Perplexing Peeing: A response to India Willoughby's Article

I don't tend to talk a lot about bathrooms. In fact, when I'm out attending job interviews or meeting friends in restaurants I try to avoid using the bathroom at all costs. I've always had a complex concerning the cleanliness of public toilets and if the cubicle doesn't have a lock on it, I can't settle down to pee anyways. I'll add an interesting (probably baffling to some) additional personal point: I've never used a urinal. I've never peed standing up. Apparently my Mum couldn't find a way to encourage me to try when I was being potty trained and in the end it was thought best to let me have my own way and just explain to friends and teachers that it was "easier mechanically" for me to pee sitting down. As a teenager and young adult I had no desire to change this element of my personal regime so it's pretty much habitual. You can laugh but still, it's nobody's business but my own!

I've felt safer peeing in a locked cubicle, preferably with nobody else using the bathroom facility at the time. When I worked in an Accounts Office, I used to go to the loo whenever the office was near empty at lunchtime, even though I had permission to use the disabled or ladies toilet from my coworkers and HR. I imagine there are rather a few folks like me, regardless of their gender identity who feel the same. As long as the toilet locks and is clean, I've used it but just as little as possible.

I've never had a specific issue with gender neutral toilets with lockable doors because university toilets in my accommodation block for the first two years of my degree were gender neutral, as were the showers.  At home my parents, younger brother and I use the same loo and bath anyways. Even my local dentist surgery has adopted a gender neutral bathroom, with no complaints having been made on their very transparent customer service board. Sometimes I wonder what the fuss is all about.

Anyways, Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) came around this year and I was excited to see how trans voices would be disseminated across Twitter; after all TDOV is designed to help  to highlight the dazzling variety of voices within the trans community. Yes, we had gender critical radical feminists tweeting their pieces about trans being a "trend" that we've reached the peak of and there were those who accused trans activists of encouraging children to transition (hence the "Don't Trans Kids" hashtag) etc etc but most tweets were from positive, confident trans people who just wanted to raise awareness of their own stories and lift the voices of others. Even the Women and Equalities Committee got in with the action, helping to draw attention to aspects of their Trans Inquiry report, which recommends for example that equality legislation should have protected characteristics based on "Gender Identity" and looking at non-gendering (aka non-binary) passports. Amazing.

Then I came across Pink News' contribution to TDOV. When I clicked on the page, I thought...wow they've managed to get an amazing trans activist to talk about their experience of overcoming personal and professional boundaries. Enter India Willoughby with her "Only Transitioning women should enter ladies' bathrooms" article. It's certainly stimulated some heated discussions, not least a number of commentators trying to unpick Willoughby's definition of "real trans women". I must say that I found Willoughby's comments intriguing but not particularly surprising, given her previous form; I remember the R4 Women's Hour when she was interviewed by Dame Jenny Murray when she suggested that she agreed with the Dorchester Hotel's uniform policy which advised that women should "shave their legs" and "put on make up" when covering reception. Now, as I've said before, I'm OK with companies enforcing dress codes when there is a valid health and safety need; if you're working as a hotel cleaner it's probably not a good idea to wear high heeled shoes because of the potential of tripping over hazards...e.g. electrical cables. However, the Dorchester's requirements did not fall under that category. Does every woman really have to make sure they wear make-up and have a manicure before they come to work on reception? I don't wear make-up during the day and have no intention of starting, so I wouldn't be able to work at the Dorchester reception even though I may be wearing a smart blouse and trousers. Willoughby stated that hairy legs on a woman was "dirty" but on a man "wasn't dirty" yet she of all people must know that pre-op trans women who are yet to take hormones may not shave their legs and even if they did, shaving your legs alone doesn't make you any more of a "real woman". Some feminists choose not to shave their legs or armpits in protest against a stereotypical view of femininity. Yet in her response to Murray's article, Willoughby categorically stated that the rule that had been discussed "applied to men and women" and that she had been portrayed as someone who believed that "all women should have perfectly shaved legs at all times" which was "fake news". The problem is that Willoughby didn't clarify whether the dress code itself should be challenged and reviewed, even in terms of its language whereas I think it should have been. Gendered dress codes can be openly criticised by trans activists if they choose to enter the debate.

Given these comments, I did think Willoughby truly believes that trans people can only exist within a gender binary and have to follow certain stereotypical rules to be seen as their true selves by society. When it comes to the bathroom facilities issue, I wasn't surprised to see her talking about protecting trans women from being discriminated against in terms of accessing facilities that correspond with their gender.

Claiming Trans Rights:

Willoughby believes that "it's all too easy for someone to claim trans rights who isn't trans". This seems to me to suggest that Willoughby believes our understanding of trans rights should be purely restricted to a gender binary perspective; you acquire rights when you choose to medically transition and you don't get any access to protections under the law if you don't choose to medically transition.

One immediate issue with this line of thought is that Willoughby hasn't stated exactly when someone should acquire trans legal protections. We're talking not just which bathroom a trans person can legally use here but whether a trans person can be allowed adopt a particular style of office attire which corresponds to their gender identity or whether a trans person can bring a claim of discrimination against an employer according to the current protected characteristic under the Equality Act, that of Gender Reassignment Surgery (which really should be Gender Identity).

So when does Willoughby believe a trans person should acquire legal protection? Does it happen when they first define as trans? Does it happen when they have their baseline tests and initial discussions with the GP? Does it happen when they come out openly to family members or friends? Does it happen when they first attend a Gender Identity Clinic and go through assessments? Does it happen when they start their "Lived in Experience" period? Does it happen when they disclose their intention to transition to their employer/job centre advisor? Does it happen when they start taking cross-sex hormones? Does it happen when they're about to go through Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS)? Or do they only acquire protection when they get your Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) from their GP and legally change their gender status (trans people acquire the full rights of their gender anyways on the presentation of the GRC!!) Interestingly, getting access to a GRC doesn't require you to have undergone GRS to be awarded but the trans person must be diagnosed with "persistent gender dysphoria" and convince a panel that they intend to live in their acquired gender for the rest of their lives.

