General Election Result 2017: How could it affect LGBTQIA+ Rights in the UK?

It looks like we're going to have a Conservative minority government in place backed up by an openly anti LGBTQIA+ rights party (the Democratic Unionists) for the next few months at least and I for one am wondering what this will mean for LGBTQIA+ people, especially trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer, intersex and asexual people in the UK. As I have mentioned on my blog (http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/exploring-ge2017-manifestos-lgbtqia.html) the Conservative manifesto itself was very short on ideas, with the only direct mentions of LGBTQIA+ being a commitment to tackle hate crime on the basis of "transgender identity" (why not gender identity and include non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender people in this promise?) and expanding the UK's global efforts to "tackle the perpetuation of violence against people because of their faith, gender or sexuality."

Prime Minister May was making promises here there and everywhere during her Pink News interview to try and entice LGBTQIA+ voters to back the Tory party at the polls, including supporting a "thorough and independent investigation" to examine human rights abuses against LGBT people in Chechnya (after I suspect being pressured into it by other party leaders and MPs; for example, Sarah Champion, the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities wrote to PM May on 21st April 2017 to call for an urgent UN investigation). It remains to be seen as to whether a Tory minority government held to ransom by an openly anti-LGBTQIA+ rights DUP would push ahead with such calls, let alone look at a comprehensive review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004. I remain deeply sceptical as to whether any progress will be made at all to improve LGBTQIA+ rights on the two policy elements included in the Tory manifesto, let alone on the pledges that PM May made in the Pink News interview. Can we really trust PM May when she says that a review into the effectiveness of the GRA could lead to the scrapping of the need for medical diagnosis? Conservative MPs in the main rarely show support for such a policy because it doesn't register highly on the list of priorities. Tory activists keep telling us trans and non-binary people that we should be thankful for the progress that's already been made, as if all we cared about was the legalisation of same-sex marriage or the pardoning of LGB people. I voted for a progressive vision for the UK, not one that stands still and wallows in a sea of utra smug complacency. If the vote tells MPs anything, it should be that young people especially do not believe that there is much for the Tory government to be complacent about. Change is required and it needs to take place sharpish.

The DUP is certainly anti-LGBTQIA+ rights and they have never voted for any legislation to improve LGBTQIA+ rights. There are the well-documented comments of Ian Paisley Junior, who said that he was "repulsed by gay and lesbianism" back in 2007 as well as the party's involvement in the despicable "Save Ulster from Sodomy" movement but there are certain aspects of their and there are certain aspects of their policy platform that should alarm LGBTQIA+ people; for example they  have unashamedly backed a "conscience clause"  which would guarantee any religious conservative legal protection from openly discriminating against LGBT people in a public environment, which is completely against the provisions of our own Equality Act (EA) 2010. I will never support any attempt to bring in legislation that will allow employers to discriminate because their conscience tells them to treat applicants differently on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. There's likely to be very little movement  blood donation ban for men who have sex with men either whilst the Conservatives remain dependent on the DUP (they want to retain the blood ban). I want to see the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs conduct a review so that the case can be made to remove the blood ban in its entirety in the near future but I doubt the Conservatives are brave enough to conduct that review. Shame.

Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010:
There's no doubt that the Gender Recognition Act needs urgent reform; in the last Parliamentary term the Conservative government announced that there would be a review into the GRA, with Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities way back in July 2016 stating that she understood that disclosing "traumatic details of past surgery" was distressing and that trans people were being treated "as if they had a mental illness." The review that has been proposed is meant to be looking into ways of moving the GRA process from "medicalised questions" to "self declaration". I've not heard more on this since July 2016 and there's been no progress on other promises that were made by Nicky Morgan before the current Secretary for Women and Equalities, Justine Greening took over. I argue that there must be a firm commitment to at least reviewing the Spousal Veto with a view to removing it; there is no need for it to exist in law and there should be a review of rights so that couples with a trans or non-binary partner have the same access to pension rights and the custody of any children in the event of bereavement as the Lib Dems suggested in their manifesto.

