Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Guardian article on MPs concern with GRA

229 replies

Maeb · 17/10/2018 07:07

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
naivetyisthenewblack · 18/10/2018 13:00

I'm pleasantly surprised. This is important. Too many people are putting vulnerable people - especially teenagers - at risk by spreading Mermaids' and Stonewall's suicide propaganda.

I hope the Guardian and others who have previously quoted this unreliable propaganda without question, take note and start thinking about the words that have been put into their mouths by these lobbying groups who have a questionable relationship with the truth or best practice.

Thank you Stephen, for doing the decent thing, and doing what Mermaids and Stonewall seem unable to.

Why do Mermaids and Stonewall keep pushing this line when they know full well about guidance from suicide charities like the Samaritans? I am at a loss to find an answer for that, do you know? It's not as if they haven't had their attention brought to it countless times. It's unforgivable IMO.

Popchyk · 18/10/2018 13:01

The article still hasn't been changed online. Stephen wrote to them last night to ask it to be changed.

Presumably The Guardian are under no obligation to amend their article.

1955stephen · 18/10/2018 13:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

pennydrew · 18/10/2018 13:07

1955stephen

You have not followed Mumsnet guidelines on transgender issues. I have reported your post. Please take the time to read the guidelines, as all of us have had to.

Popchyk · 18/10/2018 13:11

What do you mean by "consciousness raising" though? Raising consciousness of what exactly?

Not sure I get it.

Do women have a right to assemble together without male people? To talk, play sport, be in a hospital ward, refuge?

What about all women shortlists which exist to encourage participation in politics by women as they are under-represented in Parliament? Should a male person be able to enter that event and then speak for women if elected?

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 18/10/2018 13:27

I think if you’re one of the people who got the genie out of the bottle it’s reasonable to expect you to have thought about things like the questions above

Popchyk · 18/10/2018 13:37

My post makes no sense now that Stephen's has been deleted.

Stephen stated that biological women should be able to get together without male transgender people who identify as women for the purposes of "consciousness raising".

I wasn't sure what that meant exactly. I'm hoping he can explain.

KataraJean · 18/10/2018 13:42

He surely means good old-fashioned campaigning - raising awareness of the issues which effect women.
At least I hope that is what he meant.
Kudos for engaging and reflecting on the issues.

I suspect Stephen is not fully appraised of quite what his well-intentioned activism has unleashed.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 18/10/2018 13:49

I suspect Stephen is not fully appraised of quite what his well-intentioned activism has unleashed

bobbins

campaigning on transgender issues is Stephen's life

if stephen is ignorant of the consequences of stephen's actions, it is wilfull ignorance.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 18/10/2018 13:49

Stephen it takes guts to admit a mistake and put it right. Thanks. Let's hope the Guardian get around to changing the article quickly.

Popchyk · 18/10/2018 13:51

But yes. Anyways. I hope The Guardian will change the article.

Maybe if a few of us email them, it might have the desired effect. I will email now.

1955stephen · 18/10/2018 13:52

Clearly I am unable to engage properly.
The Mumsnet Guidelines say:
No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No trollhunting
No spamming
I have not done any of those things, nor have I used swear words or any of the other misdemeanours. God damn.
I have tried to engage positively with the issues, and with people on here. But clearly someone is determined to censor me. I hope someone saved what I wrote, because I didn't - rather sad that the chance to talk is being removed from us. Sorry about that.

1955stephen · 18/10/2018 13:54

Oh - and if you are wondering what that was about - someone has removed my last two posts on here. I was talking about women's rights to meet for consciousness raising amongst other matters.

PositivelyPERF · 18/10/2018 13:57

Dammit! I missed that. Why was Stephen’s post deleted?

KataraJean · 18/10/2018 13:58

Agreed BernardBlacks but if Stephen uses language such as women meeting for consciousness raising, he is stuck in the mentality of the 1970s and not 2018.
The debate is a lot more toxic now, and if Stephen really has women’s interests at heart, he needs to educate himself into what is going on now. No-one talks about consciousness raising now.

But I did not read the deleted posts, so my comment is not fully informed.

PositivelyPERF · 18/10/2018 13:58

Did you call anyone cis, bigot or transphobe, Stephen?

