OK, Hi again a bit more on the Frances Bonney saga. I've had a second reply from Frances, again warm, friendly, responding in fair detail, although essentially political, not really dealing with the many g-c points I raised. Although she doesn't (forgets to?) give me permission to post here, neither does she forbid me, so I take the silence as assent. I wont quote the whole thing, far too long, just a few quotes from her emails.
I did also give her the link to this thread, so she knows where to post if she wants to speak for herself and correct anything, or simply make a comment.
From the 2nd letter first, as it's more immediately relevant to the only bit of "evidence" we've seen.
QUOTE I do remember signing this letter, but didn't immediately make the connection because I hadn't really thought of it as a broad expression of my opinions.
I signed it because I had had some concerns at that time, specifically related to my NHS role, about the clarity of medical language used by the NHS, in particular on websites where automatic translation is used for communities without English as their first language.
(Since then I have seen good cooperation on language with Patient Partnership Groups where I work, which is reassuring.) END QUOTE
QUOTE I should be clear here that I am aligned with current Green Party Policy, and I fully support the platform I am standing on. I have voted Green for over 25 years, and have not always agreed entirely with the Green Party, for example on issues like NATO (the Party's position has now moved on that) so I understand how hard it is to find a representative that agrees with all one's views.
I also agree with you wholeheartedly that all contributions to political debate on any issue should be respectful.
Constituents have a right to know the values and policies candidates endorse, so they can make an informed decision when they vote. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. END QUOTE
From her 1st email to me
QUOTE My position as a Green Party candidate in this election is to support and promote the policies that have been chosen by the members of my Party - as you may know, policy is decided by our members, not by our leadership.
[She quotes relevant bits of the GP manifesto, including 'Our commitment to human rights encompasses equalities, justice and civil liberties too ... Campaign to end violence against women and girls ... Campaign for the right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people ...' and gave the link to the Manifesto.]
QUOTE I am fully aligned with the policies of my party - we are a compassionate, inclusive party, and seek to create a country where everyone feels that they belong. [And she concluded:] In an ideal world, we could all move past differences on issues of sex and gender, prioritise the safety and wellbeing of everyone in our society, and focus on the existential threats of climate change and armed conflict. END QUOTE
As I said, she didn't really respond to my several specific points, including this one: 'And finally, I believe there indeed is an irreconcilable internal contradiction in the party's policy where it claims to 'tackle hate crime, misogyny ...' because so much, perhaps all, of the 'trans rights' movement, at least that part of it involving men, is fundamentally and indeed essentially misogynistic in its practice even if many of its theoretical advocates do not realise the fact.'
In my initial approach to her, I'd written:
'As I have often put it, there's only one way to become a woman and that's to have started life as a girl. And not as "assigned" at birth but simply observed, the way it's always been done. (The same of course, mutatis mutandis, for boys/men.)
'So-called trans women (more correctly trans-identifying men) should have the same rights, duties, obligations, as any other male-bodied people but importantly these entail precisely the same restrictions on behaviour that apply to all of them, not to trespass upon women's spaces and, with respect to younger female members of our species, not to destroy the aspirations to fair competition that many have in such fields as sports, athletics and the like through the exploitation of those lifelong anatomical and physiological attributes bestowed by early exposure to testosterone.'
She did not at all respond to what I suppose amounted to a challenge to her:
'But right now I'm most interested in what you yourself personally believe and would campaign for, or would be permitted by your party to campaign for, should you be elected to parliament. Would you campaign to uphold the facts of biology, to respect language and logic, to discourage (at least) the forced speech involved in pronoun deployment? Would you campaign to safeguard the freedom from legal prosecution of anyone who refuses to deny the evidence of their own eyes and ears, and simply cannot take part in some polite pretence that a man is (really, somehow) a woman? (A person might choose as a courtesy, out of not wishing to upset someone, to reify gender over sex and I could understand that, and indeed sometimes respect it, but only if it's a course freely chosen.)'
Apart from my feeling that Frances is indeed a very nice, caring, compassionate person who supports lots of things I support, my other main take-away is that she did at least take some trouble to reply, unlike her Labour counterparts, who have ignored questions on the facts of life. But in the end I fear she's been captured by the toxic gender ideology of our times.
My wife, a free agent and thankfully her own person, has voted for Frances. But there's no-one I can vote for this time and really mean it. And although I've voted tactically (against) in the past, I can't even do that now.
All best
Brian