TfL Tube Announcement Changes: Why all the fuss over positive Gender Neutral Language and Greetings?

This month Transport for London (TfL) took the "brave" (I call it common sensical) decision to change the outdated greeting on the Tube for passengers. No longer will they hear "Hello Ladies & Gentleman" (which erases the existence of young travellers let alone non-binary ones such as myself); instead they will hear a much more cheerful, modern "Good Morning/Hello Everyone" and then carry on walking out to get on with the much more important business of the day- like going to work to put food on the table and roof over their heads. Stonewall praised the decision and Mark Evers, director of customer strategy for TfL wanted to make sure that announcements were "fully inclusive, reflecting the great diversity of London". Yet the uber rigid gender binary loving brigade of soppy traditionalists were outraged at the suggestion of a gender-neutral greeting becoming commonplace on Britain's streets. If you look at some of the comments sections that are provided under articles in the main newspaper articles announcing the changes, you realise not everyone was pleased. On the Daily Telegraph comments page, John  moans that those who advocate for gender-neutral language would be campaigning for "language control legislation" (shock horror klaxon) and Graham snaps that it is "insulting to the rest of us" (interesting that most comments seem to be from men: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/13/london-tube-scraps-ladies-gentlemen-make-announcements-gender/).

I hate to break it to John and Graham et al but gender-neutral language has been commonplace for a while and not just in "politically correct" spaces. Whenever I give a speech, I always start with a "Hello Everyone, I hope you are all well today" in a cheerful, positive tone of voice. I never think that when I am specifically choosing to do this I am being particularly subversive; nearly all of my university professors and school teachers used this gender-neutral greeting and shock-horror, didn't get stoned for it. It seems that gender-neutral language in general is receiving a bit of a pounding at the moment and I'm rather bemused by it.

Never forget that gender-neutral language has been championed by the feminist movement for decades. Let's not forget that in 1980, Casey Miller and Kate Swift created a manual dedicated to gender neutral writing, entitled The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing:For writers, editors and speaks in an attempt to try and reform the English Language so that sexist language that dehumanizes women became less common over time and eventually defunct. Swift and Miller offer numerous substitutes for common words (e.g. sales person instead of salesman) and suggested that "they" be used instead of a gendered pronoun (or at the very least use he or she and his or hers), something I have adopted in my own academic essays in the past. Now if those on the anti gender-neutral language disapprove of removing the jingle "Ladies and Gentleman" but are still abhorred by the use of "man" or "mankind" to refer to everyone, I'd be just a tiny bit flabbergasted. Same if they approved of using "businessperson instead of businessman and businesswoman but expressed dismay at the "erosion of traditional greetings." Facepalm for all those folks.

When looking at modern pronoun use, especially for people who define themselves as non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer  the debate seems to become ever so slightly more intense. I'm proud that my grandmother's country, Sweden brought in a specific gender-neutral pronoun "hen" (alt-right conservatives hate Swedish progressiveness; I think it's brilliant there are pre-schools in Sweden that have banished any reference to gender, referring children to their first names or as "buddies"; why should they be taught to adhere to outdated gender stereotype roles?). "Hen" first appeared in linguistic circles in the early 1960's and by 1994, Hans Karlgren had added "hen" as a new personal pronoun; arguing that the Swedish language would be vastly improved by the addition of a new pronoun. "Hen" was used in Sweden's first ever gender-neutral children's book, Kivi och Monsterdog (Kivi and Monsterdog) where Kivi is referred to in a gender-neutral way. When I read the book (in the original Swedish) I was happy to find out that it had been written by a male author, Jesper Lundqvist. They'd written a book that worked well, that introduced children (and parents) to gender-neutral language in a clear, concise and age-appropriate way. However, even in Sweden there were conservative critics who bemoaned the extension of the Swedish language (e.g Jan Guillou blaming feminists again). I just think that encouraging children from an early age to take a more gender-neutral and inclusive approach is a good idea and yet they can still celebrate calling themselves a boy or girl if they want to.

There are now a great variety of pronouns that are used by non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people in the English Language; a few are listed below:

Thanks to Greta Bjornson of US College Today for the table! 

Conservatives always seem to be out in force with their ridiculous objections to linguistic changes designed to make the English Language more inclusive: "Oh you don't like what's been in existence so you have to stir the linguistic pot just to be politically correct". For goodness sake, just because I identify as neither male nor female doesn't mean I want to force everyone to adopt a non-binary pronoun or a title. That's my personal choice, my decision and the fact that others are doing the same indicates there is a legitimate demand for separate representation. It's only polite to try and learn the pronoun/title/gender marker that the non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer person you are going to meet (or correspond with) prefers and even if you get it wrong the first time, they can correct you without prejudice and you can learn quickly from that mistake. Besides, even if conservatives don't like it, non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people are going to push for gender-neutral pronouns to be accepted on legal documentation and Stonewall are currently trying to get gender markers removed from official documentation such as passports anyways.

Language changes over time and adapts to social change. The historical denotation of the adjective "Gay" and how its meaning semantically has shifted should indicate that fact. In the 1970's it was seen as unacceptable for a woman to have "Ms" as her title; conservatives would say that it was pandering to feminists but today "Ms" is very commonly used by those who believe that their marital status does not define who they are as a person.  "Mx" (used by some non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and intersex people) is now at least accepted as a viable title in its own right; MPs who are elected to Parliament have been able to use it since May 2015 and it is recognised by government departments including the Department for Work and Pensions. So if you still object to the use of Mx, you're a bit behind the times and if your only issue is that you don't know how to pronounce it, then you can be taught how to pronounce it by those in-the-know (see Spacious Perspicacious' wonderful Tumblr post on pronunciation here: http://cassolotl.tumblr.com/post/103744029100).