Non-binary and intersex people should not need to prove their status to gain access to neutral gender markers for all appropriate legal documentation, including passports. Legislating for this isn't going to lead to the direct erosion of other people's' gender identities or human rights. So I really do not get why the Tories will not take a progressive stance and implement legislative reform now. I think that unnecessary requests for gender information should also be reduced on official documentation wherever possible.

We also need to see positive action with regards to amending the Equality Act. I can no longer see any logical reason to delay the substitution of the protected characteristic "gender reassignment surgery" for "gender identity", especially given the fact that the Government plans to amend the EA to include protection for those with mental health conditions anyways. I'd also like to see intersex people be specifically protected under the EA with the protected characteristic "intersex" being added to the list. There must be a commitment to banning unnecessary sex assignment surgery on an infant or a young child (i.e. when it is not done for health reasons) and in fact I agree with the Green Party's LGBTQIA+ manifesto suggestion that conducting such surgery should be made a criminal offence. Young intersex people should have the right to determine their own sex and engage in surgery if they have given their explicit consent. There definitely needs to be more training given to NHS professionals to help them support intersex patients and encourage intersex activists to work with healthcare professionals and be part of patient groups to help formulate training materials to help facilitate discussion. Extending legal protection against discrimination to non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and intersex people is essential and reforming the EA will lay the groundwork for this. I hope the Conservatives are brave enough to commit to at least some of the suggestions outlined above.

The Tories did commit to conducting a study to "measure the size of the UK's population" in July 2016 but I wonder what the direct benefits of capturing this data would be; would it convince them that they need to expand gender neutral bathroom and changing room facilities, for example? There's also the question of whether a government obsessed with Brexit will be interested in analysing the results of the study to help them improve their policies. Labour on the other hand may take on board the results of the survey and add policies in as appropriate; if they want to increase their vote share amongst younger voters I'd say that it would benefit them greatly if they bring in more nuanced policies that can deliver equality for trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender people.

NHS: 
I still believe it is essential to boost funding for sexual health services in England, especially to continue fighting HIV stigma. Sexual health clinics (Genito-urinary medicine services) need to receive funding so that specific advice and guidance can continue to be offered to young people embarking on same-sex experiences for the first time. According to an article "What do cuts in sexual health mean for patients?" written by Ruth Robertson from The Kings Fund in April 2017 (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2017/03/what-do-cuts-sexual-health-services-mean-patients), funding for sexual health clinics through the public health grant given to local authorities fell by 6.7% during 2015/16 and cuts have been planned up to 2020/21. However demand has been increasing (new attendance rates increased from 1.6m in 2011 to 2.1m in 2015) and there was a survey conducted by the Kings Fund which found that patients who have symptoms related to a Sexually Transmitted Infection were waiting more than 48 hours to be seen by a professional. The current expectation is that the public health budget ringfence will be removed by 2019/20, meaning that local authorities could face tough choices regarding GUM funding; whilst a comprehensive STI testing and treatment service needs to be in place (thanks to a mandatory law from 1916), other services such as family planning or the provision of free contraceptives may be reduced dramatically.

With regards to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) provision, it appears that there has been no progress in England. Caroline Lucas, Co-Leader of the Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavilion has highlighted the fact that despite NHS England announcing that a PrEP trial would be set up 6 months ago, no such trial has materialised. The Tories have set £10m aside for the trial to take place over the next 3 years and claim that they will wait for the results of the trial before making any decision RE PrEP availability on the NHS but this may not happen until near the end of a full-term Conservative minority government, if at all.

There's been no open discussion about how to improve NHS training for GPs so they have a framework of best practice to help them better support trans patients and there's certainly no plans under a Conservative government to review trans healthcare provision more generally. We need more Gender Identity Clinics to respond to increased demand and help reduce waiting times and we need more specialist sexologists and nurses to staff those new GICs. There's also no plans to review how non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people are treated by NHS staff, which is rather disappointing. There should also be an attempt to safeguard trans patient hospital rights so they can be treated in the ward which corresponds to their acquired gender whenever possible (another great Lib Dem manifesto suggestions).

