James Kirkup: On bomb threats to WPUK meetings: apathy or fear or speaking out?

[R0wantrees]

Article in Spectator concludes:

(extract)
"...Yet women turn up anyway, in large numbers. And what does it say about public and political debate about gender issues that this stuff has become normal and almost unremarkable?

In Britain in 2018, women trying to hold public meetings to talk about politics and the law are being subjected to intimidation and threats. The police are investigating a bomb threat against one of those meetings. Yet politicians and large sections of the media are silent. Would that be the case if any other group or community were subject to such threats and intimidation? Why aren’t politicians, of all parties, shouting from the rooftops about this?

It’s not as if they don’t know or don’t care. Since I started writing about the gender debate in February, I’ve lost count of the number of MPs and other political people (of all parties and ranks, from policy advisers to Cabinet ministers) who have privately told me they are worried about the nature of this debate and worried about the implications of policy. Yet almost all of those people have also said they are not willing to talk about this publicly, for fear of the criticism and vitriol they believe they would face from people who believe the interests of transgender people are best served by shouting down questions with allegations of transphobia and bigotry. I understand that silence, but it has costs. When the people who are supposed to speak for ordinary people – and the rules that allow those people to exercise their basic democratic freedoms – stay silent, they leave a vacuum of leadership and moral courage that can be filled with hostility and fear.

I’ll end by repeating the basic facts of this story once more, in the hope that some of the politicians who talk so much about free speech and equality and fairness finally pluck up the courage to talk about this. Some women had a meeting to talk about their legal rights. Someone threatened to blow up the meeting with a bomb. The police are investigating that threat and say it is being “taken seriously”. And this happened in Britain in 2018."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/why-are-women-who-discuss-gender-getting-bomb-threats/

Is it a good idea to focus on just one main argument in emails etc? Like child protection? Not sure.

tobee
I dont know! I do wonder if there is mileage in writing about say sports & asking them to ask/forward to sports minister, then crime stats/prisons forward to justice minister etc
I would like people who understand how lobbying works to let us know

@womanformallyknownaswoman, funnily enough, that's what Jenn Smith on Twitter thinks this is all about. As he says:"those in power aren't stupid, so you have to wonder what their agenda really is". He's got a few talks on YouTube etc, and they're well worth watching.

I hope that there are some MPs lurking and that they see what's been happening over the last few months, and specifically that they're seeing the reaction from women to MNHQs attempt to force us to use appeasing language via deletion and threats of banning. Do you see all those angry women, MP? Do you understand why they're angry? Now take that and translate it to what's likely to happen at the ballot box when those women realize that you're refusing to speak up for them just because you don't want to get told off by some nutters on Twitter. How likely do you think those women are to vote for you?

I would say it’s likely to be a question of timing. The debates aren’t yet happening in the Commons, so there’s no NEED to stick their necks out and get lots of unpleasantness in return at this stage. Politicians are very used to Twitter abuse but they don’t call it upon themselves unnecessarily. I imagine, once there’s an opportunity to properly debate this and take some real, decisive action, we will start to see them break cover. I think they will seize on one particular issue that makes them look like the mainstream voice of common sense but not a reactionary bigot, and present that as a reasonable grounds to object to GRA - more likely sports than prisons, because there are no votes in prison reform.

The GC movement needs to get meetings with MPs, and start to build some cross party support, and make sure every MP has copies of its briefing well in advance of any debates or votes. Identify those areas where MPs can raise concerns without looking like bigots. Don’t expect them to come out all guns blazing against TRAs - they all need a wide base of support to get elected and won’t want to alienate anyone.

And keep writing. There’s a ban on micro beads coming in this month, which is coming about because MPs were swamped by a well-organised email campaign. Once an MP has received at least 20 different emails abetted same subject in a week, they start putting down written questions to ministers.

Not child protection. They would risk looking like the bigots who used to say that homosexuals were a risk to young people.

Not child protection. They would risk looking like the bigots who used to say that homosexuals were a risk to young people.

There are very sound arguments as to why self ID and removing sex based protections from the EA will harm women and children. There never were for gay rights. There was never a coherent ‘example—> consequence’ argument.

An MP could give concrete real world examples where this is already happening (guides for example) and show very clearly and simply the risks to safeguarding.

