Sorry seems to be the hardest word

In a week when the subject of apology – more precisely, apology by wealthy and highly privileged men such as Oscar Pistorius and Ched Evans – has been in the news…again!…there is one apology i have looked for in vain.

And that, for those with goldfish memory, is some sort of apology, or admission of culpability or remorse or, well, anything, from journalist, Caleb Hannan, whose transphobic self-obsessed scribblings will be forever linked to the awful, awful suicide of Dr Essay Anne Vanderbilt.

No apology. Yet, after a self-imposed exile from social media of slightly over six months, he is back on Twitter pretty much as though nothing at all has happened.

hannan tweets

A half-apology

The facts, such as they are, mostly speak for themselves. Hannan is a sports writer who set out to document the invention of a wondrous new golf putter. Along the way he discovered – shock! horror! – that its inventor, Dr Vanderbilt, was a trans woman. Her failure to disclose this fact to him was, he determined, all part and parcel of some dire deception. So he had every right to out her, without her consent, to important and influential individuals in her life circle.

She was, not unnaturally, upset. He gave her a chance to “put the record straight”. Not unnaturally, she demurred. This, he converted into yet more “evidence” of his victim’s villainy, which was then published as an 8,000 word expose on ESPN.

Somewhere along the way, he seems to have lost the capability to self-examine: to consider that just maybe, having done egregious harm to someone through your journalism, that person may be justifiably reluctant to talk to you further.

Dr V then “tragically” committed suicide. As though this outcome was some unfortunate accident or Act of God – and not a highly possible consequence of a world-class outing.

There followed an apology of sorts from ESPN Editor Bill Simmonds. Perhaps it was intended to be honest and honestly contrite.

The fact that it meandered on and on and on, through some two and a half thousand words of on, detracted more than a little from that objective. As blogger, Small-town-country-boy, put it at the time:

Reading Simmons’ note and others, I get a sense of “Hannan made a mistake, but…” on something that should have no “…but…”. Hannan made a grievous mistake, period. Everything that falls off after the outing [...] all go back to that bright line being crossed where he outed her in the first place.

Or to put it another way. If you want to say sorry, say sorry. The moment you start to explain, to qualify, to shuffle, as too many men do, that is no apology. It is self-justification and, in this case, a continuation of the narcissism that created the bad behaviour in the first place.

As for Hannan himself, despite widespread calls from many in the transgender community and beyond, nothing. No willingness to discuss the case: just a hint that he might speak about it later. When HE had had time to compose himself. And after a weekend of trying, vainly, to bat away online critics, self-imposed Twitter exile.

His last tweet, from Jan 17, suggests someone who had yet to get to grips with the enormity of what they have done. @calebhannan wrote: “For what it’s worth, I haven’t blocked anyone today. I’m reading all of this. I’m totally overwhelmed, but I’m reading.”

Otherwise, his silence has spoken volumes.

How long is long enough?

That silence might, perhaps, be taken as some slight indication of contrition. Perhaps he feels he should no longer disturb the twittersphere with his ramblings.

Or at least not for a while. Which leaves the question of how long is long enough to atone for an act of betrayal and emotional assault.

That’s easy. In Hannan’s case, the answer appears to be just over 6 months. In August – August 11, to be precise – @calebhannan started responding to tweets from friends and fans again. A light-hearted reply to a comment about Charlie Brown in @Slate.

A couple of weeks later, on September 2, the roof had not fallen in. So he’s back with a retweet about nude selfies. Because, of course, you just can’t keep an insightful social commentator down.

And there you have it. Hannan is back.

We have not yet even got as far as this year’s Trans Day of Remembrance when, no doubt, Dr V will be remembered with all the other trans individuals who have been killed in one way or another over the last twelve months.

Dr V is no longer with us.

Caleb Hannan, opinionated, self-interested, unapologetic is.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Identity revisited

I have long had it in for the name change approach favoured by many of our largest and supposedly most respected organisations. Not just because it is discriminatory toward specific groups – of which women are far and away the largest: but because the approach does not make sense in terms of any form of security.

