparkling new system to be in place by October 2013, shiny, new and tested and working.

This isn't going to happen.

Instead we are given a multi-tentacled, money-sucking monster that, barely alive and breathing, threatens to destroy every benefit claimant that is caught in its foetid maw, and one which will not now be fully unleashed until 2017. Part of the problem has been the ruckus occurring at top management level, with two stepping down and moving on and one sadly passing away.

The rest of the problem lies with the system itself. It appears that there is actually only one job centre testing the system, ("Pathfinder"), in Ashton-Under-Lyme, while the two others, (Oldham and Warrington), are not due to start testing now until the end of August. Apparently they are only using single people, newly unemployed, to test the system, which is a bit like testing a car by driving it around a smooth track at five miles per hour and declaring it safe. What's worse is that the HMRC real-time information (RTI), system which is supposed to supply the claimant data is still being developed so the Pathfinder rollout has had to be halted while the data is entered manually. According to an article in The Register:

"civil servants have had to do the sort of basic tasks that were originally intended to be done automatically, like data entry and the verification of basic information about a client such as date of birth, address or right to claim the dole - even though a small number of clients with relatively simple personal situations have been chosen to take part."

Under no circumstances should this software have been allowed out into the real world in this condition. Entering data by hand on a live system, data that, if entered wrongly, could threaten people's already precarious financial stability, is ridiculous. If the HMRC RTI system isn't ready then don't roll out UC until it is. Using such a simplistic approach and such basic data, probably in the hope that all would work well and the politicians could hold it up as a shining example of government IT, is idiotic in the extreme. I could understand if this approach was for comparison purposes, ensuring the data from the HRMC matched the claimant, but it isn't.

You rarely see this level of idiocy in a business setting.  It's yet another case of government touting something wonderful without knowing whether is can actually be delivered on time and within budget. Universal Credit will now be added to the ever-growing list of  huge government IT projects that have, along with the NHS & Child Support, ended up as bloated, over-budget embarrassments which could have been delivered properly had the government listened to the right people.

Sorry, rant over.

The Lords of Orwellian Equality

I've blogged this over at my other blog "Passing The Speed of Light" but, since these blogs are not linked, I thought I would post it here as well. You never know, someone might read it.

I've been taking a somewhat perverse delight in reading various articles about the Same Sex marriage debate in the House of Lords just lately. It appears, with the number of amendments being tabled, that many of the members have an inherent fear of change. These amendments even have a name now, "wrecking amendments", specifically designed to wreck or seriously delay the SSM bill's passage through Parliament. They also have one other thing in common. They seem to also be designed to place same-sex marriage below that of opposite-sex marriage, all the while maintaining the façade of equality.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has tabled an amendment to bring two tiers of marriage into play. This redefines opposite-sex marriages as "traditional marriages" and makes a distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. The amendment states:

“nothing in this Act could take away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage. A ‘traditional marriage’ is one where the basis of the marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others.”

What concerns me about this is that nothing in the act takes away the right of opposite-sex couples to enter into a so-called "traditional marriage". It merely extends the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples, giving them the right to call their union a marriage. Lord Carey doesn't even bother to give same-sex marriage a label, as if it is beneath him. Also, if it wasn't so serious, the part about "voluntary union of one man and one woman for life"  would have me laughing, when you consider the divorce rate in this country (42% in 2010).

So, two tiers of marriage then? Both offer exactly the same vows, both have exactly the same status in law, both legally cement the relationship between two people who love each other, both have the same benefits but, if this distinction from Mr Carey were to go into the bill, one would become slightly more equal than the other. To paraphrase George Orwell's character, Napoleon, in Animal Farm:

"All marriages are equal, but some marriages are more equal than others"

Another amendment, tabled by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would allow straight couples to enter into civil partnerships. Why? Equality? CP's were introduced because the SSM bill either wasn't finished or the government of the day were too scared to bring it in, so they came up with Civil Partnerships.  CP's were supposed to be equal in law but could never be called marriages. It was another example of discrimination masquerading as equality. So Lord Mackey wants to offer straight couples the ability to join Rosa Parks at the back of the bus? Or is it because same-sex couples had something that straight couples didn't? Or is it something more insidious? Lord Mackey also went on to say that "marriage should be for natural procreation". Is there a hint of something there or is my imagination reading something more than is being said? Giving opposite-sex couples who cannot have children a less than equal marriage, maybe?

