Meeting With Stella Creasy Advice Please

@RefuseToDenounceBiology I wonder, if Stella Creasy is so keen on identifying trans women as women, how she feels about trans boys, or rather young gender dysphoric girls, and what the trans 'movement' is doing to them.

www.parentsofrogdkids.com/parents-stories/2018/3/24/soul-searching

I honestly wouldn't trust Stella as far as I could throw her. Clearly, given her responses in this meeting, she either hasn't even bothered to acquaint herself with the extant legislation she was meeting a constituent to discuss, or she is quite prepared to tell outright lies to her constituent about what that legislation says.

I still remember all the hoo-ha when some of her constituents held a peace rally to try to dissuade her from voting to bomb Syria. It got reported as hard left activists threatening her at her home and was all over the tabloids. And apparently, it was a candlelit vigil led by a vicar during which peace messages on post it notes were stuck to her constituency office window. It was nowhere near her home and the vicar wasn't threatening anyone. Stella knew all this but refused to comment to set the record straight. My conclusion then was that she was loving the faux victimhood and attention. And my impression now is that similar misleading histrionics by transactivists are right up her alley.

The thing is I want trans women to be supported, not attacked, not fired, i expect most, if not all, women feel likewise. But I also want lesbians, gay men, bi sexual people and gender non-confirming people support and protected (along with everyone else!)

If being 'a woman' is the only way some can be supported what about all the other males who don't fit the macho heterosexual stereotype (and what if those who do!)

Human rights is for everyone. Females, need special protections where relevant. Just as people in wheelchairs need ramps not hearing aid loops!

She's deeply wedded to inclusion and has organised a local group in her constituency to ensure that - the response on her website to Relationship and Sex Education is insightful. She will see complaints about trans as transphobic (no doubt reflecting a lot of her constituency of Walthamstow) but she's been "converted" to inclusion, is championing this cause in Parliament and seems to have lost her critical thinking. So I would go in on the tack of what might derail her inclusion agenda i.e. if it's found to not be based on "statistically significant research" and also puts women and girls at further risk of harm, then it will undermine her initiative - i.e. be her "friend" ...

Brilliant thread.

If you want to keep it short and sweet ask her if she agree that policies and law shouldn't enable more violence. I don't see how she can respond in any other way than agree. Then go on to say that women have spotted some flaws in the proposed legal changes that will do just that.

You can forward onto her a briefing document with the details (that one of her offsiders can research). Emphasise that the other countries have safeguards in place that manage those risks appropriately. But what is being proposed in the UK doesn't.

Refer her to the fact that some members of the medical profession (ref BMJ article) plus Psychiatrists are asking for prudence until statistically valid research has been conducted (the so called evidence presented to date is not statistically valid). They are saying err on the side of caution - especially with children under 18.

That 86% of TIMs don't intend to get rid off their penises.
The Target research (statically valid and the only longitudinal study to date) that saw a 300% increase in sex offences after the introduction of Gender Recognition Policies in its stores.
That it's frankly naive to assume that some men won't use the legislation to get access to women's facilities for their own violent and sexual ends, as the prison service has experience of in the last couple of years e.g. Ian Huntley

Also that most vocal of TRAs don't represent the trans community, many of whom respect women and know they are not women and do not demand women to give up their single sex spaces for their benefit.
That the behaviour of some TRAs is antisocial and unreasonable and what they say in public is not what they say in private - as demonstrated by "India" Willoughby and Heather Peto - both of whom display behaviours that are bullying to women.

Give her evidence and keep it short and sweet.

If you want more here's a great summary from reddit that references a recent article:

In our bid to become wholly inclusive of everyone, we’ve stopped rationally, logically, or critically thinking about things.

If transwomen were women, then men wouldn’t need to undergo all the bodily changes and hormone treatments to better reflect the sex they wish to emulate.

If a man doesn’t have the requisite biology needed to make him a woman, is there anything that can make him so, aside from fervent declarations? Frankly, the answer is no. A man can adopt behaviours and activities traditionally associated with women, but it won’t make him one.

The ‘born in the wrong body’ approach is some metaphysical nonsense too, we are not some thing inserted into a body to inhabit, we are our body, and there is nothing wrong with the body nature has given us. Biological men that present typically feminine behaviours are not people in need of correction, nor is the inverse true. Using outmoded gender stereotypes as justification and reasoning for trying to alter sex presentation is damaging to men and women.

