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

1955stephen

Eh? Leveraging bogus suicide stats are a never-ending, relentless tactic employed by transactivists. That, and you're just being racist or homophobic, is about the only strategy they have. You trying to pretend that you know nothing about it just makes you look duplicitous.

Saying you're posting with three minutes to spare before you're play happy families just compounds the image.

It's so cliched, it has a name - 'I've got a cake to ice'.

Stephen Whittle as 'superhero' CBBC:
'I am Leo'
65,951 views

I’m not following Stephen.

You say

In hindsight I should not have said that regarding suicide.

You also say

The Gender Recognition Act is primarily an administrative process,

Leaving aside the poor judgement you have shown regarding your statement to the press. I am interested in whether you actually do think that a delay in an administrative process will genuinely lead to a “flurry” of suicides.

I’m assuming you do, as otherwise you wouldn’t have said, but you have laid out on your responses here how relatively inconsequntial the GRA is.

It is difficult to see how these two positions can be held at the same time.

relevent threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375587-Press-for-Change

Role of Stephen Whittle acknowledged in the introduction to Women and Equalities Committee
Transgender Equality
First Report of Session 2015–16

"18. We are very grateful to our Specialist Advisor, Stephen Whittle OBE, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, for his help and guidance throughout the inquiry. We are also grateful to Claire McCann, of Cloisters Chambers, for giving us her expert legal opinion."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

Claire McCann was one of the panel of legal experts at the recent WEP Conferece discussing gender self-id proposals (TELI UK?)
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325882-WEP-conference-questions-for-panel-of-trans-rights-advocating-barristers

Provided briefings for some of those who were panelists on Ch 4's GenderQuake Debate:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3249035-Stephen-Whittle-s-blog-on-Genderquake-with-a-detailed-briefing-for-panelists

Commenting on MN thread he started April 2018:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3212371-Where-are-all-the-trans-men-An-Answer

Involved with drafting of the Yogykcarta legislation:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228002-Yogyakarta-principles

Stephen, if you can't be even arsed to ask the Guardian to amend it, then you clearly 100% stand by those words.

Words can't express within talk guidelines what a shitty human being you are for that.

Can we clarify here.

It's not OK to use the suicide stuff in public. But it's OK to use the bogus argument if it's behind closed doors lobbying to emotionally blackmail? Especially as the change to the GRA is so minor.

Just I'd like to know exactly what the logic of acceptability is and where ethics come into this.

It is difficult to see how these two positions can be held at the same time.

They're not. We know it, Stephen knows it, I now a lot of newspapers and MPs know it.

This may be an odd question, Stephen , but I simply do not believe you when you say you fight to defend women’s rights as well as trans rights.

The clue in you saying you could never see yourself as a woman, only as some sort of male - yet you cannot explain this. Do you not think it may have been to do with the fact that men have more regard, more autonomy, more opportunities, more status in society?

Why would I believe that you fight for women’s rights when you identified out of being a woman, rather than questioning what exactly it was about being a woman you disliked and campaigning to change that (for all women)? It is the most disingenuous gas-lighting statement - you apparently fight for women’s rights but you did not want to remain one?

Tbh - I think the "it's just an administrative process" can be dropped now.

It's how the GRA 2004 was slipped through "without anyone throwing a fit in the press" the first time. This time it should be fairly obvious to almost anyone that:

• self ID is not just an administrative process that will have no impact on anyone else (Karen White has already had quite a big impact on others),

• and that it isn't flying under the radar this time.

Stephen,

You seem to have a very little respect for women on this forum formulating their own opinions, analyzing these potential legal changes using the lens of female rights (changes which you interestingly write about almost as though they are a "done deal") and asserting the importance of protecting women (a political philosophy known as feminism).

Women are saying NO. Why can't you see that you do not have women's consent? You are actually violating women's rights by pushing forward like this despite our NO. Why do you seem to want to set up a system where any man (including psychopathic rapists and paedophiles who see a loophole the size of Scotland) who declares that he identifies as a woman should have the absolute right to claim the female legal identity and transgress women-only boundaries at will? Ordinary women and many transsexuals see the problems with this open-door, un-policeable, just-take-everyone-at-their-word-Scout's-honour policy. Why can't you?

Why do you then insist that any assertion of the female identity and resistance to your political activism is akin to inciting people to kill themselves? I don't believe for a second that you or the Guardian conveniently glossed over Samaritans guidelines. If you had the integrity you claim to care about, then you could contact the Guardian to ask for a correction. Or at the very least ask that the Samaritans number is added to the end of the piece. It has been up since this morning. Should one of us forward your comments on this thread to the journalist, in a distinctly feminist trait of offering to help undo the damage you are causing for the greater good of protecting trans people from the Werther effect?

