Meeting With Stella Creasy Advice Please

Maybe I should think of examples in advance so I don't end up breaking the dam and flooding out all my pent up thoughts/feelings.

Yes! You might want to write a skeleton outline of the points you want to discuss. Just headings. But it will help to provide structure which firstly helps in persuasion and secondly means that you won't be having "Doh!" moments thinking "how could I forget to have mentioned that point?"

Would it be possible to come back and report how it went OP? I'm thinking stuff like the areas of discussion where you felt you were able to make some progress and those (if any) where Creasey was not open to listening. It might help for others in their meetings with MPs.

Why, if this is a movement towards listening, compassion, respecting people's rights to safety, dignity, recognition -

is this not an argument for third spaces?

Obviously many women have difficulty with biologically male bodies in intimate spaces and situations of vulnerability. Why does their dignity and their voices have to be silenced to hear someone else? How is the one group more important than the other? We keep being told we're ALL women - so are all those women equal or not?

Please read James Kirkup's article in full in The Spectator... I think its really important and the starting point for speaking with politicians..

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/fear-and-loathing-grips-the-gender-debate/
Extract:
"Bluntly, why the hell is no one in politics shouting from the rooftops about this stuff? We’re talking about people trying to put the frighteners on Mumsnetters, for goodness sake. In any other area of public life, politicians usually fall over themselves in their rush to speak up for middle-class working mothers. Yet the politicians who were desperate to talk biscuits at Mumsnet Towers are curiously silent about the intimidation that some women now report there.

If this was simply a story of a small number of nasty people online and – sometimes – on the street doing bad things to women who speak up about a political issue, I suspect this problem wouldn’t persist. The relevant legal and political authorities would indeed pay attention to that fear, and maybe even do something, even if that was just listening to those women, meeting them, answering their questions.

But that doesn’t seem to be happening. It’s because those women have been – quite successfully and even skilfully – demonised and stigmatised, put beyond the pale of civilised debate as those who question orthodoxy often are. They’ve been given a name, a name that means they’re bad people, people who should not speak and should not be heard. That name is “Terf,” which once meant “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist” but now appears to stand in its own right as a term of abuse and dismissal alongside the other short, harsh words often used to question the worth and virtue of women.

And that small number of people who direct violence and abuse at “Terfs” are swimming in a larger sea of contempt and dismissal. Their conduct takes place in a social context where hostility to “Terfs” has become not just normal but even amusing, where there is no social cost to talking about and perhaps even inciting violence towards women who hold “unacceptable” views. Simply, some people, including people who would never themselves engage in that sort of violence, are doing things that make violent discourse and even violence look and feel OK. Sadly, they include journalists and politicians, people who parade their support for minority groups but speak about feminist women in terms they would never use about other people."

Good luck.

I think it is imperative to stick to a calm through line of support for trans people that does not impact upon women’s rights.

I would like clarification how the granting of a GRC via self ID does NOT impact women’s services, spaces and organisations.

The trans lobby say: it’s too medicalised, it takes too long, it’s inconvenient and expensive.

But it’s a document that changes a person’s gender so that then they are afforded the legal status of a protected characteristic.

To me, it is imperative that this comes with checks and balances. It’s not enough to say that it will improve the lives of trans people if it SIMULTANEOUSLY deprives other people of their rights by opening up legal status to anyone who can “identify” as the opposite sex.

I don’t feel the case that there is no risk to women’s rights has been proved. I think the onus should be on government to prove this before altering law, not the onus on women to prove “nothing will happen”.

Maybe ask her why if she actually believes that you can change your biological sex. Look her in the eyes and ask her if she thinks you can. It isn't possible so I don't think anyone could answer yes to that question. What you can do is surgically alter your exterior appearance to resemble that of the opposite sex. Ask her why she thinks so many people now feel pressured to do this? What are they trying to solve by doing this?

Then ask her why she thinks male and female are separated by biology in areas such as sports, shelters, hospital wards, prisons etc. Socially why has this come about?

Ask her why we cannot self declare ourselves to be anything else. Because the powers that be know that allowing us to do this would be open to abuse. If anyone could self declare as disabled for example and enter the Paralympics, or claim disability benefit how would this affect the genuinely disabled people?

So why are we considering allowing people to self declare as the opposite sex? This will adversely affect women in all sorts of areas. How can we legislate to protect women if we cannot even define anymore what a woman is?

There was a recent twitter exchange where one of her constituents gave an example of her daughter being exposed to a "girl" masturbating his penis in the showers at school. There's your first example why Self ID is such a dreadful idea (let me know if you want me to try and find the tweet).

She has definitely drunk the koolaid so I think firm examples are the only way to go and definitely take ReluctantCamper's advice on pronouns etc

Make the first thing you say a statement that you support trans people having the right to live their lives with dignity and free of discrimination. (Assuming you do actually believe this.) Then move on to the fact that your motivation is to make sure that while they are protected, women being able to live their lives with dignity is something that must be maintained if the law is going to be changed. This can then take you to self-ID which does cause conflicts.

Have an answer ready for the question "self-ID works brilliantly in other countries and so why shouldn't it work similarly in the UK?"

Good luck with your meeting.

And we'll done you for getting this far. Good luck.

Try to meet her halfway. I left a slightly snippy reply on Brian Paddick's twitter thread which I now really regret. If we want to change minds we can't afford people to write us off upfront as just plain nasty.

So, use chosen names, respect pronouns. Give real life examples. Ask her how a woman's right for same sex provision for intimate medical procedures can be upheld if we're not allowed to differentiate between men and women.

Good luck, reading her recent exchanges on this I think you'll struggle to convince her but finger crossed you can get somewhere.