Probably the most damaging amendment, though, is the call for a referendum on the SSM bill in 2015. This would mean that, even if the bill passed through all stages ready to become law, it couldn't become law until voters approved it on 7th May 2015, at the earliest. Now, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I  don't recall ever being asked if I wanted the country to join Europe, or being asked to vote on Universal Credit, or the Equality Act 2010, or any other bill which affects nearly everyone in this country to one extent or another, prior to them becoming law. So why is it so important that a bill, which will bring equality to a small minority of the country, leaving the majority unaffected, be voted on in a countrywide referendum? It isn't going to cause the end of the world, nor is it going to cause the downfall of society, or cause a post-apocalyptic degenerative society to suddenly appear. Most countries who have introduced SSM seem to be getting on with things quite well, even the US states which now have it don't seem to have broken down into chaos and disorder.

I can only hope that the Lords see sense and reject all of these 'wrecking' amendments and take another step toward a saner world.

An Open Letter To Iain Duncan-Smith, Work & Pensions Secretary

Dear Mr Duncan Smith

I am not normally given to outbursts of anger when things go wrong in life, nor do I normally post online about it, nor write letters. I normally sort my problems out quietly and then just carry on but, given that this not only affects me but, potentially, also thousands of people around the country, I decided to change that policy in this instance.

On Tuesday 9th April 2013 I signed on as usual, happy in the knowledge that I had recently secured a job, a contract that would last at least a year and which was well paid, which was due to start on the 2nd May. In my excitement I hadn't updated my Universal Jobsearch page online. I was told by my advisor at the JobCentre that this would probably result in a sanction. It did. For four weeks. This caused me a bit of a problem but nothing insurmountable. With the help of my parents I was able to get through it, even though they have retired and live in Spain.

I signed as usual on the 23rd April. On the 25th April I received an update email from the Regional Manager of the contract I am due to start informing everyone that the contract start date had been pushed back to 1st July due to technical difficulties. Annoying but not disastrous. It just meant that I would be signing on a little longer than I thought. 

On the 7th May I went and signed on as usual, having filled my Universal Jobsearch with all the searches and job applications I had made, and things went smoothly. Come the Friday when I would usually get paid, there was nothing. Now this was beginning to cause a problem. I spoke to one of the advisors at the JobCentre and they told me that the sanction would be six weeks, not four, because the JSA payments are made in arrears. Ok, no point in blowing up at the staff. Not a lot they can do. 

I signed again on the 21st May and, again, no money on the Friday. I went and spoke to the senior advisor in the JobCentre and she gave me a Hardship Payment application form and told me to fill it in and bring it back. I did so, the same day and was told that it would be sent off and I would receive a payment within a few days. Unfortunately there was a Bank Holiday in the way which would delay payment. In the meantime I had to live on the good graces of friends and parents. 

Come the Friday following, (31st May), there was still nothing. I went into the JobCentre to complain and I was told that my Hardship Payment Application had been sent off and authorised. I was then told that I would receive payment on the following Friday, the day I would normally get paid after signing on. I asked if this was on top of my normal JSA payment and was told no, it was in place of it. 

I signed on as usual on 4th June and asked if things were sorted. The advisor then told me that he couldn't access my claim as it had gone to 'Clerical'. So I asked the senior advisor what this meant and she told me that my payment would be made manually and I would get my money on Friday 7th, as usual. Friday arrived and still nothing. I went and complained and the senior advisor said that she would send and email to 'clerical' to ask them to make a payment and I would be contacted. I received a text message later that day informing me that my hardship payment would be made within 24 hours. At the time of writing this I still haven't received anything. (08/06/13 at 11:47). This means I probably will not until Monday at the earliest. In the meantime, the only  'helpful' thing the staff could recommend was that I go to a foodbank if I was having problems with food. I mentioned that my electricity was getting low but all they said was that the food from the foodbank was selected to be microwaved or eaten without cooking.