I doubt you'd take us up on it. I think you know that you can use the damaging rhetoric around mental health to further your own political view, which is a perspective that eliminates the reality of biological sex or women's rights to organize around their female sex.

I believe that you are engaging in a form of emotional abuse of others (especially women) when you use the threat of suicide to get them to stop engaging in the democratic process. In my opinion, you're also risking the mental health of trans people who are in a vulnerable situation in perpetuating a dangerous narrative that they are not emotionally strong enough to handle rational political discussions around sex and gender when a public consultation has been opened by the government and is open to all. Safeguarding affects us all. Every one of us has a sex. Feminism is still necessary. Most women on this board have a fraught relationship with the feminine gender role.

Frankly, I think your statement is an example of trying to manipulate the public.

You, sir, meet no definition of feminist that I would recognize, nor have you demonstrated empathy for women or those who are dealing with emotional distress in your handling of this situation. I speak as someone with personal experience of significant mental health issues, who would find your statement incredibly triggering were I in a more depressed state of mind. It actually makes me angry to think that you claim to speak on behalf of vulnerable trans people while being this irresponsible about your approach to their mental health or potential suicidal ideation.

I think you are on this thread to try to mitigate the consequences of your own mistake with the people who are calling you out, instead of actually taking steps to fix it. I think this is shameful.

Your comments here and elsewhere have demonstrated why I do not consider you an honest broker in this discussion.

Trans people deserve better and women deserve better.

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".

This ‘Oh well, whoopsie shrug’ attitude is chilling. What do you think the purpose of the Samaritans Guidelines is, Stephen? Why were they drawn up?

Hi Stephen,

I realise that the conversation on here is heated, as everyone is very upset

This conversation is intolerable to me as so many people are believing the worst of each other. I have trans friends who I want to be happy. I want things to be calm and rational.

But that cannot happen while the mainstream trans narrative is that anyone who doesn't believe the conceptually incoherent statement "transwomen are [LITERAL] women" is an evil nazi, that anyone who has any concerns about self-ID is motivated by hate, that disagreement is the same thing as violence, or that all transpeople are on the verge of suicide and as a result they must be given everything that they want.

This is not anything that you can engage with rationally. It is abusive and deranged.

Can you try to help put a stop to this from your side? Because then we could maybe make some progress.

It’s either a minor administrative change or it’s important enough that there’ll be a flurry of suicides.

Pick one.

Your comments here and elsewhere have demonstrated why I do not consider you an honest broker in this discussion

^ agree completely

Your comments here and elsewhere have demonstrated why I do not consider you an honest broker in this discussion

agree completely

Also totally agree.

Wittle is the very definition of provoking - but hey look at me able to not type abusive or harmful sentences! Thanks ladybrain!

I expect Wittle to care about the vulnerable children in their community and make an equally public retraction about their breathtakingly callous 'flurry of suicides' comment. The Guardian is not responsible for the words Stephen forms with Stephen's own mouth - I'm glad that they published them so the whole world can see them for who they are.

I'm teaching my sons that a real man (amongst other things) : 1. Defends the vulnerable. 2. Takes responsibility for their own words and actions. 3. Doesn't sulk or deflect from criticism. 4. Learns from their mistakes. 5. Commands - not demands - respect, by being respectful

I'm teaching my daughter the same thing.

So I'm again struck with the impression of toxic misogynistic masculinity parading as a mature adult male. Quite chilling.

Stephen, you made a statement which showed a complete disregard and dismissal of the well-being of vulnerable people. No, a responsible newspaper shouldn't have published it, but the Guardian stopped being responsible a long time (if it ever was). However, someone in your profession knows the importance of words, and also how to cope with a deadline without blurting out the first thing that comes into your head. Your excuses are disingenuous. Please don't insult our intelligence.

If you now retract what you said, contact the Guardian and ask for a retraction, or at least, a link to the Samaritans.

Why can't you see that you do not have women's consent?

Whittle knows very well that women do not consent. Whittle just does not believe that 'consent' for women is a thing.

I have been reading Stephen’s biography on Wikipedia (not the most reliable source), but it says that his mother, being concerned that he was different from his sisters, entered him for the examination for presumably a grammar or private school.

It was a girl’s school but I find that statement bizarre - surely his mother realised Stephen had academic potential, not that Stephen was different from his sister’s and should be educated as such. Bearing in mind, his mother was judging her children all as daughters and it was a girl’s school, what kind of difference was meant aside from academic? It is retrospectively writing a kind of specialness into the narrative- ‘different’, therefore worthy of being entered into the entrance examination. It reads oddly.

Plus, what is a radical lesbian?

You know, I am sorry to ask questions about your biography, Stephen, I read it as I was curious. Grown up with girls, schooled with girls, in a lesbian relationship but wanted to be a man. Or just different and man was the only other option. Trying to understand.

Oh and yes, consent matters.

Stephen Whittle's influence on social media, children & young people:

2014 Telegraph
'Facebook's 71 gender options come to UK users'
(extract)
Facebook worked with UK groups Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to add 21 new options to ensure the list best reflected the ways UK users may choose to describe themselves.

"Gender identities are complex and for many people, describing themselves as just a man or just a woman has always been inadequate," said Professor Stephen Whittle, vice-president at Press for Change. The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to develop our gender identity, as key to our personal autonomy.

"By challenging the gender binary, Facebook will finally allow thousands of people to describe themselves as they are now and it will allow future generation of kids to become truly comfortable in their own skins."

Ensuring users feel comfortable being their true selves while using the network is a priority, said Simon Milner, Policy Director, UK Middle East & Africa at Facebook.

"An important part of this is the expression of gender especially when it extends beyond the definitions of just ‘male’ or ‘female.’ Today’s announcement provides significantly more options for people in the UK," he added." (continues)
www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

I have been reading Stephen’s biography on Wikipedia

It also describes how,
"On top of that was a strong desire to be a man, to grow a beard and to have a hairy chest. He had read articles about people like Della Aleksander"

for those not aware, previous thread OP Sunkisses wrote:

"I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

its worth watching
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327193-BBC-Open-Door-programme-45-years-ago-on-transsexuals-a-real-jaw-dropper

Whittle knows very well that women do not consent. Whittle just does not believe that 'consent' for women is a thing.

An important statement in today's Yorkshire Post by a woman about consent:
(extract)
"Another troubling aspect of this debate is the re-definition of language and demographics. I live in a society where, due to my immutable biological sex, I am at a disadvantage – I want to change that. Words hold power. Like any group, women need to be able to define ourselves before we can make any progress with the inequality that we face. The dictionary definition of ‘woman’ is ours to claim, use and wear on T-shirts.

At this point, I think it important that I explain why I feel so strongly about this issue. In 2011, I was raped by a man I knew and trusted. I have never reported this to the police, I knew it came down to my word against his and the legal process would have made it more traumatic than it already was. As I tried to process what had happened to me I was constantly confronted with the view that it is my responsibility as a woman to set appropriate boundaries to protect myself from physical and sexual harm.

This is victim-blaming, but it is a concept that most women are all too familiar with. Expecting women to prevent themselves becoming victims of rape and sexual assault, crimes largely committed by predatory men, in the face of legislation that removes women’s rights to challenge those men, abusing the proposed legislation to enter their spaces, sets women’s rights back centuries. In the immediate aftermath of being raped the reaction I had to strange men was visceral and based on instinct rather than reason – anybody who looked or sounded male made me panic.

I didn’t have the capacity to consider anybody’s feelings but my own, that is why the needs of women who find themselves in this situation should always be paramount. I needed other women because that is all I could cope with, it made me feel safe, allowed me to speak and eventually to regain control. I am incredibly grateful for the help I received and spaces need to be preserved for women who, sadly, will continue need them in future. I am concerned that the provisions that allow these spaces to remain single sex are not robust enough to protect them as more people legally change their sex." (continues)

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/freedom-of-speech-is-vital-to-our-democracy-in-leeds-1-9400267

Video about the need for male-free spaces:

Thanks R0wantrees had not seen that, have bookmarked to listen to.
Also for the Yorkshire Post piece - the woman describes how I felt for several years afterwards, until I had counselling from Rape Crisis.

Stephen welcome back to Mumsnet. As is commonplace, the brilliant, eloquent women of FWR have already said all I wanted to say to you. The only thing left to say is that, like so many before you who think they can come here and bullshit, patronise or bully us, I believe you’ve had your arse handed to you.

As is commonplace, the brilliant, eloquent women of FWR have already said all I wanted to say to you.

Yep.

I have one remaining question for you Stephen - was it you / your org who got 'case-by-case' added to the EA Statutory Code, thus rendering the single sex exceptions completely unuseable? You're listed as a respondent in the post consultation report.