Finally I believe there has to be a commitment from the Tories to ensure that mental health services are properly funded and accessible to LGBTQIA+ service users. Labour and the Lib Dems both promised in their manifestos to fully fund mental health but the Conservatives haven't made such commitment. We need to recruit more mental health nurses (6,600 have gone since 2010) and I hope the Tory manifesto commitment to recruit 10,000 more NHS mental health professionals by 2020 will be met but a huge reduction in applications from EU nurses of  96% since the Brexit vote and the refusal of the Tories to remove the 1% NHS pay cap isn't going to help increase staffing levels and the removal of training bursaries for UK nursing applicants won't entice students to consider a career in nursing.

Education: 
Sex and Relationships Education will be delivered in schools during this parliamentary term but I wonder how LGBTQIA+ inclusive it will be. The Conservatives agreed with Labour that guidance needs to be issued to schools to help them prepare lesson materials on LGBT+ relationships but there is no indication as to whether there will be any lessons that address intersex or asexual people. When would discussion of trans and non-binary, genderfluid or genderqueer people start? Key Stage 3 or Key Stage 4? Will there be lessons on domestic violence and domestic abuse in addition to consent and  will those lessons include LGBTQIA+ focussed discussions? Will SRE be taught in faith schools? I hope that trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer, agender, intersex and asexual activists will be involved in the creation of materials and be encouraged to go into schools to talk to students about more than just homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying as has been the case in the past. I believe discussions about asexuality is important because no student should ever feel that asexual people are weird because they have no sexual desire or prefer to show affection through hugging rather than through penetrative sex. Humanity is far more interesting than gender and sexuality stereotypes portray and that should be reflected in SRE lessons in an age-appropriate but engaging way.  74% of 11-15 year olds when asked in a YouGov poll conducted by Barnardo's believe that they would feel safer if they were taught about sex and relationships in schools with 94% stating it was important for them to understand the risks and dangers of being online (including accessing gay chatrooms). The Terrence Higgins Trust and National Student Pride survey also found that 72% of students would have had a better first sexual experience if they had received LGBT+ inclusive SRE. These figures demonstrate to me that LGBTQIA+ activists should back the implementation of SRE and get involved with the creation of teaching materials.

We need more LGBTQIA+ teachers and teaching assistants in classrooms to provide positive role-models for our students and I believe there should be a national recruitment campaign designed to encourage more openly LGBTQIA+ graduates to apply for a PGCE course with a range of LGBTQIA+ rights organisations involved, including Stonewall. Ensuring that students are taught about how to be tolerant of people who may have a different gender identity or sexuality is imperative and I've had enough of sticky-plaster policies that tend to only address bullying and harassment after it has occurred. Let's make sure that teachers and headteachers who have pastoral care duties have the knowledge and skills needed to fully support LGBTQIA+ identifying students; building an awareness programme into the PGCE course and into Continuing Professional Development, led by trainers who come from the LGBTQIA+ community will help no end.

LGBTQIA+ asylum rights: 
LGBTQIA+ rights for refugees and asylum seekers in the UK may unfortunately not improve under a Conservative minority government. PM May doesn't have a good track record in this area after all; as Home Secretary she allowed LGBTQIA+ refugees to be humiliated, forcing lesbian, gay and bisexual refugees to have sex to prove that they were LGB...a totally barbaric and anti-human rights approach. The Green Party's LGBTQIA+ manifesto and the Lib Dem's manifesto both convinced me that far needs to be done to protect LGBTQIA+ refugees and asylum seekers from discrimination, including ensuring that no LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers are deported back to their home country if they are in danger of facing persecution on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. In fact the Green Party has called for a moratorium on the deportation of LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers until a review of the asylum process takes place with a view to making the process more efficient and quicker. Border agents do need to have equality and diversity training so they understand that asking sexually-explicit questions is wrong (especially if LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers have been subjected to rape before or during their journey to the UK). I believe that detention limits should be set at 28 days and asylum seekers should be allowed to look for work if they have been waiting for their asylum claim to be processed for more than 6 weeks. Accommodation should be habitable and trans and non-binary asylum seekers should be treated with respect, with professionals using their pronoun preferences wherever possible. Asylum seekers also need to have access to counselling to help them deal with the trauma they have faced whilst being persecuted in their home country. There's no indication at the moment as to whether the Conservatives are bothered to carry out any of these reforms.

