Guardian article on MPs concern with GRA

[Maeb]

I'm really suprised! I hope it's in the print edition too.

Transgender law reform has overlooked women’s rights, say MPs

And don't claim you were provoked, that is pathetic!

Prof. Kathleen Stock ‘s claim that trans activists are using ‘our influence’ to close down academic debate, demonstrates how little she understands the dynamics of our lives. The idea that we have the power to threaten any organisation, never mind a whole university, is just laughable.

Managed to get that definition of a woman poster taken down though, eh? And several venues to refuse bookings for feminist groups.

Not to mention the doxxing, the punching 60 yo women, the masked picketers threatening women who try to attend meetings. I expect these are the sort of things Prof Stock has in mind.

The idea that we have the power to threaten any organisation, never mind a whole university, is just laughable.

Have you been living under a rock for the past year?
TAs have indeed threatened organisations who have allowed women to meet. They’ve done it numerous times.
TAs have also reported women to their employers if these women have dared to discuss changes to the GRA.

I agree. In hindsight I should not have said that - but the Samaritan's guidelines never cross my mind. The problem is the media is always in a rush. If I had insisted upon the time to think, I would have much preferred it if I had said the following:

If the reforms are derailed, past experiences have shown us that many trans people will become depressed. There might be a small public demonstration, but I doubt it, as people will be at a low ebb.
In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. 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”.

I hope that clarifies matters.

Has anyone contacted your employer, Manchester Metropolitan University, to complain about your disgraceful incite-to-self-harm comments in a national newspaper yet, Professor Whittle?

PFC understands that for a few trans people, the things that have been said about us are so untrue and unkind, that they have said things in haste, which in hindsight may have been regretted as they have exacerbated an already very difficult situation.

So I assume you will afford the same understanding to those on the other side of the fence, who may have said things they’ve regretted, when provoked?

Stephen I'm going to say in no under certain terms how disgusting, manipulative and dangerous your comment is.

It exploits the very vulnerability you say you are trying to protect.

Nothing you are going to say on this thread will take away from that. Its Indefensible. You are disingenuous at best in saying you care about people who are struggling mentality with their identity.

Toning the whole situation down and unloading the politicisation of words can be done and needs to be done by responsible adults to help that situation. Instead you've done the reverse and are aiding the polarisation.

Your comments help precisely no one.

Anyway, I came on to the thread to say Brava Maria Caulfield on this one.

1955stephen

As a parent of an autistic child who previously self harmed and had suicidal tendencies, your comment is inexcusable, your use of suicide to manipulate others despicable and your utter lack of decency in this whole thing, sickening. It’s not enough to reword something after the fact, the harm is already done. You are now damaging your own cause. I am appalled at your behaviour. Suicide isn’t a stick to beat people with. I don’t even know how you have the nerve to come here after what you’ve said. I am enraged.

Stepehen You've just repeated the same statement in slightly different words, only this time you use the word depressed in connection with 'pulling yourself together'. This is truly awful. I find it hard to believe an academic of so many years standing can be so ignorant of these matters. Does your employer not provide training in providing pastoral care to vulnerable student with mental health problems?

Stephen - will you be writing to the Guardian to explain that you have reconsidered your comments?

1955stephen

So do you oppose the transactivists who have told women that this is a nothing piece of legislation, a mere administrative detail?

Minimising the importance of it must surely make them just as culpable as anyone else for the misery of trans people everywhere?

You've made trans people sound like a punch of unstable loons, on knife edge, petrified of being tipped over the precipice because of the delay in legislation that removes their medical safeguarding!

The reason why you sound so contradictory, is because you are a stranger to veracity.

Can i ask a hypothetical question about self Id, if it goes ahead. Aside from the Karen white case, what would stop a large proportion of male prisoners identifying as female to gain access to female prisons? I'm not even thinking of male prisoners using self Id to access vulnerable women to abuse (as that is an obvious worry). If a man had a 10 year sentence for whatever crime is it really a stretch to think they wouldn't identify as a woman (whilst making no physical effort to transition because I say/I feel is enough) in order to perhaps facilitate consentual relations with female prisoners.

Aside from the Karen white case, what would stop a large proportion of male prisoners identifying as female to gain access to female prisons?

Nothing.

Welcome to self ID.

The few people who have done those things, have had nothing at all to do with me, have not sought my advice or that of Press For Change.
I believe they are a tiny minority of our community. Most trans people are scared witless by what is happening, and have retreated as far as possible from public life.
If I had been asked whether those things should happen, I would have very promptly said 'No, we have to work with the world, not against it'.

