Stephen Whittle (Press for Change) irresponsible use of 'likely' suicides follows Helen Belcher's (Trans Media Watch)

[R0wantrees]

In the Guardian today:
(extract)
"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.”

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps

Last week Helen Belcher (Trans Media Watch) ascribed causative link between suicide and suicide ideation to newspaper coverage with specific mention of the Times journalist Janice Turner:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3393577-Janice-Turner-accused-of-causing-trans-suicides

2013 Article describing formation of Press For Change and background to prominant trans-rights campaigners.
Christine Burns describes how Press For Change secured legislation:
(extract)
"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

Helen Belcher comment:
"In her Pressing Matters books, Christine Burns writes eloquently about all the work that a small group of trans campaigners did to achieve a legislative landmark. The Gender Recognition Act took at least 10 years of work as well as a series of court cases. It also took its toll. Most of the Press for Change team stepped back from front-line campaigning shortly after the Act was passed.

It’s been left to a new generation of campaigners to pick up the slack. I was one of a small number who formed the charity Trans Media Watch back in 2009, with the aim of improving the representation of trans and intersex people across the British media. What we found was largely ignorance. Senior executives would ask questions without any idea of their insensitivity. It took some thick skins to educate rather than retaliate."
challengingjourneys.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/free-speech-or-life-and-death/

Samaritans: www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/suicide-reporting-10-things-remember

such a flippant comment - a flurry of suicides

I know. Its not fucking snowfall.

I don't understand how transactivists can push this narrative whilst simultaneously campaigning for the demedicalisation of trans.

Anybody who becomes suicidal when prevented from carrying out a 'simple administrative task' is in desperate need of psychiatric support.

Why would they then want to remove psychiatric input from GRC gatekeeping?? If they truly believe that half of trans people are so mentally unwell this would seem irresponsible.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer

Thank you too. It was like waking up in a nightmare you can’t get out of. I could not imagine ever using that experience to manipulate others to get what I want.

Also we were told so many times that nothing we say would push her to hurting herself. That the issue is far more complex. We were paranoid about saying or doing the wrong thing.

Its a bunch of contradictions.

"A small change in admin that makes no real difference to anyone, but 'causes' suicides if it doesn't happen."

"A law change that was groundbreaking, forever changing the lives of transpeople for the better, that is 'outdated', causing misery and suicide for transpeople and is no longer fit for purpose 14 years later."

"Nobody needs to make medical/surgical changes to be trans - but your kids need to be pushed down that pathway without your knowlege if you don't support it, or they'll be suicidal."

etc..

"It is not a medical condition or mental illness but it causes suicidal ideation at the drop of a hat"

Stephen Whittle spoke well enough about his contributions to legal reform (some might judiciously have called it ‘bragging’) on here using his own name. Alongside a delightful reminisce about getting shagged by a Boy Scout in guide camp, and telling parents they were being ridiculously over-protective for wanting to be informed that their teenager dd was going to be sleeping in a tent with a teenage boy. Just give them condoms and let them have at it. Accept it.
Stephen is immeasurably proud of his ability to influence government policy. And fully intends to keep on doing it. He was extremely keen that we recognized the next reform would be passed too - because Stephen is jolly clever and influential and is now behold a man - so the little wims worried about sex segregation were poor benighted souls stuck in the past and needed to get over themselves. Don’t worry - Stephen will personally ensure that the reforms are made to enshrine the rights of gender ideology over the pesky sex business that Stephen did away with so long ago (after thoroughly enjoying his teenage deflowering).
Press for Change indeed. The quiet force that will coerce legislation if Stephen has anything to do with it.
I’m sure Stephen is right pissed off at the less strategic members of the community banging their gums and dissing women. There are much more effective ways to get what you want after all. And what’s a little threat of suicide between friends if it’s made by a strong legal mind?

That’s actually the really sinister bit. That Stephen is using gravitas to threaten suicides to coerce.
Creepy as fuck.

penny

Its almost harder when the little devils keep it so quiet and finally spill to a doctor or in one of my childrens cases a psychiatrist

Ive been so frightened with my eldest that even as a small child i would find him dead and he is 19 and at uni and having a ball now

Although he did tell the dr something id said to him in a misguided attempt to lighten the mood once ...he thought it was funny when i first said it but i dont think the doctor thought it was funny...at all!!

You obviously had a much harder time of it, it must have been dreadful for you all

I think Whittle really wants to stay below the radar which is why Whittle's name isn't down as one of the members of the Stonewall trans advisory board. I do wonder who they are - I think there are about 3 who aren't named. Whittle is pretty much certain to be one.