Homelessness:
PM May said in her Pink News interview that homeless charities such as The Albert Kennedy Trust should be "encouraged to help end LGBT youth homelessness in the UK". The problem is that the actions taken by the Tory government have as of yet done very little to address the problem. Charities cannot fund young people aged between 18 and 21 who have lost mandatory access to Housing Benefit. Research carried out by The Albert Kennedy Trust found that nearly a 1/4 of LGBT young people are homeless in the UK and their projects rely on Housing Benefit funding to run properly; for example, according to a Financial Times article from March 2017 (https://www.ft.com/content/1414f788-30e8-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a) the Purple Door Project run by The Albert Kennedy Trust in London and Newcastle guarantees housing for 6 months but requires residents to pay £105 a week - £95 of which comes from Housing Benefit. The Conservatives need to absolutely guarantee homeless young people aged 18-21, whether LGBTQIA+ or not access to Housing Benefit. That includes those young people who may be currently sofa-surfing. Young people want to build a better life for themselves and a compassionate government should do everything they can to help, especially those who have had a traumatic start to their lives.

Brexit:
Brexit means Brexit, or so the old sage Theresa May's maxim goes. I've always wondered how Brexit will affect LGBTQIA+ people specifically. There is concern about the right of LGBTQIA+ EU nationals to remain in the UK post-Brexit and I think it was a mistake of PM May not to guarantee the right outright before Article 50 was triggered. It sent out the wrong signal to our EU neighbours that the UK may be prepared to openly discriminate against their citizens. EU nationals pay tax into our system to help fund our public services and some even work in the public sector, including in hospitals and GP surgeries. We now have a situation where applications from EU nurses are down 96% since the Brexit vote and we're not training enough UK nurses to fill the demand, so we need to have a change of tone as well as policy from PM May and her Brexit team.

There's been hardly any discussion about how Brexit will improve the lives of LGBTQIA+ people. Will the money that is meant to be saved from the EU budget contributions go partly towards improving trans health services or towards the construction of gender-neutral bathroom facilities? Doesn't sound like it. Will the money fund more training programmes for frontline NHS professionals to help them better support LGBTQIA+ patients? Why aren't the Tories doing that anyways? Will the money be used to help expand GICs? More chance of seeing a pot of leprechaun gold on the front seat of Bojo's personalised imaginary red NHS £350m bus. Will leaving the EU truly lead to more jobs for trans people? Unless we change the attitude of employers, especially small and medium business owners in rural constituencies, we're not going to see more openly trans and non-binary people employed in long-term, sustainable employment. I still contend that Brexit will not make any progressive difference to LGBTQIA+ rights in this country and that's why I still remain opposed to it. Plus I don't want to see the UK leave the European Convention on Human Rights or water down the Human Rights Act 1998, both of which may still happen under a Tory minority government.

Conclusion:
Overall, I am feeling pretty concerned about the possible state of LGBTQIA+ rights under a Tory minority government. Whilst I accept that LGBT Tories want voters like me to feel reassured about the promises elicited by Ruth Davidson, Justine Greening et al that LGBT rights will not be weakened by any DUP "confidence and supply" arrangement, it does probably mean that we will see little to no progress on improving NHS services for LGBTQIA+ service users or any improvement in the rights of intersex and asexual people in the UK. SRE may or may not become LGBT inclusive, let alone LGBTQIA+. I can't see a nervous Tory government asking for a review on the blood donation ban or amend the GRA or EA significantly whilst relying on DUP votes. As for PrEP becoming available on the NHS in England before 2022 (or whenever the next election happens to be), we have more chance of Andrea "I'm a mother" Leadsom becoming PM in the next year. However, that doesn't mean that LGBTQIA+ activists are going to sit back and let this parliamentary term take its course. We need to continue campaigning for truly LGBTQIA+ inclusive SRE and to improve health services for trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and intersex people. We need to encourage PM May to continue to take a firm stance against Chechnya and if possible, allow Chechen LGBTQIA+ people to claim asylum in the UK.  We need to stand up and be counted. If we stay strong, a progressive vision for LGBTQIA+ rights can be achieved. It's just going to take a little bit longer to achieve!

