"Pride, Not Prejudice": A Trans and Non-Binary Anthology For Our Time

Trans and non-binary people in the UK have become more visible over the past few years. Whilst we've always existed (look at the example of eunuchs as gender non-conformists), there's been an attempt to erase our identities out of history, mainly because we dare to challenge the traditional social norms governing gender identity. Most historians have been adherents to a rock solid socialised belief that "God made man and woman only" even though the actual Genesis 1:27 quote is that "God created mankind in his own Image, in the Image of God he created them; male and female he created them"...he never went on to define what masculinity or femininity entailed in the Garden of Eden because acts such as childbirth didn't happen until after the "Fall of Man" incident.....you know the one where Eve got blamed for wanting to find out more about the world from a seductive snake....still have no idea how that story can be proved! For the past thousand years or so most Christian (Catholic and Protestant) denominational interpretations of gender which see gender wedded indiscriminately to biological sex characteristics alone has dominated the socio-historical narrative. It's been preached in every pulpit across the country, along with the idea that adultery was a sin and love of money was "the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10) and yet wealthy male parishioners got away with indulging in adulterous affairs and became incredibly materialistic. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there were parishioners who innately felt they were a man rather than a woman or didn't believe they belonged to one gender or the other. Working class parishioners especially would have faced many barriers towards openly expressing their beliefs and because most weren't given the tools to write "in an academic manner" (because they didn't get access to the grammar school/public school education they needed to be able to attend university), their stories were very rarely recorded.

In fact, there are few biographies of historical gender non-conformists around. One of the most interesting historical figures that received contemporary attention was the enigmatic Chevalier D' Eon, a solider who fought in the Seven Years War and who spent time working as a spy for the French court, having successfully infiltrated the court of Empress Elizabeth of Russia dressed and presenting as a maid of honour. The Chevalier spent the last 33 years of their life presenting and identifying solely as a woman. D'Eon actually insisted at the time they were assigned female at birth, and were forced to dress as a man in order for their father to inherit money from their relations. King Louis XVI granted D'Eon their request to be recognised as a woman, on the condition that they wear women's clothing for the rest of their lives. There was no real fairytale ending for the Chevalier; they ended up impoverished and living in London following the French Revolution.

Very few students in state schools in the UK, let alone trans and non-binary ones know of D'Eon's fascinating story. I've always felt that the lack of trans and non-binary role models being taught about as part of the National Curriculum has meant that it's been difficult to encourage acceptance and empathy for gender non-conforming identities which would help to tackle instances of street harassment and transphobic hate crime. LGBTQIA+ inclusive Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) will help to introduce Key Stage 3 and 4 students to the basics of trans and non-binary identities (i.e. definitions), but exploring biographies and ideas that have originated from trans and non-binary people would help challenge the narrative that trans people are "a trend" or that non-binary people didn't exist until Judith Butler's Queer Theory came along. Judith Butler may have challenged traditional gender stereotyping head-on academically but the view that gender identity is something that can be changed or is fluid has existed far longer than Queer Theory has been taught in A-Level English Literature.

Here are a few examples of historical trans and non-binary people who could be discussed in schools:

• Elagabalus, a Roman Emperor who was known to be outrageously bohemian, having been married 5 times to both men and women. Elagabalus does seem to have been gender-fluid, as it was documented by contemporary historians that they wore women's cosmetics and dressed in the latest female fashions of the era. It's also recorded that Elagabalus offered a huge reward for any doctor who could give them female genitalia
• Albert Cashier, a trans man who served in the Union army during the American Civil War and took part in 40 battles; he was so dedicated to the Unionist cause that he overpowered a prison guard so he could return to his regiment
• Laurence Michael Dillon was the first trans man to undergo a phalloplasty and wrote the first book about transitioning and trans identity: "Self: A Study in Endocrinology and Ethics"in 1946. Dillon believed gender identity was innate and unaffected by conversion therapies or psychotherapy and concluded that hormone therapy and surgery was the best way to help trans people. Dillon took part in the first gender reassignment surgery (GRS) in the UK, an orchidectomy (removal of the testes) operating on Roberta Cowell, a trans woman.
• Roberta was a British fighter pilot during WWII who was taken prisoner by the Germans after crash landing in Bochtolt, Germany. She was kept in solitary confinement for weeks at an interrogation centre before being imprisoned at Stalag Luft I. She had a vaginaplasty on the 15th May 1951, after presenting as intersex to a private gynecologist following her secret orchidectomy. Her story was published in Picture Post and her biography was published soon afterwards, which brought her attention from international media, especially in the US. Cowell did continue stating she was intersex for the rest of her life and unfortunately spoke out derogatorily against trans people who had XY chromosomes in a 1972 interview with Michael Bateman of The Sunday Times, calling them "freaks".
• Alan L. Hart was one of the first Americans to undergo a hysterectomy in order to have GRS. Hart was an X-ray technology pioneer, having developed techniques for tuberculosis screening and his research helped to save thousands of lives.

