Help with MP letter(17 Posts)
I'm intending to send this:
I notice that the organisation Action for Trans Health are recipients of major government funding, and have acted in the role of key advisers and contributors to the gender identity bill based on Maria Miller’s consultation, which is due to come up shortly in Parliament. May I ask if you and the government departments involved with this bill are aware that this group openly support and advocate violence? I enclose some examples if this is unknown to you.
As my Oxford dictionary defines ‘terrorism’ as ‘the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims’, I am somewhat confused as to why the government appears to be actively supporting and validating this organisation, and intends to bring legislation created with them?
Please if you can think of any links or tweets that have been shared on the threads in the past few weeks since the Hyde Corner incident that would have weight here, would you mind suggesting them?
I don't want to send more than three or four at most, too many just won't be read, but those need to be the really key ones.
This page shows some of the messages:
(NB Since this was posted Stonewall have issued a mealy-mouthed sort-of-condemnation along the lines of that it wasn't an effective way of promoting the trans agenda).
Rum you are utterly brilliant, I'd found about six links showing most of those screenshots but that one article has the lot of them, in sequence. Perfect, thank you!!
I've pinned it down to the Times article, the Gendertrender article Rum links to and the manifesto for trans health by the Edinburgh branch.
Defo the stuff Edinburgh AFTH themselves posted justifying violence against "TERFs". I think they have deleted but there are screenshots. Janice Turner had tweeted them I think?
And @drcable on twitter. Again may be deleted but lots of screenshots flying around,
ATH have not (yet) got major government funding. They are paid consultation fees by the NHS, around 20% of their income, but this is a relatively small amount (a few grand). They are also funded by Lush Cosmetics (?!) if you look on their site. They are clearly a sort of antifa type cell organisation and are openly committed to political violence. scroll to September 14. The NHS should be investigated for contracting with this group and whoever invited them to give evidence to a Select Committee should lose their job. This in particular is an absolute scandal, on PIE levels.
Mermaids gets major government funding - I think £35k from DfE funding to deliver training into 36 schools, +10k Big Lottery grants, but they get their biggest wodge from Children in Need (I think 135k don't quote me). It's Mermaids that has been pushing the very troubling suicide narrative with dodgy stats and was banned from contact with a child recently by a judge dealing with this case. A case of overreach and poor oversight (they have no business delivering PSHE in state schools) but not quite as alarming as ATH. They are more Kids Company than IRA, if you see what I mean.
GIRES is funded, about 40% off the top of my head, by corporate membership - 96 companies, unions, national and local government departments, police bodies etc pay them fees. I suspect they are untouchable because of this. I have no problem with GIRES putting their case, actually, so long as it's balanced by other positions. At the moment it's all trans all the time: no women's groups were invited to speak at the Women and Equalities sessions where they decided to abolish sex based protections in law for women, but ATH, GIRES, and Mermaids were).
Gendered Intelligence get funding from Heritage Lottery Fund and Wellcome Trust. Most of their projects are arts and theatre stuff which they have a perfect right to do- the issue is when theatre grads start to make claims about neuroscience and biology, but that's really on the Science Museum, the Wellcome Trust, and the laughable Goldsmiths "University" for entertaining them. They only discredit themselves with this nonsense (not that anyone ever credited Goldsmiths as any kind of scientific authority in the first place haha).
The major push of transactivism is in schools, museums, arts - it's a cultural campaign. I think they have a right to put their case in this way to adults, though not to tell lies to children. Children are required by law to listen to these beliefs and are being taught it's a hate crime to not believe in it too (some diversity!). It's wrong to enforce transactivism on them in mandatory public education and it's wrong to give groups like Action for "radically & transformatively violent" Trans Health institutional access to children and vulnerable young people.
