Blue-on-blue. A NATO term for friendly fire – An attack by a military force on friendly forces while attempting to attack the enemy, either misidentifying the target as hostile, or due to errors or inaccuracy.
I don't remember much from Sunday School, but recall from
the teachings of Mr Freeman and Mr Pitt in the movie Seven, that pride
was something best avoided. Later Brad
was to teach me about airline travel and sculpted torsos in Fight Club, but honestly, both nuggets
were of scant use to my later life.
Pride is an important driver. If well placed and balanced with a suitable
dose of temperance. Without pride we
have shame, which is crap to live with and pretty debilitating. Now that I've established pride as an
essentially awesome virtue though, I'm going to suggest we need less of it. Bear with me!
Of course, in a rather tortured fashion I'm angling my narrative towards Pride
marches and Mardi Gras held across the world.
By design they are a place to strut your thing, literally, with
pride. That's an amazing thing to do, I
know, but I've never been on a Pride march. As so many now are thankfully able to, I strut my thing every day, but without
fuss (I am English, you know) and wonder if there isn’t something to be said for the quiet approach.
Several times in the course of my work, I've been asked why
we (LGBT) need to hold committee meetings.
The front page of my employer’s intranet has for the last few weeks
proudly displayed that the Ministry
of Defence is Stonewall’s Most Improved Employer in 2014; being ranked
number 35 on this year’s Top Employers list, with the Royal Navy and British
Army also making the top 100 and the Royal Air Force narrowly missing out at
number 108.*
Not bad, considering many still consider the stereotype of these being less than gay or trans-friendly places to work.
"One of my key aims as a leader is to ensure that everyone is given the opportunity to perform at their very best. People are more productive, creative, loyal and successful when they can truly be themselves at work. Winning this award shows that we have taken meaningful action to address our working cultures in order to unlock the full potential of our people by recognising the strength of their diversity."
Jon Thompson
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Genuinely, this isn’t just a policy thing – that was just the start. Following the policy and the legal protection, comes the evolution of culture and ethos and for the most part, that's happened within this organisation. True, no system is perfect, but I still hold up my employer – along with my colleagues and peers – as a pretty good benchmark on how this sort of thing should be done.
It’s difficult to fault the logic and to be fair, on the
surface they’re right. But there are still
great swathes of society and the world where this breadth of human nature is
still stamped on. Tragically, often
literally. Any alienation, anywhere
and no matter how subtle or subconscious, can and does lead to tragic
consequences. Even when it doesn’t and
on the surface everything is hunky dory, where there are social barriers there
is a loss of creativity, trust and success, for the group as much as for the
individual.
*(Naturally, this being Stonewall in England, criteria is specific to LGB employees and Trans is not included (the subject for another article); though from the MoD and Armed Forces’ perspective, LGB&T is inclusive).
Subtlety and Empathy
When Tom
Daley came out via You Tube he had me in tears of happiness for him. Did you see how happy he was? He positively shines! Overwhelming love and support followed, but
also an echo of, ‘So what?’. Later, England
women's football captain Casey Stoney and Aston Villa midfielder Thomas
Hitzlsperger also came out, to the sound of many applauding their bravery (and
pride) but also to questions about why this was a big deal in the first
place. Surely, in 2014 it’s no big deal to
come out, so why go on YouTube or to the newspapers to publicise your story? Why the drama?
Like my colleagues, they’re actually right. But missing the big picture. Fact is, confrontational (or sensationalist) activism
was immensely important a generation ago and was the only way to elicit desperately needed change from society. But it does create
something of a clique. In the UK at
least, as a direct result of that activism we have policy and law protecting many marginalised
characteristics, such as gender and sexuality.
As a good friend said to me a while ago, we’re now in the process of
building bridges. It’s about
normalisation and providing role models.
Tom, Casey and Thomas are still too rare – hugely successful people, sportspeople no less, admired for their abilities as professionals, who totally normalise their
sexuality.
As for transgender visibility… we’ve still got a long way to
go. We’re playing catch-up on that front, but I fear we are in danger of alienating the wider public with some of our
well-meaning efforts to progress; often out of sheer frustration in the rush to have our
voices heard.
An example of this happened a few weeks ago on Piers
Morgan’s ill-fated US chat show. In an interview
with Janet Mock, I felt that Piers was not only courteous, but (quite rightly) singing
Janet’s praises regarding the work she does and for her recently published
book. They talk about her work, her
life, her gender transition (appropriate, as this is a key narrative to her book) and her boyfriend. All is well and
I think to myself, what a lovely chat and how great it is to have cisgender
allies like this, even if he’s a little behind the drag curve.