For me, acquisition of rights for me should start at the moment you state your wish to transition to your GP and start living in the "acquired gender". That means for at least 2 years (or more with current GIC waiting times), trans women and men should be protected fully under the Equality Act even before they go through or decide to go through GRS. That's with me being forced to think about the process within the narrow confines of a gender dual binary, which I don't accept anyways. Does Willoughby believe that those waiting to be seen in a GIC or waiting for cross hormone therapy should stay in the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex?
As Karen Pollock indicates in her fantastic article for The Queerness,  "The UK does not need a cut-price Caitlyn Jenner"(https://thequeerness.com/2017/04/01/the-uk-does-not-need-a-cut-price-caitlin-jenner/), even if a GRC card could be produced for trans binary people to waive about to gain access to the ladies' toilets, "some will still complain" and management may feel obliged to deny even a post GRS trans woman access. Trans people may have protections under the Equality Act but those protections may be difficult to enforce; would a trans person be prepared to take a landlord to court over denial of access and do they have sufficient funds to cover the court costs?

What about non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer & trans non-binary people?

It's all well and good for those trans men and women who are able to medically transition (if they have no medical problems which prohibit them from transitioning) to be able to use the bathroom associated with their acquired gender. Yet in the 21st century, gender identity has been revealed as being fluid. If you identify as non-binary, gender-fluid, gender-queer  (and haven't transitioned beforehand), which bathroom are you meant to use or should be allowed to use? If you're a non-binary DVA survivor who has suffered at the hands of a female perpetrator, you may find it difficult to use a ladies' bathroom. The number of DVA non-binary survivors may appear small on paper but they are deserving of thought in any discussion around bathroom facilities. We have to be very careful not to accidentally or deliberately erase non-binary and gender-fluid people from discussions on gender identity, no matter how trivial those discussions may appear to some.

Willoughby probably doesn't 100% agree with the concept of non-binary or gender-fluid identities. That's fine. I find it difficult to pathologise my trans status but Willoughby sees trans people as having a medical condition that necessarily needs "fixing" so as to help them live their lives in a happy way and without that diagnosis of gender dysphoria, trans binary people would find it difficult to argue for additional legal protections (although they already have more than non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer folks). Willoughby may feel that her identity as a woman is being threatened by the existence of those who do not wish to be tick-boxed into a binary norm. I prefer to let people self-define their gender identity without necessarily fearing that they are using this self-definition to hurt others. This just goes to show that trans people do have differing opinions, ethically and legally, some of which may never change. As is the case perhaps with mine and Willoughby's views about crossdressers.

Crossdressers and Transvestites:

Willoughby mentions crossdressers (male only though despite the term referring to both genders...binary again) as those who "put on a dress when they feel like it" or who "express their girly side for (an) hour and half". There are crossdressers who self-define as crossdressers and are proud of their identity. Most crossdressers are perfectly fine with using male bathrooms anyways, the same is the case with drag queens. Even drag Kings may use men's' or women's bathrooms without much fuss being caused. However, I do recognise that there could be trans women who could be perceived as crossdressers and thus be locked out of discussion based on that perception alone, even if they dress as women most, if not all of the time. Equally there are non-binary people who have male birth sex characteristics who may be perceived incorrectly as male crossdressers and who don't want to use the male or female bathroom.

Willoughby argues that crossdressers have to stay out the ladies "for their own safety and that of trans women". I fail to see how a crossdresser who might end up using the cubicle next to me would be automatically endangering my own safety. I've been in a dangerous situation before, having been orally raped on the street at night walking back from a nightclub in York alone by a cis man and even I recognise that most cis men are not a threat to my safety so don't tell me that I should be automatically afraid of a crossdresser who could turn out to be gay anyways!

I read a fantastic response to Willoughby's article from Sarah Savage, (who has written an amazing book for children with trans non-binary activist Fox Fisher entitled "Are you a boy or are you a girl?"). In "India Willoughby, transvestites deserve protection too" (http://sarah-savage.com/india-willoughby-transvestites-deserve-protection-too/), Savage talks about her experience as a transvestite, being "on a building site during the day and in the evenings, pulled out a charity shop frock to relax" and that when out partying in women's clothing, she was presented with a bathroom dilemma: use a men's lavatory with "drunk men at the urinals....(who) didn't care whether (she) was a transvestite or transsexual from outer space" or use the ladies where she could pee in peace. I found the frankness of describing her experience moving and I am sympathetic to the view that protections need to be tightened so that all gender variant people are protected by the Equality Act. That's why the Women and Equalities Committee recommendation that the protected characteristic should change from "GRS" to "Gender Identity" could make a difference to the lives of crossdressers and transvestites as well as non-binary and trans people. Just a thought!

