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.

well that's quite depressing
I have been toying with meeting my (labour)MP since she told me in an email that 'transwomen are women'- and I do get that it's hard for any of them to publically be GC, but I thought about offering to chat in confidence- I just can't believe that any intelligent person, in private, would maintain that line, because nobody can really believe it.

I think you do need to reflect LangCleg's point back to her. If it was only about changing gender identity, then it would not matter (and you would not need legislation about it either ) Since it is actually about changing legal sex (and there is no need to change biological sex or even appear to have done), and also the legal definition of sex for us all, then it is a problem

I just can't believe that any intelligent person, in private, would maintain that line, because nobody can really believe it There was that case where Vince Cable was taped during a meeting with a constituent, thinking it was private.

Margaret Thatcher was famous for not listening when someone (an mp, I think) went to see her, only to find their points used subsequently, in contrast to Shirley Williams who agreed with everything and then ignored it.

that sounds incredibly hard work!

I think this is progress - you covered a lot of areas and you caused her a couple of moments of deeply awkward cognitive dissonance which will stay with her.

Definitely do a follow up letter.

Well done on getting to see her, and although it was frustrating, let’s hope that she will actually think about what you have said.

I agree about sending a follow up letter, where you will be able to spell out the points you wanted to make without her interrupting.

I would be interested to hear what she thinks the actual point of the GRA is, if she thinks it doesn’t change legal sex. If she thinks it is merely ‘confirming gender identity’, could she explain to you what this actually means? It sounds nonsensical to me.

If someone feels feminine, so dresses in stereotypically female clothing, we can all see that they are presenting in a feminine manner. Why would they need a piece of paper to ‘confirm’ it? Was it a test, that they passed? How can a third party confirm your gender identity anyway? What is the point of having this piece of paper, rather than just getting dressed in the clothes of your choice? Surely it must have a purpose?

If she admits that this piece of paper actually does something, such as allowing legal documents to be changed, or allowing access to certain services and facilities, then has she considered all the areas that may be affected by this, from accurate data collection through to sex-segregated services?

I don't understand how a change of sex can be proposed in a piece of legislation. I get that it's partly to do with obtaining a birth certificate, but what you would essentially be doing is saying someone who was born male is now being registered as having been born female. That's a lie.
How can a government be proposing to enshrine a LIE into law?
There must be other ways around this.

I once was working at an event where a senior councillor attended, which we were delighted about as it was an area usually very much ignored with a lot of poverty and deprivation, and a project that anyone sane would be vigorously promoting and supporting. She turned up smiley and smartly dressed, and none of us could get a word in edgewise as she didn't want to talk about the project or the issues at all: she spent the whole time telling us, very firmly, about her personal pet hobby horse which involved going abroad for a specific cause and running a website about it.

It was my first education that people who get into these positions are often there because they have extremely strong opinions and personal agendas, are very good at being heard and pursuing those agendas, and other people and their issues aren't necessarily of much interest unless the gel with one of those personal agendas.

I'm sorry it was so frustrating OP.

It drives me nuts when they go on about 'we will keep sex segregation' but conveniently leave out 'but men can identify as any sex they like'.

I read her twitter feed and frankly she comes across as a half-wit. Virtue signalling with no reasoned responses to questions. Career politician. I am not in her borough but I wouldn’t vote for her. I think for some women, if they haven’t experienced male violence, or they don’t have daughters, it is easy for them to get the glow of being Mrs Nice and to not think too much about the real risks to women. All that “ trans women are women “ ...I don ‘t really buy that anyone believes that deep down. Certainly I have yet to see a trans identifying male on a panel get treated remotely like an actual woman. Instead there is a peculiar sort of fearful fawning, the sort of behaviour you normally see reserved for a huge (and prickly) Hollywood star.

I don't understand how a change of sex can be proposed in a piece of legislation.

That's not a proposal. That is the current legislation. If you have a GRC, you have legally changed sex. This is for all purposes except for the very limited exemptions in EA2010, which allow holders of a GRC to be excluded. Except for those exceptions, you have legally changed sex. That's what the current GRA says, as I pasted earlier in the thread.

LangCleg legally changed sex yes I understand but does that include a new birth certificate with the 'new sex'? Or just passport, docs, GRC etc?
If the wording is change sex that implies there was another sex before so a new birth certificate is indeed a lie.

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-happens-next

Thanks everyone. I have just emailed Stella. Maybe this is going to have to become part of my daily routine . Maybe I could bang my head on the desk first thing every day instead. Just as effective..

