PROJECT: I AM NOT A PRINCESS ... I AM A ....

So as Christmas fast approaches and children wander the aisles in search for toys to add to their lists to Santa, we can a clear divide between the genders as the ‘boys’ aisle’ is lined with superheroes, firemen and some sort of transforming robot, whereas the ‘girls’ aisle’ is noticeably a bright shade of pink with princesses, dolls and worryingly kitchen equipment (which is also a pale shade of pink). And so we ask, why is this? To be more specific, why should the ‘princess’ genre play such a large part in young girls lives when they mostly give the young girl ideologies that she ‘must be rescued by a guy’ or worse still, ‘be miserable until she has found her prince’.

Now I admit, more recently there have some films that have given us some strong, independent princesses (Brave, Rapunzel), nevertheless, why must they be ‘princesses’ in the first place?

‘I am not a princess…I am a…’ is a new project which has the main aim of showing young girls what careers are available to them as they progress to womanhood! It is too often in our childhood that girls are shown images of princesses, whom primary goal is to find their prince… or as modern adaptions has shown us, they have a dream…but it is suddenly interrupted by their need to ‘love’.

The project aims to collect personal drawings from women of all ages who are in a career, which is not that of being ‘a princess’. So far we are extremely appreciative to have received drawings from the creator of ‘The Everyday Sexism Project’, students, and those who have found the project via Facebook.

Iamnotaprincessiama.com will feature all of the drawings and act as an ‘online picture book’ as it were. By using hand-drawn pictures, we can make a range of careers more accessible to young girls and encourage them to dream higher!

If you would like to contribute to the project, all you have to do is to simply draw a picture of yourself in your career (or in the progress of your future career). The drawings can be as simple or elaborate as you would like, however they are to be uploaded online so as long as this is possible, draw away!

It has not yet been decided whether the drawings will be used in a different format e.g. a book, a play, or will remain as this accessible blog for future non- princesses, so please note that by contributing, your drawings and name may be publicly shared. (The site will use first names only!)

Please send your drawings to: iamnotaprincessiama@hotmail.co.uk

Or you may tweet or Facebook message us!

Are you feminist at Rhul with a feminist project that needs promoting? Email us at rhulfeminism@gmail.com

A letter to London Student, RE: Gender Neutral Toilet Debate

This is a response to the "The Great Debate: Should unisex toilets exist on university campuses?" in the London Student (see argument for, argument against)

There are a number of factual errors in this article, not least the fact that “cisgender” means “people whose gender is congruent with the sex they were assigned at birth” – not the exact opposite, as implied in the article,* but more concerning than that is the platform that the London Student gave to dangerously transphobic views.

As a trans student at a university of London college, so far I have been relatively safe. By that I mean that beyond the odd transphobic remark, I haven’t been subjected to any violence in toilets. Do you know what that makes me? Lucky. Outside of ULU spaces I have been subjected to violence, I’ve been physically attacked, for what? For using a toilet. Why? Because I didn’t look like ‘enough of a man’. Thankfully, this far into transition, I am generally safe in toilets. For three or four years though, my appearance put me firmly in the middle, I risked violence whatever toilet I used. In the ladies toilet I was perceived as a man, and in the men’s I was perceived as a woman. Nonetheless, I was lucky that this was a transient state. For some people, their gender identity is neither male nor female, and they may try to appear androgynous, to the point where either gendered toilet is a risk for their entire life. Were someone intent on committing sexual assault they would do so regardless of the toilet situation, I believe. However, non-gendered toilets create a safe space for people who run a very high risk of being assaulted whichever toilet they use. I certainly don’t advocate replacing all gendered toilets with them – I understand the value of gendered toilets as a safe space, but I do advocate replacing some – so that people I know can use the toilet without being terrified that they’ll be attacked.

