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

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

Quite!

stephen please answer the question of whether you will be retracting your comments in print.

Saying you were wrong on here is akin to the toddler equivalent of doing something abhorrent and then saying 'sorry' under the breath, so none of those affected by the bad behaviour can hear.

You owe it to all those who saw the original statement to retract in the same place.

I'm a pretty boring middle aged mother to two girls. I care about safeguarding children. I'm bloody fed up with trans activists using the threat of suicide as emotional manipulation and abuse - it is just wrong on so many levels. It is evil. If you need to get some training about it do so, but don't make the mistake again.

Stephen - presumably you have now read the Samaritans' media guidance on suicide (here for your ease of reference www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide ) and contacted the Guardian to ask for an urgent retraction and correction?

Professor Kathleen Stock's analysis of the Women's & Equalities Transgender Equality Inquiry which identifies a number serious failings.

Stephen Whittle & the organisation Press for Change played significant roles in this inquiry with great deal of influence on both the committee and its subsequent report & recommendations:
:
medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3391330-Prof-Kathleen-Stock-WPUK-speech-at-House-of-Lords-Important-disection-of-the-key-issues-for-MPs-policy-makers-etc-with-ref-to-The-Trans-Equality-Report

If it's all so 'nothing to see, nothing will change, it's a minor administrative tweak' then why will trans people be depressed and suicidal if the process is delayed while the impact on women is assessed?

Those comments were highly irresponsible and revolting. So is the extreme anti woman sentiment, which makes it clear that any decisions involving women must not be taken or led by any trans activist groups who seem from extensive evidence to posses a very powerful anti woman personal bias. Equal evidence needs to be gathered, with properly independent, unbiased committees making decisions.

Stephen, thanks for coming on here.

Just on the allegations that you are shadowy/working in secret thing, I'm sure you can clear up some questions I have about the Inquiry on Transgender Equality in 2015/2016.

1. As Special Advisor to the Inquiry, what was your role exactly?

1. Did you recommend specific people to advise the inquiry?

1. How were people's expertise or qualifications vetted?

1. Who exactly put together the final report and its recommendations? Were any of the advisors to the Inquiry (or any other organisations) involved in drawing up recommendations?

Hope you'll be able to help me understand the process a bit better.

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.

Stephen With this statement you demonstrate how little you understand Safeguarding.

It is not solely about law or risk assessments. It is a framework informed by legislation. A set of principles and ways of working in order to best protect vulnerable children and adults from harm.

In your and other's insistance on challenging these frameworks with Human Rights Law (eg the rights of the individual), the structures that are meant to protect are being damaged.

As you say you have an understanding of the law.
Many of those here on Mumsnet (whom you do a great diservice to in your characterisation) understand Safeguarding, how and why it should work and also why it should be protected.

Just as you 'forgot' Samaritans guidance, perhaps you might listen a little more to those who do understand the guidance and also do understand child protection and safeguarding.

It is not solely about law or risk assessments. It is a framework informed by legislation. A set of principles and ways of working in order to best protect vulnerable children and adults from harm.

Quite.

Stephen - may I suggest further reading subsequent to your reflection on the Samaritans guidelines? Below is the statutory guidance for the safeguarding of children. It would be great if you could read with several particulars in mind - to whit: confidential disclosures; sharing information; parental alienation; multi-agency working. These principles keep children - in the case of your advocacy, gender-questioning children - safe from infiltrating abusers. I am very concerned that trans lobby group guidance currently in schools drives a coach and horses through these important principles. With the interests of gender-questioning children in mind, it would be great if you could use your influence to get this guidance up to the standard of Working Together compliance.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children--2

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

This being the case, anyone concerned for safeguarding girls & vulnerable women should read this important thread which details many of the current serious failings and potential failures of child protection and safeguarding:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

It's the 'dog ate my homework' type excuse over the samaritarians advice isn't it?

Are we supposed to believe that Whittle was unaware of them?

Really?

That's one bloody awful and huge political blindspot if that's the case. Glaring. Which really undermines all those who seem to be blindly unaware of them. Whatever are they blindly unaware of?

Which is a bit of an issue if no other groups got a word in, during the initial report.

Actually I suppose if you live on twitter and use block too much, you might have missed everyone mentioning repeatedly how often the Samaritarians guidelines are being reprehensibly ignored.

Others might be of the opinion that's they are being cynically and willfully being ignored.

I can't speak for anyone else but I expect better of people in positions of influence who are supposedly representing the interests of a vulnerable group.

No comment on this thread has reduced my anger on this one. In fact it's actively added to it, because of the dismissive, flippant and attempt to vilify those calling out the irresponsibility of the Guardians quote.

The nature of Stephen Whittle's response is as reprehensible as the original remark.