It's important that trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer people know that there were people before them who dared to challenge the dual gender binary norms. That's why an Unbound anthology "Trans: A British History", was crowdfunded. Unbound, are an innovative publishing team that allows books of all types to be published with the help of Crowdfunding campaigns.  Over 113,658 people have supported an Unbound project and the company has published 218 books to date (https://unbound.com/about) including the groundbreaking and timely anthology of 21st century authentic voices from the British BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) community, edited by Nikesh Shukla, author of the 2010 Costa First Novel Award shortlisted "Coconut Unlimited". "Trans: A British History is being edited by  Christine Burns MBE who helped to build up the trans activist organisation "Press For Change" and took part in the process to create the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will be important to read. I actually suggested Philip Davies and Richard Littlejohn go and get themselves a copy of the anthology to help inform their understanding of the history of trans activism in the UK and read the words of trans activists who have fought hard to allow people like me to be protected from discrimination in the workplace (protected characteristic in the Equality Act).

However, it's imperative that we challenge the assumption made by those on the right who adhere to conservative doctrines on gender identity that trans and non-binary people think, believe or act in the same way. Trans people do not all believe that SRE should be LGBTQIA+ inclusive (unfortunately) and there are activists who believe that trans people are judged too much on how "alike" they look to "normal" cis men and women and are accepted the more "aesthetically pleasing" they appear. Representation in the mainstream media has been rather tokenistic, with trans people being required to offer their view "as a trans person" on controversial topics in a debate structure that's designed to look for stark differences in opinion than focusing on similarities. Destructive rather than constructive. Trans and non-binary people aren't always prepared to just sit there and wait to be cordially invited onto another diversity panel where they can give their opinion to those who may already be allies. Wouldn't it be nice for a trans person to present a BBC politics or debate programme or a non-binary person to win a prize for their photography or painting or play based on the merit of their work, not just because they'd be the "first" to do it? Wouldn't it be nice for a trans non-binary person to be to contribute their view on any topic, regardless of their own gender identity?

You might think therefore that it would be counterproductive to be excited at being asked to contribute an essay to a new Unbound anthology project that features trans and non-binary voices. However the anthology is extremely ambitious and aims to explore the intersectional issues that affect trans and non-binary and cis peoples' lives in the UK. The anthology will contain essays covering a wide range of issues that affect trans and non-binary people, from the nature of passing (and the unnecessary amount of gatekeeping that takes place based on superficial aesthetic definitions), trans feminism and feminism within the trans community (whether trans people can really take their place advocating for gender equality within an inclusive, intersectional feminist movement and why it's important to allow non-binary people their space to advocate freely too) and the relationship between gender identity and religious faith (the challenge of being a believer and defying denominational interpretations of gender and why religious texts help in this respect). The essays will also touch on issues that are debated by the population at large from a trans and non-binary standpoint, including mental health, education, disability, socialisation/class and representation in the mainstream media. Because you know trans and non-binary people like me talk about a lot more in their daily lives than just their gender identity or sexuality. We have multiple interests and multiple types and levels of expertise which should hopefully be laid bare in this comprehensive, challenging set of essays. Plus, there's also going to be an essay which shall be exploring the "origin of trans identities in Victorian London" which I must personally say I'm looking forward to reading. So yes, you can probably tell that I am excited as trans non-binary satirist to be contributing to the anthology!