Jason Wong has obviously been very lucky that he’s never had to risk a series of Urinary Tract Infections, or even kidney damage, both of which are excruciatingly painful, rather than run the risk of using a public toilet. The attitudes expressed in his article are dangerously transphobic – with language such as “gender confusion” – which is certainly not the case for me, or any of the other trans students I know at University of London venues (although were someone to be querying their gender, unisex toilets would be a valuable safe space for this individual).

In suggesting that Alex Peters-Day is prioritising a “radical political agenda over protecting the privacy and safety of students”, Wong misses one important fact – trans people are students as well, and we too require privacy and safety – the safety to urinate without running a risk of violence, for example. Nobody is being forced to use gender neutral toilets; that option is only being made available to those who wish to. These aren’t just for trans students either. They’re for students who are wandering past having a chat with mates and want to carry that on in the toilet, they’re for students who might be carers, or have carers, of a different gender to themselves, they’re for student parents who might have a child of a different gender, and they’re for people who just happen to need the toilet. This is not about segregating trans students (as implied by London Student’s description of the toilets as “Transgender toilets”), or degendering all toilets, it’s about offering a gender-free option to those groups that might appreciate, benefit from, or require it.

Does London Student have a policy of allowing openly sexist, racist, or homophobic articles? If not, why has this even been printed? Allowing a platform for these views will only serve to make trans students feel even more unsafe at University of London venues.

The Students' Union of Royal Holloway, University of London does not tolerate transphobia. 

RHUL Feminism Society calls for a retraction of this article, a public apology to trans students by London Student and an explanation of why the editor thinks it's ok to spread transphobia around London. 

*John Peart writes ‘Some people do not identify with the gender identity they are officially assigned at birth – their cisgender.’ This is a grammatically nonsense sentence. The logical way to read it is to assume he used the wrong there/their/they, and has therefore reversed the meaning of cisgender. Otherwise, the sentence as it is written uses a possessive “their”, such that everyone possesses a “cisgender”. I’ve never heard cisgender used in this grammatical form before, and it implies that everyone who is trans has multiple genders, and risks suggesting that people choose another gender (rather than “their cisgender”) to “have”. Clarity is important in any article. The lack of it here is acutely felt; a grammatically nonsense sentence means that Peart fails in his representation of trans students.

Statement on RadFem2012: *All* women together for liberation.

RadFem 2012 is a radical feminism conference being held in London in July. Its website proclaims “women together for liberation”, but as it turns out, they don't mean all women. RadFem's participation policy states that the conference is open to “women born women living as women”. This is a change from an earlier policy of being open only to “biological women”, which – as one wry Tweeter commented – presumably refers to women who work best at 40 degrees. Either way, this policy clearly discriminates against trans* women who might wish to participate in the conference. A trans* woman may live as a woman, experience the pressures, discrimination and inequality associated with being woman, but according to RadFem 2012, they are not quite enough of a woman to be welcome at the conference. This, quite clearly, is discriminatory, disgusting, and – we believe, and very much hope – totally out of step with what most feminists think.

Royal Holloway Feminism Society has members who hold a wide range of theoretical perspectives on feminism – and probably even more who prefer to define themselves as “feminists” rather than as “___ feminists”. As a group, we have different views on many things, including on the importance of women-only spaces in feminist campaigns. One thing that we can all agree on, though, is that transphobia has absolutely no place in our idea of feminism. Equality and transphobia cannot live side by side: you cannot fight for one whilst displaying the other.

We are an active feminist group, and our members have attended several different feminist conferences, and many other feminist events in the past year. However, we will not be supporting or recommending that our members attend RadFem 2012, because we believe that doing so would implicitly support the transphobic stance of the conference. We would encourage other feminist groups to take a similar stance. We suggest that the organisers of the conference rethink their policy, because by excluding trans* women, they will be missing out on the participation of many passionate, dedicated feminists, both trans* and cis, who refuse to be associated with such a transphobic policy and believe that all women should stand together for liberation.

