Justine Greening Responds – The Banality of Evil

Justine Greening replied to my letter to her – An Open Letter and Plea to Justine Greening, Minister of Education on her Gender Identity Proposals

This is ‘her’ response:

Dear David Robertson

Thank you for your email of 25^th July to Justine Greening. I have been asked to respond on her behalf.

We want transgender people to be healthy and happy and to live their lives free from discrimination and distress. We know many transgender people feel the current gender recognition system is inaccessible, intrusive and bureaucratic.

We know that it needs to change: that is why we are delivering on our commitment to review the Gender Recognition Act and move to a gender recognition system that works better for trans people. In line with our commitment, we will streamline the Act and remove its focus on medical checks, lifting bureaucratic burden and helping to make day-to-day life more comfortable for trans people.

Many trans people find the current focus on medical checks in the gender recognition process very intrusive and stigmatising.  That is why we are moving to a system that works better for trans people.

As a person’s gender has important legal and social consequences, we will consider carefully the impact of self-declaration in our policy development and we will consult widely on proposals to reduce medical evidence requirements.

Attaining quick, accessible and transparent legal gender recognition helps transgender people live more comfortably and free from stigma and discrimination.  This should not mean that there is a hierarchy of equality: we want all people to be safe, healthy and happy, irrespective of their gender identity.

We recognise that the provision of toilets and other single-sex or communal facilities is a particularly sensitive issue for some people.  That is why we have issued guidance for service providers to help them create comfortable, welcoming environments for all their customers. We will consult widely on the detail of proposals to change legislation and this will include with women’s groups.

Thank you again for your email, and I hope this response helps to alleviate your concerns.

 

Yours sincerely

Government Equalities Office

Thank you for the reply to my email of 25 July to Justin Greening.

It would be good to know if she actually read my email or if you are just responding in a standard format?

You say that you “hope this response helps to alleviate your concerns”.   it doesn’t even begin to address my concerns.   In fact if you were a student answering a paper with the questions and remarks I put on it, you would receive an automatic fail for not answering the question! I have no idea who has answered my email, or who has even read it. I assume that ‘Government Equalities Office’ is not someone’s  new self-identity!   it would be nice to know that I was actually communicating with a human being who could actually bothered with what is being said.

Your letter is hopelessly inadequate and for a government department shows a lack of understanding, rationality and ability to engage with the wider issues. To be honest I found it quite patronising, superficial and depressing. Is this really the state to which government in the United Kingdom has come? This is the kind of thing that puts people off politics – when we are answered with clichés, soundbites and banal truisms rather than any empirical evidence or facts.

 Of course we all want transgender people to be healthy and happy but the question is whether the government’s proposals will help that?   Do you have any evidence that removing medical checks will result in a happier and healthier life? We all want everyone to be “safe, healthy, and happy” –  the question is whether the government’s proposals will actually make that happen. Your only basis for your proposal seems to be that you think this is what trans people “feel”.   How do you know that?   Will you base your policy on anorexia on the feelings of the anorexic who ‘feels’ they are too fat? Is government policy for any group just to be determined by how they feel?  If that is the basis can I tell you how Christians ‘feel’ about they way we are treated?  Will you remake the whole of society to suit our feelings?

Please do not assume that I am interested in the same trivialities that you seem to be concerned with. I have no interest at all in toilet provision, other than I think that people should be “safe, healthy and happy” when they go to the toilet!

Your email does not answer the questions raised in mine re queer theory, feminism, prisons, sports, civil liberties, education, children and help for those suffering from gender identity dysphoria.   In fact your reply is so appallingly banal that I question whether anyone actually read my initial letter. What is the point of the public writing to you, if you are just going to ignore us and try to fob us off with this kind of meaningless waffle?

 You are proposing a change of government policy about what a human being actually is – based on a philosophical and sociological theory that has no scientific or empirical evidence and which is highly likely to be incredibly harmful, not only to those who it purports to be seeking to support, but also to the rest of society. I could give you numerous instances of those who have been hurt and wounded by this ideology – but I suspect you are not interested in that. It appears as though your mind is made up and the last thing you want to be bothered with are any facts that would contradict your ideological position.

Let me give you one example –   in the area of tolerance. I was contacted by a lecturer in a University who told me that his university is requiring its staff to sign up to an LGBT policy which he cannot agree with. It states that “gender is  an understanding that gender identity is an individual’s internal self-perception of own gender and gender expression is an individual’s external gender-related physical appearance and behaviour.”   It not only requires people to agree with this – but to teach it. But why in the University should only one unproven ideology be the basis upon which people are allowed to teach and keep their jobs? There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the notion that gender is merely a question of perception and nothing to do with biology.   Will the government protect those who do not buy into your extremist and fundamentalist ideology? Or in the name of diversity, tolerance and equality  are you insisting that everyone should be the same, that differences of view will not be tolerated, and that those who dare to think differently from this new government ideology are not equal?

Another is from a consultant who contacted me to tell me that in his maternity unit they have been told not to refer to breastfeeding as it might offend transgender people – and instead it should be called ‘chestfeeding’.  Is this what your department means by ‘equality’?

One other example – this is the kind of unhinged society you are creating –

Perhaps the saddest story of the week comes from concerning this poor child whose dad is transitioning to be his mum, and whose mum now describes herself as pansexual. They are boasting about bringing up their child as the first gender neutral child in the UK.  This picture and story are so heartbreaking.  This is nothing less than child abuse – and it is lauded by our media and politicians.

Is there any possibility you could actually direct my letter to someone who can read it, and respond with some degree of intelligence?   Is there anyone who is prepared to answer my questions and to explain the evidential basis for this government policy?   if so I would be grateful if you could pass both my original email and this one onto them.  It would be good to get a proper and thoughtful answer.

Once again I appeal to you to turn away from this ideologically driven course which has already caused, and will cause so much harm.

 I look forward to hearing from Justine Greening,

Yours etc

David

PS.   When I tried to send this to you at the address you wrote me from – it bounced it back because it is a ‘no reply’ address!  This illustrates the contempt and arrogance with which you treat the voting public who actually bother to contact you.   I spend a great deal of time thinking about this, composing a letter and responding – and you send me a standard pro-forma reply from an unnamed individual – or perhaps it was a ‘bot’ with no opportunity to respond.  I will send it by other means.  If you are going to use ‘bots’ perhaps we should just let robots replace our politicians – as long as they are programmed with the ‘right’ ideology they should work just as well as the Stepford politicians who dare not think or act for themselves!

PPS.  I was redirected to another standard e-mail which amongst other things states “If you are concerned about extremism in a school or organisations that works with children, or if you think a child might be at risk of extremism, contact the National Helpline.”  I would like to do that and tell them that children in the UK are in danger from an extremist organisation I know – which is at work in every school, imposing an unevidenced and dangerous ideology on children which could cause them untold harm. How do I report the government?