"Pride, Not Prejudice" will be edited by Helen Belcher, current Lib Dem Parliamentary Party Candidate for Chippenham, businesswoman and author who has been "recognised by the Independent on Sunday as one of the most influential British LGBT people three years in a row"(.https://unbound.com/books/pride-not-prejudice).  Helen is also co-founder and co-director of Trans Media Watch, which campaigns for a change in mainstream press attitudes towards trans, non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people. 

"Pride, Not Prejudice", will contain essays from 21 trans and non-binary people from across the UK who come from all walks of life. Some contributors you'll have heard of before whilst others are writing professionally and/or being published for the very first time.
Contributors include:

• awesome Maria Munir who has the envious brag that they came out first to President Barack O B A M A who has written for the Huffington Post (equally enviable)
• superb writer, (I adored the 2015 "Tiny Pieces of Skull") writer, critic and founding member of Feminists Against Censorship, Roz Kaveney who appeared in a 1988 After Dark episode featuring radical feminist Andrea Dworkin
• talented photographer J Jackson (see their non-binary photo project on Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/nonbinaryportraits/) 
• author of the powerful and incredible moving "Trans: A Memoir", Juliet Jacques who began chronicling her transition on her blog in 2010
• roving reporter and all round funkster Sarah O'Connell, who has produced a YouTube show introducing novices to trans issues: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHjm1cByr7oYs15Z9dOzWcA
• passionate writer, founder of https://aetherandichor.wordpress.com/ a publisher of short fantasy stories and future critic to watch out for Eris Young (you can access Eris's blog here: https://apiomancy.wordpress.com/)
• the phenomenal Surat-Shaan Knan who founded and manages Rainbow Jews, Twilight People (a project exploring faith and gender beyond the dual binary distinction) and Rainbow Pilgrims (a project that aims to uncover the "hidden history" of LGBTI migrants of faith who settled in the UK, from the Jewish Kindergarten Transport (1938-1940) to the present Syrian refugee crisis)
• trans role model and IT engineer Justine Smithies who attended Jeremy Corbyn's (and one of my fav MPs, Shadow Secretary for Equalities Sarah Champion's) LGBT History Month reception: http://justine.smithies.me.uk/
• diversity guru for Sainsbury's and fellow dyslexic Leng Montgomery 
• amazing musician and campaigner Kate Hutchinson, currently director of Wipe Out Transphobia, co-founder of TELI and working with Pathways Training  (you can access her insightful blog here: http://katiekhaos.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1) 
• then of course there's someone like me....a working class, dyspraxic, non-denominational blogger just grateful to be in such esteemed company!

The trans and non-binary voices you'll be reading will be authentic and from the heart. They will be explaining how they see 21st century British society and how 21st century British society perceives and evaluates them as individuals and as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. The words that you'll read may make you uncomfortable at times but only because those words may be exposing examples of blatant hypocrisy that exists at every level of British society when it comes to discussing gender, especially the eagerness of some who claim to be critical of gender stereotyping to resort to trans-misogyny and cissexism to justify their separation arguments. There's no doubt there will be essays critiquing viewpoints such as "trans people are seeking to erase homosexuality" or "trans women are wanting to invade the ladies loos" or "non-binary people are a threat to the traditional family unit" or as the current supposedly "diversity friendly" Catholic Pope Francis puts it, trans and non-binary people like me are declaring "global war on marriage". These viewpoints do need to be questioned and stereotypes need to be broken down, not reinforced.

At the same time, I hope the essays will explore the similarities in views between those critical of gender (not just radical feminists) and trans and non-binary people who want to be seen authentically as themselves and be valued for who they are. Challenging outdated gender stereotypes and roles should be a common goal. Do gender critical radical feminists like Germaine Greer really think trans people transition so they adopt the role of homemaker or want to be subservient as part of some weird "fetish" that some far-right Conservative men would love to see come back into the mainstream? Because that's something I've never heard uttered by trans friends! Why do we want to live in a world where we're all het up about insisting on men wearing suits to work and women having to wear high heeled shoes to stand at reception just to "make a good impression to clients?" Surely it's better to question those gender norm policies and change mindsets, so we get to the point where we don't batter an eyelid when even a cisgender  guy comes into work wearing a dress!!