There is some devious distortion of language when the ‘misgendering is an act of violence’ card is played, this is quite an insulting use of the word and demeans those who have faced real violence - the trans people who have been assaulted for being trans, women who are domestically abused, gays and lesbians attacked for simply being gay, or anyone else the victim of horrific and violent acts.

The idea that transwomen are women erodes the bedrock of womanhood and the very real differences between the sexes. Biological males are now encroaching what were traditionally women-only spaces, and if women aren’t comfortable with this, they’re simply bigoted, or in needed of Orwellian ‘re-education’ (See Labour’s Lily Madigan and their approach to re-educating Muslims).

Let us not erase the beauty of womanhood by comparing women to surgically enhanced men. That is not to say trans individuals should be thought of as lesser people, or be deserving of unfavourable treatment, or afforded less respect simply because they’re trans, but let’s not disrespect women by pretending their biology isn’t an important part of womanhood and the basis of their oppression. We should be fighting against stereotypical gender assumptions, not using them as the basis for surgery, puberty blockers, and sterilisation.

Well said and summarised

[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/87gxy1/terf_wars/dwd185j/]

Well done for this OP, I really do think it’s worth having these conversations even if it’s frustrating. Sometimes people are hearing you but not able to lose face by agreeing in the conversation, then when they go away and think about it a few cracks appear.

I met Stella Creasy once, at a work thing where we were both guests, first time we’d met, never spoken before. She emphatically brought up “of course when we say women we include trans women” unprompted, within two or three sentences of our first casual conversation over tea and biscuits. She seemed very self congratulating about this. I was quite surprised because no one had asked. This is three years ago. I think for some women it’s just a point of principle/faith that can’t be got round. They are so sure they’re right about this the idea becomes impenetrable. We need to keep picking away. I’ve had much more success at peaking people face to face than on SM.

@Trumpdump "Can you name me one thing which trans and natal women have in common? (Which they don't have in common with natal men)"

I saw this kind of thing on Reddit somewhere. And someone came on and mentioned The Patriarchy. But of course The Patriarchy affects us all, male, female, transsexual, whatever.

This letter is amazing, I wonder how she responded to it? I am not saying mention it but I think reading it really stirs the blood!

www.criticalsisters.co.uk/blog/open-letter-stella-creasy/

I think Stella and other politicians need to know the tide is turning.

The trans activists can be seen to be out for themselves, NOT out for regular true transsexual people (who are not enjoying the current spot light at all).

I also feel that most trans activists are not interested in young children and teenage girls who face a life time of surgery, hormones, possible male pattern baldness and heart problems from taking Testosterone.

Stella could be the champion for gender non-conforming children and young people; who do not need to be pushed down the trans route but rather given time and space to develop naturally.

The conclusion for self id MIGHT be it is eventually rolled out for all ages or certainly for children. The Scottish consultation asked about 16 and 17 year olds.

Being identified as trans in your childhood could lead to a real catch 22, where any child who is gender non-conforming is forced down this route. It actually won't be the state (necessarily) doing the 'forcing', personally I think it is peer led/internet-led BUT if the state will sanction and legitimize this abuse there may be a flood of complaints, law suits and shattered lives when the reality that at least some of these kids are 'just gay' sinks in.

Intervention early can have very serious consequences.

I wonder in future if someone can ask Stella Creasy how we will get proper statistics on how women are paid and on crime in relation to women if we cannot easily define by law what a woman is.

I'd also ask how we can keep young women and girls safe from the current trend of identifying as boys.Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is very scary. Under the current GRC system people transition later in life, not as children or teens, they think about it more and make reasoned choices. Now with self id looming teens are being pulled into this identify politics more and more.

When I was a teen it was all princess and the pirates and Adam Ant (very gender non-conforming boys with long wavy hair!). What about today's gender non-conforming girls, they are being pushed into an idea that they must be boys.

Fuck me, she sounds frustrating!

Well done @RefuseToDenounceBiology for pursing this and her.

I wonder why she can't admit that we are held down because of our biology. I wonder if some women cannot see it because It is scary/to admit it means to allow 'it' to have power over you.