Of course some critics still want to get themselves into a tizz over gender neutral language and use every public opportunity they can to denounce it. A recent debate has been over whether university professors should mandate their students to use "gender sensitive" language in their essays. In April 2017, there was a report in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/use-gender-sensitive-language-lose-marks-hull-university-students-told) that Hull University undergraduates would lose marks if they didn't employ "gender sensitive" language in their essays. Now it must be noted that the guidance only referred to a religious activism course and it's not clear whether it was a policy being used across the university but I wouldn't have a problem with adhering to those guidelines. Cardiff Metropolitan University gave students a "gender neutral checklist" to help them come up with alternatives to commonly used gender-binary language. For example, is it really necessary to use the word "workmanlike" when "efficient" sounds more professional (let alone gender-neutral)? I was told when I was in Year 7 that the word "workmanlike" was bad standard English anyways and would never be used in a business document and I didn't use it in any of my work afterwards. You might say that was "political correctness gone mad" but I don't particularly care! As Professor Judith Baxter, emeritus professor at Aston University points out in the article: "The principle of gender-neutral language has been around for 30 years. Businesses, schools, publishing, academic and educational texts use gender-neutral language now. So there is a total expectation"; i.e. gender-neutral language is here to stay, get over it. I may think that deduction of marks is harsh but you get marks deducted for spelling and grammar mistakes and for incorrect essay length. If you know what is expected of you, you must ensure you do not submit substandard work. Simples.

However, as I have studied English Language at A-Level and at the University of York, I am aware that research has been carried out looking into how men and women use language currently and I wonder how such research would be conducted amongst speakers who define as non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer.  For example, research conducted by Jenny Cheshire in Reading in 1983 in an adolescent playground found that standard speech patterns used by teenagers were similar to those of adults and suggested that differences in male and female use exist during childhood. An amusing finding that I've often found to be true in my own experience is that men tend to use "ain't" and women tend to use "isn't" in spoken speech; my Mum often corrected my Dad when he was on the phone to clients because he'd drop in "ain't" unconsciously and she thought it sounded inappropriate. American linguist Robin Lakoff  in 1975 argued that women's speech patterns are created by their subordinate role in society, indicated by their increased use of hedgers and fillers ("sort of", "you know"-I use them pretty often too) and indirect request questions. Now it'll be interesting to see whether speech forms may have shifted since these two pieces of research were conducted and I'd certainly challenge A-Level students interested in gender-neutral speech-forms to question the findings. I loved carrying out my A2 English Language investigation project (I looked at dialect use amongst Lincolnshire farmers) and thoroughly recommend A2 English Language to any student who has an interest in examining social language use.

I don't think there will ever be complete consensus on the acceptability of gender-neutral language. But I feel that if most of us are using it in our everyday lives without judgement, then life for non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer will feel more equal as they will feel more represented within society. All non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer (and agender) folks are asking for is respect and tolerance. In a public service respect and tolerance should be given in accordance with the Public Sector Duty under the Equality Act 2010 anyways!

Moving beyond the micro-debate over gender-neutral language, I am glad to see further breaking down of gender stereotypes generally in British society; the fact that the Advertising Standards Authority is going to crack down on ads that peddle outdated stereotypes with new standards brought out in 2018 so that there aren't more adverts like the Aptamil baby milk formula advert that suggested only boys could be engineers and girls could be ballerinas or the Yorkie "it's NOT for girls advert" is welcome. Yet it'll be amazing to see more adverts with openly non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender actors and characters in them. I am heartened to see more schools adopting a gender-neutral uniform option (isn't it great there are already 120 schools that have a specific policy in place?) and I was cheering on the boys at Isca Academy in Exeter who decided to take a stand and protest for their right to wear shorts (and skirts) by wearing skirts (because the academy mandated them to wear trousers all year round even in a heatwave). There's an increasing presence of gender-neutral toilets at arts venues and other public sector spaces (I don't mind whether they have the gender-neutral toilet as a fourth option after male, female and disabled or whether there is a gender-neutral toilet alongside a disabled one). The funny thing is, nobody that I know has told me directly that they feel threatened by these changes or gender-neutral language announcements. Not my Mum, Dad, Brother, Uncle or close friends. In fact, when my Dad turned on the BBC News and heard about the Tube announcement change, he said "Well, what's all this fuss about?" My thoughts exactly. Maybe some people, especially self-styled "defenders of tradition" need to take a step back and think whether the changes being proposed are really that controversial. And if they still want to be called "lady" or "gentleman", they have plenty of opportunities, to hear those words, just not so much in public anymore. And if that still really bothers them, more fool them I say! 

Stonewall School Report 2017: What Needs To Be Done To Make Our Schools Truly LGBT+ Inclusive

This morning there was the release of Stonewall's 2017 School Report, research that had been conducted by the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge. The report provides a vital snapshot into the experiences of LGBT students, with 3,713 participants having responded to
an online questionnaire covering areas such as language, wellbeing and mental health and Internet and Social Media use. The School Report indicates that there has been improvement in schools tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying: the percentage of HB bullying has decreased from 55% in 2012 to 45% in 2017 and 50% of students hear homophobic slurs "frequently" in the classroom environment, which is down from 70% in 2012. However, the percentage of students who have experience transphobic bullying remains worryingly high, with 64% of respondents stating that they had been bullied on the basis of them being openly trans. 57% of non-binary pupils have also stated they were being bullied for being open about their identity. The question is, how do schools help to create an environment that is truly inclusive, where teachers, support staff and students feel comfortable enough to be open about their gender identity and sexual orientation and whether students have the awareness needed to act as responsible global citizens who are tolerant and respectful of differences?

HBT Bullying and Language:

It's pleasing to see that some progress has been made towards address HB bullying; 70% of LGBT+ students have said that their school has openly stated that HB bullying is wrong, a massive increase from 25% in 2007. However, only 41% of students reported that their school had openly stated that transphobic bullying is wrong. This is unacceptable and there needs to be a change in attitudes in schools that makes it clear that transphobic bullying under any circumstances is wrong. In order to explore why I believe it is wrong, I feel it's necessary to reflect on my own experiences whilst at secondary school in the early and mid 2000s.