How Marriage Will Conquer Even Gender

By A. Howard

For all the challenges facing the LBGTI community, and all those who seek to advance equality, the challenges in the rest of Europe are greater. Surprisingly, the Rainbow Map created by ILGA Europe (the European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Trans and Intersex Association) places the UK as the highest country for national human rights of these groups. What about the fabled liberal haven of Iceland?, I cry. Only a handful of western European countries have scores equating to any decent rights, with southern and eastern European countries looking downright scary. We need IDAHO as a day to remind people that the days of hiding and institutionalised scorn are really not that far away in the UK, and present in many European countries to this day. Let’s try to celebrate IDAHO, be it by sharing the word that the LBGTI community are here to be heard, supporting charities like Stonewall or making our voices heard by the government through commenting on the proposals. 




May 17^th is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. This year IDAHO falls amongst UK discussion of the current Equal Civil Marriage consultation over whether same-sex couples and couples including transgender people should be allowed to publicly declare their commitment to each other in that time-old bond: marriage. Slight shock that such proposals came under a Conservative-dominated government aside, this is wonderful news for all who see IDAHO as an opportune way to advance equality. We need IDAHO in the UK and elsewhere. Only weeks ago, Core Issue Trust’s campaign to tell London’s lesbians, gays and bi-sexuals that they needed to, and could be, ‘cured’ of their sexuality through bus posters only failed after furious emailing and outrage from equality groups. Only eleven days ago the woman who inspires hundreds of feminist blog posts, Nadine Dorries, described the proposals (which specifically prohibit same-sex religious marriages and explicitly allow religious institutions to teach that marriage is only for opposite-sex couples) as transforming ‘[gay couples] into political agitators who have set themselves against the church and community’. I’d like to paraphrase Stephanie Coontz’s brilliant book ‘Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage’ which comments that marriage pre-dates religion and has already shaken off the old prohibitions of love, inter-racial unions, class, equality et al. Silly Dorries. 

Firstly, I’d like to think that all people suffering from legislated inequality are political agitators. There’s nothing like being a political agitator to advance your own political and legal rights, Dorries. Secondly, if a religious institution, note the word institution, tells someone in its teachings that they’d be ‘wrong’ for their sexuality, then what’s wrong with the presumption that they’d go against that institution. I disagree with lots of institutions, mainly because they subtly disagree that I should have control over my body and sexuality. Dorries completely ignores the transgender aspect to the proposals. Transphobia is often dismissed, and IDAHO and the government’s proposals highlight the importance of addressing transgender people’s access to equality. Before reading and responding to the survey, I had, to my current shame, never considered the challenges surrounding transgendered people and marriage. Under the current law, people wishing to change their gender had to end their marriage. Under the proposals, they won’t have to. 

To do the latter: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/
To laugh at Dorries being silly again: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/06/tory-mp-nadine-dorries-gay-marriage-is-for-metro-elites-and-should-be-binned/

Further success from the last general meeting.

By Flick Myerscough

In addition to the femsoc motions listed here: Rhul Fem Soc Making Waves in Surhul Genral Meetings since 2011 - we saw two other important gender equality motions passed at the last general meeting.

Motion to challenge and oppose the recent HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) changes to information required from students.

To provide some background for this motion, I’m going to post an edited version of the speech I had prepared, should the motion have been unstarred. This is followed by some questions and answers which I thought might arise, and some links to other sources of information.

HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) works with public universities in the UK, collecting and disseminating statistical information. They are proposing changes to their equality and diversity monitoring section. These changes, as listed on the HESA website, include a move from a student gender field, with answers of male, female and indeterminate, to a compulsory student sex field, with answers of male and female, and a separate student gender field, optional for institutions, asking if a student’s gender is that they were assigned at birth. Universities can, and some currently do, add categories or change guidance, such that students who identify under the trans umbrella can answer the current question. (HESA guidelines state that the indeterminate category is meant only to represent intersex students.) But a change made on an institutional level, does not guarantee statistical representation on a national level. The proposed changes aggravate this situation, and deny the existence of intersex people. The separate gender question, as currently worded, also risks “outing” transitioning students, or those who have already transitioned.