I have a personal theory that some women who have never experienced male violence just cannot really conceive of it, but also that some female victims of male abuse actually choose not to be 'defined' by it so tend to give men more leeway because they don't want their actions to be prejudiced by their experiences. I do think the fact she has not had children is a factor and maybe she feels uncomfortable about that.

"However, she does have an ego and seems sort of competitive, which is annoying if you are not there to compete or flatter."

I read your line and just wrote this...But isn't there that old Aesop's fable?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Crow_(Aesop)

People who want flattery have a flaw and I wonder if there is room to work on that.

Then I read the rest of your post "...the cool young ladies doing #ManFriday - she might like a photo op with them or something."

I do think that is the way in.

Looking at her en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Creasy she received numerous rape threats and other misogynistic messages in relation to the putting a woman on a bank note thing back in 2013. Can she see any correlation between the current activities to shut down debate and those rape and death threats? Or might bringing this up just trigger her to shut down?

Don't bring this up directly but I wonder how she feels about being sterotyped?

labourlist.org/2015/04/tory-candidate-criticises-stella-creasy-for-not-being-a-wife-or-mother/

If it were me, and you met her again, I would not look for a broad ranging conversation but rather defining the talk to 1 or 2 key issues that are emblematic.

This gives her less room to wiggle out of a difficult situation by changing the subject or ‘moving on’ and gives you the opportunity to explore the issue in it’s complexity. Highlighting and reinforcing that if ‘this’ is taken to its natural, inevitable conclusion in ‘this’ area then the impact on women will be ‘this’.

By narrowing the scope and defining the question to 1 salient issue the conversation can be structured (as much as possible!) to get to the nub of issue as far as you are concerned.
Ie this is your thesis, this will be her rebuttal then your refutation of her rebuttal etc if she can’t move on by changing the issue it might force her to engage more closely with what you are actually saying and really listen, not just switch off.

Some good GC questions:

1. What is the purpose in segregating people by gender? Vs What is the purpose in segregating people by natal sex?

1. Can you name me one thing which trans and natal women have in common? (Which they don't have in common with natal men)

I've yet to hear any convincing answers to these questions...

That sounds very frustrating but thank you for trying. If you do follow up, you could let Stella know that she is woefully misinformed on the sex-based exemptions.

Recommendation 12 of the Government Response to the Women and Equalities Committee Report on Transgender Equality suggests abolishing the sex-based exemption for employment purposes and single-sex based provisions. As this is the strongest sex-based exemption we have, abolishing this one will have a knock-on effect for all other areas.

Included in the material submitted to the inquiry you'll find a legal expert confirming that this will present no problem at all, but when you read closely it becomes clear that the legal expert based this opinion on the old GRC process which as we know would prevent anyone from just self identifying their way into a protected women's space.

But Recommendation 6 decrees that self-id must be adopted in the UK. So if the government changes the law in line with all of the recommendations, it would mean that a male presenting male who has filled in that self-id form on the internet can then demand to be employed by a women's refuge and they will find it almost impossible to refuse, especially if the wording of the recommendation is adopted.

I knew Stella Creasy at university. That's a very accurate description.

As a wise MNetter said recently, it may be that all we can do is make damn sure that it was said (and noted) to multiple MPs and people in power that this was going to lead to major problems, they were given the facts, and we made them admit 'we know all this, AND we're going to do it anyway'.

Which means they can at least be held accountable when the unintended consequences start mounting up higher than can be hidden.

Those politicians who are currently spouting the 'transwomen are women' crap have nowhere to go, have they? They can't now admit they're wrong without losing face.

Not unless public opinion against it reaches a critical mass.

She stressed that she knows the difference between sex and gender and that the GRA is about changing gender, not sex.

I can't get my head around this at all.

There isn't a single legal document in the world that confirms my 'gender' or 'gender identity'. My SEX, yes, but not my GENDER. So how or why would I be able to to legally "change my gender", if I chose to? It makes no sense whatsoever, unless it is considered to be just a synonym for sex.

Those politicians who are currently spouting the 'transwomen are women' crap have nowhere to go, have they? They can't now admit they're wrong without losing face.

Unless we can give them a way of doing a U-turn, I can see this continuing to be an uphill struggle .