Then an unusual thing happened. I felt sorry for Piers.
Throughout the interview, the caption at the bottom of the
screen stated, Born A Boy. Meanwhile,
Piers’ questions were those typical of a reporter without any experience of
trans individuals; namely to shoehorn this person's story into their own rigid and
often limited concept of gender and sexuality.
In his opening remarks, he says, “This is the amazing thing
about you; had I not known your life story, I would have absolutely no clue
that you ever would have been born a boy. A male. Which makes me absolutely
believe you should always have been a woman.”
Let’s be clear. As
far as emotional
correctness goes, Piers was spot on.
Where he failed was in his understanding of terminology and of not
allowing (or I should say, encouraging) Janet to tell her story her way. To be educated, if you like. In turn, he failed to pass on such an
education to his audience and worse, reinforced some serious
misconceptions. That’s frustrating, but
I thought this failure was pretty well offset by the warmth and respect he obviously felt
towards Janet as a professional as well as her natural intellect and engaging personality. She was welcomed as a peer. If you like, there was an obvious
bridge between the two of them.
Piers’ failing was arguably a failure of reporting; but
regardless, we should love him for trying, not tearing him apart for getting it
wrong. The subtleties in discussing
gender variance and even sexuality can be damn confusing for someone who’s not had to learn them, let alone experience
them. They’re tough for me for goodness
sake!
Following a backlash from the trans community, Janet was
invited back by Piers to explain why she was born a baby, not a boy. Janet did well to explain why what he’d said
could be offensive, and why she felt intimidated not to correct him at the
time, but at the same time continued to chastise him for not getting it right
first time.
I titled this article, Blue on Blue – referring to the NATO term for friendly fire in conflict. I suppose my point is that we need to be better at recognising our friends, even when they’re fallible. Aren’t we all? It’s our intent that is the important deciding factor.
With the secret meetings, exclusive culture and the risk of
vilification if you misunderstand and worse, say the wrong thing, isn’t it
understandable that alienation still occurs? It’s why we need people like Tom Daley to
normalise their sexuality and be the unassuming role model that challenges
stereotypes. Who says that it’s okay to
chat about this – there’s no taboo here.
It’s also why we need people like Johnathon Ross to
act as fantastic allies to break down those imagined barriers.
And that’s just the gay stuff!
Visibility
One of the great difficulties with transgender issues, is
that there’s an inherent level of secrecy which is actually enshrined in law under
the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I
understand this need to almost eradicate one’s gender history. It’s an easy way to avoid misunderstanding the
subtleties of gender variance which Piers and so many before him fell foul of
(many wilfully so, to be fair). To use the Piers Morgan interview as an example; don’t refer to me as having been a male, because I wasn’t. Imagine it from my perspective; I’ve always simply been myself. I didn’t change and neither did Janet. Any implication of change is charged with the
misnomer of choice, which is completely missing the point.
The easy solution which we've taken to date is, don’t talk about it. Which doesn’t exactly help to progress the
situation.
Worse, the whole concept of hiding one’s gender history
implies shame in that fact. Just as is the case with Tom
being openly gay and so obviously happy at not hiding that – even a little bit
– there is no shame whatsoever in anyone being trans or being able to talk about that. It doesn't define them any more than being gay now defines Tom. It's simply a wonderful level of human diversity. This is changing, slowly, and more trans
people are open and proud about being trans.
This is critical, obviously,
if there is to be improved visibility of what it’s like to be trans and a casting aside of imagined taboos. That can be a scary thing to do. It can leave you feeling vulnerable and alone. But there are more allies out there than any of us realise - we just need to recognise them and let them know.
“He changed laws, but he also changed hearts.”
President Obama
At the Memorial Service to Former South African President, Nelson Mandela
Ayla, since coming into contact with you, you have regularly surprised me. Yes, all us Trans, are fighting a battle, a battle we lose and win at different stages, and yes, so agree with Janet Mock, I was born a baby, a baby with a birth defect, that took 42 years to be recognised, then a further 3 years to be corrected. In regards to the MOD accepting us, I just wish I had known. back in '96, that the MOD accepted us, I left because I thought we were treated the same way, they treated all Gay's, back then? if I had stayed, I would have been a new woman by the time the new Century came around, and the regulations changed? Amanda
ReplyDelete