In fact, as a once-upon-a-time IT consultant, it’s the latter that irritates the most: banks, building societies and the rest pompously declaring that we MUST conform to their procedures because “its da law”, or even, “its to protect you”…when in fact it is not the first and does not remotely achieve the second.

Finally, though, a breakthrough may be happening.

Before we get to that, let’s look at some of the ways we check personal identity – by which i mean: “prove” that the person i am dealing with is the same person, irrespective of the name they want to be known by.

Personal assertion

First up is personal assertion. The law is straightforward: there is no such thing as a “legal name” (not according to Home Office lawyers i spoke to a couple of years back).
My name is Smith. Or Jones. Or Cholmondley-Featherstonehaugh! And when i change my name, i just tell you. No law is broken unless i am doing this for the express purpose of obtaining some sort of “pecuniary advantage”.

Not a brilliant strategy in today’s online/call-centre dominated world…but perfectly sensible in any environment where you are personally known to the individuals you are dealing with. Also a reason why demanding documentation of a name change in, say, the workplace, is often both daft and offensive.

(Its also pretty daft when about the only thing someone wishes to do is to pay a bill, or maintain an account for a non-essential service).

Here i am: this is my name. And unless you think i just got cloned, to deny that is just disrespectful.

Assertion by document

Of course, the gold standard for many organisations is to demand a document. The favoured four are marriage or divorce certificates, deed poll or statutory declaration. A fifth candidate, of which more later, is the Statement of Truth, accepted by a few organisations, including the Land Registry.

On the surface, our FF have the advantage of being underwritten at some level by a third party.

Except the first two are, officially, NOT supposed to be used to confirm identity (many marriage certs even say that in big bold letters): deed poll can be run off any pc and witnessed by someone you have never met in your life before. And a stat dec is little better: it merely requires the payment of money to a lawyer of some stripe to confirm what you are asserting.

A Statement of Truth** is assertion, pure and simple, in accordance with a particular form of words. On the surface, it is less useful than the FF. However, it is accepted by the Land Registry and, in conjunction with a decent process, is worth more than a second look.

Data continuity

A much better way of demonstrating consistent identity following a name change, is to show documents which contain unchanging detail matched to changed name. National Insurance number is a good candidate although lawyers seem muddled on this one. Certainly, i have found some legal bods claiming this use of NI No is not permitted.

Though by whom, i am unsure. Perhaps it is another of those data protection myths.
Other obvious candidates for demonstrating name change in this way include tax reference and tax UTR’s (apologies for getting a tad techy).

Also, i guess, a signature: banks and other major organisations still, happily, accept the transfer of major amounts of money on the back of a simple signature which, if you think about it, is one of the easiest things in the world to forge.

Which also raises questions about how genuine is their commitment to security.

Biological identity

Finger prints, ear lobe prints, retinal scans. You name it, there is scarcely a part of our bodies that cannot be called into service to prove you are today the same person you were yesterday. This is a good way of confirming continuing identity. Except it is expensive, not perfect, and in our Big Brother aware society not likely to be universally welcomed.
Problems? Not every method is equally good. Iris scanning, briefly favoured by the last government, turned out to be very poor with older persons.

Then there are all manner of ways to spoof the scanner. Let’s ignore, for now, the Dan Brown nonsense that involves cutting out an individual’s eyeball and presenting it to a scanner (would that actually work?): there are, as every spy nerd knows, ways of copying fingerprints from coffee cups. For enough benefit, it seems likely that someone somewhere will find ways to spoof bio identity systems.

Password and confirmation processes

All of which brings us back to where most organisations are already. If we want to remove large sums of money from existing bank accounts, all we need is to apply the security details (password, memorable information and so on) that we hold on that account.

Following a recent house sale, Lloyds bank happily allowed me to transfer a significant five-figure sum from an old mortgage account still maintained in an old name into an account held at another bank in my “proper” name. (For those wondering…the old name remained, because the hassle and expense of shifting a mortgage i knew i was going to clear into a new name for a short period of time totally outweighed the benefit of so doing).