Sorry that was a bit of an essay - I've been thinking about this recently. I'm trying to pick my way through how we go about supporting the right of trans people to live their own lives and promulgate their own beliefs as any other citizen can, and shutting down the harmful, crazy, and downright terroristic aspects of the current wave of transactivism. So I'm sort of considering the various groups and trying to figure out what parts of it are legitimate - I don't want to be all LOCK EM UP, if you see what I mean. I think we can find a way to say, you know, experimental theatre about your hairdo - ok, beating up women on the street, NOT OK. Privately raised funds to print mad leaflets about people being fish, ok; government funding to print same, NOT OK.
Zoll do not apologise for any part of that, it's exactly the kind of information that needs to be collated and shared. Thank you very much, that's beyond helpful.
Having just had a search, I can't actually find any information online on where ATH's funding does come from. I read a blog post recently stating they had government funding so thank you for correcting that mis information!
1) Made a serious allegation on their facebook page after the attack at Speakers Corner;
16 September 12:51
HEAVY TRIGGER WARNING for descriptions of violence and harassment, transphobia, police.
Today we were sent a statement from one of yesterday's protesters:
I followed Venice (the organiser) and some others who were walking over to the venue in a group. I was with my comrade. I was concerned that the event would go ahead at the secret location and wanted to make sure it was disrupted. They led us in circles, called cabs, dispersed but a friend and I found them at the University Women’s Club in Audley Square, W1. We saw many enter, and recognised the people inside. This was around 8pm.
I tried to enter calmly and was told I couldn’t by some of the TERFs. I didn’t want to be seen to be trespassing on private property – I am a brown immigrant woman so I am not up for visibly breaking the law if at all possible for reasons concerning my safety!
I remained outside, not blocking the door, but standing near the internal door. They were tentative about letting others in because I assume they were scared I would push my way in as well. The woman behind me (Becky Fury on Facebook, Rebekah Anne Fury IRL) tackled me to the ground. They pushed my phone out of my hands, pulled at my clothes so that my jacket tore and my skirt rode up past my waist, they clawed at me with their nails and I now have bruises up my arms. To be clear Becky started but at least 2 others joined in, knowing I was alone. The security then asked me to step away so I stepped away. My friend caught some of this on camera but it was dark and blurry so essentially useless. The building security did not blink an eye and instead told me they were calling the police because I was not allowed to be there.
Eventually others I know arrived (around 8:20?) and joined me in standing on the footpath. 3 of my friends and 2 others I recognised from earlier that evening. We stood on the pavement shouting for a while. Then a car full of TERFs arrived (perhaps 8:30?) and a young woman (thick black hair that was out, quite a lot shorter than the others, POC, jeans and a tshirt) – I have footage of this (again dark and blurry and useless) – walked up to me as she entered the building, dashed my phone out of my hand and shoved me to the ground. To be clear I was not directly addressing her or any of them and I was stood about 10 feet away from the entrance they were using.
They called the cops. The cops said we had a right to protest and they couldn’t do anything about it. About half an hour later the cops came out and told us they had just bought their land registry information (!) and wanted us off the pavement and cul-de-sac, because they apparently own the footpath. We moved to the road, without obstructing any more traffic. The 4 of us left stayed till the end, to be filmed consistently, danced at, flashed (Venice lifted her skirt to flash me, grabbed her breasts and sort of shoved them in my direction…) and generally abused till about 10pm. Then we went home."
This sounds tremendously unlikely, but ok. Presumably the film/CCTV will show what happened. Not sure it's relevant to the OP tho!
2) Support homophobia, which is illegal in the UK, contravenes the Equality Act 2010, and is a hate crime.
When You Say “I Would Never Date A Trans Person,” It’s Transphobic. Here’s Why.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about transgender people, specifically about whether you are transphobic or not if you have a “preference” against dating trans people. Many well-meaning allies, friends, and family members of transgender people will say things like: “Well, I’m glad that Sara is living her life out loud, but I just don’t think I could ever date a trans person. It’s just a really personal preference for me.”