I am glad that Willoughby does take the time to clarify  that she doesn't want to "turn transvestites into "bogeymen". Transvestites have the right to dress how they want and act how they want provided they do so within the confines of the law. It's how ALL of us should conduct ourselves, whilst traversing the boundaries of our supposedly tolerant and inclusive modern society in a tolerant and informed manner. Now "Divine" (not the fabulous drag queen whose song "You Think You're A Man But You're A Boy I personally adore), the person who messaged Ms Willoughby to tell her that Murray was right was behaving abysmally. However, if "Divine" had messaged me, I'd have told them they were fine to express their view but I'd have shook their criticism off. They may self-define as trans but the context that Ms Willoughby provides seems to indicate to me they may have been trying to troll her. They may even be non-binary but perhaps "Divine" doesn't really understand the full definition of trans or non-binary. Maybe they just don't want to understand. What is clear is that there will always be some people in the world who share "Divine's" opinion and believe that trans women can never be women (some whilst stating they are trans themselves). The best action we can take is counter such discrimination by encouraging the creation and development of appropriate HR resources for the workplace and create and develop educational resources to make sure that basic Sex and Relationships Education at Key Stage 3 or 4 includes discussions of gender identity of all types, (trans and non-binary identities).We should encourage open dialogue to foster a sense of tolerance and inclusion in our students. That can include looking at the importance of gender-neutral facilities in the workplace, in schools and in hospitals. Trans people should be prepared to speak in schools and answer difficult questions so that awareness is increased. That way we can continue to fight against stereotyping as well as fighting against  attempts to deny us (any of us) our own identity. Willoughby calls for "tough love" against those who wish to "blur the definition of trans". I think that a honest discussion on the practicalities of transforming the UK into a more tolerant place for trans people is needed but it must be one which doesn't seek to erase or demonise anyone else through fear of facing erasure. I don't deny that such a discussion may be difficult to facilitate. It needs to be far more wide-ranging than one that focuses on bathroom facilities. We need to talk about trans prisoner rights, about trans DVA survivors' rights and increasing access to GICs whilst also talking about non-binary prisoner rights, non-binary DVA survivors' rights and yes, even non-binary health provision.

Nuancing the view bathroom issue wise:

When it comes to the bathroom issue, I feel that it has to be discussed in a nuanced way- i.e. analysing concerns according to the situational context. That means looking at workplace bathroom use and public service use.

Workplace:

If a new employee enters the workplace and has notified HR that they are intending to transition, this should be enough to allow that employee to access the bathroom which fits with their acquired gender. HR have a duty to respect a trans employees' privacy but when a trans employee should feel confident enough to disclose their gender identity to their colleagues, there should not be an issue, whether they have transitioned surgically yet or not. If an employee doesn't want to disclose their gender identity but doesn't want to use a male or female bathroom, for whatever reason, including being non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer, provision should be made to create or adapt space in the organisation for gender-neutral facilities. In small and medium sized businesses I can understand that such provision can be difficult to make, so grants should be made available from the Government to try and help SMEs facilitate these changes. Otherwise, negotiation will be needed with existing employees as to whether the employee can use the disabled facilities (but only with expressed permission from disabled employees). Such discussions can be facilitated perfectly rationally by HR (or managers in SMEs).

Public toilets:

It's very important that HR and management deliver appropriate training to their frontline customer service employees, especially within the hospitality sector. Spotting the "signs" of whether a person is cis female or trans female pre-transition or transvestite can be difficult: a loud trans female wearing a dress could be misgendered as male based on their brash behaviour and a post-transition tall trans woman may still be mistaken for a male yet a loud, short transvestite who "passes" as female may be able to use the toilet without incident. Naturally incidents are going to occur and no amount of posturing is probably going to change the attitudes of some landlords. So rather than focussing on generic"signs", employees must be told to be vigilant and watch for potentially dangerous behaviour from anyone, regardless of their gender identity or lack of.  A zero-tolerance policy for unruly behaviour is a must.

Organisations must also consider whether gender-neutral facilities should be made available. That doesn't mean having to close the ladies' toilet or necessarily adapting disabled ones. As Pollock mentions in her article, there has to be more implementation of equality and diversity policies so that organisations remain compliant with provisions of the Equality Act. Pollock also mentions the much under-cited Kirkless case (bathroom denial on the basis of gender identity was ruled as discriminatory). Not every organisation wishes to comply fully but those that do should receive positive appraisals and be held up as role-models for others to follow.

Conclusion:

As you can see, I'm not saying that anyone should have automatic access to bathroom facilities of any gender. At the same time, organisations have to be able to cater for employees and customers who are gender non-conforming as well as those who are binary trans or cis. This may mean thinking seriously about providing appropriate gender-neutral facilities in as many public spaces and private companies as possible so that everyone can feel safe and secure in their own skin to "pee where they want". What we must not do is give into fear rhetoric that somehow trans rights in the UK are going to be rolled back or not able to be applied properly because of a widened definition of trans. Yes we need to fight transmisogyny and transphobia but I'm not prepared to have to go back to a binary definition to do it. Instead, we confront gender stereotypes, we educate people about gender identity and facilitate practical discussions to try and reach a speedy resolution for all. Let's fight against trans violence and discrimination but let's not pretend that such a fight should be restricted to those who adhere to an dual gender binary identity alone. And yes, we have to be accepting of crossdressers and transvestites too. As Sarah Savage mentions, you never know whether the transvestite you see in the nightclub might decide to transition 5 or 10 years down the line.