I was extremely lucky to attend the Priory LSST (now The Priory LSST Academy) that had an inclusive culture in place which included a zero-tolerance attitude towards bullying of any kind. I did experience name-calling  (the usual gay being used as a slur, camp hand gestures because the pitch of my voice was higher than others in the year, being called he-she/fag/tranny etc) on a systematic, weekly basis from a group of specific individuals but because I wasn't openly calling myself trans non-binary at the time, I didn't feel I experienced any specific name-calling and bullying that directly targeted my gender identity at the time. I now realise that they were bullying me because of aspects of my identity and I didn't deserve to be subjected to it. You are who you are. I was personally afraid to be open about my feelings because I thought I'd been perceived as "mad" by my friends but the signs that I didn't perceive myself as being male were there: I'd never take my vest off in the changing rooms for fear of being stared at by my peers and I always felt uncomfortable being referred to in the third person or as a "boy", insisting they use my name instead. I always insisted on playing a female role in Drama lessons and whenever I created my own characters, they were always female. I have met friends who are non-binary who carried out similar actions at school without explicitly coming out as non-binary. It may have been because the words "trans" or "non-binary" were never used at school and my parents never used them at home either. Instead my Mum always referred to me as "different" and just loved me for who I am.  Again, that's me being fortunate and lucky but it's still sad to see that 40% of respondents to the survey say they can't speak to a parent about LGBT+ issues.

The name-calling I've described above was on top of the name-calling I received due to my short stature and the way I moved due to my dyspraxia (a disability affecting hand-eye coordination). For example, I was regularly called "Colleywobbles" because of the way I walk (my feet are misshapen and face outwards as result of how my feet developed whilst I was at primary school). The School Report figures have revealed that disabled LGBT+ young people are more likely to experience HBT bullying than non-disabled LGBT+ ones (60% as compared to 43%). This is not acceptable and teachers need to support disabled students who are bullied for both being LGBT+ and for their disability. That means reiterating that they are available to have confidential conversations and take action against the bullies as soon as possible, making good on the commitment they have made openly. You see most of the teachers at the school reminded us that we could confide in them privately if we had been name-called on a systemic basis but I never felt I could talk to them fully about my gender identity or sexual orientation because no action was ever taken to rebuke HBT bullies. That in addition to there being no teachers and support staff who openly discussed their gender identity or sexuality in the classroom made me feel as if I'd never be understood and helped in any other way than academically. I was always speaking to my teachers before and after class but this was almost exclusively on academic issues- whether I could make a good teacher when I finished my education, whether Henry VIII really loved Anne Boleyn, whether 2+2 =4 etc etc. I never spoke to them directly about the bullying I experienced as a result of my disability because I don't think many of them knew what the definition of dyspraxia really was and adding my feelings of gender dysphoria into the mix, it made me a very shy but supposedly "gifted and talented" child. The School Report shows that students still feel wary about talking about the HBT bullying they experience: 45% of students say they've never told anyone about the bullying, with 63% stating that "it's not easy to talk to anyone". With teachers not talking about LGBT+ issues, I'm not surprised at these figures.

What was effective at the Priory LSST was the  "anti-bullying champions" Prefect system, created to help foster a zero-tolerance culture against bullying in all its various forms. Such champions (drawn from Year 9 through to Year 13) would befriend and hang around with Year 7-9  students who may have been perceived as "different" by others and be open to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying. I remember an instance of homophobic bullying that occurred in an English lesson where I walked in on a group of three (rather nasty) Year 10 boys picking on my fellow Year 8 friend, calling him a "pansy", a "nancy-boy" and a "groper", falsely accusing him of having touched one of them on the bottom. It turned out that aforementioned Year 8 friend had tried to get past the boy in question and his schoolbag happened to brush past him, making contact. A Year 11 anti-bullying champion happened to be in the vicinity of the classroom and stopped the boys from gesturing and name-calling, managed to get some initial witness statements from those in the classroom and informed the teacher promptly when he arrived. Luckily the Year 10 boys were the only ones to end up facing punishment (I later heard they'd been given detention for a week) and they were made to apologise to my friend for their behaviour. So you see, anti-bullying champions can really make a difference to the school environment and the more of them that are trained in having the confidence to help LGBT+ students, the better; the School Report reveals that only 41% of LGBT+ students had seen their peers intervene to stop HBT bullying which is still more than the 22% of students who had seen teachers intervene.

I realise my school's attitude towards HBT bullying in the early 2000s seems rather proactive in hindsight. I've spoken to LGBT+ friends whose school experiences involved sustained stalking, systematic abuse and harassment and in one case, sexual assault. The School Report states that 7% of LGBT+ students have been the victim of physical bullying, with trans students twice as likely to be a victim than LGB students who do not identify as trans (13% compared to 6%). Any physical act of violence shown towards a LGBT student should be recorded, with the perpetrators removed immediately from the classroom and reported to the police if the act has resulted in the LGBT student sustaining injuries (i.e. a crime). Perpetrators should also be appropriately disciplined, whether that involves detention, temporary suspension or exclusion. Schools must be a safe environment for all pupils, including those who openly identify as LGBT+. The School Report shows this is not yet the case: 19% of LGBT+ students stated that they do not feel safe at school, 9% of trans students stated that they have received death threats whilst at school, 3% have experienced sexual assault and 4% have been threatened with a weapon. That shocks me to my core. Why is it the case that students feel emboldened to threaten their trans peers (open and not) with knives or sexually assault them?