Those politicians who are currently spouting the 'transwomen are women' crap have nowhere to go, have they? They can't now admit they're wrong without losing face.

Unless we can give them a way of doing a U-turn, I can see this continuing to be an uphill struggle .

She stressed that she knows the difference between sex and gender and that the GRA is about changing gender, not sex.

I can't get my head around this at all.

There isn't a single legal document in the world that confirms my 'gender' or 'gender identity'. My SEX, yes, but not my GENDER. So how or why would I be able to to legally "change my gender", if I chose to? It makes no sense whatsoever, unless it is considered to be just a synonym for sex.

It was my first education that people who get into these positions are often there because they have extremely strong opinions and personal agendas, are very good at being heard and pursuing those agendas, and other people and their issues aren't necessarily of much interest unless the gel with one of those personal agendas.

This describes the impression SC gives - its uncanny.

Those politicians who are currently spouting the 'transwomen are women' crap have nowhere to go, have they? They can't now admit they're wrong without losing face.

Not unless public opinion against it reaches a critical mass.

As a wise MNetter said recently, it may be that all we can do is make damn sure that it was said (and noted) to multiple MPs and people in power that this was going to lead to major problems, they were given the facts, and we made them admit 'we know all this, AND we're going to do it anyway'.

Which means they can at least be held accountable when the unintended consequences start mounting up higher than can be hidden.

I knew Stella Creasy at university. That's a very accurate description.

That sounds very frustrating but thank you for trying. If you do follow up, you could let Stella know that she is woefully misinformed on the sex-based exemptions.

Recommendation 12 of the Government Response to the Women and Equalities Committee Report on Transgender Equality suggests abolishing the sex-based exemption for employment purposes and single-sex based provisions. As this is the strongest sex-based exemption we have, abolishing this one will have a knock-on effect for all other areas.

Included in the material submitted to the inquiry you'll find a legal expert confirming that this will present no problem at all, but when you read closely it becomes clear that the legal expert based this opinion on the old GRC process which as we know would prevent anyone from just self identifying their way into a protected women's space.

But Recommendation 6 decrees that self-id must be adopted in the UK. So if the government changes the law in line with all of the recommendations, it would mean that a male presenting male who has filled in that self-id form on the internet can then demand to be employed by a women's refuge and they will find it almost impossible to refuse, especially if the wording of the recommendation is adopted.

Some good GC questions:

1. What is the purpose in segregating people by gender? Vs What is the purpose in segregating people by natal sex?

1. Can you name me one thing which trans and natal women have in common? (Which they don't have in common with natal men)

I've yet to hear any convincing answers to these questions...

Thanks I'll have to save these for the next instalment.

If it were me, and you met her again, I would not look for a broad ranging conversation but rather defining the talk to 1 or 2 key issues that are emblematic.

This gives her less room to wiggle out of a difficult situation by changing the subject or ‘moving on’ and gives you the opportunity to explore the issue in it’s complexity. Highlighting and reinforcing that if ‘this’ is taken to its natural, inevitable conclusion in ‘this’ area then the impact on women will be ‘this’.

By narrowing the scope and defining the question to 1 salient issue the conversation can be structured (as much as possible!) to get to the nub of issue as far as you are concerned.
Ie this is your thesis, this will be her rebuttal then your refutation of her rebuttal etc if she can’t move on by changing the issue it might force her to engage more closely with what you are actually saying and really listen, not just switch off.

tbf whistler I was trying to keep focused - I thought we both agreed that women are oppressed because of biology and then move forward with my concerns about single-sex space/hospitals, etc.

The fact that she occupies two contradictory positions simultaneously on a few subjects means that you can't move forward on to the next step.

If you discuss maths you have to agree that 1+1+2, but if someone says effectively "yeah I know 1+1=2 in fact I am a champion of it", then it unfolds that they think that mathematics is actually relative and it is controlling and unsympathetic to suggest otherwise - .. where can you go from there?

I don't know if she is confused, manipulative or simply doesn't give a shit and is wasting the time until your appointment is over.

So in short - the way that the conversation moves is that her contradictions makes each point send out several spokes in different directions and that by trying to get back to the point, you give an example or ask a question and more spokes are sent out.

It isn't like speaking to a logical person.

However, she does have an ego and seems sort of competitive, which is annoying if you are not there to compete or flatter.

But my feeling it is the only way in with her.

She needs to be presented with something that gives her an opportunity to act as hero - particularly a 'woke' one and then she can lap up the praise.

You need bait, not arguments and logic.

But I can't see anything that will entice her - maybe the cool young ladies doing #ManFriday - she might like a photo op with them or something.