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

I dont know if Stephen Whittle will come back to the thread.

This is a very important document as it details the key parts of the parliamentary debate on the GRA. The issues that were brought up are the ones which are now writ large:

by Vulvamort@HairyLeggdHarpy

"The Gender Recognition Bill

"I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.
It was, in the Govt's eyes, FAR preferable to convert a same sex couple into a heterosexual couple via 'sex change' than it was to make same sex marriage legal" (continues)

All of the problems were identified and anticipated: (Norman Tebbitt even highlighted how Ian Huntley had used his change of identity to his advantage, now she uses it for hers)

The fudges and inconsistencies are clear throughout.

concludes:
"Baroness Cathain got it.
She knew this would be a legal fiction
Cathain also realised that since you can't ask to see a GRC, you can't prove your entirely valid position of refusing someone on the grounds of sex. Leaving you open to being sued.
Sometimes whilst reading these comments, I feel queasy. Because where we are now is pretty much exactly where some people saw us going."

Cathain: "A basic human right for individuals to be free to believe fact rather than fiction"
"coerced, totalitarian-style law making"

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

As Christine Burns (Press For Change)described:
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".

From Hansard it is clear who was lobbied.
That the press didn't 'throw a fit', read no public scrutiny.

As Stephen commented earlier:
We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.

well yes, this does seem the case now as then, see Jeremy Corbyn at Pink News party last night. In 2004 Labour MPs apparently had three line whip for this bill

Although Labour may increasingly become aware of how many women feel betrayed.

Stephen Whittle:
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”.

and there you have it

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. - Maya Angelou

Stephen Whittle can say and might even believe they support women's rights.

But as Stephen also thinks that 'woman' is a feeling in a man's head. Then Stephen can never support biological women who for many real reasons, need spaces away from men.

And when I say men, I mean all men. Even those men who claim to have a special woman feeling in their head.

Feelings do not make a man safer to be around. In fact having such delusions, might make them less safe !

This is why the old school Transexuals, know they have a male biology and try not to make a fuss when being in women's spaces. As they appreciate that woman have tried their best to accept them and the Transexuals don't want women to feel more comfortable than they have to be.

This new identity politics is so women hating and full of male entitlement it makes me sick.

No one out in the real world can believe that the government is even thinking of opening out women spaces to all men. The majority (99.9%) of the general public, both men and women don't want this law change !

Now the word is out you will lose. This law will be rolled back and women's rights have to be strengthened to prevent this type of law change ever taking place in the future.

Stephen needs to accept they have failed to slide this law in. We see you. Instead of bitching that women are the problem, campaign for third spaces.

That is the compromise we can all support. Biological men, biological women and unisex. That is fair, safe and the right solution.

In response to some of the considered comments on here, and after thinking carefully so as not to compound the situation and bring more attention to the remark, , last night I wrote the following email to the Society Editor, the Readers Editor and David Batty of the Guardian.

Dear Sirs
You printed a comment by myself in the article by David Batty “Transgender law reform has overlooked women’s rights, say MPs“ at www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps

The comment I made includes an inappropriate reference about the prospect of possible suicides and attempts:
Prof Stephen Whittle, the founder of trans rights group Press for Change, warned that many trans people would “become depressed and dejected” if reform was delayed. He said: “ I am sure there will be a flurry of attempts and suicides. But in the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.”

The original question from David was: “2. What do you think (fear?) will happen if the reforms are derailed, or kicked into the long grass, perhaps as a result of the toxic debate? In other words, what difficulties will this create for trans people?”

I answered the question thinking about “if the reforms were derailed” completely, not just delayed, and even then did not think carefully enough about what my words should be in reply to that question. .