Attitudes need to change amongst the teaching establishment as a whole. Teaching unions are leading the way in encouraging teachers to support their trans students and headteachers need to make it crystal clear that teachers have a duty to tell their students openly that transphobic bullying and language is wrong in any context. Not addressing transphobic language, attitudes and bullying when students are at secondary school does lead to those students entering the working world still believing such attitudes are acceptable when they are not. Transphobic discrimination in the workplace is illegal under the terms of the Equality Act 2010 (protected characteristic of "gender reassignment surgery" applies to employees who are intending, are perceived as intending or going through such surgery) and if a transphobe has committed a criminal offence, they may be prosecuted and convicted of carrying out a hate crime (Parliament has passed legislation in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that means that offenders can receive tougher sentences if prosecutors can provide evidence of that offender having hostility towards trans people). We want to reduce instances of transphobia in society in general and teachers and support staff need to play their part in this.

I'm concerned to read in the School Report that teachers and support staff are not routinely challenging HBT language when they hear it in the classroom; 68% of respondents say they've very rarely or never heard their teacher "sometimes" challenge those students who are using HBT language. Teachers and support staff must have the confidence to explicitly state the language is wrong and if they do not believe themselves that the words being used ("tranny", "fag/faggot", "he-she", "shim" etc are are wrong, they desperately need to go on a diversity training course as part of their Continuing Professional Development (CPD) to learn why those words cannot be condoned in any form and if they can't get to grips with that, they genuinely need to question whether the teaching profession is right for them when they feel they cannot protect all students within their classroom. Enough of bigotry and enough of silent acceptance. Stand up and support your LGBT+ students.

A zero-tolerance approach across the school environment to HBT bullying is essential and headteachers should review their bullying policies to ensure that they are fit-for purpose. Headteachers could discuss their policies with organisations such as Stonewall and take on-board suggestions made. They must also ensure that all teachers and support staff at the school sign up to the policy and promise to implement measures when they observe HBT bullying in the school environment. If teachers fail to take necessary action and refuse to take part in attending training courses, disciplinary procedures must followed and if teachers are found to participate in HBT bullying in any way, disciplinary procedures must be enacted as soon as the report has been received. Headteachers must explicitly state that transphobic bullying and language use is wrong. The School Report reveals that in schools where this has happened, trans students are less likely to worry about bullying and more likely to report it and are twice as likely to "rarely" or "never hear" transphobic language at school.
Most importantly, headteachers should openly support LGBT+ equality; only 19% of students said they'd heard their headteacher talk about it. Part of supporting LGBT Equality is to encourage the setting up of LGBT+ group for students that meets once a week to allow students to socialise and to discuss the issues that affect them. A representative from the group should be on the school board to discuss the concerns raised with the headteacher. The benefits of the group are that LGBT+ students are more likely to feel part of the school community and are having their concerns addressed. There's no extortionate expense to setting up the group and it can actually lead to real change in the culture of the school environment. That can only be a good thing.

Accommodating Trans and Non-Binary Students: 
I think it's essential that schools take a positive approach to helping students who have disclosed to them that they are trans and non-binary:

• student confidentiality must be respected; I'm happy to read that when trans students disclose their status to teachers, 75% of them ask about how best to support them but it's not acceptable that 19% of trans students have stated that their teachers did not respect their wish for anonymity. No teacher should disclose a student's gender identity without permission because such disclosure could lead to them becoming subject to bullying. The choice to publically disclose is the trans student's alone. 
• teachers should have a basic idea of when to signpost trans and non-binary students for further advice and support: 60% haven't been provided with any advice and guidance, such as which organisations they can speak to (Mermaids is one dedicated organisation that all trans and non-binary students can be referred to). 
•  trans and non-binary students should be allowed to use the bathroom or changing room they feel comfortable using; if a student has openly disclosed their status and have indicated which bathroom and changing room they wish to use, they should be accommodated wherever necessary and dispel any stereotypes being perpetuated by students (e.g. a pre-op trans female student isn't going to flash their penis).
• trans and non-binary students should be referred to by their preferred name and pronouns, with registers being updated to reflect this; 33% of trans students report that their school keeps using their dead name rather than their preferred name.
• trans and non-binary students should be able to wear the uniform they feel comfortable in; 20% of students are still being told they cannot wear the uniform that reflects their gender identity. 

These 5 actions need to be taken if schools are to be truly trans and non-binary inclusive.


LGBT Teacher Recruitment: 

There is far more that educational establishments can do to try and reduce instances of trans bullying; for example, incentivising the recruitment and retention of trans and non-binary teachers in state-maintained schools would help provide a number of positive role-models for students to identify with, regardless of their own gender identity or sexual orientation. The report states that there are no figures for students who knew trans members of staff in school; it's bad enough that only 4% of respondents to the School Report knew they had an openly bi member of staff in their school! Bi and trans visibility in the teaching professions remains stubbornly low, with graduates being put off pursuing a worthwhile career because they feel they may be openly discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Universities who run PGCE courses and schools participating in teacher training programmes should proactively counter and challenge the narrative that schools are not trans and non-binary inclusive and reach out to LGBT+ societies on campuses to encourage students to consider volunteering in schools to explore teaching as a viable career option. I would have dearly loved to have become an English and Philosophy teacher but I found it very difficult to find a volunteering opportunity after I graduated in 2010 to gain the necessary experience needed to have a chance of having my teacher training application approved and I don't want other trans and non-binary graduates who have achieved the necessary qualifications to go through the same experience.

Sex and Relationships Education:

The School Report findings back up recommendations made by organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust that Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) is needed in schools that is at least LGBT inclusive (I'd like it to be non-binary, queer, intersex and asexually inclusive too): 40% of respondents revealed they are not being taught anything about LGBT issues at school, 76% haven't learnt anything about bisexuality in school and 77% have not been taught about gender identity and so have no idea what being "trans" means. Only 20% of LGBT students overall and 10% of faith school students had been given any advice and guidance on same-sex relationships. 13% of LGBT students have been taught about healthy same-sex relationships and only 20% of students have learnt about consent in same-sex relationships. 17% have learnt about violence or abuse in relation to same-sex relationships. Given that the primary duty of an educational establishment is to impart vital information to students so they can appreciate the diverse world in which we live, the fact that students are still leaving school without any understanding of gender identity, healthy same-sex relationships, consent and domestic abuse and violence is quite frankly shocking.