Stephen
What do you see as the benefits of a change in the GRA to a self-identification system? I have not seen anything written by you or anyone else who is arguing for this which explains why it is so important to transgender people.

It is framed as a minor administrative change. It is unclear why a change to self-id would be so important to anyone who could already obtain a GRC.

I can see many reasons why it would have a negative effect on those suffering from gender dysphoria as well as women and girls.

What are the positives about a change that made you so sure that transgender people would suffer if the law is not changed?

Just placemarking to hear if Stephen is urgently withdrawing comments on suicide or not.

I’m also waiting to see if you’re going to ask The Guardian to retract that disgraceful comment, Stephen.

I’m also concerned to hear you say that you and some of your allies find provocation so hard to resist. Have you considered anger management training?

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.

I don't believe you, Stephen. Nor do I believe you "forgot" about your duty to talk about suicide responsibly in the media.

Stephen- do you agree with the stonewall definition of trans?

Stephen is being as disingenuous here as Stephen is everywhere else. If the changes to the GRA are of no importance why are all these poor souls likely to top themselves?

As for them being depressed, well, join the club.

Obtaining a GRC is not onerous or costly, so long as the applicant is genuinely dysphoric. However the process tries to ascertain the applicant's sincerity and motivations. They will turn down anyone whose intentions are sexual or predatory. That's precisely why some transwomen want the current set up replaced. Self ID is a predator's dream. Anyone who knows anything about safeguarding recognizes this.

Threats of self harm if you don't comply is an abuser's tactic. Claiming you only did something bad because you were provoked is another.

And not knowing anything about the Samaritans guidelines or safeguarding is pretty poor in Stephen's position.

I have to say you have nerves of steel to tip up here after what you have said in the national press, Stephen. I'd be too ashamed.

LizzieSiddal Wed 17-Oct-18 14:41:30 said
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?

I always have done, repeatedly. In both cases I don't think any sort of threat, or violence is appropriate.

I do know the Samaritans Guidelines - I just never thought about them, when faced with the usual 'now' deadline of the media.
I have admitted I should not have said that, but hey - the Guardian also didn't think about the Samaritans Guidelines because if they had they would not have put the comment on their website. They would have said "can't do that because of ... change it".

By the way - before anyone thinks I am being rude, it is my partner's birthday, the kids are all arriving in 3 minutes, and we are going to be out for the evening.

1955stephen I don't recall reading your public condemnation of the actions of trans-activists who have gone to extra-ordinary lengths to prevent women meeting.

Professor Michael Biggs describes the WPUK meeting earlier this year:
'Free speech at Oxford:
Do women have the right to meet to discuss legislation?'

concludes:
"I have entered this debate not because I am a feminist but because freedom of speech is one of the highest values of a democratic society, and the basic foundation of university life.
Transgender activism poses a grave threat to freedom of speech. I think of the young MPhil student who had to disguise herself to attend this meeting because she feared the reaction of fellow students. This is the generation that we have educated."
users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/FreeSpeechOxford.pdf

the founder of TransOxford did issue a statement, she wrote:

"l‘m not condemning the meeting of @WomansPlaceUK but the shameful campaign of bullying and intimidation organised by the students and transactivists outside of the QuakerHouse.
I’ve studied in Oxford, once a capital of freethought and freespeech, known for its fair debates with respect to the opinions of one’s opponents and refreshingly skilful and witty arguments challenging their views.

Bullying, although surfacing occasionally, was never welcome, especially, in the LGBT circles having too many victims of it knowing only too well how much it hurts. But last night the tables have turned - and the bullied became the bullies" (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3234661-Condemnation-of-the-shameful-campaign-of-bullying-intimidation-against-WPUK-meeting-by-founder-of-TransOxford

I have admitted I should not have said that, but hey - the Guardian also didn't think about the Samaritans Guidelines because if they had they would not have put the comment on their website.

You don't get it do you?

I just never thought

Well that about sums it up

but hey - the Guardian also didn't think about the Samaritans Guidelines

You don't get to blame it on the guardian and dodge responsibility.

Stop it. Just stop it.

You don't get it do you?

Not even the tiniest little bit does Stephen get it.

IIRC, this is a simple repetition of Stephen's contribution to the Guiding debate some months ago, during which Stephen persuaded a great many fence sitters in the opposite direction Stephen was intending.

The article was about some MPs saying that perhaps women's rights haven't been considered enough in the GRA consultation thus far.

Why not address that actual issue raised with "I do think that women have been consulted enough because of a, b and c" or "I don't think that women have been consulted enough because of x, y and z"?

Saying that there will be a flurry of suicides makes it look like you don't have an argument. And it looks like you're trying to guilt MPs into silence by talking about suicide.