It has been brought to my attention that my response conflicts with the IPSO/Samaritans Guidance on reporting about Suicide, which say at
Point 2:
“there is a risk of imitational behaviour due to ‘over-identification’.
Vulnerable individuals may identify with a person who has died, or with the circumstances in which a person took their own life.
For example, combining references to life circumstances, say a debt problem or job loss, and descriptions of an easy-to-imitate suicide
method in the same report, could put at greater risk people who are vulnerable as a result of financial stress.”
And at point 3:
Over-simplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading and is unlikely to reflect accurately the complexity
of suicide.
For example, avoid the suggestion that a single incident, such as loss of a job, relationship breakdown or bereavement, was the cause.
And at point 5:
“Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results.”

It is clear in retrospect that my comment was ‘ill thought out’ and completely inappropriate, as it could lead vulnerable and/or young trans people to consider taking their own lives, and clearly nothing could be further from my wishes. It should not have been printed.

To ensure that my comments, and your publication, meets with the IPSO/Samaritans guidance, I would be very grateful if you would amend the online comment, removing any reference to attempts or suicide, so that it now reads:
Prof Stephen Whittle, the founder of trans rights group Press for Change, warned that many trans people would 'become depressed and dejected' if reform was delayed. He said: “In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.”

Please confirm your response.
All the best
Stephen

Stephen, thank you for contacting the guardian on this. Tensions are uunderstandably running high as this is a highly personal and emotive issue for many people, but the Samaritans guidelines are there for a reason and I’m glad you have corrected your statement. It takes conviction to admit you made an error and I respect you for taking steps to correct it.

Thank you, Stephen.

Could we rely on you to use your influence to end this very common and highly irresponsible practice among your fellow activists?

I am pleased that you’ve done that Stephen. I am still not happy that yourself or The Guardian were so careless in the first place, but if they make the amendments it’s better than leaving them there.

Thank you Stephen I wonder if you could as an urgent priority speak with Susie Green CEO of Mermaids (a charity supporting vunerable children, young people and their families) as she also seems unaware of the guidance.
I trust you will appreciate how important this is in order to safeguard.

Thank you for posting that, Stephen.

Thank you Stephen.

The more stuff like that is done, the better this will get for everyone.

I'm sure of it.

Thank you for doing that and for updating here.

Perhaps you could also alert Jane Fae to the guidance?

Perhaps you could also alert Jane Fae to the guidance?

Yes, Stephen, could you please alert Jane Fae that the people who are trying to protect gender-questioning children from suicide contagion are the women on Mumsnet. The people risking it are transactivists. That tweet from Jane is an outrageous reversal of what's actually happening.

& Helen Belcher (TransMedia Watch)

This is especially urgent. I am shocked that an organisation so involved with media is not aware of Samaritan's Media Guidlines.

Jane Fae - blaming the women again.

Thank you Stephen

Thank you Stephen.

Please could you have a word with your mate Christine and other signatories of this letter that also pushes the suicide narrative?

They also have an editorial

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide

Sorry if posted earlier

Stephen Perhaps having reflected and taken on board the reasons for the Samaritan's guidance you will read the article by Prof. Michael Biggs which I commended to you previously on this thread.

The concerns here are not 'anti-trans' they are for child protection and safeguarding vulnerable children:

(extract)
"I want a happy daughter, not a dead son’, proclaims Anna Friel in the new ITV drama Butterfly. This line required no creativity from the scriptwriter, as it is a constant refrain in interviews with parents. ‘I’d rather have a live daughter than a dead son.’ ‘We prefer to have a living son than a dead daughter’. ‘Our only choice was to have a dead son or a living daughter.’ ‘I’d rather have a living son than a dead daughter’. ‘Do you want a happy little girl or a dead little boy?’ ‘My wife and I decided that we would much rather have a happy, healthy daughter than a dead son.’

ITV’s drama was heavily influenced by Mermaids, the British organization invested in the transgendering of children. According to its chief executive, Susie Green:

‘I have my daughter, whole and alive, but if I had refused to listen then it’s very likely that I would have a dead son.’