It is important that SRE guidance provided to schools is appropriate, written by SRE experts with input from LGBT people to inform lesson planning. Whether SRE would be delivered by the same teacher who has responsibility for Personal, Social, Health and Economics Education (PSHE) or whether it will be a teacher with a background in social sciences or the Arts is not yet clear. I would love for there to be a specific PGCE pathway to be created that allows for applicants to train in PSHE and SRE as their main specialism but embedding SRE into existing PGCE and teacher training programmes could be a way of ensuring teachers are equipped to teach the subjects when required to do so. I'd rather foster a passion for SRE and PSHE; if teachers are engaged with the subject material, they can impart that information in a lively and enthusiastic way and students may be more likely to retain the information years afterwards.

Current PSHE must include the basic information on LGBT+ issues; it's embarrassing that some students are leaving school with no idea that gay, lesbian and bi people can get married (58% of respondents said they've never been taught about same-sex marriage or civil partnerships).

Another aspect of the School Report that concerns me about the current curriculum is that only 20% of LGBT pupils are being taught about safe sex in same-sex relationships. There is an argument put forward that teachers do not have the time or the resources available to them to be able to teach their students about all forms of safe-sex. At my secondary school we received no direct sex education that was LGBT inclusive (hence why I had no idea that trans people existed) and the only sex education we did receive was delivered in a half-an-hour Biology video in Year 9, a series of worksheet based lessons that followed on from that video and a Year 11 hour lecture delivered to the whole year group with the instructor talking about how to put a condom on the banana. Not very instructional or reassuring (good job I haven't shown much inclination for sexual activity anyways!) I believe that sex education in schools must include helpful information on same-sexual intercourse free from judgement. It's embarrassing that young people are being left to learn about same-sexual intercourse online and are being taught that it shouldn't be talked about; silence is sending out a signal that same-sexual intercourse is still "wrong" when in-fact it is far from being wrong.

However, having strong SRE and PSHE provision isn't really enough. The National Curriculum as a whole should have a focus on LGBT+ acceptance and encourage students to take an interest in LGBT+ issues and admire LGBT+ role models. Only 25 of LGBT students reported that they had discussed LGBT+ issues in English or Geography. Embedding LGBT+ awareness into PGCE courses beyond the Equality and Diversity requirement is key. Why not talk about Lord Byron as a bisexual in English Literature lessons? Why not celebrate Alan Turing as a gay role-model in Science lessons? Students in GCSE Religious Studies lessons already learn about marriage and divorce and various religious and ethical views on sex, so why not devote a lesson to discussions of gender identity, with reference to a range of religious views (OK some of those views are far from accepting but they have been openly stated-e.g. Pope Francis talking about the "ideological colonisation" which is nonsense btw)? Discussions about gender identity should take place but in a respectful manner. The individual responses quoted in the report which talk about positive experiences of embedding LGBT+ issues into the curriculum speak for themselves; Sadie mentions that she discussed work by Oscar Wilde and Audre Lorde whilst studying A-Level English Literature; how amazing it would be if engagement with LGBT+ authors, poets and playwrights happened at Key Stages 3 and 4?

Wellbeing and Mental Health: 

We need a comprehensive approach to help deal with the mental health crisis affecting our LGBT+ students in schools. The name-calling that I received systematically from my bullies in the early years of secondary school (it fizzled out by Year 10) made me feel anxious and worried about being truly myself. I remember numerous school days which ended with me coming home, running to the toilet, locking the door and crying for an hour or two wondering what I'd done to deserve such bullying. There were days when I didn't want to go to school to face my bullies and I'd be happy whenever I happened to have the flu or vomiting bug because it meant I didn't need to attend and listen to their vitriol. Yet anxiety is unfortunately not the only mental health condition experienced by LGBT+ students. It's not right that 84% of trans young people who responded to the School Report have self harmed and 45% of them have attempted to commit suicide. The figure for LGB students self-harming is at an unacceptable 61% with 22% attempting suicide. It breaks my heart as an equal opportunities activist to read these figures. No young person should ever have to feel ashamed of their feelings or their identity to the point where they are cutting themselves with razor blades and planning to end their own lives. Labour have a specific plan to help these students, which involves ensuring that every school in England has access to a counselling service, the number of mental health professionals including specialist nurses increasing and the number of school nurses increasing too. The Conservative Minority Government, propped up by an openly homophobic, biphobic and transphobic Democratic Unionist Party have shown very little inclination to make the counselling service immediately available to schools, which I think is a great opportunity missed. PM May promised to protect LGBT+ people in the UK if she were to retain her premiership during the last General Election campaign Pink News interview; she now needs to prove that her words are worth more than the computer they were written on. That means providing investment in school counselling and pushing forward with plans to make mental health services more accessible to young people who are self-harming. Organisations such as Mind and the LGBT Foundation have specific programmes in place to help LGBT young people; for example Mind has their online Elefriends community which has currently 50,000 members who help each other talk about their condition free from judgement and if a similar scheme were to be brought in specifically aimed at 12-18 year olds and curated and monitored by trained professionals, it may help them discuss their mental health in an open way. All teachers should be trained in mental health first aid by headteachers signing their schools up for the "Mental Health First Aid" programme and school nurses should be aware of how to help LGBT+ students with specific health concerns. Schools should liaise closely with Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Services so that students have access to the specialist support they need as quickly as possible.

Social Media: 

65% of LGBT+ students believe that social media companies would not tackle abuse or remove HBT content when it had been reported by them to those organisations. Young people are spending increasing hours accessing social media content and I believe that Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have a responsibility to carefully filter and curate the content with offensive posts being removed as quickly as possible after being flagged. Whilst I accept that it is inevitable that young people may come across HBT abusive content whilst online (97% of respondents have seen such content), taking robust and quick action when the content is reported might increase confidence and trust in online platforms which would be a positive outcome.

