Meeting With Stella Creasy Advice Please

[RefuseToDenounceBiology]

NC for this.
Has anyone else met with her?
I forwarded the Sex Matters document but from her communications it seems that she doesn't understand the harms beyond codifying gender stereotypes into law.

My feeling is that someone who only sees that will also think that self-ID is a good thing because it does away with stereotypes ie it means that you can look, act, think and live like a bloke and also actually be a bloke, but as long as you 'feel like a woman' then you can legally 'become' one, without conforming to any stereotypes or needing them codified into law.

Thanks in advance for any advice on preparation for the meeting or handling it. I am worried my mouth might run away with me and do more harm than good.

I am meeting her tomorrow.

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

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.

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

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.

Thanks both. Wrt pronouns - I can't do that and maintain my self-respect so it will have to be using actual names and 'they'. 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.

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

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?

Thanks nauticant - I am quite fed up with this whole issue being about trans identifying people.

Perhaps I should say that I believe in human rights for everyone however they identify, but my main concern right now is about women and girls and i am interested in specifically addressing women's rights in the meeting.

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”.

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."

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

This is all great advice. I am using my phone so it is hard for me to keep up with responding to everyone.

In my opening email to her, I was talking mainly about hospitals and not having to share with males in mixed wards.

Maybe print this and take it:

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

Thanks Squirrels

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.

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!

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

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?"

The way I think I would answer this is:

Different countries have different norms - in Denmark, there are mixed pools and spas where everyone is expected to be naked - if these opened here, they would be very niche. I want to address how self ID affects me not how it works in a culture we don't belong to.

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.