Where is the logic in this? I can happily move large sums of money around the interweb by using my existing security details, but i can’t amend my name or address details (making the likelihood of identity fraud significantly greater) unless i present them with documents that assert a name change, yet are essentially insecure.

The other alternative, taking me back to the Statement of Truth, is to simply assert the new name. Insecure? Not exactly: because what the Land Registry then did, on receipt of the Statement of Truth, was to write to me in my OLD name at my registered address asking old me to confirm that they were now new me. On that basis, they amended ownership of a property worth significantly more than five figures.

Of course there are ways round such a process: but cheats exist for EVERY process. And anyone who thinks this approach is easier to fool than falsifying a deed poll is not thinking with their brain.

The bottom line

Organisations continue to demand the FF because it provides them with a comfort blanket and arse-cover. When challenged about the discriminatory nature of their approach, they mouth “security”. The time really has come for us to stop accepting such mythologising.

Current practice is not secure. It is disrespectful and in some cases has caused genuine grief. So its gauntlet time. I am happy to argue the toss on security in any court with any organisation. I cannot believe that any judge could any longer seriously agree that existing processes are “necessary” because security.


** There is a link in this document to a form of Statement of Truth used by myself with the Land Registry. I am offering no legal advice and suggest if you are interested in this approach, you take independent advice. The key point is that such a form of words could easily be adopted by most major organisations: the thing that matters is the process used to substantiate the assertion. Not the form of the assertion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A slap in the face (of male privilege)

Doncha just love it when guys help out…espesh when that helping out seems mostly to involve solving those problems that we silly simpering girlies just can’t quite manage to get our heads around.

I mean, take make-up.

There’s narcissistic us piling on the warpaint day in, day out. And, yanno: it never EVER occurred that we’d be better off NOT wasting our time and money investing in the clinique anti-wrinkle cream or Mac slap, until clever Mr Reed Baker – doncha just love him – pulled on his writing pants and penned 4 Reasons You Should Stop Wearing Makeup Right Now.

Oh my! My hero! Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The ear trumpet of sexuality

Twas on the mountainside of Vesuvius that i first encountered non-binary thinking.

There. That’s a line you don’t encounter everyday. At the time though – and much easier times they were too, since it was permitted that i, a somewhat naive 17-year-old could take up my rucksack and hitch my way around Europe with not one raised Social Service eyebrow – it was a conversation and challenge to my pre-set way of thinking that has stayed with me ever since. Not quite life-changing. But pretty darn close.

Twas my first encounter with non-binary thinking – but not as most of you today would recognise it. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protected: Trust begins with Tea

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Uncategorized

Once in a while?

This also got an airing at Nine Worlds over the weekend. Its the missing song from Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I love it. It has, for me, a wistful quality about it that next to nothing else in the show has.

It also throws an interesting light backward on the preceding scene which is nothing more nor less than a double rape, played for laughs.

For me, this scene suggests an ambiguity not just to Brad’s relationship with Janet, but also with regard to his own sexuality. I think it may have been cut because it slowed the action, shifted the film’s balance too far to the serious and was perhaps just too difficult.

Or maybe i’m just over-analysing.

Who knows?

Oh. Well, maybe you do.

Anyone who has thoughts, insight or knowledge into why this scene didn’t make it through the final cut, please feel free to send them to me.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment


The world, it seems, is increasingly divided into two: those who think that having the last word in some obscure Twitter spat matters; and those who wash their hands of the entire accursed shooting match.

For the most part, i’m with the second group. There is little new under the sun, and Twitter discourse simply reminds me of some of the harsher debates i used to see go down in usenet – a somewhat slower-moving, but equally fractious forum for debate in earlier internet days.

In one way. A big difference, today, seems to be the hurt that is done to the most vulnerable through twitter. That’s new – and that has to stop. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment