Meeting With Stella Creasy Advice Please

I think too many of the suggested questions are just ways to put Creasy on the spot. Do that effectively and she will bluster and then shut down. The key is to share information with her that will make her think. It would be a victory if she ended the meeting feeling that some of her certainty about being on the right side of history is less sure than it was before the meeting began.

Following on from hackmum's post, these people can not see what's staring them in the face because they have adopted a faith position. It makes life very simple for them and it curries favour excellently. People with faith positions don't respond well to having their faith challenged because it means discomfort, hard work in thinking, and then being a heretic or an apostate.

Well done on getting the meeting with her! Was it Stella Creasey who didn't believe that AGP exists and said that it was transphobic to mention it? (AKA 'I don't want to look at any evidence that might challenge the view that I think I should have').

I would start by stressing that you appreciate that the proposals for self-ID were well intentioned, but that this will bring unintended consequences which are simply being ignored. What's more, there is a concerted effort to prevent these concerns being discussed, which is extremely worrying (you could mention the Millwall/HoC venue change and the harassment the HoC received, as she will surely be aware of this and can easily verify it if not).

Have some clear examples of the consequences. Sport is a good one, as this is easily verifiable (eg Fallon Fox, Laurel Hubbard, Andrea Yearwood), would strike most people as being unfair/downright cheating, and is also a response to any claims that 'there are no problems in other countries'.

Say that you'd like her to think about what exactly she is asking other women to do. Ask her why changing rooms are segregated by biological sex. Does she agree that women are particularly vulnerable when they are naked? Does she agree that most women would not want to be naked/in a state of undress in front of men who they are not in a relationship with? Ask her why, then, is she telling women to do just that? Why, in the light of the #MeToo campaign, is she telling the country that women's boundaries shouldn't be respected?

If she says that transwomen are not safe in men's changing rooms, ask her why. Does she agree that it is because some men are violent and attack random strangers? Does she agree that it is not all men, but we don't know which ones as they don't wear a badge? Does she agree that women, who are smaller and weaker than men, have even less chance of defending themselves against a male-bodied attacker? Why then, is she telling women that their safety doesn't matter?

Continuing with the changing rooms angle, go back to the 'some men are violent' bit. Reiterate that the problem is male violence, so what does she plan to do to make the men's facilities safe for all men? Where are the campaigns urging men to welcome gender non-conforming men into their facilities? Why aren't men being targetted to sort this out? Stress that you absolutely applaud stereotypes being broken, and that people should of course be free to dress how they want to without discrimination - but that this will not happen until men accept gender non-conforming men. This is a male problem and it needs a male solution. Entry to women's facilities should never be treated as the answer.

Good luck!

Ooh, also.... Can you find out what percentage of her constituents are Muslim (I have a feeling it might be higher than the non-Muslim vote) and ask how she thinks those constituents will take you being told someone who looks entirely female is now a man, and vice versa? Explain to her what intersectionality actually means and ask her how she is being intersectional by bulldozing these cultural and religious customs.

I would say that you can already do and be those bloke things and call yourself a woman. What self ID does is remove the ability for anyone you meet to assess the evidence critically and make decisions about their personal safety accordingly. How is this a positive for women?

Good luck op

Ask her if she has had meetings with prison governors or female prisoners over self id, have they been represented in this debate.

It seems to me that some people must be incredibly dim if they don't get what the problem is. I explained the gender self-ID proposals to my DP in one sentence and he instantly got the problem without me explaining it. He's not political, he's not particularly feminist, but he understood it straight away.

The heart of it is this: abusive men will exploit the legislation. Just as paedophiles are attracted to jobs in teaching, in the priesthood, in nurseries etc where they have easy access to child victims, predatory men will use the legislation to access women. We know that abusers will go to huge lengths to have access to their victims - it's hard to imagine as a feminist that she doesn't know this.

And the stuff about other countries is a red herring - we know that in Canada abusive men have used the legislation to gain entry to women's refuge. We know in this country that almost every trans-identifying man in prison is a sex offender. We know that male sex offenders try to get moved to women's prisons.

Honestly, this stuff isn't rocket science. But if none of that persuades her, ask her what she will say to an angry constituent whose teenage daughter is sharing a school changing room with a biological male. It's the thought of losing votes that really gets to these people, I'm afraid.

Women have a protected status in law because evidence shows they are likely to suffer discrimination and abuse because of biology - women are less strong, can get pregnant through rape etc.

Trans women aren’t oppressed by biology in this way. They suffer discrimination and abuse by men too, but not because of their biology.

Men who transition to live as women currently need to show they are socially and medically committed to living as women - they prove via a GRC legal process that they are not a threat to women and can be classed separately from the rest of the male sex.

Self ID removes the proof that there is no ill-intent towards women. In practise there may only be a small number of men who will abuse a new system, but even a small number is NOT ACCEPTABLE as it is prioritising the rights of a trans minority over the rights of women. A process already exists for trans people to get recognition - what is the need for it to change this significantly?

