A few weeks ago I gave a presentation to a course run by my trade union. It was a diversity course, and I was there to tell them something about transgender people.
Groan. The dreaded diversity lecture, we must all be nice to trans people, box ticked, move on.
I was particularly anxious not to do the tick-box diversity lecture, I believe it does little to help the cause of minorities. So instead I spent an hour talking about intersectionality and a wholistic approach to diversity, with some reference to the experience of transgender people because as I said it was the only reference on which I could talk with authority. Heaven knows there are enough people who will presume to talk for other groups.
The lady running the course introduced me as an activist. It jarred with me somewhat, for as I explained I seem myself in that context as a rank-and-file member who has been radicalised by her experiences. There are plenty of real activists to be found in that environment, but theirs is a much more political zeal than mine.
But what is activism? In the context of working for fairer workplace rights or complaining about a bank it's not a case of choosing to be an activist but one of doing what is right. Activists in my book go looking for causes, in my case the cause came to me.
The world has a dramatic oversupply of self-declared activists - particularly of the armchair variety - and I have no desire to be one of them.
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Saturday, 19 March 2016
Saturday, 23 January 2016
There comes a time when you have to complain.
It's been about two and a half years now, since I transitioned. One of the first things I did was change my name at my bank – (Bank name withheld for now) – by going into a branch with a copy of my statutory declaration of name change. All went well, and I went on my way.
I noticed a few months ago that one of my (Bank name withheld for now) products, an ISA (A British tax-free savings scheme), still had my old name on it in their correspondence with me. Not a problem I thought, I'll simply ring them up and put right what is obviously a clerical error.
The lady I talked to when I got round to ringing them up last week did not know the procedure, so put me on hold for a while while she consulted someone higher up the ladder. I was very surprised to be told when she came back on the line that they required a letter from one of my medical practitioners confirming that my name change is for gender reassignment and that is permanent.
That's right. Medical details to change the name on a bank account.
I was expecting that they would see the name change already on their records and make the change, or at worst require to see my statutory declaration. I explained that this was an unacceptable and highly unusual demand, that I was not prepared to comply with it and that they should follow it up with their diversity department as a matter of urgency. I was told that that was their requirement, and referred to their complaints department.
The next day I talked to a lady from their complaints department who explained that they had checked again and that the medical detail was a requirement imposed by the Financial Ombudsman (British government financial regulator) because the ownership of stocks and shares was a different matter from a bank account, or for example owning a car. I explained that I felt it was in contravention of the Equalities Act because a cisgender person changing their name would not face an equivalent demand – I likened it to a married woman being asked for a letter from her gynaecologist with her name change request. All to no avail I was told, so I asked for the demand in writing and the call came to a close.
I felt the citing of the Financial Ombudsman smacked of their making up their policy as they went along. Those stories of organisations you hear of using bogus Health and Safety or Data Protection rules as catch-all excuses to dodge their responsibilities came to mind. Sadly we transgender people are all too used to such things, we see them quite often used in our direction.
So on receipt of their written response I rang the Financial Ombudsman phone line and asked them whether they had any such requirements for a name change. Their answer was that they do not, as I expected.
As a result, I've put in a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. Such complaints are official business, so they will have to respond, any justifications will be investigated, and woe betide them if - as I suspect - they've played fast-and-loose with the Equalities Act.
In particular I asked them to consider the following points:
It is likely that in time I will close the ISA in question and take my business elsewhere. However I feel that is is important that I pursue this action as I feel that unless they are required to examine their dealings with transgender customers it is likely that something worse will happen to another transgender customer in the future. Nobody else is going to close down this kind of activity for us, there comes a time when we transgender people have to do it for ourselves.
I noticed a few months ago that one of my (Bank name withheld for now) products, an ISA (A British tax-free savings scheme), still had my old name on it in their correspondence with me. Not a problem I thought, I'll simply ring them up and put right what is obviously a clerical error.
The lady I talked to when I got round to ringing them up last week did not know the procedure, so put me on hold for a while while she consulted someone higher up the ladder. I was very surprised to be told when she came back on the line that they required a letter from one of my medical practitioners confirming that my name change is for gender reassignment and that is permanent.
That's right. Medical details to change the name on a bank account.
I was expecting that they would see the name change already on their records and make the change, or at worst require to see my statutory declaration. I explained that this was an unacceptable and highly unusual demand, that I was not prepared to comply with it and that they should follow it up with their diversity department as a matter of urgency. I was told that that was their requirement, and referred to their complaints department.
The next day I talked to a lady from their complaints department who explained that they had checked again and that the medical detail was a requirement imposed by the Financial Ombudsman (British government financial regulator) because the ownership of stocks and shares was a different matter from a bank account, or for example owning a car. I explained that I felt it was in contravention of the Equalities Act because a cisgender person changing their name would not face an equivalent demand – I likened it to a married woman being asked for a letter from her gynaecologist with her name change request. All to no avail I was told, so I asked for the demand in writing and the call came to a close.
I felt the citing of the Financial Ombudsman smacked of their making up their policy as they went along. Those stories of organisations you hear of using bogus Health and Safety or Data Protection rules as catch-all excuses to dodge their responsibilities came to mind. Sadly we transgender people are all too used to such things, we see them quite often used in our direction.
So on receipt of their written response I rang the Financial Ombudsman phone line and asked them whether they had any such requirements for a name change. Their answer was that they do not, as I expected.