There is a problem with Social Media trolling at the moment and I believe that it needs to be addressed in a robust, comprehensive and rigorous manner. 40% of respondents to the survey indicated that they had been a direct victim of HBT abuse carried out by trolls, including 58% of trans respondents. With digitalisation has come new forms of abuse and it's worrying to read that 6% of LGBT+ students have been photographed or filmed without their consent and 3% of students have had social media accounts created by abusers pretending to them to get them into trouble. 75% of students who have been bullied online did not reported the abuse to the platform. That demonstrates a lack of trust in online platforms to tackle HBT abuse.  I also believe trolls need to be blocked from accessing the platform entirely if evidence has been found to indicate sustained stalking and trolling of young people's social media accounts, with them being reported to the police for appropriate action to be taken.  Stonewall has recommended that social media platforms consult with organisations to improve their reporting procedures but I also believe that clearer signposting needs to be made available online to victims of HBT abuse and bullying so they access the help and support they need emotionally to deal with the after-effects of that abuse; you'd think in 2017 that Facebook would be able to send a message to victims that had details of organisations such as Stonewall or the NSPCC given that they already have online websites, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts with contact information on.

We must also beef up Internet Safety lessons in primary and secondary schools at all key stages within the National Curriculum further so that students gain the confidence needed to report content and trolls because they understand it is part of keeping themselves safe whilst online. Such lessons would also protect LGBT+ students from becoming victims of abuse online perpetrated by padeophiles. The Dare2Care campaign, established by Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham and Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities has a recommendation within their National Action Plan that calls on teachers and support staff to be given training on a regular basis so they have up-to-date knowledge and awareness of new online platforms, apps and trends. If we are to help LGBT+ students, the training provided as part of a teacher's Continuing Professional Development must be fully LGBT+ inclusive. That may mean the Department for Education commissioning organisations such as Stonewall and Mermaids to design specific courses to help deliver content directly to teachers and other educational professionals; LGBT+ people should be involved in the creation of content to ensure it is truly fit-for-purpose and can give teachers some ideas that they can implement in their own classrooms.

Conclusion: 

The School Report 2017 findings have shown that there is an urgent need for schools and educational establishments to look at their plans, processes and systems to ensure that they are truly LGBT+ inclusive, especially for trans, and non-binary students. Teachers and support staff must continue to have access to training opportunities so they can increase their awareness of LGBT+ issues and develop strategies to help students in their classrooms on an individual basis. Headteachers need to openly talk about LGBT+ equality, take a firm stance against HBT bullying and encourage the setting up of LGBT+ inclusive groups. Schools should work with local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services to allow LGBT+ students access to counselling. Signposting should be available to students so they can access advice and guidance from organisations such as Mermaids and Stonewall. There should be a drive towards encouraging more trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender graduates into the teaching profession. The National Curriculum should be embedded with opportunities to discuss LGBT+ issues and role-models.Most importantly of all, SRE needs to be introduced that is truly LGBT+ inclusive. If I was the Secretary of State for Education, I'd be asking for the creation of a SRE curriculum that can be delivered in all schools and mandating that it will be delivered in faith schools, with lessons already built in addressing LGBT+ issues. Perhaps that may one day be the case. For now we have to make do with the rather wishy washy promise to provide guidance to state-maintained schools and hope that individual schools openly choose to have discussions around safe same-sexual intercourse and gender identity. I only hope the School Report shocks schools into action so they can truly be an inclusive and nurturing environment for ALL students, where they can be open about their gender identity and/or sexual orientation and respected for their openness. 

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!

Ending the Silence: Addressing Domestic Violence in the Trans/ Non-Binary/ Queer Community

This month I've been very fortunate through my Twitter trans activism to connect with a rather fabulous group of volunteers (Gender Free DV) who have something really valid and important to say about domestic violence within the LGBTQIA community: trans, non-binary, queer and gender-fluid people feel completely locked out when trying to access domestic violence support services and local charities because of their chosen gender status. This has been made worse with the closure of Broken Rainbow, a UK national LGBT domestic abuse charity that provided telephone support and online chat service for victims which recently went into liquidation. Sean, one of the amazing volunteers at Gender Free DV who has reached out to provide a way for trans/non-binary/queer domestic abuse victims and survivors to voice their concerns and fears regarding UK domestic abuse support provision recently told me the closure of Broken Rainbow has led to a crisis which they are trying to address at grassroots level by engaging with local police and NHS service providers to help LGBTQIA people to get over their physical and emotional scars and to try and prosecute their persecutors in court. Gender DV aims to get providers to see beyond gender differences to allow every victim of domestic violence to access the support they need in a non-judgemental, appropriate way.

Just think about this: if you are a middle aged trans woman who has been abused for years by a female partner/ wife before, during and after your transition process either through financial blackmailing, physical/sexual assault or even attempted murder, you will feel helpless, unable to speak out for fear of being ridiculed. A trans woman should feel that they have a place to turn to where you will be offered a sympathetic ear by passionate, caring advisors. We have to remember that trans women may not have a strong support network out of their partnership/marriage, so who else can they turn to who understands their plight and  can reassure them it isn't their fault that they had to suffer such horrendous abuse?

A common slur that's used to delegitimise trans women's domestic abuse stories in particular is that their right to choose to change their bodies to align with their expressed gender choice makes them rightly open to abuse: "they should never have transitioned...they were asking for it" or that "they should have left their wife prior to making the decision transition...she didn't deserve the grief". Such opinions are outdated, referring to a dual binary system based purely on the biological sex organs that you just happen to have been unlucky to have be born with. Nobody deserves to be punished for exercising their rights as enshrined under the Human Rights Act (1998) under Article 10 - Right to freedom of expression and Article 14- Protection from Discrimination as guaranteed under the
Equality Act (2010) protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. How you choose to identify gender wise is your own affair. Unfortunately trans people who are married can still be subject to a "spousal veto"- i.e. a partner can choose to deny you the right to transition or even to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) unless you gain a divorce from them. Even worse you have to be unmarried to gain a GRC anyways. Partners can use this fact against trans husbands/wives to coerce them to stay within an abusive relationship.  You can read more about the history behind the "spousal veto" in Sarah Brown's blogpost here: http://www.sarahlizzy.com/blog/?p=154.

Identifying Key Statistics:

Gender DV's  blogpost Evidencing the need for diverse DVA provision (July 2016) highlights the disappointing fact that trans survivor statistics are "not accurately recorded because the incidents are aggregated with reports relating to sexual orientation" - i.e. the organisations involved in recording stats for UK police forces/ Crown Prosecution Service/Home Office push trans stats in with LGB stats which can lead to a level of distortion which precludes specific reasons for trans domestic abuse. Gender DV decided to quote qualitative research conducted by LGBT Youth Scotland and Equality Network (2010) that has been collated from a range of trans DVA survivors to try and show the extent of the issue. Here are a few stats from that report:

• 80% of trans respondents stated that they had experienced emotionally, sexually or physically abusive behaviour by a partner or ex-partner.
•  18% felt that the most recent domestic abuse they experienced was "just something that happened".
• 51% felt that the most recent domestic abuse they experienced was "wrong but not a crime."
• 73% experienced abusive behaviours from partners or ex-partners which specifically aimed to oppress or invalidate the trans person's gender identity, undermine their ability to transition or to influence their decision about coming out to others.
• 60% experienced threatening behaviour of some description.
• 25% experienced a partner threatening suicide or self harm.
• 32% were threatened with violence.

With such startling figures about UK trans domestic abuse being revealed by just two qualitative research bodies, it shows that domestic violence campaigners need to understand more about the dynamics of trans and non-binary relationships to help victims become survivors. What's more we need to conduct updated research to see whether the Equality Act has helped to increase the number of trans abuse victims and survivors speaking out about their experiences or whether the situation has remained depressingly static. Charities such as Gender Free DV can help to collate and deliver such information to show an accurate picture of trans/non-binary experience of DV and perhaps even extend to other underrepresented groups.

Exploring The Current Findings:

Gender Free DV have identified that trans people who are queer/non-binary are particularly at risk of gender invalidation because of  mainstream societal attitudes towards gender. Not knowing which support services you can turn to when you go are trying to escape an abusive relationship when you are non-binary only increases feelings of insecurity. All DV campaigners and providers should be aware of modern gender identity theory and act with respect, dignity and compassion when supporting trans, non-binary, queer and gender-fluid survivors.

Equally if a person hasn't yet transitioned in public and has only been able to express their chosen identity preference with their partner because they validated them, they may find it hard to talk about the abuse they are suffering because they don't want to lose this level of validation. Pre-transition abuse victims therefore may not talk to others about their transgender status and not attempt to seek any help and support outside the relationship.

It's certainly true that some people decide to date and be with trans people to "satisfy their curiosity". This may include seeing whether they can exercise a level of control over a trans partner to coerce them into performing sex acts for their own pleasure which is against a trans person's will- e.g. by penetrating their mouths to force them to provide oral sex relief or to place their mouths on a trans woman's penis (prior to transition) to enact oral sex. They may say that "they're doing a trans person a favour" by educating them on how to perform sexually in their new gender" or that "they're lucky anyone wants to have sex with them". This deliberate shaming tactic makes it less likely a trans person will speak out about being forced into unwanted sexual behaviour and rape.

Acts of domestic abuse can also stall a trans person's transition process; being bruised/full of cuts prior to meeting a GP for baseline tests may stop trans people from being referred to a Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) because the GP may suspect self-harm and an instable state of mind as opposed to evidence of domestic abuse by a partner. Equally victims reporting domestic abuse openly may lead to advisors/GPs/clinicians arguing they are not in the "right frame of mind" to continue transitioning until they have recovered from the abuse they suffered. Sometimes the worst thing that can be done to a trans person who has survived domestic violence is to tell them they cannot continue using the hormones/attending the GIC they attended whilst in the relationship. It may make them ask "what reporting the abuse was all for" if it prevents them trying to identify fully with their chosen gender or non-gender .

What is most important for trans victims of domestic violence to understand is that it is a genderless crime, even under the UK definition of DV:“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 and over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: – psychological – physical – sexual – financial – and emotional.” Coercive or controlling behaviour is now punishable as an offence (December 2015) which can be committed by anyone, regardless of gender or sexuality and carries a maximum sentence of 5 years if found guilty. Any victim who experiences serious psychological and emotional abuse which falls short of physical abuse can now bring a case against their partner for this offence. Trans, non-binary and queer domestic abuse victims should be made aware of this change in the law.

How the LGBTQIA can help reduce trans/non-binary/gender-fluid/queer DV:

LGBTQIA people need to understand that:

• "Outing" is a form of control- trans people may get threatened with being "outed" to their family/friends/colleagues/online before they are ready to reveal that they are changing their gender. The partner/ex partner may use the fact that the LGBTQIA community is relatively "close-knit" and propagate a sense of a lack of support for trans people outside the community to keep the trans person fearful of being "exposed".
• Same sex financial blackmailing, sexual or physical assault within the home is domestic violence and can be reported to local police in the same way as heterosexual domestic violence.
• It is essential to know how to respond if they believe a LGBTQIA friend is being abused by a partner and to try and spot warning signs of this- e.g. if their friend is eager to hide bruises/make excuses for cuts/emotional mood.
• Don't encourage trans domestic abuse victims to stay "longer" in an abusive relationship in the vain hope their partner's behaviour will change as they continue through their transition process. Support them to leave by offering them a place or stay, reporting the abuse to the police ASAP and getting them in touch with a local DV charity or Genderfree DV who would be more than happy to help. You can find out more about the charity and their work here: https://genderfreedv.wordpress.com/ and contact them via Twitter here https://twitter.com/genderfreeDV