When I engage with people I don't particularly care what make-up they are wearing or what shoes they have on their feet. I care about their ideas, their opinions and views and also about empowering people whose voices are rarely heard to share them with the world. I want to hear their views on how to make HR policies fairer to trans and non-binary employees or to help disabled people who are losing access to benefits that they need to maintain a dignified and healthy life. I care about listening to people who have ideas about how to engage our young people in the political system or folks who just want to extend the hand of compassion to Syrian refugees fleeing the horrendous conflict between dictator President Assad, rebel forces and ISIS. Trans and non-binary people across the UK have such ideas yet they hardly get the chance to discuss them. Instead, the mainstream media outlets want to rehash discussions that stagnate, salivating over which trans women will deny they are real women and which non-binary people will be shouted at by those who engage in hate discourse rather than offering constructive criticism. I can't believe we're still at the stage where we are debating the very existence of trans and non-binary identities. Could you imagine constant mainstream debating of homosexual identity on a weekly basis in 2017 in the UK? It's bad enough watching the disturbing events unfolding in Chechyna, where a radical Muslim authoritarian President has publicly declared he's going to massacre innocent people before Ramadan on the basis of their sexuality.

Trans and non-binary activists, politicians, journalists, painters, architects, musicians, lawyers, healthcare professionals, aid workers, teachers and yes, even satirists are using their platforms to debate, discuss and critique issues that affect all of us in 21st century UK albeit with their unique perspective gained through individual life experiences . The "Pride, Not Prejudice" anthology will offer a valuable, vital window into such debate, discussion and critique. For that reason alone I believe that it deserves to be published. So if you want to help get it printed, published, promoted and disseminated and if you want your own copy, you can pledge your donation on the Unbound website here:
https://unbound.com/books/pride-not-prejudice. Every pledge counts and will be appreciated!

(Thanks to Eris for designing this!!!) 

Why #ImWithHer (Hillary Clinton) Part 2: Hillary Has Decent Policies (But Some Require A Little Tweaking)

I've already dealt with my feelings regarding Donald Trump in my previous blogpost which was important to do for my sanity and to show my readers just how much I detest Trump's deliberate attempt to re-embed misogyny into the moral fabric of American (and international society). If you haven't seen that blogpost, you can view it here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/why-imwithher-hillary-clinton-part-1-im.html

However I believe that Hillary supporters often spend YUGE amounts of time picking out Don the Con's faults without selling why we back Hillary so emphatically and without much regret. I'm a fan of Hillary's policies ideas so wanted to share and comment on some of the best here. Some critics might think that these policy areas "don't matter", that a presidential candidate can't focus on trying to help HIV/AIDS patients by implementing a National Strategy whilst at the same time defending the US from ISIS attacks or you can't help tackle LGBTQIA bullying in the education system by creating a $500 million plan whilst addressing economic inequalities in coal mining communities in Michigan or Ohio by encouraging retraining of the workforce and modernisation of the mines themselves. You don't have to choose between the two if you have a solid plan to tackle both issues unless you believe that you don't have the intellectual stamina or grit determination to address both of them simultaneously.

Here I outline a few of Hillary's policies to show you just how in-depth, progressive and thoughtful they really are (despite the fact they seem to receive little attention from the mainstream media (MSM) outlets these days). These are the policies that I would care about if I was able to vote in Colorado; yes they are mainly social in nature but I tend to vote for a party based on their social positions. Many Millennials on the left are more likely to vote based on preserving progressive values rather than vote based on fear of the "Other".