These people, and many others in the world, feel that it’s okay if trans people want to be out and live their life as a woman, a man, or a non-binary person, but ultimately, they say that they are just “not attracted” to any transgender people. Before we talk about how that sentiment alone is transphobic, I want to be direct about the fear that trans people, especially trans women, face in the world of dating cisgender people.
Side note: I’m going to write this from the perspective of a trans woman, because that’s the only experience I hold personally, however there are similar systems of oppression in dating that keep trans men and non-binary people isolated and excluded from dating pools as well.''
TBH I think all you need to say is they are terrorists and show the evidence of them openly advocating, organising, and carrying out violence against civilians for political aims. I mean... Anything else is a bit like criticising ISIS for their poor provision of accessible baby change facilities. It may well be true but in a way it rather undermines your point.
4) Publicly supported punching women.
'A transgender campaign group that gave evidence to an influential parliamentary committee has publicly supported violence against women.
Members of Action for Trans Health (ATH) have issued a series of incendiary statements on social media since its supporters were involved in an attack on a 60-year-old woman in London’s Hyde Park on September 13.
The victim, Maria MacLachlan, suffered bruising after being punched by an activist widely identified on social media as Tara Flik Wood, 28, a courier who lives in London. MacLachlan was with a group of feminists who were planning to hold a meeting about gender identity.
Unlike MacLachlan and her group, ATH believes that anyone who self-identifies as a woman — without having undergone transition surgery — should be allowed to use women-only spaces such as changing rooms. The ATH extremists refer to MacLachlan and women who hold similar views as “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”, or Terfs.
Jess Bradley was a member of ATH’s executive committee when she gave evidence on gender equality to the women and equalities select committee in 2015.
The committee’s report recommended updating legislation to allow “self-declaration” of gender identity and to “de-medicalise” it — which is now part of a consultation launched by the government on the Gender Recognition Bill.
The Hyde Park violence has triggered the setting up of a new feminist group, Woman’s Place UK, whose co-founder Kiri Tunks said she was “horrified” by the incident.
“We need to be able to discuss this in a respectful way. Women need reserved places and separate spaces. Women’s voices must be heard.”
The trans extremists, however, appear unlikely to listen. After the attack ATH’s Edinburgh branch sent out a series of tweets defending the use of violence: “punching terfs is the same as punching Nazis. Fascism must be smashed with the greatest violence to ensure our collective liberation from it”, and “violence against terfs is always self defense”.
Bradley tweeted, “Terfs are using Nazi tactics. Don’t let it work”, and directed readers to a blog that supported the violence. The ATH account retweeted her message.
A group of 22 women including the gay activist Linda Bellos, the author Bea Campbell and the Labour peer Baroness Prosser have condemned the incident in Hyde Park.
“Violence against women is always wrong. Attempts to minimise or justify this violence . . . are deeply worrying,” they wrote.
Bradley, who is the trans officer for the National Union of Students (NUS), told The Sunday Times she no longer works for the group.
“Anything I say is not the official line of ATH. I retweeted a blog from an angry woman who had written about it. I was not there [when the attack happened]. I do not want to say anything because of the amount of harassment that has come my way because my name is on the ATH website,” she said.
The NUS declined to comment.
ATH said it was “a feminist organisation that works with many other feminist organisations . . . Our values mean opposing both misogynistic and transphobic violence.”
The London branch said it had organised the “action” and regretted “that individuals from both sides were hurt during the altercation”.
Wood did not respond to a request for comment.'
Thank you All extremely helpful.
I just finished the email and sent it. I have been careful to keep it to presented evidence as little commentary as I can manage, as the issue to me is government validation and support of a group who openly advocate and support violence, and that's hard to dismiss the facts of by shouting 'bigot' and 'wrong side of history'. Their involvement should really make the entire bill questionable.
Depending on his answer, I may then try raising the (many) other reasons the bill's content is just as questionable.
Thank you very much for suggestions, information and help.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.