Queer Trans Acting Needs No Mansplaining Lookism: Why We Need To Embrace Gender Differences In Film And On TV

So cue the #AggravatingYawn Creatives Klaxon: yet another cis gay man's been cast to play a transwoman character in a so-called "mainstream" movie that's designed to heighten trans character representation and "normalise" it for the heterosexual, geriatric censors and their bemused audiences. Cue the trans liberal ironic community's "no tolerance"tutting reaction, avidly declaring on social media platforms that the "man in dress" trope is being unfairly reinforced whilst unconsciously making "passability tests" cool and groovy again within the cinematic community because somehow not "passing" as a woman is now seen as the ultimate act of evil if you want to be a trans female actor. The agony, the irony, the hypocrisy of it all! We seem to go through the same rhythms year in, year out. Sweeping changes that those who self-identify as part of the trans, queer, non-binary and gender-fluid community have wanted to happen to the Arts community, particularly in Hollywood haven't yet come. Who's really to blame for this lack of change? Trans actors, casting agents, film companies or the tastes of the viewing audience? Where do queer/non-binary, gender-fluid, intersex and asexual actors fit into the debate? Why haven't their narratives been given much credence? Are we focussing too much on improving representation through increasing trans actors on screen? These are the sorts of questions I'm hoping to try and address below.

When Trans Actors can't quite cut the mustard (say most mansplaining casting agents)

It's certainly true that seeing a cis-gay man play a transwoman role in 9 out of every 10 times a play/script that has been created involving a trans female character could be interpreted by many who are living through the narrative being portrayed on screen as perverse, pedantic, parody or even demeaning. I've seen social media reactions to the decision to cast Matt Bomer as a transgender woman and they show that there are plenty of trans women actors out there who would bite a casting agent's hand off to be given a chance to play a lead trans role in a Hollywood movie. So why aren't those trans actors being listened to?

Julia Serano has recently waded into the murky waters of the trans representation debate in a new essay: " Expanding Trans Media Representation: Why Transgender Actors Should Be Cast in Cisgender Roles" (May 2016). This essay highlights a number of important points which I aim to critique a little here.

• Serano makes a very important point in her essay when she addresses the "men in dresses" trope currently doing the rounds on social media platforms: "Well, there are quite a few trans people out there — such as those who cannot afford or choose not to physically transition, and those who have physically transitioned but do not "pass" or "blend in" as cisgender — who probably do strike the average trans-unaware person as "men in dresses." If a person identifies as a transwoman and has body hair which is difficult to remove because it causes blistering of the skin and they cannot yet afford the treatment to permanently remove the body hair and want to be involved in a trans production, should they be banned from doing so because producers might fear they "reinforce a stereotype"? Equally, should depictions of such a trans woman be banned from appearing in creative media for the same reasons?
• Serano argues that audiences who are unaware or unwilling to learn about trans issues will not care a jot whether a cisgendered man, trans woman with body hair or a fully transitioned woman plays the role, because in their minds they will still see them as a "man in a dress". A response to Serano's article by a supposed casting agent, Gregory Smith, shows how engrained such views remain even within a supposed liberal Arts community: "casting a male to female transgender is tricky if they have an Adam's apple. If I need a woman, she better look like a woman. If I need a man, the same deal." Yet despite his opinions he tells trans actors to "try their luck" but not expect "Hollywood to celebrate diversity"; so basically if you have to act for him, you'll have to rely on your looks and voice to "pass the test" but you've probably got a cat in hell's chance of being picked. Same old bigotry, same old passivity pass-ability test. The only way we will truly get over such hurdles is to change the culture within the casting industry and one way to achieve that would be to convince trans or trans inclusive people to consider a career as a casting agent. Conservatives may think that means liberals will gain a foothold within the industry but I feel that if they are unprepared to disregard their "mansplaining lookism" and see the person in front of them as having potential talent to play the role regardless of biological gender or appearances (provided they haven't been specified) then they need to be challenged for their casting agent job. Simple as that.
• Equally what happens if trans people wish to have gender reassignment surgery but cannot because of medical reasons- e.g. if undergoing vaginaplasty might lead to bladder/kidney issues they already have being exacerbated or if they had diphtheria as a child which has weakened their heart to the point where going through 6-7 hour surgeries might stop their heart from working. It isn't their fault they cannot fully transition so if they label themselves as trans and the usual mansplainer suspects don't agree, is it right  that they get locked out from media and creative representation by trans people as well as cisgender people? Are we all really going to be as heartless as those who continue to deny a "trans identity exists"?
• Depictions of trans people within mainstream drama sitcoms and soaps has certainly improved over the last decade - EastEnders and Hollyoaks have led the way in the UK during the past year with the introduction of a regular transman and transwoman character who happen to be from different age groups, social backgrounds and sexualities.(Riley Carter Millington plays a young transman who is a talented chef in EastEnders who met his sister Stacey for the first time last year and Annie Wallace plays the sassy headmistress Sally St Claire in Hollyoaks and was revealed as gay character John Paul's biological father).  
• What's amazing is that casting agents in the UK are taking more of a chance with trans creatives by hiring trans actors to play these roles and writers and producers on these shows have created characters and storylines around those actors to help give an air of authenticity to their narrative. Equally there are comedies around dealing with trans relationship issues by providing a sympathetic, lighthearted portrayal of how trans people deal with their day to day lives and the issues that they are confronted with; for example Boy Meets Girl with the fab Rebecca Root (another trans actress) in the lead role of Judy tells of an age-gap relationship which develops as a result of a chance meeting and ends with Judy being given a "White Wedding" day to remember in the final episode of the second series, shown in August 2016.
• However, there haven't been any trans actors in primetime hit TV shows in the UK, especially crime dramas. There's been no lead crime fighting character who has been trans- no Mrs J B Fletcher, Poirot or Miss Marple being cast in the title role. There's been no sports drama dealing with a rugby playing teenage "guy" going through transition to become a man!
• Trans writers shouldn't be dissuaded from wanting to tell cisgender stories that intrigue them. I'm annoyed that the first female playwright to be published in English and to have her plays performed on the stage - Aphra Behn has not received the recognition from mainstream drama channels (like BBC) and Hollywood that she deserves. Anyone can read The Rover Part I and II and see how gifted a satirist Aphra really was (even the great Restoration satirist John Dryden celebrated her works and her plays were second only to his during the 1670's and 1680's!) Yet her story has languished in the classrooms of Gender Studies and English Literature lecture halls for decades whilst Jane Austen is universally celebrated as a witty romantic whose novels are regularly adapted into period drama. I'm intrigued by Aphra's story because she refused to conform to traditional notions of femininity; she refused to let mansplaining satirists like...get to her. Queer trans people in particular can identify with that kinda narrative.
• Writers should never create a trans character "for the sake of increasing trans representation", especially when they need to be incorporated into existing rigid storylines in the vain hope of boosting flagging ratings. With a TV series dealing with the abolition of slavery in Jamaica, would a writer be convinced enough that creating a trans character would add anything to the story? There were no well known activists who were self-identifying as non-binary, let alone as wanting to live in their "opposite biological gender". Most people would point to the idea that trans operations didn't exist prior to early 20th century (as we know from the now well publicised story of Lili Elbe) and argue that trans characters shouldn't be wrote into these types of historical narratives even though gender theorists know that the ideas/thoughts/feelings/emotions of wanting to live differently within an existing dual-binary understanding of gender existed well before the late 19th century. However, this doesn't mean that a transwoman could not be considered for a cisgender female part in the drama. As long as they have the talent and passion that the casting agent, producer, director and writer are looking for, it shouldn't matter whether that person had identified as a man, woman or chicken in the past. Julia Serano prophesises of a day when this might happen in an endnote to the second edition of Whipping Girl: "Personally, I’d rather see the focus of this debate shift to championing trans actors being cast to play cis roles — this would provide trans actors with far more opportunities while simultaneously challenging societal cissexism (i.e., the notion that our genders are inherently inferior or inauthentic)."  If casting agents, directors, writers and the Arts community at large finally accept trans people have the talent to play cisgender characters, it will finally give trans people hope that they can be involved in a competitive yet rewarding community.
• It would seem nonsensical to introduce a transwoman character into a TV series that was dealing with an adaptation of Lord of the Flies unless you were deliberately choosing to present a radical re-interpretation of William Golding's novel, as has happened with Shakespearian plays since the mid 1960's. It seems the attitude for such radical projects hasn't yet been ignited and perhaps we do need to start trying to make radical series and films to present to a mainstream audience. But where's the funding streams to allow this to happen?  Radical projects need to be adequately funded so they can "get off the ground". Crowdfunding may only go so far to pay for the basics- i.e. finance staff, clothes, some acting and filming time but if creative trans teams wanting to tell trans stories cannot attract funding from the British Council, British Film Institute (BFI), BBC or even Film 4, then how will they get their project off the ground? Does there need to be a level of positive discrimination shown by these organisations to focus on getting trans creative team made films and TV series into production and dissemination on screen ASAP?