#CoerciveControl can occur in ANY kind of intimate relationship regardless of Gender Identity or Sexuality

Coercive Control (CC) is a concept that isn't always discussed fully. It can be well hidden by both perpetrators and survivors so can be very difficult to detect. What's even more frustrating is that at the moment, CC is often seen through a gendered lens. Ask the average person on the street whether they've heard of gay men or trans men going through experiences of domestic violence, domestic abuse (DVA) or CC and they tend to say no or that the issue is "relatively minor". Stonewall's research has found that 49% of gay and  bi men have experienced at least 1 incident of domestic abuse from a family member or partner.  The Scottish Transgender Alliance's research has found that 80% of trans people had experienced emotional, sexual, or physical abuse from a partner or ex partner. It seems that LGBTQ+ DVA is far from being "a relatively minor" issue. The Government's own definition from 2012 states clearly that DVA, which includes acts of CC are not  gender or sexuality specific crimes. CC is defined as: "an act or pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish or frighten the victim." Acts of CC can include honour based violence, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage. The Government introduced the Serious Crime Act (SCA) in 2015 and Section 76 included a new offence of "controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship". Prior to the creation of the SCA, it was noted that it was quite difficult to prove a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment within an intimate relationship. CC doesn't relate to a single act but is instead indicative of "a purposeful pattern of incidents that occurs over time enabling someone to exert power and control, or coerce another". Former partners who still live with the victim, as well as current ones and family members can be charged with the coercive control offence. It came into effect on the 29th December 2015 and carries the maximum prison sentence of 5 years. Karen Bradley, former Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime, stated on that day that the coercive control offence would "protect victims who would otherwise be subjected to sustained patterns of abuse that can lead to total control of their lives by the perpetrator".

Examples of Coercive Control based on the Statutory Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service include:

• Threats to harm a child -e.g. cut off a child's ear if a woman refuses to have sex with her partner.
• Threats to harm or kill a family pet -e.g. kill the cat because a daughter refused to tell her father she loved him on a nightly basis.
• Systematic abusive punishments that are unjustifiable (imposed for no reason): e.g. a child being beaten with a belt by her mother or a trans man being locked in a room by his partner for a week.
• Punishments that are not justified even if the person had done something perceived as wrong by the perpetrator- e.g. a young woman being denied access to sanitary products because her boyfriend believed she had gone out to cheat on him when in fact she'd only gone out with her university friends.
• Emotional control: e.g. being continuously told by a partner, sibling, parent that your life is worthless and has no meaning - e.g. being told several times a day to "go kill yourself".
• A partner controlling your finances even if you are the main breadwinner; for example, a non-binary person not being given access to their own bank account by a partner because he says it's "for their own good".
• Blackmail- e.g. a trans woman being told by a partner they have to pay them £1000 a month or they'll block their transition and they won't grant them a divorce to allow them to transition freely.
• Medication control- e.g. partners may try and take away medicine from HIV+ partners or may try and convince a bipolar partner not to take their prescription despite the advice given by their doctors.
• Husbands preventing their pregnant wives from being able to see their midwife or GP if they are having problems related to their pregnancy or a lesbian may be prevented from going to sign on by a partner because she believes "it's beneath them".
• Religious-related control- e.g. a Muslim woman being forced to wear a burqa by her partner even though she didn't have to wear one before she met him.

Despite such comprehensive Statutory Guidance offered by the CPS, Section 76 has not been used regularly since its introduction. A Freedom of Information Request revealed in August 2016 that the law was used only 62 times in the first six months. 8 out of 22 police forces in the UK hadn't used the law once, and 9 forces had only made 2 or less charges, including Lincolnshire Police. This clearly needs to change and all victims of CC, including men, trans and non-binary ones, should be able to be protected from CC by police officers enforcing the law.

Coercive Control is NOT Gender or Sexuality Specific:

As organisations such as Stonewall and GenderFree DV have regularly stated, CC is not gender or sexuality specific. Imagine if your friend or colleague was in a violent, controlling relationship. Should they receive more or less tailored support because of their gender identity or lack of it? No. Every survivor deserves to have access to appropriate support mechanisms to help them feel safe and to keep them safe from the perpetrator. Don't assume that a trans male rugby player is any less deserving of support and advice than a trans female teacher!

CC can happen in any type of relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, bisexual or pansexual or asexual (ace). You don't need even need to be engaging in sexual activities to be in a controlling intimate relationship. CC can happen to a middle aged  rugby player who society may initially perceive as being stronger than his wife (because of his build) who has been constantly blackmailing him into silence over her affair. CC can happen to an admin assistant who has been beaten up by his boyfriend on a daily basis just because they had to work late for a few nights and he accused them of cheating. It's a myth that same-sex relationships are somehow "more equal" than heterosexual ones. Power dynamics can be more hidden but do exist; a lesbian survivor considered more "butch" than her partner can be subjected to months of financial and emotional abuse before she finds the strength to pick up the phone and call the police. A bisexual man beaten up by his gay partner on a daily basis may try and hide his bruises using make-up or makes sure he doesn't inadvertently reveal his body when going to the gym. Never ever assume that serious violence and control only happens in heterosexual relationships. Even in asexual ones a partner can be emotionally abusive or physically violent.

CC can happen to a non-binary or gender-fluid person getting bullied by their parents into adhering to religious based gender stereotypes by forcing them to wear gender-specific clothing or hitting them until they accept their original pronouns and names. This is clearly not acceptable. Education can help to combat such prejudice and discrimination and religious leaders and groups must be at the forefront of encouraging a compassionate and tolerant approach from parents of non-gender conforming young adults.

Trans survivors of CC are worried that disclosing CC behaviour, especially from cis female partners, will make them appear mentally ill, as is the narrative perpetuated by some gender critical radical feminists. Ideology that dismisses gender identity entirely off bat has to be challenged. It isn't right that partners can have control over the transitioning process by threatening to take away access to hormones or to take away access to their bank account to prevent them buying the clothes needed to help them feel they can adjust to their acquired gender or to stop them from attending Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) appointments by throwing away letters and/or preventing a trans person from speaking to professionals via mobile phone. Trans non-binary women have been told they'd "never pass" and are "worthless human beings" and would never be loved by anyone else. All in an attempt to stop their partner from leaving them. Yet few trans people feel confident in reporting acts of CC to the police until their partners or family members become violent.