Hillary's LGBTQIA Policies:

1. Establish the Equality Act by amending the Civil Rights Act (1964) adding gender identity and sexual orientation as protected characteristics to ensure LGBTQIA people have explicit protection from discrimination "in all facets of American life", including housing, education and jury service.
2. Hillary will honour all of President Obama's LGBTQIA Executive Actions, including nondiscrimination protections for federal employees and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in federal housing programmes.
3. Support efforts in Congress and in the states to end "conversion therapy" for LGBTQIA children.
4. Pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexuality.
5. Pass the Student Non-Discrimination Act to prevent public schools from discriminating against LGBTQIA pupils. This includes the Better Than Bullying Plan announced by Hillary on the 4th November 2016 which promises to provide $500 million to tackle bullying against children based on "labelling" and will ensure all states abide by their anti-bullying laws.  
6. Provide adequate funding for shelters that help LGBTQIA homeless youth. When 45% of the youth homeless population identifies as LGBT, they need and deserve help and support to turn their lives around.
7. End discriminatory treatment against LGBTQIA couples wanting to adopt by passing the Every Child Deserves A Family Act which will prevent child welfare organisations from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexuality.
8. Allow transgender military personnel to continue serving openly and treated with dignity and respect (there are 15,500 actively serving trans people in the military making the Dept. for Defence the biggest employer of trans people in the US).
9. Amend records of LGBTQIA vets dismissed due to their sexual orientation or gender.
10. Invest in police training to ensure transgender people are treated with respect in a fair and impartial manner.
11. Make it easier to change gender markers on official documentation.
12. Promote LGBTQIA rights around the world and increase support for the Global Equality Fund, that Hillary launched in 2011 by increasing funding by $50 million.
13. Create a National HIV/AIDS Strategy- see below:

Hillary's National HIV/AIDS Strategy:
There are currently 1.2 million people living with HIV in the US and 50,000 people get diagnosed with HIV annually. Hillary understands that HIV is not only contracted by gay men or people of colour but by women and children too. Hillary wants to work towards creating an AIDS-free generation and has created a Strategy in order to make this happen. Trump has not announced such a comprehensive strategy nor has he shown any particular concern for HIV/AIDS patients during his Presidential campaign. Here's what Hillary wants to do in a nutshell:

• Invest in research conducted by organisations such as the NIH (National Institute for Health) to enable them to carry on trying to find a cure for HIV without worrying about funding shortfalls.
• Cap monthly and annual out-of-pocket expenses for HIV/AIDS patients to $250 and ensure Medicare is empowered to bargain for lower drug prices from pharmaceutical companies. Hillary will also end drug subsidies that pharmaceuticals get for direct-to-consumer advertising and use the subsidies to invest in research instead.
• Raise knowledge about PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) medication to increase uptake especially amongst those populations at greatest risk of infection - transgender people and black men who have sex with men. Hillary will ensure that everyone who needs HIV medication will have access to it.
• Extend Medicaid coverage- 70,000 people with HIV were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act but now 47,000 should be eligible to receive new Medicaid. Hillary wants to make sure every state expands Medicaid and she'll fight tooth and nail to make this happen.
• Reform HIV Criminalisation Laws (attempting to repeal/abolish if possible) by working with advocates, HIV and AIDS organisations, Congress and the Senate.
• Hillary will enforce the Disability Act to fight discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS.
• Increase global funding for HIV and AIDS treatment and prevention (showing how compassionate a President Hillary would really be!)

Hillary's Autism Strategy:
Hillary is currently the only candidate to offer a comprehensive strategy to help improve the lives of autistic children and adults in the US, who have often felt undervalued and ignored in government decision making in the past. More than 3.5 million people in the US are believed to have autism and improving support will help to transform their lives. Hillary wants to extend the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act that she introduced when a New York Senator and which gained bipartisan support, demonstrating that she can inspire her political opponents to believe in improving equal rights for those living with autism and other disabilities, something Trump has failed to prove during his Presidential campaign.

1. Expand insurance cover for autism services so autistic people don't have to worry about being able to access services - whether through private insurance or government healthcare plans.
2. Work with the Department for Defence to ensure military families have full access to autism services through the TRICARE system.
3. Conduct an early national screening outreach campaign so autistic children can receive the help they need education and social wise to improve work and life chances.
4. Invest in autism research and conduct the first-ever nationwide survey of autistic adults (long overdue!)
5. Launch a new Autism Works Initiative which will guarantee a post-graduate transition plan for every student with autism.
6. Enact the Keeping All Students Safe Act banning all physical and chemical restraints that could endanger a pupil's life and restrict physical restraint to protecting the student from endangering other students with schools required to write to parents to explain why they used the restraint.