And where it gets cast as a disability:

'my biology does not match myself, I was born trapped inside the wrong body and that's not my fault - you wouldn't exclude a burn victim or someone with one leg as being too upsetting to look at, so to exclude me as not a woman because of my outward appearance is exclusionary'

• it's not a disability to have male biology
• there are issues of privacy and dignity that have always meant sex segregation for some things, personal feelings about viewing your physical sex as a disability should not automatically override all of those - unless SC would support removing ALL sex segregation. Would she? If not, then why not? Would she anticipate the general public accepting this? Because self ID would make a complete nonsense of sex segregation, it becomes meaningless.

If you’ve led with hospitals and mixed wards I would stick with that as the focus. Research the hell out of it and go armed with loads of references.
Make a script- like the kind cold callers use- which has your questions and every possible way she may answer. Then work out strategies to pin her down on the points that are important to you.

Ask her what other policies and laws are based on how people FEEL?

Just a thought if it would help:

The nub of the 'right' argument comes down to 'a self identified woman equal to biological women must be able to go anywhere and do anything a biological woman can, and my biology must be overlooked or recast as being biologically female'. That's the basis of the 'discrimination' claims: that there can't be some spaces where 'women' are not welcomed as if that makes them substandandard women.

However to do this, biological women have to surrender all idea of what makes people male and female, deny biology and science, surrender all culture and experience and normal life for centuries to suddenly just swallow their embarrassment and discomfort and own personal feelings around identity and consent, and all this is purely to make people born men feel included and validated in their self identity. It's asking for belief to be validated above fact. For one person's subjective feelings to be accepted unquestioningly by everyone else as fact, and as superior to and overruling their own feelings.

Can a biological woman be a transwoman? No. The answer is loud and clear from the trans lobby every time. Unless you were 'assigned male at birth' (born male) you can't. Therefore biology DOES MATTER.

Self identified women who were born men are not biologically the same as women, that's fine, that's ok. In most places it really doesn't matter. BUT biological women have specific issues and needs and politics relating to their biology, they are a very large class of people all with those needs in common. Why can it not be accepted and respected that for those limited circumstances specific to biology, biological women need their privacy and spaces, and the right to meet and talk about issues specific to their own bodies and needs? We wouldn't dream of demanding that trans groups be disbanded on the grounds that they are exclusionary and hateful as they imply that women aren't transwomen.

I think I would express concern that people are being pushed into being labelled by stereotype

that the result will be it's not okay to be a woman wearing trousers or a man wearing a dress

that women will be pushed towards things like not working, only having babies and being measured as they were in the Victorian age

Ask them whether she supports segregation of men and women in general in wards. I presume she will give some sort of version of yes. Ask her why. Ask her why it is different just because someone says they are a woman bearing in mind evidence suggests that TIMs offend at the same rate as men (or at least there's no evidence that they don't). Making her do the work in thinking this through will be more effective than telling her.

Also interested to hear back, good luck!

A good friend of mine is in Stella's constituency and met her about this issue. I have to say she wasn't impressed at all. She came away with the impression that Stella didn't get the issues and wasn't prepared to listen. I don't say that to put you off. I actually think it makes it more important that Stella hears from more constituents with concerns.
Go armed with facts. Tell her about how few trans identified people have any form of surgical intervention. Tell her about some of the cases of TIMs in prison seeking to be moved to women's prisons. Ask her straight out if she believes that someone can change their biological sex and ask her how she defines woman. Tell her about the cotton ceiling.
I doubt she'll listen but I do think it's worth you going anyway.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Maybe print this and take it:

www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1312

stay away from the Penis Problem ... as soon as people bring up the subject other people stop listening, it seems

I've noticed the same. It tends to cause people either to wake as if from a dream or shut down their engagement. But what does the hive mind think about pointing out that the majority of transwomen are unlikely to have any form of sex reassignment surgery?

One specific point you might want to raise (or at least keep to hand), is that accusations of trans exclusionary behaviour by some feminists is actually untrue because it is never about excluding women who identify as men. It is done on the basis of sex and comes from the wholly justifiable basis of the vast majority of sexual abuse women face being done by men.

I would go in with proper stats about DV, suicide, male violence etc. Also the whole point about stats is that it IS sex based which is crucial.
Religious minority women would also disappear if self-ID comes in.

I would, wherever possible, stay away from the Penis Problem.

I know this is at the heart of it. But as soon as people bring up the subject other people stop listening, it seems.

So I would urge you to stick to asking why the debate is being stifled instead of open to all women, trans and natal, as a PP says.

And YY to headline notes, and asking to take notes too.

And if that launches her into an explanation of 'privilege' - well that essentially means biological women should be punished and have their rights withdrawn for the crime of being born with that biology. Is she prepared to stand behind that?