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 18/10/2018 14:08

it was CIS PositivelyPERF

personally I don't think they should have been deleted, but I know a lot of people feel that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

it's rather ironic to watch a non GC person experience the frustration of having their language policed, even though I don't think it should have been done

1955stephen · 18/10/2018 14:11

Ah - I used the 'c' word rather than saying 'non-trans' people.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 18/10/2018 14:12

or 'men' and 'women' stephen

if words still have meanings

1955stephen · 18/10/2018 14:13

and sorry for the antiquated use of consciousness raising, but the last time I was in a women's meeting as such was in a Lesbian Collective in Manchester in 1974.

Floisme · 18/10/2018 14:17

I didn’t see your last post but welcome to our world, stephen. We are monitored by men all the time on here and get deleted if we break certain guidelines (which seem to be exclusive to the feminism boards). These are pinned at the top.

Thank you for engaging and for taking comments on board.

1955stephen · 18/10/2018 14:24

Ah - such is life, I also wrote a response to answer the questions of Popchyk from Wed 17-Oct-18 16:36:24

who said: 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?

My responsibility was to the committee and not to the witnesses or to anyone who had provided evidence to the committee, nor any external group.

My role was to help the committee access the necessary information to fully interrogate the evidence they heard, and the materials they received. I was not there to influence the committee's views.

I endeavoured to fulfil that role in a fully responsible way. I was rarely asked to comment on any particular matter relating to the wider question of trans equality.

I was to read the evidence submitted to the Committee, only in so much as to comment if there were clear inaccuracies in the submissions e.g. (taken from my notes)
"There are incorrect statements made in written submission X to the Inquiry e.g. gender recognition is only available to those who have surgery, the Equality Act only affords protection to those who have medical treatment”

I was to sit in on the public committee meetings of the inquiry and listen to the evidence given.

After each of the committee meetings, A civil servant would sometimes they put one or two questions to me about the evidence given by the previous witness, particularly as to accuracy of the law.

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

No - I was shown a list of witnesses the committee wished to speak to I was asked if I had any further suggestions in relation to specific areas, I suggested positions and not people e.g. someone from the Tavistock Children's and Adolescent Gender Identity Unit, or a clinician from outside of London, or someone from Scotland about their take on the ‘spousal veto’.”

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

That was done entirely by the Committee and the civil servants. I took no part in that, and was not present when it was done.

4. 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?

The final report was drawn up by the Committee's Civil servants.

I was (as far as I know) the only special advisor to that Inquiry.

I read the 'almost final' parts of the draft and to check that it was an accurate reflection of the materials submitted and the evidence given in the committee. That meant I would suggest a short paragraph where something was missed, or where the committee appeared to have misunderstood the evidence. It was not in my remit to make suggestions for changes other than where something had been omitted or incorrectly reported.

My suggestions were then either adopted or not by the committee and the civil servants. It was not a discussion.

I did not submit evidence of any sort to the committee, nor did I advise anyone else as regards any evidence they were submitting.

I was paid for the work I did.

I accepted the position as I have spent 25 years researching gender identity and the law, and It gave me an insight into the ways in which Parliamentary Committees work - a process at first hand, that I teach about.

I hope that helps.

Popchyk · 18/10/2018 14:28

It does help, Stephen.

Thank you.

pennydrew · 18/10/2018 14:29

I have tried to engage positively with the issues, and with people on here. But clearly someone is determined to censor me

How ironic that it is you complaining Mumsnet have ‘censored’ you. These specific guidelines on this issue, guidelines they have for no other issue or topic, only got introduced when TRA’s started watching and complaining. So if you’ve got a problem with the guidelines, don’t blame anyone here. We can’t use the right words for someone’s sex either. Sucks doesn’t it? I’m not ‘determined to censor you’, and you’ve been all over this so hardly been prevented from contributing 🙄 I am however, determined that everyone engaging here has the same rules applied equally. You know, equality and all that.

Oh and in case you are confused, we are women and men. Trans is not the default position and you would be insulting all of us if you were to call anyone non-trans.

KataraJean · 18/10/2018 14:29

I think it is time for you to start going to more women’s meetings, Stephen , if you want to say you care about women’s rights. 1974 was 44 years ago.

I am out just now, but look forward to reading you re-written post later.