The proposed sex field is claimed in some places on the HESA website to be intended to record students “legal” sex and in some places their “biological” sex. (The current gender field claims to record biological sex.) Both these terms are problematic. The recorded sex of a student may vary between legal documents. The biological sex definition does not necessarily reflect how a student lives, or, when the indeterminate answer is removed, represent intersex students.

We can make a difference on this. HESA have stated in responses to other campaigners that they are rethinking their use of “legal” sex, and that the final coding of the form is still under consideration. They have questions on their website about the proposed changes and have stated via twitter that they welcome feedback. We should contribute to this effort, to ensure that all students are represented in national and institutional statistics in a non-discriminatory manner. This motion mandated: (1) The VP Ed Welfare to raise these issues with SMT before the implementation of these questions for 2012-2013. (2) The VP Ed Welfare to contact the HESA to raise these issues, and to seek clarification on what they mean by "legal" and "biological" sex. (3) The VP Ed Welfare to report back to the I&R senate on steps taken.

How is it that legal sex varies?

To give an example, HESA, following a FOI request stated that their “legal” sex category was intended to match staff information forms, where the field matches the binary options offered by HMRC. But ECU (Equality Challenge Unit) defines it as the sex on a person’s birth certificate, which is not necessarily the same as the sex of their birth.

Why is this something the SU, specifically, should be campaigning on?

The students union is responsible for representing students’ interests. To campaign on these issues is in the interests of students.

But I don’t know any students who this effects? (or similar)

Even if there were, hypothetically, no students who were individually negatively affected by the changes and known to be such, the Gender Equality Duty, set down in the Equality Act 2006, requires all public institutions, including further and higher education institutions, to be proactive. That is, they should actively promote equality between all students of any gender or none. If equality is important to the student body, we should be campaigning to ensure this general duty is met, by our institution and others.

If other people are campaigning, why should we?

In short, why shouldn’t we? It’s important that HESA get as much feedback as possible from the student body, particularly those affected by the changes, to ensure that the best steps forward are taken.

Gender recognition under threat in UK universities

Update on the HESA gender statistics affair

Equality issues and the Equality Act (2010)

Annex A - Changes to the Student record for 2012/13

We have a little list: HESA psychic consultation gives offence

Changes to Gender in the Student Record

Motion to update Schedule 6: SURHUL Equality and Diversity

This motion probably requires less background. Schedule 6 is a section of the SU constitution concerning equality and diversity. Gender identity was not previously included as something students were protected from discrimination due to. This motion added gender identity to schedule six, and amended the harassment glossary to include ‘Intrusive questioning about someone’s ethnic origins, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or transition. Deliberately using incorrect pronouns or gendered language towards or about an individual.’

We expected protest against this motion, particularly the part about deliberate use of pronouns being harassment. “What if people made a genuine mistake?” people might ask.

You know when someone has made a genuine mistake. They apologise. They look awkward. And so on. “You _genuinely_ can’t tell some people’s gender identities though.” You also can’t tell some people’s religious beliefs by looking at them. This doesn’t mean making discriminatory remarks about religion is ok. (Just as a disclaimer, I am not trying to claim that religious and gender-based discrimination are entirely similar, they just provide a useful parallel in this aspect.)

“People have different ideas about what constitutes harassment. [Leading to a request to remove the clause regarding use of incorrect pronouns.]” We would argue that, if anything, this makes it MORE important to specifically outline what will not be tolerated. Without this specification, the use of pronouns could become a grey area. Instances of harassment would be more difficult to investigate, and this would make it more daunting for a student to feel able to report an instance. If the union is against the incorrect use of pronouns anyway, then it should be in the constitution, so that student members are aware that there could be disciplinary consequences should they harass someone else by deliberately using incorrect pronouns. So it lessens the possibility of harassment due to genuine ignorance, a plea itself a contested term, so probably best to avoid.

As it was, all we got was a thinly veiled reference to people passing motions to make things more politically correct :/.