Pie in the Sky

Occasionally, when I get time to think, I start pondering deep and meaningful questions.

I read Victoria Cohen's rant on the Times website today.  She made reference to being greeted by name in her bank, and then refused permission to take out money she'd arranged to take out because she didn't have suitable proof of identity.  "Oh yes", we chortle along, "how absurd."

It was this that got me thinking.  We appear to have bred a society where trust is now wrong.  It's underpinned by the rationale that any risk must be eliminated.  The bank's thought processes would probably have gone something like - we get people impersonating others and illegally extracting money, so we must insist on ID for large withdrawals, and this must become policy with no exceptions so that we, the bank, cannot be blamed for fraudulent withdrawals as, at some point in the past, people have complained that we, the bank, should have recognised the withdrawer as fraudulent.  And that thought process appears sound - until we mock it for the absurdity that is created as outlined by Victoria Cohen.

I subscribe to a financial computer systems news feed, and there's a guy who posts on there quite regularly about the dangers of identity theft.  Each successive posting seems to scream out that no-one is doing enough yet, there are still loopholes.  The subtext is "we cannot trust anybody".

I see the same when dealing with children.  Yes, I am put off being a school governor by the thought that I have to fill in some kind of police check when all I have to my name are a couple of minor driving convictions going back, gosh, 20 years or more.  If I wasn't trans then I suspect I would have less of an issue, but the feeling that this outs me once again is powerful - and the person handling the CRB checks insists on having the forms for her to submit herself - we cannot do it for her.  We've had the outrage that people who look after others kids on an informal but regular basis now also need to be "vetted" by the government.  We must prove ourselves to be right and proper citizens.  And all the while the official stats indicate that 90% of sexual abuse on children is done within the family and 85% done before the child even starts school.  The logical conclusion - we must vet potential parents and families before the child is even born.  That would be political suicide for any party that proposes it - but somehow I get the feeling that we're not too far away.  After all, it does appear, as a parent, that I'm merely caring for two children at the state's convenience, and already have to abide by strict rules about when I can take family holidays and so on, with the concommitant cost implications.

The issue is the same - this underlying message that individuals cannot be trusted - misplaced trust is a risk that has to be eliminated.  And I find it sad.  Of course, I also think that a large part of this drive to eliminate risk has come from the media over the last 20 or 30 years.  Whenever a tragedy hits, there the media are outlining the calls that "something must be done".  Risk assessment is not a simple business, but the media, in their own relentless way, continue to frame the debate in black and white - and if you say "well, nothing could be done", suddenly you're painted black, evil and dangerous to know.  The answer, "well, shit sometimes happens", doesn't seem to cut the mustard, and is actually not a pleasant one for people who have been directly affected by the tragedy to hear.

Let me come back to the trans thing.  Why is disclosure of my past such a big thing?  After all, I know that all but one of the 8 or so folk who work with me know my past, and I don't know whether the eighth knows or not.  The trans lobbies have worked tirelessly over the last decade or so to ensure that the past shouldn't be something that is public knowledge - yet whenever something happens to a trans person, the previous gender and name is usually reported, as if that was in any way relevant.  No, I must steer away from the media.

But isn't a lot of that fear over disclosure to do with trust again?  Why do trans people feel we cannot trust anyone with that knowledge?  Certainly my own recent dealings with HMRC indicate that they cannot be trusted to hold correct information - somewhat worrying when they are responsible for collecting taxation and have swingeing powers to enforce things that they determine are right.  I certainly grew up in a culture whereby anything different, like homosexuality or trans-ness, was derided and needed to be hidden.  The fear of disclosure was real, tangible and terrible.  It was only when the suffocation threatened to kill me that I felt empowered to do anything about it.

I would love to live in a society which can accept difference and doesn't prejudice anyone by virtue of their background.  I would love to live in a society where we can go about our lawful business without having to prove our essential essence of being or goodwill.  It seems to me that those two liberties are actually what we should be fighting for.  It's just that I don't know how to do it.