Does anyone remember the rage and vengeance driving Whittle to do whatever can be legally won in the 'Girlguiding' thread and fuck the consequences for women and children?

Also - has anyone read Whittle's pomo drivel that beats people into submission by throwing so much word salad at them they go into a defensive coma?

Steven's motivation for the GRA was so he could marry a woman and adopt her children Both these are open to same sex couples now so why is it still needed legally ?

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer

Oh I so understand what you’re saying. Our DD has difficulty with emotions, displaying them, understanding them, and recognising them. So has a tendency to play everything down. There’s a wonderful young woman on YouTube we found really helpful, Asperger’s Girl. She helped me understand a lot.

I just am gobsmaked at anyone using these awful experiences families have, to emotionally manipulate others and get something pushed through that hasn’t properly been assessed and isn’t in the best interests of anyone, IMO. It’s such a sad and troubling issue, to discuss it so flippantly and so dangerously, it just is so very wrong.

In case anyone hasn't seen it, Stephen has 'clarified' his statement here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?watched=1&msgid=81873561#81873561

Steven's motivation for the GRA was so he could marry a woman and adopt her children Both these are open to same sex couples now so why is it still needed legally ?

It's not. It should be repealed.

Whittle's name isn't down as one of the members of the Stonewall trans advisory board. I do wonder who they are - I think there are about 3 who aren't named. Whittle is pretty much certain to be one.

Stephen is busy denying that on the thread about the Guardian article and MPs/the GRA.

Also - has anyone read Whittle's pomo drivel that beats people into submission by throwing so much word salad at them they go into a defensive coma?

Also doing that, and it's getting...zzzzzzz

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer

Strewth Rufus. Big hug.

I assume with Stephen it’s more academic pride and arrogance. He has a jolly high opinion of himself and the idea of leaving such a major impression on the social fabric of a country would be a real drive. History books and whatnot. There seems to be no empathy at all with women, and even his ‘humourous’ asides about his life were designed very carefully to show how absolutely not a woman he is) so I suspect that the destruction of women’s sex segregated rights would be further proof to him of his male identity.
I know that’s all a bit armchair psych. Probably all bollocks.
He’s a very self-satisfied chap. Definitely got that aspect of masculinity nailed.

Mumsnetters aren’t unfairly smearing Whittle when they say that much of Whittle’s influence on law has been leveraged out of the public eye, it’s what Press for Change have actually admitted to themselves.

Here’s Whittle’s colleague at PFC recent book:

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

This is Stehen Whittle's comment from the other thread.

This is the truth of many TRAs, but its not just Samaritan's media guidance, it is good practice that anyone who has worked with vulnerable people understands (or should understand) very well.

The principles behind this matter a great deal. This is safeguarding and child protection.

Thank you datun and penny

Ds1 is an absolute joy, but he feels everything!!!

He is much better now, self esteem is much higher

This is the truth of many TRAs, but its not just Samaritan's media guidance, it is good practice that anyone who has worked with vulnerable people understands (or should understand) very well.
The principles behind this matter a great deal. This is safeguarding and child protection.

Yes, and as an academic who, I presume, works with young people, many of whom will suffer poor mental health, Stephen will have received guidance about to best to provide pastoral care. He should have already known that he what he was saying was completely contrary to accepted practice.

Mamaryllis

I agree with that analysis.

Whittle loathes women. As we have daily evidence, many transwomen loathe and despise women and see them as deeply inferior. As do MRAs such as Dr (women smell of fish) Harrop. This is a deep, personal bias and it has to be regarded as intrinsic to the whole movement.

Allowing the TRA lobby to guide and lead legislation that affects women is like allowing a group of evangelical vegans to re design the guidance and law for the meat marketing board. That Whittle was permitted to be a special advisor for the White Paper is beyond belief, the whole system has been corrupted since this whole farce began.

Stop the consultation. Do it properly. Take separate and equal advice from both sides. Find (somewhere) a group that hasn't yet been brainwashed, doesn't run around like headless chickens at the word 'trans', isn't afraid to be publicly identified to transactivists because of fear and harm (and deals properly with threatening, vexatious and intimidating behaviour and takes professional account of and advise on what it indicates when it's widespread in a group like this) who still remembers what professional behaviour is, and will draw up properly weighted, balanced equality law. Like real grown ups.

The lovely PFC Christine Burns was joining in with the hilarious "women smell like fish" Twitter thread

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

This from someone who has very assertively campaigned over many years on behalf of a supposedly vulnerable community? Surely you read up on such things until you know them inside out and back to front so you are able to handle the subject extremely sensitively? i mean, that's what I'd do.