As a trans person I have got used to the threats and reports - they have happened far more than once to myself. In fact it has already happened more than once today.

My partner often asks why don't I follow these matters up. The only reply I can give is "I have a very thick skin, and water flows of it. If I took these threats seriously I would spend my life in fear. So I don't."

Only once did I think my life was in grave danger, but the matter was responded to quickly by the police (the person had a weapon). They had a mental illness, and thankfully recovered, and they no longer think I arranged Princess Di's death. That is not my sense of humour speaking, that is what they thought at the time.

Sadly much of the debate on Mum's Net and elsewhere is similar; I have become a form of evil incarnate. Apparently I work in secret or behind people's backs - which is definitively not the case. It has even been suggested, have some sort of secret access to people in power - as if!!

II can but reassure women, that I literally have no power, except that which comes from being reasonable, hardworking, with an absolute belief in the human rights of all, including the right to personal self development. There is no separate doorway for me, as opposed to anyone else.

I say sadly the debate on Mum's Net and elsewhere is similar; because as a trans man who has always considered himself a feminist in theory, principle, and in practice, I have no wish (at all) to endanger women, or girls in anyway, and instead consider it my absolute duty to do whatever is necessary to safeguard them. I believe, having knowledge of the law, that that can be done without walking over the rights of anyone else. And I would not want anyone to walk over women's rights.

The Gender Recognition Act is primarily an administrative process, which provides a very limited legal status – it is not overarching. That will not change.
Much of the purpose of the Act vanished with the introduction of same sex marriage, and adoption.

The Act provides recognition of the acquired gender for medical privacy, marriage and pension access. That will not change.

The law has never provided 'secrecy'. Anyone, who has NOT received the information about a trans person in their official capacity, can out a trans person. That will not change.

Govt. guidelines are quite clear, only a birth certificate issued within 12 months of the birth may be used as a means of identification. A new birth certificate is not to be used as a means of identifying a person - and the date of issue is on the new birth certificate. That will not change.

The Equality Act provides single sex organisations and services with the lawful ability to refuse to employ or serve, or provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment - so long as the refusal or difference is both legitimate and proportionate. That will not change.

The law is clear, if a man applies for gender recognition in order to commit crime, it would be fraudulent and will be quashed by the courts, alongside his prosecution. If a trans woman makes a lawful application, but then goes on to commit or attempt a ‘men only’ crime such as rape, they will be prosecuted, as if a man. If a trans man makes a lawful application but then goes on to commit or attempt a 'men only' crime such as rape, depending upon his surgical status it will either be rape, or penetration with an object (as in the recent Scottish case). That will not change.

Prison safeguarding failed completely in the recent Karen White case; she does not have gender recognition, and placement in a women's prison should have only been considered if there was 100% certainty that White would not offend. That clarification clearly could not have been there, anyone looking at her record would see that.
Mostly, placement in the women's estate cannot be achieved, for those non-violent offenders who are long transitioned, post-op with gender recognition, so how White slipped through the system is beyond me. I feel that needs investigating and now. The current prison guidelines will not change.

I have spent my life working for women's rights - but am a small fish in a big pond, so my voice is barely heard there - as much as I campaign for trans rights, but because I have a legal training, and used that early to ask for our rights, in that conversation I am a big fish in a small pond.
I have always been as much concerned about women's rights as I am about the rights of trans people. I cannot explain why despite being born female bodied, I knew I could not continue to live as if I was going to become a woman. Not only would I have been miserable, but I would have made a lot of other people miserable as well. In my dreams for my future I could never see myself as a woman, only ever as (some sort of) a man. And in reality, becoming Stephen enabled my life to not just survive, but also flourish.

But it has not flourished because I am a man, or a trans person, anything but. Rather, as Stephen I felt like I existed in reality, instead of someone else's version of the world. Everyone knows I am trans, anyone who cares for me, was told right from the beginning - I have never lied about what I am, or pretended I am anything other than this flawed human being, who wanted to reach a point where I felt my life was worth living. That will not change.

I'm just thinking if I was a heterosexual man in jail (especially if it was a white collar crime/not sexual or violent) would I rather be jailed in a man's prison which most likely has a toxic masculine culture or say I identified as a woman (whilst taking no physical action and identity can possibly be reversed later) and spend my jail time in the company of women who pose far less physical threat and may offer the promise of sexual relationship and companionship. It'd be a no brainer surely? I don't think I could even blame such men for taking such an option if available to them, even if I vehemently disagree they should be allowed to have it in the first place.

Hello Stephen. Thanks for turning up. I hope you are well.