Throughout all of this, I have had not one single letter or other communication from the DWP regarding what is going on. I have had nothing to say that I am on a sanction, no explanation why my claim has gone to 'clerical', (whatever that is), no communication whatsoever except the one text. The advisor's at the JobCentre have no real idea, the people at JobCentrePlus have no idea, (not that I can phone them anymore), everyone seems to be in the dark. I can only imagine how this would affect someone less able to cope, with less support than I have. There is a saying that moving home is the single most stressful thing a person will do in their life. I have to disagree. From this year onwards, the single most stressful thing a person can do is deal with the DWP.

Over the last four year I have had no real problems. The ones I have had have been dealt with quickly and fairly by the staff. If I've had to speak directly to JobCentrePlus then they have been friendly, helpful and relatively quick, (for a government organisation). Since this new benefits system has been introduced, though, that has changed. So I have to say: If this is your new system, Mr Duncan Smith, then I am afraid it is sadly lacking. Lacking in communication, lacking in empathy, lacking awareness, lacking in any suitable framework within which to supply a service to those who really need it. Those of us who really want to get back into work, those of us who really see the benefit system as a safety net, not a lifestyle. A safety net whose strands are being moved further apart, allowing more to fall through and disappear, rather than be caught and helped. 

It is also lacking in any workable structure to support those staff at the 'customer' facing end. I have worked in customer-facing IT for nearly thirty years and have faced some of the nastiest, most unpleasant customers you are likely to meet, (many of them corporate), which is why I have been able to keep my anger in check when at the JobCentre. I've been there, on the receiving end. Most haven't. I've read about claimants who 'go off on one' at staff, and the staff reply in kind. I've heard from friends that the staff were "dimissive" or "aggressive and nasty" when they've been to the JobCentre. Maybe some customer service training wouldn't go amiss. Knowing how to talk to people and having the ability to defuse potentially explosive situations goes a long way. 

I am lucky. I have now found a job. Yes, its taken me four years, a small forest of paper and thousands of hours of running around like a headless chicken.  I just have to find a way over the part of my safety net that has been cut away. Others are not so lucky. 

Maybe, Mr Duncan Smith, a rethink is needed. I have several suggestions that my help and I may put these in a blog at a later date but, for now, I have said enough. 

I will, however, put two further thoughts across:

1. If you are aiming to get more people into work, then why are you taking away paying jobs with the WorkFare program? Do you really think that companies are going to pay people for full time work when they can get those same people, in the same jobs, for free? 

2. It's funny how my problems with my claim started when I mentioned that I had been offered a job. Hmmmm.......

Yours sincerely

Christine Danielle Anderson.

Sanctions And Reactions

Normally, I'm not given to over-reacting to situations. In fact, if I was any more laid back, I would probably fall over, but this is different. This is something that is causing me a problem.

The DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) has instituted a new system, at the behest of Ian Duncan Smith, which is part of the overhaul of the benefits system in this country aiming to get people back into work. I'm all for this. I would love to get back into work, in fact, in July this year, I'm due to start a new job, ironically, for the DWP. The problem is, the guidelines and processes put in place are not going to work very well. In fact, I think they are going to cause more harm than good, especially in the short term.

The measure in place now are allegedly designed to encourage people to find work. What they are going to do is force many people out on the streets, or possibly into crime. The biggest change is the Universal Credit system, which is going to replace the likes of JSA, ESA, Disability, Housing Benefit, etc. This means that all benefits will be paid in one lump sum into the recipient's bank account and they have to sort them out themselves. Along with this is the link to HMRC which will supposedly do away with having to 'sign off' when starting a new job and 'signing on' when ending one. The HMRC link should enable the DWP to see when a person finishes work and automatically apply their benefit without them having to apply, (unless they have never applied in the first place then a single application will have to be made). This sounds all well and good and, if it works as it should, then it should solve a lot of problems.