Hillary's Environmental Policies:

1. Remain fully committed to honouring the Paris Climate Change Agreement (that's gone into effect on 4th November 2016) by reducing green house gas emissions by up to 30% and put the US on track to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.
2. Install half a billion solar panels in US homes by the end of Hillary's first term (with a desire to allow every home in the US to become Clean-Energy powered).
3. Reduce oil consumption by 1/3.
4. Ban oil drilling in the Arctic.
5. Launch the $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge - partnering with states, cities and rural communities to cut carbon pollution for all, including low-income families to ensure nobody is left behind by the energy revolution.
6. Eliminate lead poisoning within 5 years and clean up more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites.
7. Create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force thereby fostering a sense of "collaborative stewardship" and an emphasis on our "collective responsibility" to help combat Climate Change and protect the Environment.
8. Create an Energy Plan that would pay $9 billion annually to help fund pensions and health of coal workers and cut carbon emissions.
9. Block attempts to resurrect construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (unlike Trump who wants to finish it).

Note on Hillary's Environment Policies:
Green supporters have criticised Hillary for not speaking out against the proposed North Dakota Access Pipeline which will cross Native American (Sioux) lands at Standing Rock after the pipeline plans were redirected from Bismarck (which happens to have a population that is 90% White). Native American protestors see the pipeline as encroaching on their land, making them feel inferior to other Americans. For them it is more than a protest about water or generic "climate change" conversations. It is important to note that the pipeline would cost $3.7 billion if completed and cover 1,170 miles of land (according to American Friends Service Committee: https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/what-we%E2%80%99re-reading-nodapl-occupation-standing-rock).  I can see from other policies from Hillary that she would be sympathetic to blocking construction of the pipeline and President Obama has responded to requests from Senator Bernie Sanders to ask the construction companies to reconsider their plans to take into account environmental impact, but the lack of vocally speaking out in favour of the #NODAPL protestors and condemning recent violence shown to them by local police forces is slightly disappointing. I can only say that Hillary would be more receptive to discussions about DAPL than Trump, who hasn't shown much regard for Native American issues or Environmental issues during his campaign.

Hillary's Economic Policies:

1. Keep tax rates the same for most tax payers but add an additional bracket (the 4% "fair share surcharge") for those earning over $5 million to pay for programmes such as free college education for low and middle-income earners. This College Affordability Plan would spend $35 billion a year to refinance student debt and pay states to guarantee free tuition.
2. Hillary would create a 30% tax rate for those earning $1 million a year.
3. Hillary will raise the short term capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning $400,000 or more a year (only 0.5% of taxpayers).
4. Create a National Infrastructure Plan allocating $27.5 billion annually to improve US roads, bridges, public transportation, rail,  airports, water systems and Internet provision in rural areas.
5. Raise the National Minimum Wage to $15 an hour.
6. Limit the number of deductions taxpayers can claim at 28%.
7. Oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after much consideration over its validity and having discussed its popularity with fellow Dems including Bernie Sanders.
8. Extend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act so that a risk fee is levied on banks with more than $50 billion in assets, high debt to asset ratios or have a reliance on short term funding.
9. End corporate inversion so US companies cannot move their headquarters abroad to avoid paying US taxes. Propose an "exit tax" if they attempt to move abroad and pay American taxes on any deferred foreign earnings. These taxes could raise $80 billion a year!
10. Eliminate the carried interest tax.