As a result, I've put in a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. Such complaints are official business, so they will have to respond, any justifications will be investigated, and woe betide them if - as I suspect - they've played fast-and-loose with the Equalities Act.
In particular I asked them to consider the following points:
- Unnecessary and intrusive requirements such as medical demands for transgender people that are not applied to non-transgender people are likely to fall foul of the Equalities Act.
- An organisation should not be allowed to make multiple demands for name change documentation because of their opaque group structure. I am a consumer not a corporate lawyer, so as far as I am concerned all my (Bank name withheld for now) branded and sold products come from (Bank name withheld for now). I should therefore only have to change my name once with (Bank name withheld for now). If they lack the competence to manage their customer database then that is their problem, not mine.
- Citing bogus Financial Ombudsman rules brings that organisation into disrepute, and undermines consumer trust in the regulation of the banking business. This one I hope the Ombudsman will take especially seriously.
- Given that I can close this ISA and open another in my new name with the same money, the whole process is rather pointless. Just who are they trying to protect here?
It is likely that in time I will close the ISA in question and take my business elsewhere. However I feel that is is important that I pursue this action as I feel that unless they are required to examine their dealings with transgender customers it is likely that something worse will happen to another transgender customer in the future. Nobody else is going to close down this kind of activity for us, there comes a time when we transgender people have to do it for ourselves.
Tuesday, 16 June 2015
Black or white
Things have kept me away from the news of late. One or two depressing stories including a deplorable Daily Star piece, and a lot to do in the real world.
One story you'd have to be on Mars to miss would be that of Rachel Dolezal. An American black civil rights activist who turned out to be a white woman with a deep tan and an Afro haircut who had reinvented herself as a black woman. So many ways to put a foot in it, where do I start?
I look at this story from an odd position. I'm white. Pasty white, the way you get with several decades of British winters behind you.
But my ancestry? In the 1790s a woman from Jamaica appears on a marriage record in London, she's one of my ancestors. You can't tell by looking at me, but maybe you never met my grandmother.
Well, there goes the country, doesn't it.
It's interesting, contrasting the Received Opinion view of Black British history with my own family history. Mass immigration since the 1940s has now largely erased the pre-existing Black British communities, but there have been Black Britons since the Middle Ages and before. Received Opinion has appropriated the American story of slavery and a welter of racism, but the unexpected truth on this side of the Atlantic is that while there was institutional slavery in British colonies in the 18th century it was not legal on the British mainland. We have the case of Somerset v. Stewart to thank for that in 1772.
So small Black British communities existed in cities across the country. Port cities, Liverpool, Cardiff, Bristol, and London, my ancestor's city. These people lived normal lives, some were poor and some were prosperous, and some of them became part of the emerging Victorian middle classes. Their experience was not necessarily the same as the greater numbers of Black Britons who came to the country in the later half of the twentieth century.
This isn't a romnaticised view of the past, it's my family history. I have little idea what life was like for my ancestors beyond those that were known to people alive in my lifetime, but I do know where they lived and who they married so I can tell they did all right in life.
So it's odd for me, looking at Rachel Dolezal. A white person with black ancestry, looking at a white person with no black ancestry who pretended she had some. My life experience has as little in common with my 18th century Black British ancestor as it does with their counterpart today, but despite sharing that with Dolezal I have the ancestry she evidently craved.
It doesn't tell me why she appropriated something as little hers as it is mine, but it does tell me that ancestry alone does not give you life experience.
One story you'd have to be on Mars to miss would be that of Rachel Dolezal. An American black civil rights activist who turned out to be a white woman with a deep tan and an Afro haircut who had reinvented herself as a black woman. So many ways to put a foot in it, where do I start?
I look at this story from an odd position. I'm white. Pasty white, the way you get with several decades of British winters behind you.
But my ancestry? In the 1790s a woman from Jamaica appears on a marriage record in London, she's one of my ancestors. You can't tell by looking at me, but maybe you never met my grandmother.
Well, there goes the country, doesn't it.
It's interesting, contrasting the Received Opinion view of Black British history with my own family history. Mass immigration since the 1940s has now largely erased the pre-existing Black British communities, but there have been Black Britons since the Middle Ages and before. Received Opinion has appropriated the American story of slavery and a welter of racism, but the unexpected truth on this side of the Atlantic is that while there was institutional slavery in British colonies in the 18th century it was not legal on the British mainland. We have the case of Somerset v. Stewart to thank for that in 1772.
So small Black British communities existed in cities across the country. Port cities, Liverpool, Cardiff, Bristol, and London, my ancestor's city. These people lived normal lives, some were poor and some were prosperous, and some of them became part of the emerging Victorian middle classes. Their experience was not necessarily the same as the greater numbers of Black Britons who came to the country in the later half of the twentieth century.
This isn't a romnaticised view of the past, it's my family history. I have little idea what life was like for my ancestors beyond those that were known to people alive in my lifetime, but I do know where they lived and who they married so I can tell they did all right in life.
So it's odd for me, looking at Rachel Dolezal. A white person with black ancestry, looking at a white person with no black ancestry who pretended she had some. My life experience has as little in common with my 18th century Black British ancestor as it does with their counterpart today, but despite sharing that with Dolezal I have the ancestry she evidently craved.
It doesn't tell me why she appropriated something as little hers as it is mine, but it does tell me that ancestry alone does not give you life experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)