I agree with not making it all hinge on one thing, but since no one seems to give a flying fuck about women, perhaps someone will ‘think of the children.’

Not child protection. They would risk looking like the bigots who used to say that homosexuals were a risk to young people.

It's a nuclear bomb of a child protection issue when schools are adopting policies written by extremist transactivist lobby groups that include a) confidential disclosures and b) no multi-agency working or informing parents with regard to SEND children.

I know. But no MP will risk the negative publicity of saying that trans people are a risk to children. They want to be able to say that they love and respect trans people - some of their closest friends, etc - but they do have a teeny reservation about their sports-mad daughter not having the same opportunities as their sons.

I kind of agree with Treats. Child protection is incredibly valid, but the points would have to be crystal clear otherwise TRAs will jump all over it as feminist accusing the trans community of being paedophiles, it's just the same as objections to gay rights blah blah.

Also the far reaching consequences need to be highlighted.

They would risk looking like the bigots who used to say that homosexuals were a risk to young people

Such a threat isn't it? I mean equality in marriage is now NOT a heterosexual thing anyone of any sexuality, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, can now get married. That's several giant steps towards equality and a negation to patriarchy.

Although, after reading my post perhaps I'm being a bigot towards patriarchy.

I'll live with that.

Let them go nuclear about their movement and others querying them pushing

a) confidential disclosures
b) no multi-agency working or informing parents with regard to SEND children.

Who does that kind of adult does that safeguarding benefit? Why are they pushing it?

MPs will be very wary of being associated with Section 28.

Many TRAs have referenced this repeatedly.

Why are they so OTT and angry about us discussing the safeguarding lessons learned? Why are they trying to dismantle safeguarding?

IMO

The aspects that MPs might be able to question without too much personal negative consequences will be sport.

The tories might be swayed by the daily mail: if they see that the daily mail readership is behind it then you will get opportunists like Johnson jumping at the chance to be a White Knight.

Rees Mogg May well be one to watch.

I don’t have great hopes for Labour

When being a 'homosexual' was considered illegal, immoral and disgusting, most homosexuals when 'caught' were given two choices. Take HRT or go to prison.

I don't see the parallel with trans people at all.

But no MP will risk the negative publicity of saying that trans people are a risk to children.

It's not about trans people being a risk to children! Nothing whatsoever to do with it!

It's about abusers (trans or otherwise) taking advantage of children with secrets (including the secret of a trans identity) because confidential disclosures are mandated.

It's about BREAKING THE LAW with regard to SEND children - and endangering them by not informing parents of disclosures or referring to their multi-agency support systems.

It's about teen pregnancies due to mixed sex overnight accommodations.

Nothing whatsoever to do with trans adults.

It seems to me that when in prison or on remand, there are some men that want to become transgender. They are willing to take HRT to avoid prison.

Why are they trying to dismantle safeguarding?

Why indeed...any would think they had skin in the game.

They want to create an environment where nobody questions a child with gender identity issues so that nobody can question their gender identities. They are willing to expose even SEND children and trans identifying children to abusers via confidential disclosures and non-referral to multi-agency support to achieve this.

It's fucking disgusting.

Please don’t think I’m dismissing any of the excellent arguments. I’m just trying to put myself in the shoes of an MP who wants to make the GC case in a way that doesn’t alienate too many voters. Everything you’re saying about the risk to children is correct, but MPs will be wary of saying anything that makes them sound as if they’re stigmatising trans people. R0wantrees is correct - the TRAs have already linked the GC campaign to Section 28, quite deliberately, even though the GC argument is completely different.

But no MP will risk the negative publicity of saying that trans people are a risk to children.

Then they shouldnt say it - because trans people are the same threat to children as anyone else, no more no less.

The threat comes from the consequences of removing safeguarding protections NOT from your average transperson. The threat is that if you create loopholes like confidential disclosure being allowed then predators (again, predatory adults, not specifically transpeople) WILL exploit those loopholes

Those loopholes will exist even if every transperson in the UK is law abiding, and predators will exploit them.

MPs need to make that very very clear. It’s not about being anti trans - it’s about not creating loopholes and situations that predators will exploit. Because our entire child safeguarding framework was built up piece by piece in response to predators exploiting loopholes.