Why are non-binary, queer, gender-fluid characters "left on the shelf?"
Trans activists have hit the nail on the head when it comes to lack of representation within the Arts community. Yet it makes me think if trans actors, directors, writers, producers and costume designers find it so difficult to get work on a mainstream film or TV series, what about those who oppose the dual gender binary in the first place. Where can they fit into the discussion? I'm not really aware of many characters who have self-defined as non-binary or gender-fluid in Hollywood films. I remember a character in Hollyoaks in the mid 2000s (Kris Fisher) who was bi and non-binary but played by a cisgender actor (Gerald McCarthy). Part of the reason why non-binary, gender-fluid or queer actors may be unable to find roles even in British soaps is because the arguments over their gender classification are "much less rigidly enforceable" because there is no need for an indication of a biological change occurring in the character. The casting agent of Mr Smith's ilk would argue that it doesn't necessarily matter whether the actor identifies as man, woman or other outside the studio provided the actor is prepared to immerse themselves in the character's backstory whilst they are filming. Casting agents are fickle, notoriously difficult to please and they wouldn't rest during casting sessions until they find the right individual to play the role. So unless we have casting directors and agents in place who may be more sympathetic to getting trans, queer, non-binary and gender-fluid actors hired into lead roles, the likelihood of these actors increasing their presence on screen reduces dramatically. Equally if there aren't producers, directors and writers who identify openly as gender-fluid prepared to create stories that feature gender-fluid, queer and non-binary characters, the likelihood of their interesting narratives being presented on-screen is greatly reduced, just because there is still a stigma attached to those who wish to challenge the dual gender binary.

However there are instances where non-binary, queer and gender-fluid actors should have an advantage over trans actors:

• Period dramas are more problematic for trans actors because the notion of transgenderism didn't exist in its modern form prior to the late 19th century. However there were people who would have been openly seen as "different" to their peers, hence opening a space for the creation of queer/gender-fluid and non-binary characters. Trans actors may be able to audition for such roles but only alongside those who identify as queer/gender-fluid and non-binary.
• Audiences are becoming more aware of theories challenging traditional notions of masculinity and femininity alongside multifaceted forms of gender identity. This means they are more likely to be receptive to innovative, challenging films and dramas which focus on telling an authentic story from the past, present or the future. Millennials in particular would be more likely to watch  period dramas which have queer characters appear as leads.Trans and queer writers have to be prepared to tell these stories and write them in such a way that would appeal to talent scouts within television and film companies. There are a number of areas such a writer may wish to focus on to create a great screenplay; I'm reminded of tales from the Molly Houses of the late 17th and early 18th century where gay men would actively dress up as women and marry each other in disguise behind closed doors and the story of Margaret Clap (or Mother Clap), one such Molly House proprietor who was raided by the venomously conservative Society For The Reformation Of Manners is one that requires more exposure on the TV screen (despite the great play Mother Clap's Molly House written by Mark Ravenhill and performed to great acclaim in 2001).  The story hasn't yet been properly told but it's just as juicy as reading Fanny Hill or Moll Flanders.
• Sports films haven't yet fully dealt with the notion of queerisation; I feel that audiences who are receptive to trans authentic narratives would also enjoy watching a short TV episode about a male gymnast who cross-dresses behind closed doors yet dreams of presenting his true gender-fluid self to the world without being ridiculed for his preferences. Such episodes wouldn't need to focus on his sexuality as being part of the reason why he cross-dresses, but he may go to a club where crossdressing is fetishistic/sexual based to contrast with his own feelings of it being innocent/ for himself as opposed to pleasing others in a sexual way. EastEnders recently introduced a new storyline for undertaker Les Coker, who is revealed as having an alter ego Christine which he had kept secret from his wife Pam for many years. They showed how Pam came to terms with Les's "outing" and the terrible types of abuse, including financial (blackmail) can ensue when a secret comes out into the open. I believe this storyline shows how non-binary/gender-fluid/queer characters can exist even if their alter-egos or gender identity expressions are not brought out into the open until the character's other storylines have progressed. Some non-binary, queer and gender-fluid activists would say Les is not an example of how they live their lives but it did show audiences how elderly characters may have had to deal with their gender expression prior to acceptance of the disintegration of the dual gender binary. Conservative moralists still don't accept gender fluidity so showing such stories on screen is important, relevant and authentic. It's a start!