Men can Menstruate: The Importance of Understanding the story behind the #IfMenHadPeriods hashtag

So a Twitter ruckus has been created, supposedly within the "left wing" diversity centric side of the social media platform. It's been said that a liberal feminist Dr Jennifer Gunter created the #IfMenHadPeriods hashtag to imagine what it'd be like for cisgender men if they had a period. Her tweet said "#IfMenHadPeriods pads would be free". Which is a fair comment within the context of the debate surrounding access to sanitary products in allowing them to be readily available to all women regardless of social class, nationality and geographical location. It is realistic to suggest that if all men went through periods, there would be government funded sanitary product programmes in place to provide them with the necessary relief from embarrassment. Since the Establishment remains mostly patriarchal, even in the West, it would still hold true that part of the reason why government subsidised tampons are opposed by men is because male taxpayers are affronted by the idea of paying for basic hygiene measures even if it might make their wives/girlfriends feel better.

After the initial tweet, mockery then ensued after there were calls for Dr Gunter's tweets to be promoted. Many feminists thought that pictures of men pissing up walls with blood and writing their name (rather stereotypical of masculine "laddish" behaviour) were fine to disseminate across Twitter. As a satirist I do find such images rather reflective of societal attitudes, at least for a portion of Western society where men do tend to piss in the street despite being told not to. Then it was that time in the tweeting cycle when notorious Conservative Alt-Righter Steven Crowther just had to get involved and blame feminists for "wanting free stuff" and that this was "embarrassing"- the usual garbage you get when there's a battle between left and right over women's bodies. What Mr Crowther doesn't understand is that menstruation does get stigmatised in many countries across the world, especially in Africa, where women can often have very little access to toilet facilities and running water, let alone sanitary products. WaterAid actually ran a series of vids entitled If Men Had Periods to highlight this very issue. They then ran a survey which found that 70% of woman believe menstruation would not be stigmatised if men went through the menstrual cycle. This is no laughing matter: it demonstrates just how misogynistic society remains when they discriminate on the basis of biological difference. I believe the UK government should fund sanitary products for all women but that they should definitely be free of tax. This should now happen thanks to an online petition campaign created by Laura Coryton a 22 year old activist in May 2014 called "Stop Taxing Tampons, Period" to end 5% VAT on tampons which gained over 320,000 signatures, and which despite being initially opposed by EU bureaucrats is likely to be scrapped because we are leaving the EU. Manjit K Gill, founder of menstrual dignity charity Binti International said that if the Tory Govt carries out their proposal to scrap the tax it will mean that "homeless women in the UK may no longer have to use socks, rag or newspaper" to soak up blood discharge. Even male MPs such as Labour's Paul Sherriff believe that the tax cut should be passed onto female consumers (which means seeing a reduction in tampon costs overall) and that if the tax cut isn't passed on, he would propose amendments to the Finance Bill to provide for a windfall tax for female consumers. A progressive measure proposed by a cisgender men! Who can believe it?? Yet none of the tweets on the #IfMenHadPeriods hashtag seem to refer to such discussion, which is a great shame!

I guess what Dr Gunter and Mr Crowther didn't expect to happen next was for trans activists to take so much offence at the hashtag. They were quick to point out the major flaw with this hashtag when you take it seriously: some men do have periods because trans men who are only at the start of their transition journey will continue to have periods. But let's go one step further: non-binary/queer/gender-fluid people have biological organs which mean they end up going through the menstruation cycle bleed too. And not every trans man is comfortable with the idea of going through hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery. So they will continue to have periods for the rest of their lives. Let's go even further: What about intersex people? What about cisgender women who can't have periods due to medical reasons? Does that make them any less of a woman? Not if they identify as a woman. Yet these people never get mentioned within the debate by trans and feminist tweeters. It seems to be an Either/Or binary that gets created: you have to be trans to be defended from attack and trans exclusory feminists (TERFs) can't help but be derisory towards trans people but only those who have gone through surgery! TERFs are ultra-critical of trans women, accusing them of being "panto dames" who mutilate themselves to create their own fantasy woman image by using their own body to do it. Essentially they fetishize trans women and make transition a mostly sexual based decision. However TERFs tend to be rather quiet when it comes to trans men and their need for sanitary products. Indeed I've seen several tweeters who have damned trans men for daring to change their gender and tell them if they're so bothered about their periods they can get sanitary products readily because they'll "automatically gain more money" due to their change in gender which very rarely happens till the person has at least produced a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and changed jobs anyways!

What is important for trans activists and intersectional feminists who happen to be trans to see is that the Alt Righters and Conservatives couldn't wait to get stuck in and use the hashtag as a way of delegitimising feminism and SJWs as well as discriminating against the trans male community as a whole, accusing them of "lying" because they refuse to adhere to an immutable dual gender binary and they go against "doctors" because of this. Most TERFs happen to be conservative minded so it's no surprise they are ready to back Alt-Righters to enforce bigotry and prejudice. Yet trans activists need to see the whole picture with regards to the hashtag; that it wasn't initially created to cause offense to the LGBTQIA community but to highlight awareness of sanitary product provisions. Alt-Righting TERFs expected trans activists to be immediately dismissive of this. They wanted to see that trans activists don't have a sense of humour. So the best trans activists can do is to try and shake off the criticism, highlight the follies that are brought out by such a hashtag and perhaps get people to realise the importance of seeing beyond the dual binary system. Some men do menstruate, they care about sanitary provisions being available for all women. TERFs have to accept their caring attitude and accept that even cisgender men like Paul Sherriff can care about women's issues. Then maybe we can all have a laugh at blood spurting up the wall satirical pictures. Maybe.

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.