LGBTQ+ survivors of DVA have said in the past that one reason why they chose not to report controlling behaviour to the police was because of their past experience dealing with public sector organisations. Older LGBTQ+ survivors could have had experience of being treated discriminatorily in the past by the police and are worried that their initial reporting of CC wouldn't be taken seriously, especially if a prejudiced police officer ended up being assigned to look into their case who then misgenders them or refuses to accept they could ever be a victim of CC because of their build or personality. Police forces are addressing this by providing comprehensive DVA and CC training to their frontline officers. Lincolnshire Police, for example, has released guidance that tells officers to question their preconceptions and adopt a compassionate, caring approach when dealing with all cases, including those involving male victims and female perpetrators.

Equally there is a perception that DVA and CC advice and support service providers are heavily skewered towards adopting approaches that only look after female survivors of DVA and CC. For example, trans activists have pointed out that service providers have been unaware of how to help trans survivors of DVA and CC because they don't fully understand the power dynamics behind trans-cis relationships. Practitioners may never have come across  a trans or non-binary or gender-fluid person in their personal lives so could find it difficult to accept how a trans person could end up being emotionally blackmailed by a female partner. There could be some professionals out there who ignore a non-binary person's identity and force them to tick-box themselves as female so that they can gain access to shelter accommodation. Few shelters have indicated whether they are totally accepting of post-op trans women or non-binary/gender-fluid people and there are currently very few shelters available to help male survivors, including trans men. Pre-op trans women may feel they have nowhere to go. This has got to change.

Some service professionals may be more reluctant to believe that a muscular tall guy such as a rower or rugby player can be a "true" victim of coercive behaviours, especially if they haven't disclosed their sexual orientation or gender identity at the time the CC offences were committed. LGBTQ+ survivors who aren't publically "out"may feel very alone indeed. Unable to come out to family members for fear of being ostracised and/or being made homeless, their mental health can deteriorate very quickly. Service professionals have to question whether gay or bi men or pre-op trans women should be forced to hide again just so they can have a roof over their heads. Personally speaking, I'd like to see accommodation being available in every county in England and Wales for LGBTQ+ survivors to move into so that they can recover from their experience and get themselves sorted out financially to rebuild their lives. Heterosexual cis male survivors also need shelters and such programmes should be funded by the Government in the same way that they fund women's shelters. The Government's funding for shelters generally is woefully inadequate, with 17% of specialist shelters being forced to close since 2010. Refuges rely on housing benefit to keep them going but the benefit cap has hit funding levels hard. Yet the Government refuse to omit refuges from the benefit cap. I'm with Sarah Champion, Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, who has suggested a National Statement of Expectations be issued mandating local authorities to provide for refuges but this male shelters and gender neutral ones must be included in the remit.

It is important to remember that it can be difficult for a survivor to inform the Police or domestic abuse & violence charities of what's going on. If you have a physical disability that restricts your movement and you rely on your partner to help you gain access to phones, computers etc, you are far less likely to be able to communicate to anyone that you've been suffering from emotional or sexual violence and abuse. If you have a speech disability or learning disability, family members of the perpetrator or even your own family members may believe that your claims are "mistaken" especially if the abuse is emotional rather than physical. If you're banned from leaving the house and from accessing the computer or mobile phone, it can be weeks or months before you get an opportunity to communicate to the police that your partner has been keeping you hostage against your will because you refuse to convert to their religious faith. It's incumbent therefore on the Police and adult social services to keep an eye on potential victims of CC, especially if there is any indication that their partner or family member may become violent towards them. Background checks should be conducted and any alarming information relayed to those in danger of facing CC so they can make an informed decision as to whether they stay with the partner or family member or not. Clare's Law, introduced in 2015, has helped 1335 women to escape from violent partners.  What isn't well known is that Clare's Law allows anyone to access their partner's history to see if they have a history of violence. Men and non-binary people should be able to make use of this law if they suspect their own partners of violence.  Men shouldn't be dismissed as paranoid (or ironically controlling) for wanting to check out a partner's criminal records if they have experienced coercive control from that partner. Don't just expect them to "look after themselves" if their wife comes at them with a knife intent on causing them harm for not giving into their demands!

How to further help LGBTQ+ Survivors of Coercive Control:

• Better funding streams for LGBTQ+ DVA survivor charities from the Government is a must. Organisations such as Galop who run a specialist help line should get sustainable, regular Governmental assistance. Survivors in London can attend Bede House (in Southwark) or The Havens currently but accommodation should be available in every county across England and Wales. Devolved administrations should be encouraged to increase the number of shelters that offer gender-neutral accommodation.
•  Funding streams made available for survivor shelters for LGBTQ+ survivors, especially gay and bi men helping support organisations such as Stonewall Housing. Clarity should be given as to the status of trans, non-binary and gender-fluid survivors in terms of where they can get access to advice and support and where they can stay accommodation wise. A discussion is needed with the Women's and Equalities Committee to see whether self-identification survivor wise is sufficient to allow trans people to access advice and support that corresponds to their acquired gender or whether trans men and women have to have had Gender Reassignment Surgery and gained a Gender Recognition Certificate (in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004) before they can access services.
• More research needs to be conducted into LGBTQ+ DVA, especially on how services can be better improved to suit the needs of trans, non-binary and gender-fluid survivors. This should include reviewing the effectiveness of legislation.
• Non-binary and gender-fluid survivors must have their gender identities fully recognised by service providers. It's not acceptable for providers to enforce a tick-boxing binary exercise and then use this to treat them as being one gender or the other and differentiate provision according to this distinction. Professionals must use appropriate pronouns and not indicate in any way that non-binary survivors need psychiatric assessment on the basis of gender identity alone. Appropriate training delivered by Learning & Development professionals should be provided to frontline staff to reinforce this.

