The following is a draft statement on the government's welfare reforms and the poisonous attitudes that surround them, for consideration by the YUSU Disabled Students' Network. If the statement is adopted by the Network, I'll be bringing it to the Liberation and Welfare Assembly to ask that the Union as a whole publicly affirms our solidarity with disabled students in the fight against these reforms.

The last year has seen an alarming rise in anti-disabled rhetoric and prejudice both in the national media and on our campus. This follows political scapegoating of disabled people unmatched since the 1930s. Politicians and commentators, of all parties and none, have uncritically perpetuated a view of disabled people as an economic burden with scant regard for the underlying reality. The vile rhetoric employed by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in announcing the unashamed abuse of the Personal Indepedence Payment (PIP) to withdraw support from those known to require it under the current system of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is hateful and without justification.

In developing its plans for these so called reforms of the welfare system, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has actively sought to avoid politically inconvenient representations from disabled people, misrepresenting its own consultation to the point that a second report was commissioned by disabled people ourselves using original responses obtained under the Freedom of Information Act [1]. Similarly, they have attempted to falsely represent the withdrawal of disabled people's charities from failed consultations [2] as politically motivated.

Accordingly:

We utterly reject the media narrative of disabled people as scroungers, and are deeply concerned that the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics has declined to hear any oral evidence on these wide spread mischaracterisations. It is similarly concerning that the impartial BBC is uncritically reporting DWP spin as self-evident fact.

We condemn the introduction of PIP, the time-limitting of contributory Employment Support Allowance (ESA), and the withdrawal of legal aid for DWP appeals, as a deeply unnecessary and clearly calculated attack on the entitlement of disabled people to the support we need to maintain our social and financial independence. It should be noted that significant portions of the enabling legislation were passed into law by an unprecedented claim of financial privilege from the House of Commons, in defiance of the usual legislative oversight provided by amendments in the House of Lords.

Further, we join the British Medical Association in calling for an immediate end to the reckless and damaging Work Capability Assessment. 

As members of the university community we expect the unreserved support of students and staff in opposing any changes which limit our ability to contribute to and flourish as part of that community. This means openly challenging and eliminating anti-disabled attitudes in our academic departments, support services, and social spaces, recognising disabled people as the ultimate authority on our own circumstances, and clearly affirming the equal treatment of disabld people both within and outside York as vital to the University's longterm success.

YUSU Disabled Students' Network

15/05/2012

[1] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/files/response_to_proposed_dla_reforms.pdf

[2] http://www.mind.org.uk/blog/6632_why_the_wca_isnt_working

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

At last night's Student's Union (YUSU) referendum debate I found myself in the unusual position of speaking against a motion mandating YUSU to engage with the student body and the University on the issue of tuition fees - specifically reaffirming our opposition to lifting the cap, opposing the use of fee waivers (meaningless financial trickery) over bursaries (actual money in the pockets of students who need it), and actively seeking to influence how any surplus is spent.

As you might have guessed, I don't disagree with anything the motion resolved to do. However, the proposing team was keen to have someone speak against, and besides not wanting to waste time allocated to discussing fees, I do have problems with how the case has been put. It's personally disheartening that widening participation is mentioned with no reference to the key points identified by our LGBT and Disabled Students' Networks. More fundamentally though, the policy only addresses undergraduate home students. This is a serious omission.

So why didn't I submit amendments to the policy as proposed? I wanted to. Unfortunately, the first I heard of this referendum was the post I linked above, titled "Finalised Motions". There was a blog post with the submitted motions which I'd missed, but that was the first indication this calendar year that a referendum was even scheduled. This simply isn't good enough.

If an announcement manages to pass by a former SU officer with near 100% attendance in two union assemblies who follows nigh-on every current officer on twitter and regularly checks the SU website, you have communication problems - and judging by a turnout of barely more than 20 students for a debate on tuition fees and research funding from the arms trade, I'm confident that the average student would agree. The referendum is the highest decision making body within YUSU, yet I've attended minority campaign network meetings with more students than were present last night.

