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.

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

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.

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.

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?

unicorns that kind of thing is where I feel most comfortable. I am not an expert on 'trans' but I am very familiar with the issue of being a biological female. I don't feel comfortable sharing with blokes in certain situations (mostly those to do with my female biology) and I want to retain the right to have plenty of 'male-free' space and not have sudden violations of my personal space by males in places where i'm not expecting it.

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.

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

Good luck op

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?

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.

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!

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.

This quote from Karen Ingala-Smith is a strong one: (from an article linked on another thread)

It is absurd if we cannot say that women are adult human females and men who call themselves transwomen are biologically male, and that these two groups are just not the same. It is disingenuous if we cannot admit that sometimes our interests conflict. And this is one of those instances where interests collide. A belief in and commitment to universal human rights is not incompatible with prioritising the well-being of women, especially in the context of women who have experienced men’s violence.

Please don't say the suggested 'We know in this country that almost every trans-identifying man in prison is a sex offender.' No, we don't. The numbers aren't clear. Perhaps 'We know in this country that some trans-identifying males in prison are sex offenders and that being trans does not make you a saint.'

OP. Am I reading your original post right in thinking that SC does understand concerns about codifying gender norms in to law? If so, that sounds like a positive step.
I would love the opportunity to meet with her and would use the time to ask her difficult to answer questions, that don’t directly focus on trans people.
When asking questions, I would make sure she didn’t fob me off with non- answers, well rehearsed stock responses and if she acknowledged there weren’t simple answers, I would ask her what she was going to do to help find answers/address the conflicting demands etc.
My questions would be:

• Where and when do you support same- sex provision? (You could follow up/debate specific provision if she misses off any particular provision you are interested in)
• Why do you think same-sex provision is warranted in these instances? (If she doesn’t bring up the issue of differently-sexed bodies in this response you can follow up with asking her thoughts about privacy and dignity in relation to situations where our sexed-bodies come in to play)
• Where differences in male and female sexed-bodies underpin the rationale for same-sex provision, what is the rationale for ignoring the sexed-bodies for some of the population? (Point out that the moment a person with a male-sexed body is present in a provision for people with a female-sexed body, it ceases to be same-sex. The benefits that the provision is designed to afford users is immediately lost. What are her thoughts about that?

I think talking about sexed-bodies, rather than penises and vaginas is important as it points out that even with ‘pants on’ situations, there are fundamental differences. I also think forcing the debate beyond crime-based concerns stops it being shut down due to discussions about laws protecting people. I have questions about codifying gender also but it sounds as though she may be onboard with these all ready. I am very jealous OP. I would really love to have a 1:1 with SC!

I'd be inclined to try and focus on the fact that all the discrimination and danger women suffer from, is as a result of our female biology - it's the overall physical weakness, the vulnerability of rape and sexual assault. These are the reasons why women as a group, are defined by our biology. And that's why we need biology - based segregated spaces. I think try to be collaborative rather than confrontational - we can all agree that trans people should have access to counselling, to refuges etc but just not the same ones as biological women.

There was a brilliant letter to the Sunday Time weeks ago from a retired medical consultant which I wish I'd kept, regarding self ID. It was short and to the point that 'demedicalising' transition is a red herring, that gender dysphoria is a complex condition and the hormonal and surgical procedures required for transition are complex and SHOULD be medicalised - that the patients deserve to have proper counselling and thorough medical care in order to make it safe, and that trying to 'demedicalise' it is actually doing them a disservice. And furthermore that doctors are required by their code of ethics to fully understand a patient's condition and be satisfied that that the treatment is the beet course, before treating them (there was some specific wording around this presumably taken directly from a code of conduct of some kind) and therefore demedicalising this process is actually requiring a lower standard of care for the individuals involved.

I would also ask why Labour created AWS if being a woman is a state of mind.

Research has consistently shown women are taught by society to be subservient, speak less, be quiet and not push themselves forward. It is for this reason that AWS were created.

If someone has had years of being treated as a man by society, regardless of whether they considered themselves male or female, then they have grown up with male privilege and with none of the societal pressure to conform to feminine "ideals".

To say that transwomen need the same positive discrimination once they have identified as women infers that being subservient is inherent in women's nature and therefore we are not equal to men.

Basically, does she not agree that boys and girls are treated differently by society and that this gives the former an advantage when it comes to leadership roles, whether or not they identify as a man or a woman? Or does she think women are naturally inferior to men in this aspect and that is why they don't apply to be politicians?

And I agree with Lancelottie, do not make blanket statements about "all transmen/women". Such statements are wrong and hurtful.

To me, the argument is not about demonising a sector of society who do not deserve to be demonised. It is about protecting women's rights and making sure everyone has a voice and the right to use it.

Where do you live MsB? Anywhere in the S/E?

By the way everyone on this thread is really helping!

OP - I agree stick to hospital wards, otherwise you could get bogged down in theoretical stuff and you'll run out of time.

Ask why we segregate on the basis of sex? (safety - men present a greater risk to women then women do to men. Also, dignity, comfort, women have biological functions that men do not).

Point out that (i) Majority of transwomen retain male genitalia (ii) Research indicates that transwomen retain a male pattern of criminality. (iii) 1 in 3 women have been victims of sexual assault or violence (mention 'Me Too' etc.)

State that whilst we're not saying that all transwomen will harm women, ask her why, given the research available, women should continue to feel as safe with transwomen in women's spaces . . .

Point out that in many psychiatric wards now transwomen are being admitted without evidence of a GRC, any medical treatment or any gender dysphoria. Men who dress as women on a part time basis now self-define as 'trans' (thanks to Stonewall's trans umbrella) and are admitted to female wards.

More than 2/3 of women on psychiatric wards have been victims of male violence/abuse/rape. Bad enough, but these vulnerable women - many with psychotic illnesses - are being told that transwomen are not men, but women.

These women are told they do not have the right to feel uncomfortable with these 'woman'. They are labelled 'transphobic' and threatened with removal from the ward.

Ask Stella whether she would feel comfortable and safe, at the most vulnerable and frightening time in her life, sharing a ward with someone who looked like a man, spoke like man, dressed like man and had a penis. Ask Stella to ask her female friends the same question.

I don't know Stella's sexuality, but ask whether she and her female friends would have a sexual relationship with a transman/woman.

She will fudge it, but try to get across the point that if no/not sure then she can't truly believe than transwomen are women. So why on earth should vulnerable women in hospital wards?

Good luck!

Examples can be effective. One case that I think has been difficult for people to wave away with "what's the fuss?" is this one:

inews.co.uk/news/health/nhs-woman-transgender-nurse-smear-test/

My argument around this would be to say that I think women should have the right specify that some of their treatment will be by health professionals who were born as women. At this point, discussing the needs of Muslim women can be introduced.

If you can get Creasy to engage with this, then you can say that blanket self-ID will introduce problems and if the law is changed it will have to be qualified in many ways to deal with problems like this. This shows that this is very complex and proper in-depth research will be needed before contemplating any change in the law in this area.

Just seen this on another thread.

I'd print it out and ask her to read it :-)

medium.com/@tom_farr/the-left-are-abandoning-women-and-in-doing-so-abandoning-everything-they-stand-for-51fd63457d8c

Skewing of statistics is a good one - maybe she could find out for you why there were 6 women rapists in 2016?

How many of these were 'joint enterprise' and how many actually raped?

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.

These are such important points and very pertinent to hospital wards. Also the “aren’t natal women entitled to privacy/dignity” query.