PFC's Five Guiding Principles for Negotiation
August 1997
Soon after the general election in Britain in 1997, Press for Change began a wide-ranging consultation to determine people’s opinions about the way ahead in dealing with the new government. We wanted to know, mainly, how people thought we should conduct the campaign, and where the emphasis should be.
One spin-off from this process was a set of guidelines to form, in advance, our bottom line … a litmus test for any proposal made to us … a means of checking whether a piece of legislation included all the people we represent in an acceptable fashion.
These have become known as the 5 P’s …
| P 1 | Is the legislative instrument on offer motivated by a recognition of the need to correct an incorrect or premature assumption of sex or gender identity, subsequently discovered to have been invalid?
We put this principle first, because it reminds us that if we’ve failed to establish such a fundamental about our case, and we’re being offered something that’s aimed to humour and facilitate what is still (fundamentally) believed to be a "change" to a previously correct record, the rest will, at best, be simply ameliorative … and (at worst) minimalist or prescriptive by nature. The other reason for insisting on a test of this type is that it then sets down the basis for interpreting the intent of the actual bill, if and when ambiguities or points of law need to be tested. |
| P 2 | Is the effect of the legislation inclusive of the needs of all transsexual people, including (but not limited to) pre- and post-operative people, FtM’s, non-operative MtF’s, those already married, those retired or aged, legal minors, disabled people, EC citizens, citizens living overseas, etc..)?
We have included the above named categories, as a permanent and unavoidable reminder of our obligations to the whole community whom we serve as unelected representatives, |
| P 3 | Does the effect of the legislation specifically ensure that transsexual people in the United Kingdom are protected according to the principles embodied in the European Declaration on Human Rights?
This is really a shorthand way of asking if it covers marriage, family, work and privacy rights. |
| P 4 | Does the legislation establish self-definition as the principal and overriding qualification for correcting a previously recorded sex/gender status?
This ties in with principle P1, but is to remind us that the single biggest threat we must guard against is the establishment of medical or legal "gatekeepers" with the power to impose their values on applicants. We had to concede this during earlier attempts to define legislation, as it was an idea ahead of its’ time, but that’s why we should develop these principles as our "stake in the ground". |
| P 5 | Does the legislation provide real privacy and recognition for people, or will it still enable exposure and consequent discrimination to be continued by other means?
This is our reality check. It’s there to remind us, for instance, that a change that isn’t grounded in principles 1, 2 and 3 still permits defacto obligations for self-disclosure to persist … within the insurance industry, for instance. We have to remember that we’re seeking legislation to achieve a result, not just to put in place a few specific legal changes for what we’ve historically seen to be the main causes of discrimination. Cause and enablement are two very different things. An unchanged birth certificate may directly cause many problems … a change to status and papers that doesn’t tie up the loose ends properly may still enable discrimination by other means. |