So where do we go from here? Those of you who've attended any NUS conference will know that at the start of each session, the chair takes a count of delegates present, and doesn't proceed until a sufficient number (quorum) are seated. Now I don't think that's currently the right way to approach physical meetings of the union. However, if we can't reach sufficient students with democratic announcements, we have serious problems. Therefore, I propose the following (and will be submitting it by the usual method):

When notice is given of any democratic event (referendum, elections, assemblies), that announcement will contain a link to the SU website where the student reading can confirm that they have read and understood the announcement. For constitutional purposes (e.g. where a particular notice period is required for election nominations) an announcement will be valid if a set number of students confirm within the next 48 hours.

If it takes another day (e.g. a Monday announcement isn't confirmed by Wednesday), then it will be as though the announcement itself had been made a day later (i.e. Tuesday), until online "quorum" has been reached. (Where a process includes multiple milestones, e.g. submission, amendment, and debate, a lower threshold may be sensible for intermediate announcements)

Constitutionally that is to say an announcement is considered to have been made no sooner than 48 hours prior to reaching quorum - but the idea itself is simple. Unless students have seen it, you didn't say it.

My hope is that putting a threshold of active engagement on announcements will encourage those making them to look beyond a single blog post or tweet. We can't keep throwing information out there and acting as though it arrived. It's going to be difficult, but that's the point. I also believe it's achievable - and if it isn't, you have to wonder what mandate we have to be making these decisions anyway.

Note: This came out a lot more cathartic than intended. That should give you an idea of how far there is yet to go.

My University is currently reviewing its policy on student Mental Health (MH), and after a strong suggestion from the Students' Union Welfare Officer that students might have something to say on the matter, is consulting our Liberation and Welfare Assembly on the proposed changes. It's not clear what current policy stands, but there is a a seemingly little-known handbook on Helping Students With Mental Health Difficulties (revised 2008) and the Disability Equality Scheme has an action point (2h) on developing concrete policy.

In reality, all University policies are MH policies. Student MH is acutely intertwined with every aspect of University life, and is crucial to academic success and personal development. It is disappointing then that this isn't apparent in either the words or actions of student support services at present. Policies on academic leave and mitigation draw a false line between compassionate and medical circumstances, and disability policies and support are overwhelmingly directed at physical access, with dyslexia as a catch-all for anything less visible. For the University to gain credibility on MH, a sea change is necessary, and that is what I intend to lay out in this post.

Note that these are not "nice to have" - these are the basics for a credible policy. 

Tackling shortcomings in the Disability strategy as a whole

The current Disability Equality Scheme asserts that the University has adopted a social model of disability. This is simply not the case. A social model of disability recognises that disability is imposed upon the individual by an environment that is not compatible with their impairments. With its focus on medical "evidence" (a nebulous term which students with MH difficulties invariably grow to loathe) and templated support services in reality operates a medico-administrative model (medico-legal would after all imply some level of compliance that it seems unfair to credit).

A credible MH policy must be grounded in a genuine social model of Disability. At the most basic level this means addressing reasonable adjustments at the point a student discloses a disability - not placing a requirement of further assessment or medical opinion between the student and the support they deserve.

Developing a credible Mental Health policy

Once a firm base has been established (it being simply impractical to redraft the University's disability strategy to be properly inclusive of MH prior to 2013), a specific MH policy must do the following:

• Address the University as an antagonist of Mental Health - MH does not exist in a vacuum. The actions (and inactions) of the University, as a landlord, educator, care provider, and government have an unparalleled impact on student MH. Every University document, policy, and service must be developed with their MH impact in mind. Those that have been developed recklessly must be addressed as a matter of utmost priority. Staff must be trained to respect students and respect their MH. Between requiring death certificates for exam migitation on bereavement and issuing lawyer's letters for inconsequential debts, there is much that needs urgent resolution. Every threatening letter template and victim-blaming policy must be scrapped.
• Account for the state of available Mental Health services - Any policy that does not pay due regard to available support is not worth the paper it's written on. On multiple occassions I have been asked for documentation of my MH that either does not, or cannot reasonably exist. Support staff have frequently demonstrated a lack of understanding of what is and isn't available in terms of mental health support on the NHS in York or nationally. Assuming that a student can access unavailable services is unhelpful, and where academic progression or exacerbating illness is concerned, potentially unlawful.
• Avoid further complicating students Mental Health care - Further to considering available support, the University must not require any medical assessment or intervention that would not otherwise be in the interest of the student as established by that student and their existing care provider (where present). Putting students through additional interrogation of their MH or denying them mitigation or support on the basis of choices about their medical care is unacceptable. Every additional complication has the potential to worsen a student's condition and distracts severely from their studies. Where the University absolutely requires an assessment that is not available in the due timescale to that student on the NHS, it must be willing to reimburse the cost of that assessment with no means testing. 
• Target students with or susceptible to Mental Health problems - In Higher Education, policies to support minority students are often developed backwards - prevention of abuse comes first, the consideration of those students comes last. This is unacceptable. A credible MH policy must consider the needs of the students it's there to serve, and only once those have been addressed should consideration be given to cheat-proofing it. Where a policy decision could either allow or deny both a legitimate and vexatious request for support or mitigation, it must allow them. It is a far greater injustice to deny one student the fruits of their studies than it is to allow ten undeserved passes. Where these policies directly address, or are likely to be read by students, they must be written with the assumption that the reader has a legitimate need for support. Students must receive an absolute assurance that no good faith request for support (as attested by the student themself) will be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
• Recognise students as the authority on their own Mental Health - And we're back to the social model. There is no higher authority than the individual on their own experience. Except where academic rigour demands it (and such is currently invoked *far* more frequently than is reasonable), the word of the student on their own MH stands. With the current state of MH support, many students are their own caseworkers, or have responsibility for the care of other students. This is not a negotiable hypothesis, it is the reality in which all University policy must operate, for there is no other. With NHS cuts, and over-subscribed and poorly tailored University services, many students must take difficult decisions about their own MH which are at odds with what the University would prefer. The student comes first. Get over it.

1 in 4 students at York has Mental Health problems. I am one of those students. These are my red-lines. Address them and there will still be work to do, but beyond them there is no credible policy on my Mental Health.

To minimal fanfare, and no obvious resistance from student groups, a number of UK Universities are piloting the next generation of degree transcript, known as the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR). The HEAR augments the current degree classification and modular transcript with additional information on course structure, as well as a record of extra-curricular achievements. Despite the final Burgess Report insisting that the latter should be kept separate as a component of Personal Development Planning (PDP), guidance has since evolved such that any document omitting details of extra-curriculars entirely won't qualify as a HEAR. Add this to a strong nudge from the QAA towards institutions implementing HEAR, and you're well on the way to compulsory monitoring of extra-curricular achievements.

Those of you who are involved in student liberation campaigns have probably already noticed the deliberate mistake. Properly implementing HEAR requires institutions to record your involvement (mercifully only at committee level upwards, it seems) in activities which may identify you as a member of a minority group, and crucially as possessing a protected characteristic under UK equality law. Which will be indelibly marked on a transcript you're intended to provided to your employer at the CV screening stage. For the avoidance of doubt, This Is Not Ok.

Benevolently, the guidance (which explicitly acknowledges LGBT students as being at particular risk) suggests that "institutions should consider the appropriateness of allowing an opt-out by students in respect of individual activities". Consider. Maybe. Not definitely. Well thanks. (Incidentally, the ICO has apparently reviewed this section of the report, though it's not clear whether the risks were spelt out).  At least implementation of HEAR should be accountable to some external body, right? Actually, no. "Disputes in relation to entries within the HEAR should be resolved through institutional processes." So students will have to fight for the opt-out on a case by case basis in a sector whose favourite pastimes include developing new and exciting ways to excuse not properly implementing the Equality Act. Forgive my overwhelming cynicism.

So let's assume that an opt-out of recording any activity, be it religious, political or otherwise sensitive, is granted on request. What's the problem? Firstly, once the activity is gone, it's gone. It's either on your transcript, or it isn't. Right now I can list my activities to whatever degree of accuracy I wish, tailoring the CV to the job I'm applying for and to my personal level of comfortable disclosure - indeed, I have done. And in an eery foreshadowing of what may come, I've also been outed as trans by my University to a prospective employer. It's not comfortable, and it's not an experience I'd wish on any other student, regardless of the fact that I was successful in the application in question. So we're looking at a situation where students, often amongst the most dedicated on our campuses, who have thrown themselves into liberation campaigning are presented with an all or nothing choice between including excessive detail and leaving a conspicuous gap on their CV.

This leads to the next problem. Hierarchy creep. Having had to choose between a worthwhile activity and one that will stand out on a CV, students will now be eager to make their mark. CV building is already a problem in student societies. Heck, thanks to the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, it's a problem in under-18s sports clubs too. This pressure to acquire a position will inevitably lead to a surplus of eager volunteers and a mysterious proliferation in additional hierarchy. It's already the case that student committees at certain institutions have precisely as many participants as elected positions, with very unlikely candidates taking the less popular (but conveniently vacant) seats. Rewarding electoral presenteeism is hardly going to improve matters. So, not only do we have pressure to engage in CV-acceptable activities (there goes anything too minority, partisan or radical, then), but also pressure to model those activities around acceptable modes of organisation. One more cynical than me (whose academic supervisor has already suggested diversifying away from LGBT activism) has pointed out what a coincidentally wonderful way this might be to quell dissent (y'know, if you don't have a tame trustee board at your disposal). Go figure.

So what can we do? There's a great deal of momentum behind HEAR already, and even NUS has active policy to support it. Useless though it has proved, maintaining the PDP model where students record their own achievements to their own standards is immeasurably preferable to the proposed all or nothing laundry list. Regardless of what the sector finally adopts, one thing is clear - students must have an absolute veto over extra-curriculars recorded in the HEAR, and if we don't, students unions must withdraw all cooperation in recording them.

For an optimist (which I can occasionally be), today's letter in the Times from senior bishops and clergy calling for the Church of England to rejoice in same-sex partnerships, wonderfully coinciding with the Cutting Edge Consortium's annual conference (#cecuk2010 ), marks a watershed in the path to marriage equality. While it's disappointing that the chorus of voices from amongst Unitarians, Quakers, and Liberal Judaism were not heard more clearly (and it's to the broader LGBT community's discredit that *we* were not stronger allies in spreading that message), it is fair to say that from today the argument of "Faith Groups, QED" has reached the end of its useful life. With the established Church very publicly plural on the matter, several weak points against genuine equality (as if there were another kind) will now rightfully fall by the wayside.

To recap where we are: the Home Office is currently consulting on opening up civil marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples. Civil Partnerships in England and Wales may now be performed on religious premises, but as is proposed for "equal" civil marriage, the registration must still be devoid of any spiritual connotation. Paradoxically for such a seemingly staunch secular stance, this means the state has set itself up as arbiter of what is and isn't a legitimate expression of faith, and has come down on the side of that subset of those who can solemnise marriages that also have no wish to do so (and indeed a vehement opposition to different faiths doing otherwise) for same-sex couples.So why, in an ever more spiritually plural country, does our government continue to claim a hold over who can and can't "do" God, and how, where and when they may do so?

Ostensibly, or so those opposed to genuine equality would have it, devolving this freedom of conscience and faith to individual congregations would expose those declining to perform same-sex marriages to legal challenge. Fair enough. So what's the basis for this exposure? Sexual Orientation is established in the Equality Act (2010), along with Disability, Race, and many others, as a "Protected Characteristic". In order to be exposed to such liability, the government's earlier assurance (prior to announcing a scaled back consultation) that any implementation of genuine marriage equality could contain an exemption from performing marriages on the grounds of some protected characteristic must be mistaken. But it can't be.

When the Gender Recognition Act (2004, GRA) came into force in 2005 it contained the following amendment to the Marriage Act (1949) - "A clergyman is not obliged to solemnise the marriage of a person if the clergyman reasonably believes that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004". When the Equality Act arrived 6 years later, no effort was made to repeal that provision. As it stood, and still stands, the position of the civil service, if not the government it underpins, has to be that marriage can be denied on grounds of a protected characteristic.

As it is, the government has two options. If they are to accept Schedule 4 of the GRA as enforceable, they have absolutely no recourse to an imagined legal exposure, and no defence for a continued to refusal to wholeheartedly extend genuine marriage equality to those people and faith groups who would embrace it. If they are to continue to deny religious freedom on the grounds of such an argument, then they owe it to the trans community to strike that "exemption" from the statute books and acknowledge it for what it is - baseless, disingenuous, and damaging to trans equality. And they can do away with trans panic annulment while they're at it.

When the Home Office announced its consultation on how to broaden civil marriage (I'm hesistant to call it "equal" civil marriage at this stage), the professionally disingenuous folks at Coalition for Marriage were quick to make accusations that the Government were redefining the meaning of "Consultation". Unfortunately, what followed was not a plea that the rights and rites of other faiths and denominations not be curtailed as a sop to the churches of Westminster and Rome, but a plainly hypocritical protest that this restriction of religious freedom was not nearly far enough. As a long lapsed, if not wholly recovered, adherent to the word of God as cast in man's image, this struck me as good teaching moment.

While the Home Secretary no doubt has a speck in her eye on many issues, this is nothing to the plank that is the unexamined structural privilege of those denominations which dominate Christian discourse in the UK. Opponents of equal marriage are quick to appeal to the notion of England as a Christian country and its churches as the heart of our communities. If we are to entertain this notion, as C4M would no doubt like us to, then it must follow that their petition is flawed beyond redemption.

The C4M petition, you see, is a curtain-twitcher's dream come true. While it may be possible to tune out your priest as he relays the reminder from on high of your personal duty to oppose the marriages of your friends or children - or indeed your own - it takes greater improvisation and strength of conviction to decline your minister's pen and petition as he proffers them over the obligatory post-match tea and biscuits. And however pre-occupied you are with clearing the tables and rearranging the hymn books, that's of course no excuse for not later adding your name, in the comfort of your own living room, to the publicly searchable list of conscientious objectors.

This isn't a merely hypothetical situation. It is already happening in English congregations, and will continue to happen until the consultation closes. The line of a religious institution under attack continues to be spun at the expense of the LGBT faithful, their friends and their family, artifically inflating the figures in favour of the misguided and misleading campaign to restore the cement which entrenches the foundations of religious privilege in UK law. The hard sell mantra of "One man, one woman, for life", as if that had ever been true since the establishment of the Church of England, is repeated with no regard for the countless divorcees present on any given Sunday. The argument and motives don't stand up under scrutiny, much less the signatures they yield - however willingly given.

While it's easy to laugh at the ever more ridiculous arguments employed - not least when remarriages in the UK outnumber those in religious premises - but it's important not to underestimate the power of misinformation and social coercion. Churches are employers, and hubs of social activity, and it is vital that dissenting members of those congregations which would oppose genuine marriage equality - and that's far from all of them - have our full support. And however weak the arguments which C4M employs, we must applaud them for getting one thing right.

This is a matter of religious equality and freedom - equality of all churches before the law, and the freedom of persons of all faiths and none to be married as they, and their god(s), see fit.

Earlier this year, in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to make head or tail of the diagnosis of "Primary Transsexualism", I requested a number of details from Leeds GIS (reported and elaborated upon at Complicity). While their response was revealing in its own right, the most interesting thing to me was unearthing the broader group of which Leeds is part. Thanks to the wonders of Freedom of Information (we'd like to keep it, please), and with profound apologies to the trees sacrificed, the context in which individual Gender Identity Services operate is now a lot clearer.

Update #2: I've been asked to warn that the content below and in the linked posts may well make distressing reading. Those particularly affected by gatekeeping and institutional cissexism may not wish to read beyond this point.

Update #1: Sarah Brown and Zöe O'Connell have both posted their take on the group's activities.

Initially founded in 2003 as a professional support group comprising Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield GISs the Gender Governance Group (G3) also includes Belfast, Leeds, Newcastle and Sunderland, as well as representatives from Northampton and York. The group meets every 6 months to share best practice, report back on research and discuss all of the developments and circumstances you'd expect of such a group. Against the backdrop of social and political change for trans people, its proceedings over its first decade make interesting reading.

Standards

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Royal College of Psychiatrists UK Standards of Care (2006 draft) - gender medicine's answer to Duke Nukem Forever - is a staple of discussion from the very first meeting. At the end of last year it was acknowledged that work had been stalled on the UK SoC in anticipation of WPATH's 7th edition (published in the Summer just gone), the group's response to which has been cautious to say the least.

Leeds are adamant that they maintain Real Life Experience prior to HRT, and the opinion of the group appears to be that WPATH v7 removes this entirely. An astute reading of the document makes clear this is not the case, RLE very much living on as a prerequisite to surgery - it is its anachronistic misuse as a poorly supported gatekeeping tool (pre-HRT hazing, if you will) that has been withdrawn. How this is reflected in the UK offering remains, for now, to be seen.

Funding

Funding is of course the bane of the group, as with any other NHS body. The TaxPayer's Alliance will be distraught to know that the group's governance activities are very efficiently budgeted, and it appears that unless the Tavistock Clinic is raking in sums the likes of which have never been seen outside of Zone 6, The Daily Mail's "Gender Industry" is indeed the fabrication we always knew it to be.

One particular gem (in the loosest possible sense) is the practice of the North Yorkshire and York PCT funding individual cases through the entire (rigid) carepath on a one in one out basis, resulting in what would appear to be an entirely avoidable 4.5 year waiting list. And much as the trans community may have little love for clinical gatekeeping, it's hard to blame Leeds for the request from a funding body to provide photographs of 2 months hair growth to support a request for laser treatment. How that stands in relation to the RLE, one can only wonder.

Useful Nuisance

As one might expect, there is an underlying tension between patient choice and clinical judgement. The right to protection of records under the Gender Recognition Act no doubt presents difficulties where relevant information exists from pre-transition. However, the apparent practice of counselling patients against taking up this protection is deeply concerning. That social advancements in acceptance of trans people (the Equality Act also getting an honourable mention) seem as something to be routed around for clinical expediency certainly needs addressing. Gender Identity Services should be leaders in developing a means of GRA-proofing records to allow for patient privacy *from* clinicians while allowing all demonstrably relevant detail to remain available.

For all that clinicians may wish that trans people existed in an acultural, apolitical context, we do not. As users of other services, it is a sad necessity that we need to know our legal rights, and in a social context it is deeply important that we develop an identity for ourselves. Inconvenient though it is, this cannot be switched off on NHS time. Accordingly the manner in which advocacy is spoken of, and the wariness of patients who have "highly intellectualised" their gender makes uncomfortable reading. Whether OB/GYN professionals treat feminists with the same caution is left as a research exercise for the reader.

Where to now?

There's still more to be had from the current batch of minutes (with more eyes than mine poring over them), and I plan to shed greater light on Stands of Care and advocacy when some outstanding requests to other bodies are returned - the development of York's services will no doubt also be of interest to people here. What I hope doesn't happen is a reduction in transparency. While I clearly disagree with the positions taken by the group on a number of things, it seems it would be in the best interests of everyone if these discussions could be had as and when things develop, not over 10 years in retrospect. For now, at least, we have a clearer understanding of our our trans industrial complex operates.

From Half Man Half Biscuit's Breaking News:

We’re just receiving reports of an incident at a farm in Sussex where a number of people have been arrested in connection with “Annoying The Nation”. It is believed that that the owner of the farm, a Mr. Hibbert, has been co-operating with Police and government officials in a plot codenamed Operation Less Pricks, and kindly granted permission for the use of his seventeenth century tithe barn as a temporary holding place for those arrested. Although not confirmed, we are led to understand that those already charged include:

Bus drivers who don’t wait for people to sit down before pulling away from the bus stop;

While the track continues for another 2:15 in its enumeration of societal nuisance, with the occasional deviation into the problematic, we can safely alight here in the familiar surroundings of the blindingly obvious.

If someone boards your bus with a mobility aid in one hand and two shopping bags in the other, don't pull away before they're seated.

See also: not lowering the floor of the bus at stops, and ignoring the stop completely when the person who flagged you down is moving slowly (albeit not slowly enough that they'd not arrive at the stop by the time you'd lowered your floor and opened the doors).

While schemes such as this one from First where the passenger carries a card announcing their mobility status may seem helpful on the surface, they are, in essence, a cop-out. The hidden nature of many mobility problems aside, the majority of your passengers are regardless not seasoned public transport surfers. As a reasonably able-bodied commuter, even I am occasionally displaced by my erroneous assumption that "No standing while the vehicle is in motion" is equally instructive to the driver of the moving vehicle as it is to me (the one doing the standing with the legs) - not least when I'm helping my partner into a seat.

In summary, pulling away from a bus stop while passengers are standing is much like parading your angry carer's privilege around the internet - only to be done as absolutely necessary, and ideally with the enthusiastic consent of all concerned.

End rant.

With the lifting of the ban on Civil Partnerships in religious buildings in England and Wales, and the recent consultation on the introduction of same sex Civil Marriage in Scotland, the United Kingdom has seen step by step improvements in equality of marriage. This is welcome progress for same-sex couples, and a victory (however small) for religious freedom, but still leaves many trans people facing significant practical and social barriers to the full enjoyment of their legal rights, not just in the arena of partnerships. Many accounts of this progress have overlooked trans equality or played down the urgency of the necessary changes, so for my own reference when tackling such omissions I want to set out the key issues here.

Historically, trans people wishing to update their birth certificate to reflect a sex different to the one they were assigned at birth were able to do so on an ad hoc basis. Following legal challenge (Corbett v Corbett, 1970) this practice was ended, until Goodwin v United Kingdom in 2002 precipitated what would become the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Under the Act, trans adults may apply for a new birth certificate to be issued, along with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) - a peculiar piece of paper, the possession of which affords various legal protections, despite serving no useful purpose in and of itself (not least because it is an offence to require disclosure or pass on knowledge of a GRC under most circumstances).

Under the GRA, an individual is entitled to marry (or not) in accordance with the sex recorded on their new birth certificate. It should however be noted that the Act broadly upholds the decision in Corbett v Corbett by amending the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) to allow for annulment where the marriage was only made possible by way of Gender Recognition (i.e. one or both partners is trans). In order to acquire the requisite certificates, the individual is required to annul any existing Marriage or Partnership - facilitated by a separate amendment to the MCA.

The questionable assumption of separation upon Gender Recognition notwithstanding, this presents an obvious problem. While a trans person may to all material purposes be living in their own sex prior to recognition (something which is indeed *required* by the Act, and acknowledged by the DVLA and Passport Service amongst others), if they wish to continue in their Marriage (Partnership), it must necessarily become a Partnership (Marriage). At best this puts individuals at risk of unwanted disclosure and potential distress (and it *is* a deeply distressing process by all accounts). While we maintain separate notions of Marriage and Partnership, the only way to rectify this situation (described  by Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone as "cruel and unusual") is to open up both institutions to all couples regardless of sex.

For financially stable adults in existing relationships, this is perhaps where the matter ends. Unfortunately, each of the already significant commitments of Marriage (Partnership) and Gender Recognition is vastly complicated by the presence of the other. As well as the social and theological significance many people attach to it, a recognised Marriage provides a number of legal protections both within the United Kingdom and beyond. This presents any couple wishing to marry in the knowledge that one or both of them intends to seek gender recognition with a difficult balancing act. Do they marry in the expectation that they will dissolve and reaffirm that partnership upon recognition^[1]? In that case, they are faced with the issues of disclosure detailed above, further exacerbated by the social expectation that the ceremony would be open to family and friends. They would also incur the administrative costs of forming two separate partnerships. If they delay marriage until after recognition (further complicated by the fact that recognition is not guaranteed), any benefit of the marriage is delayed along with it - acknowledgement of financial independence from one's parents (notoriously tricky) being an example that is close to my heart as a student activist.

Particularly where money is tight and personal circumstances complex, the current arrangement puts individuals seeking recognition in almost impossibly difficult situations (not something which trans people are generally strangers to, granted), in exchange for no clear benefit to anyone whatsoever - those who would see trans people "persuaded" out of gender recognition excepted - and dare I say it, counter to the aims of any government initiative seeking to promote marriage as the appropriate context for a stable, long term, relationship. If we are to see genuine marriage equality in the United Kingdom that can only, and will only, be achieved when all legal partnerships are unequivocally open to all couples without reference to their sex at any point in their lives - and we shouldn't accept anything less.

[1] It isn't clear to me, given the gendered manner in which partnerships are legally solemnized, that this wouldn't (at least by some officials) be deemed a break in the "Real Life Experience" required by both health professionals and the act itself. If this has been dealt with elsewhere, I'd be interested to know.