How to reduce cases of LGBTQ+ Coercive Control:

• Increased awareness of Section 76 through basic police officer training to ensure that the law can be adequately enforced; that includes police officers realising that coercive control is NOT gender or sexuality specific. Survivors should be at the forefront of delivering this training so they can give first-hand accounts of their experiences. By equipping frontline officers with knowledge of Section 76, they should feel more confident in arresting perpetrators without fear of "getting it wrong". Hopefully, getting the perpetrator arrested on the coercive control charge should prevent their partner or family member becoming a victim of violent acts in the future.
• Sex and Relationships Education, when introduced mandatorily into primary and secondary schools, should touch upon the issues of Domestic Violence and Domestic Abuse at Key Stage 4 (Year 10) and that survivors should create materials and if possible, deliver them to students. Allowing students to learn that coercive controlling behaviours such as being deliberately isolated from family and friends, having unnecessarily restricted access to bank accounts and credit cards or even having their HIV status openly revealed without consent is essential. Knowledge is power; if students know these behaviours are wrong, not only will they prevent themselves from exhibiting such behaviors, they will also know what to look out for in potential partners in the future and this may help safeguard them from becoming DVA victims. It will not prevent every case but at least it's better than allowing students to leave school unaware of Section 76 or the dangers of coercive behaviours. We're failing our young people at the moment by not informing them fully of the facts.
• The Spousal Veto within the GRA should be scrapped; married trans people should not have to seek specific written permission from a partner to continue their transition or to seek a divorce in order to give them the freedom to transition. The veto gives draconian power to partners and could be used as a blackmailing tool. Most trans partners who are married will have discussed the changing status of the relationship prior to applying for a GRC anyways, so there is no need for a veto to be in place.
• Potential victims of coercive control should be informed about their right to use Clare's Law to check out their partners, regardless of gender identity and sexuality. They should also know they can go to a magistrate to ask them to grant a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) which keeps partners from contacting their partners for up to 28 days.
• Raise awareness of the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) especially within the BAME LGBTQ+ communities. Nobody should be forced into a marriage whilst they reside in the UK and/or are a British citizen.
• Platforms should be made available for LGBTQ+ survivors who want to discuss their experiences openly to be able to do so, especially within mainstream media outlets. Assumptions regarding DVA and CC need to be challenged and the best way to do that is to present first hand accounts. LGBTQ+ presenters and backstage staff should be allowed to participate in the project. BAME LGBTQ+ and disabled survivors should be included.

Conclusion:

CC ultimately leads to massive self-doubt for LGBTQ+ survivors. "Why Me" they ask..."what have I done to deserve that level of abuse and/or violence against me?" CC is not gender or sexuality specific. No survivor has done anything to deserve sustained, abhorrent levels of abuse and violence, whether perpetrated by a partner, parents, grandparents or siblings. Never blame a trans survivor for being blackmailed by their cis female partner and never blame a husband for their wife coming at them with a kitchen knife or another dangerous weapon. Of course perpetrators will try and downplay their role in CC; they'll say they were "forced into taking action" or that they were "defending themselves from being potentially attacked". Some perpetrators are very good at playing the "victim card", using their gender identity to try and shift blame. Sometimes, gender stereotyping can help them with their case. That's why it's important for service professionals to lead the fight against gender stereotyping in DVA and CC by challenging them head on. Automatic assumptions must be challenged, police officers must be allowed to conduct their investigation in a thorough way but adopt a compassionate tone when asking questions. DVA and CC shelter providers should be as open minded as possible and at the very least signpost those who they may not be able to help directly so that they can access the help and advice that they deserve. The Government must act to provide better accommodation for all CC and DVA survivors, including gender neutral facilities for non-binary and gender fluid survivors.  Most important of all, be 100% committed to supporting the survivor, regardless of your own preconceptions. Be prepared to listen openly and be kind. Kindness costs nothing.

DVA practitioners should certainly not force or coerce LGBTQIA+ CC survivors into revealing their experiences to raise awareness but they should be fully prepared to listen when survivors do come forward to tell their stories or suggest solutions so as to try and reduce the risk of other people having to go through those experiences. All of their voices should be amplified in debates on DVA and CC funding. Let's make sure the mechanisms are there to allow them to provide their perspectives free from prejudice.

UKIP's 6 Tests for a Brexit Deal: Asking the impossible?

In a week when Labour finally revealed its thoughts as to how to approach the Government's Brexit deal, we also (unfortunately) got to hear what the far-right, anti-immigrant, anti liberal party UKIP wanted from the Brexit deal....and what a coincidence...they also have 6 tests that a Brexit deal has to meet before they'll accept it. As an independent I thought I better give them the once-over in the interests of fairness (since UKIP now have ZERO MPs in Parliament) but my goodness, at least two of the suggestions make the idea of Queen Elizabeth II putting on green make up and taking a part in West End's Wicked look vaguely credible.

• Parliament must be sovereign with no restrictions on its power following the deal

This test pretty much follows what David Davis has called for in the Government's Brexit White Paper. UKIP specifically wants the Tories to ensure that there is Parliamentary supremacy over UK law. This means that the UK must leave the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) before the end of 2019 with no transitional arrangements in place according to UKIP's demands with Parliament then being allowed to repeal laws in accordance with manifesto pledges or "as the situation allows". PM May has already announced that the UK will leave the ECJ but hasn't yet been 100% clear on whether the UK will leave the ECHR. The practical implications of this UKIP test would mean that no cases should be submitted by UK plaintiffs to the ECJ and ECHR between now and 2019 and any cases that are currently being heard by the ECJ and ECHR featuring UK based defendants or plaintiffs would need to be resolved before December 2019 which may be a very tough ask indeed. PM May seems to have recognised this, admitting to Andrew Neil that ECJ rulings may continue to be made during a "post Brexit implementation period". The EU's key plans indicate such a period would only be allowed to last 3 years in any case.

• The UK must have full control over its immigration and asylum policies and borders

When the UK leaves the EU, immigration policy will need to be discussed in a reasonable manner, as Labour's Keir Starmer indicated in his speech on Monday . Reasonable discussion does not include the comments made by Gerald Batten, UKIP MEP for London who stated on Monday that EU nationals right to remain the UK should be negotiated "country by country" to ensure each one gives its consent over providing a reciprocal deal for UK nationals in the EU. That will not happen because the EU negotiates as a trading block, not on an individual basis. What was even more absurd to hear from Batten was his suggestion that even if EU nationals are given the right to remain in the UK as a whole, this right should be waived for criminals who have been in UK prisons or have been in prison in the EU. That's all well and good but Batten then has to understand that EU countries have the right to ask for a reciprocal agreement whereby UK nationals in EU prisons or who have been in UK prisons before moving to the EU should be repatriated to the UK. You can't decide to deport EU national criminals and then refuse to take back UK ones or make them stateless.

Batten extends his ludicrous argument to include "those who do not work"- in practice this could mean any EU national who unfortunately finds themselves on JSA despite having worked in the UK previously and "those who never pay taxes" -i.e. any EU national that finds themselves on NLW or slightly above who fall below the Income Tax and/or the National Insurance limit. Cleaners, agricultural workers, part time admin assistants, carers could all find themselves at risk of being deported under Batten's rather broad qualification of "unwanted" EU nationals. That's before you even get to him heartlessly attacking homeless EU nationals whom he calls "beggars" (despite the fact that begging was made illegal under the 1824 Vagrancy Act but has not been strictly enforced because police do not have the resources available to take every beggar off the streets and homeless charities need more funding to set up permanent shelters for homeless people).  Homeless people, whether beggars or not, whether from the EU or not, need our help and support to turn their lives around rather than being cast aside like an unwanted doll. A liberal approach believes wholeheartedly in the power of rehabilitation and besides, if you're going to deport homeless EU nationals and those on NLW, then the EU countries should have the right to reciprocate and the UK will have a duty of care to rehabilitate anyways, whether UKIP members like to admit that responsibility or not.

With regards to this notion of "full control", it has to be stated that no country ever has 100% control over their immigration policies. You can set arbitrary quotas, you can introduce an Australian points system, you can increase border security by 100% and you can deport as many people as you want but there will always be migrants who somehow find a way to enter the country. To suggest there is any such concept as 100% control is fallacy. Besides, the UK was never part of the Schengen agreement so we already have control borderwise (in terms of presenting passports); it was just the Freedom of Movement (FOM) principle that bugged kippers and the Government has already made it clear that they are committed to leaving the Single Market so FOM isn't something that they are seeking.

And as for asylum policy, the UK Government already has control over that. It's just that UKIP want to tighten the legislation even further to attempt to deny people right to asylum if they perceive them as a threat. UKIP need to realise that if they want to change asylum policies, they're going to actually need to win an election outright that isn't for the European Parliament. So instead, liberals will be asking for improvements in facilities at detention centres, reducing application waiting times and providing suitable accommodation and appropriate advice for those who are granted asylum. For those who are not granted asylum, the Government must do everything they can to help people return to their homeland safely and if that is not the case, to reconsider the application.  (See the Refugee Council's website for more information on asylum: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_5)

• Leaving the EU must restore "full maritime sovereignty" to the UK

What to make of this test other than to point out that UK territorial waters already exist; the limit is set "at 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles) from the baseline of a coastal state", in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) created in 1982. UKIP just want to enforce an "exclusive economic zone" (also guaranteed under the UNCLOS) of 200 nautical miles "or to the halfway point between the UK and neighbouring EU countries." Now I don't want to be a Dougie Downer but the interesting fact is that the UK already has the fifth biggest EEZ in the world (including Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories but the UK doesn't claim its EEZ rights with regards to Gibraltar) so I don't know what EEZ rights now need to be reclaimed or enforced further? What was intriguing reading Labour MEP Richard Corbett's article "Brexit and the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy)" was that many of the rules regarding fishing rights were established pre-EU, having been codified in the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, The LFC granted other states the right to fish in 32 areas of the British coastline. Corbett suggests that the UK would need to end such agreements if the PM wants "full control"over the UK's EEZ.

When it comes to the Brexit negotiations, it has to be made crystal clear that the UK will need to negotiate fishing rights with the EU.  Collaboration is the way forward, not throwing toys out the pram because we feel we don't "own" our piece of the seas. Under the UNCLOS, countries must "jointly manage fish stocks that migrate between two or more countries waters." That's more than 100 species! Stock recovery programmes already agreed to as part of the EU include the Multi-Annual Plan for sole and plaice in the North Sea and the Long-term Plan for West of Scotland herring. The EU will be pressing David Davis's team to remain committed to those stock replenishment plans, regardless of whether fishermen in the UK like these commitments or not.

Leaving the EU will mean it could be harder to negotiate effectively on catch allowances, not least because the UK will have to negotiate its own arrangements with other countries outside the EU like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands (Northern Agreements). The negotiations will need to be done quickly if PM May follows UKIP's tests, as they do not allow for any transitional arrangements. Corbett raises an important point with regards to Norway and Iceland's fish and seafood trading relationships with the EU: yes they are part of the EEA but trade in fish and seafood is not part of a standard free trade agreement and thus subject to tariffs and quotas. UKIP wants to avoid these by not being part of the EEA or SM but in all likelihood fish and seafood trading being made tariff free is just not going to happen. The UK Government will have to take advice on catch allowances and that means remaining a member of and funding the International Council on the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) whose advice and research is used by the EU to agree Total Allowable Catches (TACs) with member states.  Corbett also notes that membership of regional fisheries bodies (RMFOs), including the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission will need to be negotiated.
The discard ban implemented by the EU was part of a Conservative manifesto commitment and therefore will probably not be repealed.

Then there's the question of whether we will retain membership of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). The UK remains a "quality flag state" whilst a member of EMSA but if we pull out, it may be harder to meet seafarer safety obligations. The UK Government will need to clarify their position ASAP.

On top of all this, it must be noted that the fishing communities have benefited from the EU Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which provides funds for improving fishing vessel safety features and improving the safety of landing sites and auction houses. European Investment Bank Loans have also been extended to fishing communities. It remains unclear as to whether the UK Government will commit to providing the level of funding fishing communities have had from the EU post 2020. UKIP haven't put this in as part of their test which shows that they haven't really thought about the consequences of leaving the EU "in the round". Instead they just focus on getting PM May to ditch the CFP in its entirety as part of the Great Repeal Bill so that fishing vessels have "no backdoor access" to British waters.  There's also no thought given to maritime environmental habit protections which must be respected post Brexit. Also, UKIP haven't addressed the fact that a significant proportion of fish processing workers come from other EU countries. Would there be provisions in any immigration policy that allows experienced fish processing staff to come to the UK post Brexit? The answer should be given as an emphatic YES.

• UK must have its own seat on the WTO & sign trade agreements on its own

It is expected that if the Brexit deal that PM May and Davis present to Parliament is approved, there may have to be discussions over how the UK represents itself on the world stage, particularly in trading negotiations. That would probably mean that it would be practical for the UK to have its own seat on the WTO so they can sign trade agreements in their own right. They won't be doing it as part of the EU, would they? Where liberals and Labour disagree is over UKIP's ludicrous demand to leave the SM and Customs Union and then set tariffs on WTO rules. That's not what we want to do. UKIP don't mind tariff free trade provided there is "no strings attached" (they don't want to pay for access) but the reality is that if Norway pays to have full access to the SM, the EU won't accept the UK having entirely free access to the SM. If they did, Norway would be well within its rights to ask for a change in status and the Brexit process may end up stalling as a result. "Liberalising trade" post Brexit sounds to me to be code word for tax havening which isn't something liberals and Labour are interested in pursuing after the deal has been implemented.

• No final settlement for the EU & no on-going payments after we leave

Most political commentators and MPs have accepted there may have to be a payment made to the EU which acts as a final settlement, settling commitments that have been made prior to the triggering of Article 50. Estimates include the final settlement as part of the £50bn quoted but as the House of Lords have pointed out, the UK doesn't have a legal obligation to pay any final settlement.

On-going payments for membership of certain EU programmes and agencies needs to be negotiated and that goes beyond whether the UK has to pay for privileged access to the Single Market (SM). We need to know whether the UK Government wants access to the framework programme 9 project once Horizon 2020 ends so that research and development between EU and UK academic institutions can continue unhindered. There's been little discussion as to whether the UK will retain the European Health Insurance Card (EUHIC) with the NHS picking up the cost of medical treatment abroad or whether everyone will need to get private health insurance before they travel (making that weekend Paris trip look slightly less attractive). Equally, we may have to pay to remain members of Eurpol and Eurjust but this simply hasn't been thought through by the Government. Then of course there is the issue of passporting for banks with offices located in the City of London which may need to be paid for on an annual basis. Losing the banking passport could affect 40 banking organisations who may need to relocate to an EU country to have access to the SM. Passports are granted by the ECB at their discretion. UKIP do not mention any of these considerations in this test. Instead, they demand that the UK Government withdraws money from the European Investment Bank by the end of the negotiation process (£9bn has been invested in the EIB but UKIP haven't spelled out what they would do with that £9bn).

• Brexit must be "done & dusted" before end of December 2019

Batten rather stupidly said on the Daily Politics show on Monday that the Brexit negotiation could be done "in an afternoon" by stating the UK "just leaves" to take "emergency action" on defence, immigration and trade. Interestingly, Batten didn't mention the environment, workplace protections or education or health in his "emergency action" plan which rather begs the question are UKIP really that bothered about helping to reduce fossil fuel reliance or stop employees from being forced to work above 40 hours a week (through Working Time Directive). Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator, has now made it clear that if PM May attempts to remove environmental protections, workplace rights or consumer rights in the UK in the interests of "bargain basement competitiveness"  there will be no deal. Equally, slashing business taxes in order to try and gain an advantage over EU businesses prior to leaving the EU will prevent a deal being reached. The Tories and UKIP may want a bargain basement low tax haven but Remain voters do not. With such negotiations needing to take place alongside arrangements for farming and manufacturing it's painfully obvious that Brexit cannot be done in a day.

The Brexit negotiation may be submitted to Parliament, be voted on and completed before March 2019 (we hope) but transitional arrangements will need to be place to ensure that Brexit is as smooth a process as can be. Still, there's simply no guarantee as to whether this will be the case. UKIP may not like the idea of transitional arrangements but the reality of the situation is that Labour and Tory moderate Backbenchers will call for them, especially when it comes to sorting out agricultural and manufacturing policies from 2020 onwards. UKIP may be afraid of those Remainers who are Lib Dems who want to call for a 2nd referendum on the terms of the deal but they are well within their rights to call for one.