I see you say I agree. In hindsight I should not have said that - but the Samaritan's guidelines never cross my mind

But if you are advocating for youth and commenting regularly to the press, why do they never cross your mind? Responsible content in national media should be a central concern of yours if you take a position advocating for a vulnerable community. I think you should at least tell us that you'll research responsible reporting on suicide and won't be making that mistake again. Preferably, you will also explain it all to your fellow activists so that they stop doing it too.

Otherwise, we will have continue with our original assumption - that this is the abusive tactic of coercion and control, as exemplified by the Duluth wheel.

but the provocation is quite hard to resist

You see, here is where I begin to suspect our original assumption is the correct one. You made me do it is another feature of Duluth wheel behaviour, under the minimising, denying and blaming segment.

I'm posting a helpful image here. I do hope you will reflect on it and we see fewer reckless and irresponsible public comments from transactivists in future.

Once again, thanks for showing up.

Stephen, i'm not being funny, but your writing style is often described as word salad. It would be really useful if you could stick to salient points.

You say that the gender recognition act is primarily an administrative process. Not hours after saying delay will drive people to suicide.

The Act provides recognition of the acquired gender for medical privacy, marriage and pension access. That will not change.

As you say, marriage and pension is taken care of. But still, suicides?

The law is clear, if a man applies for gender recognition in order to commit crime, it would be fraudulent and will be quashed by the courts,

Rubbish. Men are not even getting convicted when they justify the rape of women by saying they 'fell on her vagina'.

And a man identitying as a woman at the gun, looking me up and down with a smirk on his face, whilst he applies moisturiser to his thighs isn't committing a crime.

No thanks.

and placement in a women's prison should have only been considered if there was 100% certainty that White would not offend.

No such certainty exists. Which is why the only way to eliminate the risk is by not allowing men there in the first place.

Gym not gun

Stephen

If you are indeed reflecting on the dangers of your statement in the context of the Samaritans' guidance, you may wish to spend some time examining how often suicide rates are used by your friends and colleagues within the transgender community.

The Samaritan's guidance is not a stylistic guide. It is based on the fundemental principles of supporting vulnerable people, especially children and young people who are experiencing emotional distress. The reason why Samaritans advise not drawing causal links is because vulnerable people are susceptable to identifying with this and thus the risk of them self-harming etc is increased.

I speak as someone directly personally affected by suicide and having worked professionally with vulnerable children and adults.

It is well accepted that children and young people questioning their gender identity are particularly vulnerable. How is it possible that those who claim to promote their rights are so reckless in the constant repeating rates of suicide ideation rates with apparent disregard for the impact on this group?

I draw your attention to Prof. Michael Biggs recent article:
www.transgendertrend.com/suicide-by-trans-identified-children-in-england-and-wales/

Stephen Whittle's briefing paper used by Caitlin Jenner and Ash Saakar who appeared on Channel 4's GenderQuake Debate:

whittlings.blogspot.com/2018/05/genderquake-diversity-debate-briefing.html

I have become a form of evil incarnate.

Wah Wah I'm a victim because I'm being held to account for saying something which could do harm to the community I say I'm standing up for. Never mind how it might affect women.

Good grief.

Get over yourself.

If you are in a position of influence it carries responsibilities. You don't get to shirk that.

People are just analysing the potential of policy and the propaganda around it. Its called speaking the truth to power and forms a rather fundamental part of the Liberal democracy system.

If you come out with statements in the press like that, damn right people should be on your case about it.

Especially when your own point is about how what people say in the press has real life effect!

You are not above your own argument!!!!!!!!

Apparently I work in secret or behind people's backs - which is definitively not the case. It has even been suggested, have some sort of secret access to people in power - as if!!

Christine Burns (Press for Change) comment in 2013 Guardian article which provides an important history to the formation of the group and context. Stephen Whittle also interviewed along with current prominant campaigners, Sarah Brown and Paris Lees:

"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"

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Prison safeguarding failed completely in the recent Karen White case; she does not have gender recognition, and placement in a women's prison should have only been considered if there was 100% certainty that White would not offend. That clarification clearly could not have been there, anyone looking at her record would see that.

And yet, as you well know, a GRC is not necessary for a person to gain transfer to the female estate.

If self-id becomes the norm, why should any man in the male estate be denied transfer if he self-ids? For whatever reason he might have for undertaking such self-id?

Moreover, 1955stephen , you must be aware of the whole gamut of other ways in which women's privacy and safety will be put at risk by self-id, because it gives predatory men (and I am not saying therefore that transwomen are 'predatory men') carte blanche to make their way into women's spaces.