Guardian article on MPs concern with GRA

Stephen, thank you for contacting the guardian on this. Tensions are uunderstandably running high as this is a highly personal and emotive issue for many people, but the Samaritans guidelines are there for a reason and I’m glad you have corrected your statement. It takes conviction to admit you made an error and I respect you for taking steps to correct it.

In response to some of the considered comments on here, and after thinking carefully so as not to compound the situation and bring more attention to the remark, , last night I wrote the following email to the Society Editor, the Readers Editor and David Batty of the Guardian.

Dear Sirs
You printed a comment by myself in the article by David Batty “Transgender law reform has overlooked women’s rights, say MPs“ at www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps

The comment I made includes an inappropriate reference about the prospect of possible suicides and attempts:
Prof Stephen Whittle, the founder of trans rights group Press for Change, warned that many trans people would “become depressed and dejected” if reform was delayed. He said: “ I am sure there will be a flurry of attempts and suicides. But in the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.”

The original question from David was: “2. What do you think (fear?) will happen if the reforms are derailed, or kicked into the long grass, perhaps as a result of the toxic debate? In other words, what difficulties will this create for trans people?”

I answered the question thinking about “if the reforms were derailed” completely, not just delayed, and even then did not think carefully enough about what my words should be in reply to that question. .

It has been brought to my attention that my response conflicts with the IPSO/Samaritans Guidance on reporting about Suicide, which say at
Point 2:
“there is a risk of imitational behaviour due to ‘over-identification’.
Vulnerable individuals may identify with a person who has died, or with the circumstances in which a person took their own life.
For example, combining references to life circumstances, say a debt problem or job loss, and descriptions of an easy-to-imitate suicide
method in the same report, could put at greater risk people who are vulnerable as a result of financial stress.”
And at point 3:
Over-simplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading and is unlikely to reflect accurately the complexity
of suicide.
For example, avoid the suggestion that a single incident, such as loss of a job, relationship breakdown or bereavement, was the cause.
And at point 5:
“Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results.”

It is clear in retrospect that my comment was ‘ill thought out’ and completely inappropriate, as it could lead vulnerable and/or young trans people to consider taking their own lives, and clearly nothing could be further from my wishes. It should not have been printed.

To ensure that my comments, and your publication, meets with the IPSO/Samaritans guidance, I would be very grateful if you would amend the online comment, removing any reference to attempts or suicide, so that it now reads:
Prof Stephen Whittle, the founder of trans rights group Press for Change, warned that many trans people would 'become depressed and dejected' if reform was delayed. He said: “In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.”

Please confirm your response.
All the best
Stephen

Stephen Whittle can say and might even believe they support women's rights.

But as Stephen also thinks that 'woman' is a feeling in a man's head. Then Stephen can never support biological women who for many real reasons, need spaces away from men.

And when I say men, I mean all men. Even those men who claim to have a special woman feeling in their head.

Feelings do not make a man safer to be around. In fact having such delusions, might make them less safe !

This is why the old school Transexuals, know they have a male biology and try not to make a fuss when being in women's spaces. As they appreciate that woman have tried their best to accept them and the Transexuals don't want women to feel more comfortable than they have to be.

This new identity politics is so women hating and full of male entitlement it makes me sick.

No one out in the real world can believe that the government is even thinking of opening out women spaces to all men. The majority (99.9%) of the general public, both men and women don't want this law change !

Now the word is out you will lose. This law will be rolled back and women's rights have to be strengthened to prevent this type of law change ever taking place in the future.

Stephen needs to accept they have failed to slide this law in. We see you. Instead of bitching that women are the problem, campaign for third spaces.

That is the compromise we can all support. Biological men, biological women and unisex. That is fair, safe and the right solution.

I dont know if Stephen Whittle will come back to the thread.

This is a very important document as it details the key parts of the parliamentary debate on the GRA. The issues that were brought up are the ones which are now writ large:

by Vulvamort@HairyLeggdHarpy

"The Gender Recognition Bill

"I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.
It was, in the Govt's eyes, FAR preferable to convert a same sex couple into a heterosexual couple via 'sex change' than it was to make same sex marriage legal" (continues)

All of the problems were identified and anticipated: (Norman Tebbitt even highlighted how Ian Huntley had used his change of identity to his advantage, now she uses it for hers)

The fudges and inconsistencies are clear throughout.

concludes:
"Baroness Cathain got it.
She knew this would be a legal fiction
Cathain also realised that since you can't ask to see a GRC, you can't prove your entirely valid position of refusing someone on the grounds of sex. Leaving you open to being sued.
Sometimes whilst reading these comments, I feel queasy. Because where we are now is pretty much exactly where some people saw us going."