Hillary's Foreign Policies and National Security Policies:

1. Increase co-operation with China whilst ensuring the US takes a stronger stance against China's human rights record.
2. Abide by the multinational nuclear deal (most focus on Iran) but reimpose sanctions if necessary.
3. Establish a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, conducting air strikes against ISIS and arming Kurdish and Sunni Arab fighters to defeat ISIS.
4. Prohibit the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding on terrorists as they are unhelpful and inhumane- Trump wants to approve them.
5. Maintain current restrictions on National Security Agency surveillance (as defined under the USA Freedom Act) - Trump wants to reinstate the bulk surveillance program.
6. Increase sanctions against North Korea and ensure allies such as Japan and South Korea feel supported and protected.
7. Increase sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and ensure Baltic States are protected as per NATO agreements.

My view of Hillary's Foreign Policy:

I can understand the argument advanced by some progressives that Hillary isn't the "perfect candidate", especially when it comes to her foreign policies. The No-Fly zone in Syria and the re-commitment to fighting ISIS shows that she is hawkish but after years of fighting wars in the Middle East, Americans and Brits want to go through a period of peace. It is incorrect to assume Trump is any less of a hawk than Hillary though; his rhetoric on Syria, whilst it has been all over the place at times, seems to now indicate a desire to increase the Armed Forces (for example, increasing the number of Army soldiers from 490,000 to 540,000) to "defeat ISIS". If you're a fan of reducing military engagement and fostering peace (with all countries, not just Russia) it's probably not a good idea to vote for Trump. In fact I believe there's a strong chance Trump could provoke tensions if he is elected, especially in the Middle East.

What is great to see from Hillary in terms of her National Security and Foreign Policies is that she wants to close Guantanamo Bay and to prohibit the use of waterboarding techniques to torture terror suspects. As I wrote in my last blogpost on Trump, it is better to treat opponents with compassion rather than take away their humanity, even if they are accused of committing atrocities. The fact that Hillary is willing to challenge China on it's human rights record shows that Hillary cares about how others are treated.

Conclusion:
From having identified and examined a range of Hillary's policies, I can see that she is a woman who has truly thought about how to make America more diversity friendly and more environmentally friendly whilst at the same time not being afraid to make difficult decisions regarding foreign policy. I may not agree with every policy on her platform and I certainly have frowned a bit at her reluctance to engage openly on issues that Bernie Sanders cares about deeply-for example I can see from her platform that Hillary wants to bring pharmaceutical companies to heel to ensure they don't profit from HIV/AIDS patients or Autistic individuals who rely on lifelong medication but she hasn't talked about it in any great depth; Bernie has  made fighting pharmaceutical companies a major part of his own platform and he has gained many supporters as a result. However, one reason why I have come to respect Hillary over the past year is that she has been able to adapt her policy platform to make it more progressive: Bernie always made a point of stating in his rally speeches that the US should have a $15 an hour national minimum wage. Hillary saw how popular support for this policy was with Democrats and Independents and so has now made it central to her Economic Policy and she now mentions this during her rally speeches. I think it's amazing that Bernie had such a positive effect so as to convince Hillary that a Minimum Wage is essential to help improve the lives of ordinary working class and middle class Americans who may be working up to 50-60 hours a week to try and save enough money to buy a house or to attend college. Trump didn't seem to favour this important Bernie policy despite wanting to "appeal" to Bernie supporters but we all know whose side he is really on...his own and that of his wealthy Republican friends.

If you like the policies you have seen on my blogpost and are yet to vote in the US Election and aren't quite sure who to vote for, ask yourself this question: Do you want a President that cares about domestic social issues just as much as economic or foreign policy ones? If you think a President should espouse progressive values and be prepared to act on them and already has plans to be able to do this, then you must choose Hillary this Tuesday 8th November. If you believe in division rather than union or protecting the rights of those at the top without having a care for those who may be disabled or those facing abuse because of their gender identity or sexuality or duping those working class young adults labouring in entry-level jobs in catering or hospitality to earn enough money to be able to go to college to fulfill their dreams, vote Trump. The choice really couldn't be any clearer.

Is the term "Cisgender" now a super slur weapon for the Trans community?

