Hi everyone here is a bit more detail - I have probably not mentioned it all.
I asked her why she invited me to speak, she says that she tries to meet with everyone who writes to her, and she wanted to demonstrate that she is listening because she is concerned about tone of the debate and face-to-face meeting work better than online. She said that transgender people also feel they aren’t being listened to. Time was short and I wish I asked her to be more explicit of how they aren’t being heard.
When I started speaking about the biological root of women’s oppression, she interrupted along the lines of ‘I understand Patriarchy’, so I thought she got it, but throughout the conversation I think she doesn’t see women’s oppression being to do with reproductive biology.
She seemed to suggest that the proposed changes to the GRA doesn’t have any impact in life in any way (beyond that of the person who seeks to obtain one) and as though she believes any concerns other people might have of the wider impact are groundless – almost like it is no one else’s business.
She kept bringing up Ireland and her stock answer to the issue of women-only/single-sex spaces is that males already can ID as women and use them – therefore the GRA won’t change anything.
She stressed that she knows the difference between sex and gender and that the GRA is about changing gender, not sex. She repeated this throughout the meeting, that the GRA is only confirming their gender identity not changing sex, but it was impossible to pick apart what she thinks the female sex is, because she insists on calling transwomen ‘women’ and transed mtt children ‘girls’ – very pointedly – almost instructionally.
She mentioned that she regards Heather Peto to be a woman. I said “but Heather describes herself as a shemale”… twice - (I will now need to purge myself for the ‘pronoun’ usage) – but the way she spoke over me while I said it – and didn’t look surprised made me think she is either aware of Peto’s shemale self-description or that she finds it amusing. She was doing the careful politician around it.
I mentioned that for me, being a mother is very much about me being a woman, she was very defensive, and retorted “I am not a mother does that make me less?”, I said that the fact of whether or not she is a mother is even an issue is because she has female biology. I could see that made her feel uncomfortable so I think one of us changed the subject.
I asked her to clarify what ‘identity’ means and she spoke of the transpeople who she has spoken to, with a slight smirk of self-congratulation she couldn’t contain, which to me suggested that her interactions with transpeople make her feel ‘woke’ – which gives the impression it is an important part of her self-image. She wants to be hip and down with the yoof. That made me feel as though my saying I don’t even know what ‘identity’ means – (is it a soul/ personality?)meant by this declaration of mine she had categorised me into a ‘tedious un-woke parent mumsnetter’ box, rather than thought of it as a point of reflection.
Her sympathy definitely lies with so-called trans children rather than affected girls with a male in their midst. She repeatedly asked me how I thought children/people should be treated (I think she meant with body dysphoria) and she seemed to imply that I was cruel or callous for believing in loving your body and coming to terms with who you are, and has nailed her colours to the mast about believing that confirmation of the ‘trans’ individuals inner ‘identity’ is the only humane course of action. She definitely has no empathy with parents.
I explained about ROGD, social contagion and just before I was able to tell her about James Caspian not being able to do the research into detransitioning for political reasons, she got impatient and interrupted me saying she had never heard of him.
She mischaracterised safety concerns by saying it is ‘scaremongering to say transwomen are more violent’. I asked whether she meant ‘more violent than other males or more violent than females?’ she was a bit agitated at this point because the next person was waiting outside (I feel bad that I over-ran) , but she kind of nodded and said ‘more violent than men’, and I said that transwomen are more violent than women, but they offend at the same rate as other males – I saw it caused a dissonant chime for a split second, but we had to wrap up.
Over all I found it very frustrating because I was left with far more questions than answers.
The most important points I took away is that
- she is absolutely adamant that the sex exemptions will remain in the Equality Act, that women retain the right to exclude males including trans, (she specifically mentioned refuges, but that other organisations, such as Girl Guides can define for themselves their own policies on trans kids).
- That there will be a consultation (I think either to do with trans in sport or the GRA)she suggested I take part in where everyone will be included.