Cathain: "A basic human right for individuals to be free to believe fact rather than fiction"
"coerced, totalitarian-style law making"

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

As Christine Burns (Press For Change)described:
Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press".

From Hansard it is clear who was lobbied.
That the press didn't 'throw a fit', read no public scrutiny.

As Stephen commented earlier:
We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.

well yes, this does seem the case now as then, see Jeremy Corbyn at Pink News party last night. In 2004 Labour MPs apparently had three line whip for this bill

Although Labour may increasingly become aware of how many women feel betrayed.

Stephen Whittle:
As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

and there you have it

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. - Maya Angelou

As is commonplace, the brilliant, eloquent women of FWR have already said all I wanted to say to you.

Yep.

I have one remaining question for you Stephen - was it you / your org who got 'case-by-case' added to the EA Statutory Code, thus rendering the single sex exceptions completely unuseable? You're listed as a respondent in the post consultation report.

Stephen welcome back to Mumsnet. As is commonplace, the brilliant, eloquent women of FWR have already said all I wanted to say to you. The only thing left to say is that, like so many before you who think they can come here and bullshit, patronise or bully us, I believe you’ve had your arse handed to you.

Thanks R0wantrees had not seen that, have bookmarked to listen to.
Also for the Yorkshire Post piece - the woman describes how I felt for several years afterwards, until I had counselling from Rape Crisis.

Whittle knows very well that women do not consent. Whittle just does not believe that 'consent' for women is a thing.

An important statement in today's Yorkshire Post by a woman about consent:
(extract)
"Another troubling aspect of this debate is the re-definition of language and demographics. I live in a society where, due to my immutable biological sex, I am at a disadvantage – I want to change that. Words hold power. Like any group, women need to be able to define ourselves before we can make any progress with the inequality that we face. The dictionary definition of ‘woman’ is ours to claim, use and wear on T-shirts.

At this point, I think it important that I explain why I feel so strongly about this issue. In 2011, I was raped by a man I knew and trusted. I have never reported this to the police, I knew it came down to my word against his and the legal process would have made it more traumatic than it already was. As I tried to process what had happened to me I was constantly confronted with the view that it is my responsibility as a woman to set appropriate boundaries to protect myself from physical and sexual harm.

This is victim-blaming, but it is a concept that most women are all too familiar with. Expecting women to prevent themselves becoming victims of rape and sexual assault, crimes largely committed by predatory men, in the face of legislation that removes women’s rights to challenge those men, abusing the proposed legislation to enter their spaces, sets women’s rights back centuries. In the immediate aftermath of being raped the reaction I had to strange men was visceral and based on instinct rather than reason – anybody who looked or sounded male made me panic.

I didn’t have the capacity to consider anybody’s feelings but my own, that is why the needs of women who find themselves in this situation should always be paramount. I needed other women because that is all I could cope with, it made me feel safe, allowed me to speak and eventually to regain control. I am incredibly grateful for the help I received and spaces need to be preserved for women who, sadly, will continue need them in future. I am concerned that the provisions that allow these spaces to remain single sex are not robust enough to protect them as more people legally change their sex." (continues)

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/freedom-of-speech-is-vital-to-our-democracy-in-leeds-1-9400267

Video about the need for male-free spaces:

I have been reading Stephen’s biography on Wikipedia

It also describes how,
"On top of that was a strong desire to be a man, to grow a beard and to have a hairy chest. He had read articles about people like Della Aleksander"

for those not aware, previous thread OP Sunkisses wrote:

"I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

its worth watching
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327193-BBC-Open-Door-programme-45-years-ago-on-transsexuals-a-real-jaw-dropper

Stephen Whittle's influence on social media, children & young people:

2014 Telegraph
'Facebook's 71 gender options come to UK users'
(extract)
Facebook worked with UK groups Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to add 21 new options to ensure the list best reflected the ways UK users may choose to describe themselves.