What about intersex and asexual characters?
Intersex people are rarely referenced to by mainstream media outlets let alone on TV and in films. The recent case of Caster Semeyna proved that most sports viewers were unaware that men and women can have natural hormone imbalances let alone the fact that a man may have been born with a womb and uterus even if they are unable to procreate. Most intersex actors will not reveal that they are intersex at a casting call because it's something that the agent cannot see. They are happy to present as a woman or man depending on what gender role they have grown up in. Intersex people certainly aren't all trans yet they can be labelled as such and then denied a cisgender role based on the "mansplaining lookism" mentioned earlier. Intersex characters do provide an intriguing basis for a captivating narrative and there is plenty of room for these characters to discuss the notion of intersex with their friends/family and present characters who criticise them because they believe intersex isn't true. If a film, TV drama or soap character provides an access point for audience members to discuss intersex issues then the film/TV drama/ soap has succeeded in raising awareness without it feeling forced or inauthentic.

Hollywood is awash with "sexualised propaganda" according to ultra conservative outlets such as Breibart. How ironic is it then that asexual actors and characters are amongst those who feel the most left out of debates on artistic representation. Most casting agents cannot understand why asexual people can't describe themselves as "celibate" and fake sexual acts on the camera just so they can compete and get the lead roles in films. Somehow if you are as ripped as Daniel Craig or Aidan Turner you are meant to be sexually promiscuous and be prepared to strip at a moment's notice. Sexual desire isn't a tap that you can turn off or on at a moment's notice just to suit the whims of the filmmakers. So no wonder asexual actors feel there is a need for better understanding of their feelings and more writers prepared to tell their stories. I'm looking forward to the story of famously asexual Smith's frontman Morrissey being presented to British audiences next year so they can see that sex doesn't have to be hinted at or be at the heart of adult TV drama storylines to be of interest to an audience. And the fact being asexual doesn't make you any less interesting, subversive, sassy or beautiful, beating those myths peddled by jealous detractors right down into the patriarchal dustular remains.

Conclusion:
Mainstream media and creative output has progressed in the right direction during the last decade and most members of the LGBTQIA community who self define as trans have appreciated that their narratives are being taken seriously. Much work still needs to be done to improve the career prospects of trans actors and whilst trans women's voices have seemed to occupy the spotlight, trans male characters are still relatively rare. As a queer trans woman I'm also glad that the narratives are presented that question the inherently solid idea of dual gender identity. However for me, there is a LOT of work that needs to be done by Hollywood and British BBC producers alike to improve representation of queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, intersex and asexual people on screen and behind the cameras. We need to break through the idea that gender should only be seen through a dual binary prism, that it is interesting creatively to present characters who refuse to ascribe to normal stereotypes and do not wish to change their bodies just to fit in with the gender-binding fashions of the day. Casting agents need to go beyond lookism and consider all candidates for a role based on engaged, detailed discussion with the whole creative team, including writers. We need to encourage more LGBTQIA writers, costume directors, producers, directors even grips and production accountants to consider a career in the film and TV industry and make it easier for them to gain the experience and skills needed to convince major companies to take a chance on their projects. Those LGBTQIA creatives already in the industry must do all they can to support new talent. Funding organisations need to be prepared to look "outside the mainstream box" and consider funding films that may appear as if they come out of a "Pandora's box" of talent to find the next Steven Spielberg or Ken Loach. So let's be supportive, let's be passionate and prepared to engage in finding new narratives and creating more.