Edited copy of My Submission re Victorian LGBTIQ+ Strategy

One of the many things I like about the government in my home state is their use of public consultation. I've referred to this recently (here, on police, here, on tiny homes [yet to be submitted], and there are two more I am looking at); I have just made a submission on the government's proposed LGBTIQ+ Strategy - still open for a few days here. 

A lightly edited copy of my submission is provided below.

Direction 1 Equal rights and freedom

It is CRUCIAL to ensure that these measures are introduced in a way that does NOT empower bigots in workplaces.

As an example, requiring TGD people to provide their preferred pronouns without imposing a similar requirement on cisgender people WILL enable those who are transphobic to simply resort to asking, one after another, what a TGD person’s preferred pronouns are until, exhausted by the continuous battering, the TGD person commits suicide (and exhaustion from prolonged assault IS a feature in many such suicides). Another example of such abuse is a person (who I knew and observed doing this) who used “mate” with a TGD person on the flimsy pretext that lesbians (which he obviously was not!!!) use the term, but it was actually a highly vicious transphobic attack.

It should be noted that workplace HR departments in some companies are often too conflicted personally (including for personal religious reasons) or too full of gutless cowards or too blind to the psychological damage being done (some such departments still have people who thought hazing was OK) to deal with such issues.

It must be made clear that implementing such measures in a way that creates a hostile workplace or other environment is UTTERLY unacceptable - and that MUST be CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT.

The attitude of some bigots are a bit like a rapist who, when they (some rapists are female) stops committing the rape and then says “there we are, what’s your problem, I’m doing what is now clear by the law so we should be close friends”. The damage done by such bigots over decades have left some people with trauma, complex trauma, and PTSD.

The cure for such trauma is NOT only counselling: it is (a) removing future discrimination, (b) removing triggers to the trauma such as the attitudes of staff, and (c) the use of apologies - including by companies who have allowed such abuses (a point for such companies to keep in mind on Indigenous issues as well).

As a final note, some TGD people ARE binary: forcing them to use gender-neutral toilets, for instance, can feel like an actively attack - by denial - of their identity.

No doubt the implementation of these measures will be monitored. In the surveys which are likely to be part of that, the use of “transgender” as a singular term encompassing all TGD people is offensive - and to get that across, the designation M or F should be replaced by a singular category “cisgender” in drafts of such surveys so cisgender people can have a personal experience of that offensiveness.

Direction 2: Equitable and accessible service systems

The inclusion of targets makes this a particularly noteworthy goal, however, implementation of this measure needs to address two issues.

Firstly, requirements for documentation must take into account that people may come outside Victoria. As an example, consider how HORRENDOUS it would be to require someone from an actively transphobic nation to have to engage with the bureaucracy of that nation on documentation.

And it should NEVER be said that this is “just once and it is all over”. Some bloody-minded, bigoted or ignorant bureaucrat somewhere will come up with a pretext to force TGD people to reprove who they are at intervals of around 5 to 10 years. (I hope that strategy stops that.)

The second point also relates to this: police checks.

The problem with police checks is that it FORCES TGD people to deadname themselves - either on the form, or face-to-face.

The simple FACT is that this causes the overwhelming majority of TGD people distress - a very small number aren’t disturbed by this, but they do NOT speak for the majority. I know many TGD people who avoid applying for jobs that say “police check may be required”. That’s probably meant to deter criminals, but it (a) is an active barrier to many TGD people, and (b) suggests strongly that there is a measure of incompetence around those trying to fill the job, as they can’t even decide if a police check is or isn’t required.

There have been suggestions for dealing with this in the past - I personally like the idea of paying for all past criminal records to made accessible under new names for those who change their gender identity documentation (and NO-ONE else - not for any other name changes), even if a MODEST fee needs to be charged for that. However, the suggestion, based on attending a police station and getting a paper document, for having “<result> for this name and any former names” from around the mid-2000s might be one way of dealing with the discrimination that is inevitably caused in some workplaces by being compulsorily outed might be a half-way measure, if it can be adapted to the current digital world.

(It is pointless to make reference to laws banning discrimination in this instance: applicants are just told they were unsuccessful, and no correspondence will be entered in to. There is no way a rejected applicant can get evidence of transphobia. I am aware this strategy is for government, but it is setting the scene for how private industry does business as well.)

However, I also consider there are issues around double punishment that society needs to consider - the requirement for police checks, apart from often being questionable, makes it harder for those who have served their time to get decent jobs, and may ACTIVELY drive them back into crime. There are moves afoot to expunge past convictions if people apply: how about we, as a society, also look at things like time limits on how far back issues have to be divulged (including name changes) on police checks, and set some reasonable limits? It is bloody absurd that TGD people are possibly COMPELLED to deadname themselves from a time period that exceeds many of the statute of limitations (except for crimes such as murder, genocide, etc).

Until this issue is properly resolved to remove the burden of deadnaming from TGD people, there will ALWAYS be an inherent form of discrimination.

Direction 3: Visibility to inform decision-making

Data is not necessary before deciding to act with decency.

My previous comments apply to this matter as well.

Direction 4: Safe, strong and sustainable communities

My previous comments apply here as well.

While being mindful of Dr Martin Luther King Jr.’s admonition that “It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless”, I have always considered education to be crucial in the attainment of safety and equity for TGD people - and others in the LGBTIQ+ communities.

This education must not only be about the legal situation, it must actively address the myths and misconceptions that bigots have, and it must start in schools - where it must be implemented in a way that addresses the fact that parents, peers and others are likely to be actively resisting the truth because they were raised as bigots.

This cannot be achieved in a single step: such education will need to be monitored (amongst cisgender and hetero people) and adapted from time to time - in exactly the same way that we need to do to address white supremacists and other racists and their ilk on the far right (the sort who attempted a coup a few weeks ago in the USA).

Such flawed people, scared of difference, terrified of complexity and overwhelmed (emotionally and mentally) by change, are dangerous, and their fear and hate often encompasses all minorities in society - ethnic groups, disabled people, LGBTIQ+ people, and WOMEN. To deal with them, we will need to address all of their problems - and for most of those people. It doesn’t matter that they may be a minority: their hate can grow as shown by their growing influence amongst conservatives over the last two and a half decades (and do enough damage even without that growth).

General feedback

The issue of unintended consequences is of very considerable importance. When legislation is reviewed for conformity with the human rights charter, that review MUST include experts in the areas being considered.

The failure of the engineers registration bill to consider the issue of historical transphobia in tertiary institutions and the situation of people from outside Victoria is one example, but other examples include how gender aware a budget may be, for instance.

Whoever is advising the relevant committee on this appears to need expert support, in my opinion.