Like other transgendering advocates, she never shies from raising the spectre of suicide:

(see screen shot)

Her tweet implies that four trans-identified youths committed suicide last year, though the language is ambiguous and does not specify age.

Another mother associated with Mermaids announced two trans teenage suicides in under a week:

When transgendering organizations cite evidence on suicide, it almost invariably comes from surveys that recruit respondents haphazardly—without random sampling from a defined population—and ask them whether they have ever attempted to commit suicide. These surveys have been scrutinized in two earlier posts, and also on 4thwavenow. One problem is that trans-identified respondents might be primed to respond affirmatively to such questions by the continual emphasis on suicide in transgenderist discourse. Toby Sinbad Walker, for example, suggests that trans-identified females will kill themselves if they have to wait for breast amputations (continues)

concludes:
"Whether the higher rate of suicide among trans-identified teens is due to gender dysphoria or to co-incident conditions such as autism deserves urgent research. At the same time, we must realize that suicides of trans-identified children are rare tragedies and not—as transgendering organizations like Mermaids imply—a common occurrence. Rational and compassionate policy-making cannot be driven by the threat of suicide."
www.transgendertrend.com/suicide-by-trans-identified-children-in-england-and-wales/

You'll perhaps realise the basis for the very serious concerns that many women here have for drama 'Butterfly' and its likely impact on vulnerable children and young people?

Lisa Muggeridge (Social Worker)

Thank you, Stephen.

It is a hugely important thing.

Thanks for doing that Stephen. Can I also draw your attention to this comment you made

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,

The newspapers yesterday reported the case of a father of seven 'Ms Jay' Who was a 41-year-old criminal and has been married three times.

"He said in 2011 she had been convicted of obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life and given an eight-year jail term."

They have been given a gender recognition certificate, despite getting married as a man, during the period they now claim they were 'living as a woman'.

The gender recognition panel declined times times to support the application taking into account the doctors report that said Ms Jay's version of their history was directly odds with documentary records. Ms Jay's doctor said he had seen no evidence of gender identity disturbance until 'very recently'.

Ms Jay also failed to admit she had been married three times, as a man.

Nonetheless Lord Justice Baker has overturned the decision and issued Ms Jay with a certificate. Ms J is now legally a woman.

Given this case, I would be very interested to know exactly what criteria you would deem necessary to assume a fraudulent declaration.

I'd also like you to acknowledge the rising tide of men who conform to male pattern violence, but are determined to identify as women. And how that impacts women. In prison, and in their intimate spaces.

The wilful disregard of how women are disadvantaged by men's, ultimately, superior strength, is difficult to believe.

I'd like you to tell me how my six-year-old daughter can confront a semi naked man determined to access her changing room, who has been convicted of making bombs.

Or convicted of paedophilia, or convicted of rape, or convicted of sexual assault, or convicted of voyeurism, or convicted of indecent exposure.

Oh wait, the crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism have ceased to exist.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6281853/amp/Father-seven-convict-gender-change-recognised-High-Court.html

Stephen
I am pleased to see that you have got in touch with the Guardian to amend the article, although I just checked it and they have yet to make any amendments to it.

Could you answer some questions I asked you earlier in the thread?

The proposed changes to the GRA are portrayed by transgender activists as being minor administrative changes which will have no great effect on anyone, trans or not. Why would a failure to get these passed cause anyone to become depressed? If they are such minor changes, why such vigorous campaigns to get them into law?

There is a clear danger to women and girls if it is made easier to get a GRC, which you can hardly be unaware of. If a law is to be passed which has such appalling potential for abuse, there must be a significant benefit to another group. What is the benefit of self-id to genuine transgender people which is so great that you believe the potential danger to women and girls should be overlooked?

Thank you for sending the letter, Stephen.

Thank you for taking on board the criticism about the suicide comment and writing to the Guardian

Thank you Stephen, for sending that letter and updating us here.