Ot-Oh Wot-Oh! There's a super slur doing its rounds in the trans community. This time it doesn't seem to be aimed at trans people! Phew what a relief. Yet what turns out to be deemed a new "slur" is only really the semantic shifting by some right wing academics of a term that's been used by transfeminist and queer academics for decades. I always thought "cisgender" just meant someone who identifies with the gender which fits their biological organ status; i.e. a man who was born with a penis/testicles who self-identifies as a man is a cisgender man. Thus a rather posh way of saying "non-trans". It's strange to see that "cisgender" and "cissexism" are terms which are now easily deemed worthy of alienation, to be thrown in that super mega full trash can of antiquated terminology that litters old editions of OEDs that reside on dust filled bookshelves the world over. What IS so controversial about calling someone "cis"? Does it play into a deliberate alienation narrative being "perpetrated" by some in the transfeminist discourse community? Are some trans people denying others the "happiness" gained through gender assimilation? Or is this just
another pointless semantic battle that has the intention of undermining genuine discussions about the differences between non-binary trans and other trans people masquerading as a form of gender binary assimilation fetish being egged on by non-trans critics?

Arguments against using the term cisgender:

• What happens if a man is born without fully functioning sexual organs -e.g. a eunuch still self-identifies as a "macho man"? Should he still be termed cisgender by transfeminists? 
• Cisgender isn't used in everyday speech and not many "ordinary people" would understand it outside of academic discourse. "Non trans" sounds more colloquial and what "real people" use.
• Cisgender wasn't a term created by non-trans people to describe themselves. The label is being "forced" upon them by transfeminists and queer theorists. It's not fair.
• Cisgender "sounds" offensive; trans activists only use the term when they want to denigrate/berate those who they consider to be bigoted/prejudiced.
• Twitter Trolls who are trans use the term "cis" to be nasty towards hetero people.

Arguments for using the term cisgender:

• Cisgender is a neutral term; it's etymology matches that of transgender: "cis" in Latin means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side".
• Who is to determine which words are "real" and which are "fictional"? If critics are using the word with the meaning they ascribe to it, which seems to be an agreed meaning, it must logically be a "real word", even if its usage is selective!
• Straight people never collectively agreed on whether they wanted to be called "heterosexual" or not; most never bother using the term except when answering official surveys so why suggest all non-trans people should have to agree on the "cisgender term".
• To some transgender "sounds" offensive because it doesn't describe their gender identity in its entirety. Sometimes labels can only draw attention to differing identities; cisgender is not considered either to be a panacea or a demonising label.
• Social media is a smouldering cauldron of different views, of which trans slurring cis people is a component. Yes some trans people are trolls. Some get provoked whereas others do it for the sheer hellraising. We should all condemn the use of the term "cis" to be negative but don't blame everyone using the term for the mistakes caused by a few miscreants.

Conclusion:
There will always be activists, academics and "ordinary people" who find certain terminology that is used by others (especially detractors) to describe them as ineffective, inappropriate or slanderous. I can understand a man who has a vested interest in maintaining a false dual gender-binary because of his "macho" identity can feel he is being wrongly defined. To him, he is a "man", plain and simple.
However, to say that calling this man "cisgender" should be regarded in the same vein of slander as outwardly calling a trans person a "pussy" or "she-male" is to slightly blow the semantic debate out of proportion. Those on the alt-right, defenders of the "gender binary" as immutable claim there is an imbalance when it comes to classification of terminology as obsolete or useful. They ask why "tranny" or "transsexual" is getting replaced by "transgender" when it defines trans people "well enough" whilst bitching about an opposing label used to separate them. They also question why using the term "cisgender" cannot be interpreted as a hate incident on the same level as "tranny". Is it part of our free speech policy to allow such terms to be banded about without being challenged- i.e. why are "she-male" and "tranny" considered elements of verbal abuse that can be reported as a hate crime when "cisgender" isn't? Despite this line of thought, I've rarely heard many non-trans people be offended by the "cisgender" term because it isn't in everyday discourse. The level of harm caused by uttering "tranny" on the street as opposed to "cisgender" is incalculable because of its frequency of usage in daily discourse. Some trans people here "tranny" every day in their working class neighbourhoods full of misunderstanding about gender identity. Perhaps it is better to focus on eradicating semantic prejudices that actually affect people emotionally than spending time on trying to dismiss a perfectly acceptable term grounded in academic integrity!