"Gender identities are complex and for many people, describing themselves as just a man or just a woman has always been inadequate," said Professor Stephen Whittle, vice-president at Press for Change. The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to develop our gender identity, as key to our personal autonomy.

"By challenging the gender binary, Facebook will finally allow thousands of people to describe themselves as they are now and it will allow future generation of kids to become truly comfortable in their own skins."

Ensuring users feel comfortable being their true selves while using the network is a priority, said Simon Milner, Policy Director, UK Middle East & Africa at Facebook.

"An important part of this is the expression of gender especially when it extends beyond the definitions of just ‘male’ or ‘female.’ Today’s announcement provides significantly more options for people in the UK," he added." (continues)
www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

Oh and yes, consent matters.

I have been reading Stephen’s biography on Wikipedia (not the most reliable source), but it says that his mother, being concerned that he was different from his sisters, entered him for the examination for presumably a grammar or private school.

It was a girl’s school but I find that statement bizarre - surely his mother realised Stephen had academic potential, not that Stephen was different from his sister’s and should be educated as such. Bearing in mind, his mother was judging her children all as daughters and it was a girl’s school, what kind of difference was meant aside from academic? It is retrospectively writing a kind of specialness into the narrative- ‘different’, therefore worthy of being entered into the entrance examination. It reads oddly.

Plus, what is a radical lesbian?

You know, I am sorry to ask questions about your biography, Stephen, I read it as I was curious. Grown up with girls, schooled with girls, in a lesbian relationship but wanted to be a man. Or just different and man was the only other option. Trying to understand.

Why can't you see that you do not have women's consent?

Whittle knows very well that women do not consent. Whittle just does not believe that 'consent' for women is a thing.

Stephen, you made a statement which showed a complete disregard and dismissal of the well-being of vulnerable people. No, a responsible newspaper shouldn't have published it, but the Guardian stopped being responsible a long time (if it ever was). However, someone in your profession knows the importance of words, and also how to cope with a deadline without blurting out the first thing that comes into your head. Your excuses are disingenuous. Please don't insult our intelligence.

If you now retract what you said, contact the Guardian and ask for a retraction, or at least, a link to the Samaritans.

Your comments here and elsewhere have demonstrated why I do not consider you an honest broker in this discussion

agree completely

Also totally agree.

Wittle is the very definition of provoking - but hey look at me able to not type abusive or harmful sentences! Thanks ladybrain!

I expect Wittle to care about the vulnerable children in their community and make an equally public retraction about their breathtakingly callous 'flurry of suicides' comment. The Guardian is not responsible for the words Stephen forms with Stephen's own mouth - I'm glad that they published them so the whole world can see them for who they are.

I'm teaching my sons that a real man (amongst other things) : 1. Defends the vulnerable. 2. Takes responsibility for their own words and actions. 3. Doesn't sulk or deflect from criticism. 4. Learns from their mistakes. 5. Commands - not demands - respect, by being respectful

I'm teaching my daughter the same thing.

So I'm again struck with the impression of toxic misogynistic masculinity parading as a mature adult male. Quite chilling.

Your comments here and elsewhere have demonstrated why I do not consider you an honest broker in this discussion

^ agree completely

It’s either a minor administrative change or it’s important enough that there’ll be a flurry of suicides.

Pick one.

Hi Stephen,

I realise that the conversation on here is heated, as everyone is very upset

This conversation is intolerable to me as so many people are believing the worst of each other. I have trans friends who I want to be happy. I want things to be calm and rational.

But that cannot happen while the mainstream trans narrative is that anyone who doesn't believe the conceptually incoherent statement "transwomen are [LITERAL] women" is an evil nazi, that anyone who has any concerns about self-ID is motivated by hate, that disagreement is the same thing as violence, or that all transpeople are on the verge of suicide and as a result they must be given everything that they want.

This is not anything that you can engage with rationally. It is abusive and deranged.

Can you try to help put a stop to this from your side? Because then we could maybe make some progress.

I do know the Samaritans Guidelines - I just never thought about them, when faced with the usual 'now' deadline of the media.
I have admitted I should not have said that, but hey - the Guardian also didn't think about the Samaritans Guidelines because if they had they would not have put the comment on their website. They would have said "can't do that because of ... change it".