The main grief though, is the sanctioning system. This has caused me no end of problems and may be the cause of so many more for other benefit claimants and the government.

The sanctions are a part of a multi-tier system of punishment when a claimant does not do what the DWP wants them to do to find work. Each benefit claim starts with a 'Job Seekers Agreement', which is a list of actions the so-called Jobseeker has to perform each fortnight, such as looking through local papers, sending out CV's, applying for jobs within their desired industry, etc. These actions have to be recorded in a 'jobsearch book' which the claimant has to present each time they sign on, or into the new 'Universal Jobsearch' website, whichever system they are using. Prior to April 2013, if the claimant didn't do this then sanctions were rarely applied if there was a good enough reason, eg they were ill. Now, the sanctions are being applied if there are not enough actions recorded, if they are not spread out evenly, if there are no applications made despite job searches being made and various other reasons.

One thing I wasn't aware of is that even if you have secured a job, as I have, then you still have to perform the job search and apply for jobs. This gives rise to another problem, one for potential employers. I'll go into that in a minute, but back to the sanctions.

The sanctions are applied whenever a claimant doesn't perform within the bounds of their Jobseekers Agreement. It starts with the payment being suspended for four weeks, (ie, two payments). This actually works out at six weeks due to benefit being paid in arrears. If the claimant continues to ignore the agreement then the next sanction is for 13 weeks (within 52 weeks of the first failure) for subsequent failures. The problem lies in the vague list of reasons for not performing within the bounds of the jobseekers agreement. Almost any reason could be given that would qualify for not complying. For example, as I wrote above, job actions not spread out, eg clumped together the night before signing on; not enough job search actions, (I have to do 28 items in a fortnight, I can imagine getting sanctioned for doing only 27); inappropriate job search actions, ie outside the agreed bounds of the agreement, ie searching for full time work when you've agreed only part-time work.

So, anyone can be sanctioned pretty much any time, for anything. This means loss of benefit money, leaving the person in a situation where, in many deprived area's of the country, turning to crime to get money is the only option. Not everyone has family they can turn to. Walking into a job has now become nigh on impossible with the rules and regulations employers have to follow to employ someone, even for the most menial jobs. Building work, for instance, used to be the easiest to get into. Turn up on site, show you can use a shovel or broom and you have willing, no problem, job's yours. Now, you have to go through an interview process, obtain a CSCS card, (showing you have learned Health and Safety), have a bank account, references etc, just to be a site labourer.

That takes us to the problem for employers that I mentioned. When a claimant secures a job, which may not start for a month or two, (like me), they still have to abide by the rules of the Jobseekers Agreement and look for, and apply for, work. This means that employers seeking workers will received applications from people who don't really want the job because they have one, but still have to apply regardless. So the jobseeker's time is wasted, and the employer's time is wasted, especially if the employer has invited the applicant to interview, which the applicant must attend. Of course, there is always the chance the applicant may be offered a job which is better paid and better suited than the one they have already been accepted for, but I should imagine this would be quite rare.

I've had to jump through hoops to get the job I am waiting to start. I have had to attend meetings fifty miles from my home, pay out money to get security clearances, set up a new company, (which costs money), all the time still having to apply for other jobs. I still have to sign on, still search and apply for jobs, have to attend any interviews I get, update my online job search on a a regular basis, even though I now have a job, which, unfortunately has had its start date delayed twice due to technical issues.

I have now been put on a four week (two payment) sanction which, for some reason, has turned into 8 weeks with no notification from the DWP whatsoever. I have no idea what is going on, the advisors at the JobCentre have no idea what is going on. I can't phone up since I no longer have a working phone due to inability to pay the bill, (I could use the JobCentre's but I really don't want to broadcast my business across the whole place, you could hear a mouse fart in there, also the phones are only for calling about jobs, according to the rules). So, at the time of writing I am waiting for the DWP to call me regarding whatever is happening.

I'll let you know.