This ‘Oh well, whoopsie shrug’ attitude is chilling. What do you think the purpose of the Samaritans Guidelines is, Stephen? Why were they drawn up?

Stephen,

You seem to have a very little respect for women on this forum formulating their own opinions, analyzing these potential legal changes using the lens of female rights (changes which you interestingly write about almost as though they are a "done deal") and asserting the importance of protecting women (a political philosophy known as feminism).

Women are saying NO. Why can't you see that you do not have women's consent? You are actually violating women's rights by pushing forward like this despite our NO. Why do you seem to want to set up a system where any man (including psychopathic rapists and paedophiles who see a loophole the size of Scotland) who declares that he identifies as a woman should have the absolute right to claim the female legal identity and transgress women-only boundaries at will? Ordinary women and many transsexuals see the problems with this open-door, un-policeable, just-take-everyone-at-their-word-Scout's-honour policy. Why can't you?

Why do you then insist that any assertion of the female identity and resistance to your political activism is akin to inciting people to kill themselves? I don't believe for a second that you or the Guardian conveniently glossed over Samaritans guidelines. If you had the integrity you claim to care about, then you could contact the Guardian to ask for a correction. Or at the very least ask that the Samaritans number is added to the end of the piece. It has been up since this morning. Should one of us forward your comments on this thread to the journalist, in a distinctly feminist trait of offering to help undo the damage you are causing for the greater good of protecting trans people from the Werther effect?

I doubt you'd take us up on it. I think you know that you can use the damaging rhetoric around mental health to further your own political view, which is a perspective that eliminates the reality of biological sex or women's rights to organize around their female sex.

I believe that you are engaging in a form of emotional abuse of others (especially women) when you use the threat of suicide to get them to stop engaging in the democratic process. In my opinion, you're also risking the mental health of trans people who are in a vulnerable situation in perpetuating a dangerous narrative that they are not emotionally strong enough to handle rational political discussions around sex and gender when a public consultation has been opened by the government and is open to all. Safeguarding affects us all. Every one of us has a sex. Feminism is still necessary. Most women on this board have a fraught relationship with the feminine gender role.

Frankly, I think your statement is an example of trying to manipulate the public.

You, sir, meet no definition of feminist that I would recognize, nor have you demonstrated empathy for women or those who are dealing with emotional distress in your handling of this situation. I speak as someone with personal experience of significant mental health issues, who would find your statement incredibly triggering were I in a more depressed state of mind. It actually makes me angry to think that you claim to speak on behalf of vulnerable trans people while being this irresponsible about your approach to their mental health or potential suicidal ideation.

I think you are on this thread to try to mitigate the consequences of your own mistake with the people who are calling you out, instead of actually taking steps to fix it. I think this is shameful.

Your comments here and elsewhere have demonstrated why I do not consider you an honest broker in this discussion.

Trans people deserve better and women deserve better.

Tbh - I think the "it's just an administrative process" can be dropped now.

It's how the GRA 2004 was slipped through "without anyone throwing a fit in the press" the first time. This time it should be fairly obvious to almost anyone that:

• self ID is not just an administrative process that will have no impact on anyone else (Karen White has already had quite a big impact on others),

• and that it isn't flying under the radar this time.

This may be an odd question, Stephen , but I simply do not believe you when you say you fight to defend women’s rights as well as trans rights.

The clue in you saying you could never see yourself as a woman, only as some sort of male - yet you cannot explain this. Do you not think it may have been to do with the fact that men have more regard, more autonomy, more opportunities, more status in society?

Why would I believe that you fight for women’s rights when you identified out of being a woman, rather than questioning what exactly it was about being a woman you disliked and campaigning to change that (for all women)? It is the most disingenuous gas-lighting statement - you apparently fight for women’s rights but you did not want to remain one?

It is difficult to see how these two positions can be held at the same time.

They're not. We know it, Stephen knows it, I now a lot of newspapers and MPs know it.

Can we clarify here.

It's not OK to use the suicide stuff in public. But it's OK to use the bogus argument if it's behind closed doors lobbying to emotionally blackmail? Especially as the change to the GRA is so minor.

Just I'd like to know exactly what the logic of acceptability is and where ethics come into this.

Stephen, if you can't be even arsed to ask the Guardian to amend it, then you clearly 100% stand by those words.

Words can't express within talk guidelines what a shitty human being you are for that.