Emails to Liz Truss and the response of the Government Equalities Office

[MrsSnippyPants]

I am going to publish an email trail here, which I believe shows just how far regulatory capture has gone. It shows how questions are ignored, words twisted, and the LAW, the Equality Act 2010 is wilfully misrepresented.
Here goes.....

[MrsSnippyPants]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 I wrote to Liz Truss as follows;

Dear Ms Truss

In your capacity as Minister for Women and Equalities I am sure you are familiar with this issue.

We are a group of Conservative women voters and members who would like you to speak out in defence of the rights of women and girls, and say NO to SelfID.

The GRA is bad law, and ideally should be repealed, but it would be a start if politicians could reassure women and girls' that single sex spaces are just that; single SEX, not 'gender'. No man can become a woman, despite the legal fiction of a Gender Recognition Certificate, and no man should be able to access our private spaces just by identifying' as a woman.

Many organisations, companies, and even the NHS and our prisons, are allowing 'self ID', allowing men into toilets, changing rooms, sports, hospital wards, even prisons, on the basis of them 'identifying' as women, even though the law allows single sex spaces. Many have been lobbied by groups like Stonewall, who have campaigned for the removal of the single sex exemptions in the 2010 Equality Act and have often wilfully misinformed organisations of the law, under the guise of 'inclusion'.

This must stop. Women are allowed single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, and safety. We know you know this, you have spoken about it, but we now need someone to stand up to the lobby groups.

Women are beginning to work together on a cross party basis, and we would very much like to be able to speak with you in person.
We note that the results of the consultation on the GRA have still not been published, nor have we heard any more about the proposed enquiry into the sudden rise of girls being referred to 'gender' clinics. We would appreciate an update on both of these issues.

We look forward to hearing from you, and would like to speak with you at your earliest convenience.

Kind regards

[MrsSnippyPants]

On the 21st January, I received the following reply from David Vickery, GEO correspondence at the Cabinet office:

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your email of 7 January, addressed to the Secretary of State, about the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am replying as the Minister for Equalities.

Reform of the Gender Recognition Act would have an impact across several different public services and it is imperative that any changes work effectively and have support. We have analysed over 100,000 responses to the consultation and are working hard with colleagues across Whitehall and relevant agencies to consider the appropriate next steps.
We are aware that people have concerns about how any reforms to the gender recognition process might have an impact on the provision of single-sex services and on certain privisions in sport, prisons and schools.

We are committed to maintaining the safeguards that protect vulnerable women and allow organisations to provide single-sex services. Concerns of predatory men seeking to find ways to harm women are legitimate. However, this is not a new problem and is not a problem created by, or the fault of trans people. This problem needs specific attention and the Government is committed to tackling harassment and abusive behaviours by all individuals.

We will publish our response to the consultation once these next steps have been agreed.

Thank you for writing to us on this important topic and laying out your views.

Yours sincerely,

Government Equalities Office

[MrsSnippyPants]

On the 22nd January, I responded as follows:

Dear Mr Vickery,

Thank you for your response. I am heartened to read that your department is committed to maintaining the safeguards that protect vulnerable women and to allow organisations to provide single-sex services.

The group of Conservative women that I represent is indeed keen to maintain protections for vulnerable women. However I would like to emphasise that we are not only concerned with vulnerable women: ALL women and girls, whether they consider themselves vulnerable or not, have rights to dignity and privacy, not just safety.
Please could I ask, do you acknowledge that single-sex spaces should be maintained for reasons of dignity and privacy in addition to any safety concerns?

Thank you also for your update on the GRA consultation, Please could you give me an indication of the timescales involved?
For example: how long do you expect the consideration of next steps to take? When do you expect to be able to start implementing these next steps? When can we expect an announcement on the consultation results?

I also asked for an update on the proposed inquiry into the sudden rise in girls wishing to access gender identity services. You may recall this was promised by Penny Mordant some time ago now.
Please could you update me on the progress of this enquiry or let me know when we can expect a public announcement on it?

I must admit I am confused by your mention of 'trans' people in your reply. I did not once mention 'trans' people in my email to Ms Truss. My email was all about maintaining single sex spaces for women and girls, I did not once allege that any problems were created by, or the fault of 'trans' people. I am very surprised you should interpret it that way. I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes a little?
Perhaps your definition of 'trans' would help me understand, as it has no legal definition as far as I am aware?

Please can I clarify: do you recognise, as do the group of women whom I represent, that transwomen must be treated as a sub-group of men as far as safeguarding is concerned? Or are you trying to say that you think the danger of Self ID is only that predatory men (who are not trans) may abuse the system and that transwomen (as a group) are not a threat in women's spaces in the same way that other men are?

I, and a number of other Conservative-supporting women are still keen to meet with Ms Truss. This is an issue of great importance to women across the political spectrum. We see huge numbers of women who traditionally supported other parties saying they feel politically homeless and we feel there is a big opportunity for our party to attract the support of women. I would love to be able to go back to the Conservative Women’s Pledge Group and let them know that Ms Truss is open to talking with us about this.
Please can you let me know how I can go about organising a meeting with Ms Truss on behalf of the Conservative Women’s Pledge Group?

Finally, I am rather confused as to whom you are responding to me on behalf of. Is it on behalf of Ms Truss? You say you are responding AS the Minister of Equalities, who I believe is Baroness Williams? Are you in fact responding on behalf of the GEO? Or are you passing on the response of the Baroness?
I would be grateful if you could clarify which person and department I am dealing with, as I directed my initial email to Ms Truss.

I hope you can answer my questions (I have marked them in bold, above, for convenience).

Kind regards

[MrsSnippyPants]

I received no response, so 3 weeks later on the 11th February I wrote:

Dear Mr Vickery,

I appear not to have had a response to my email of the 22nd Jan. Do you need more time to answer our questions?

[Procrastinator2]

Appalling.

[MrsSnippyPants]

I then received the following reply on 13th February from Alan Chapman, again from GEO correspondence at the Cabinet office:

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for your email of 22 January containing follow-up questions on legal gender recognition and single-sex spaces. To clarify, I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Women and Equalities. The previous response you received should have also stated this, my apologies for any confusion.

The Government Equalities Office agrees with you that every person has a right to dignity and privacy. Under the Equality Act, trans people should be treated according to the gender with which they identify.
There are some exceptions to this set out in the Act, meaning that a trans person can in some cases be excluded from a single-sex service where it is proportionate.

The Government is committed to tackling harassment and abusive behaviours by all individuals, and to ensuring safe-spaces are safe for those using them. Anybody seeking access to spaces such as toilets or changing rooms for malicious or violent purposes can and should be dealt with under existing criminal laws.

As previously mentioned, our response to the consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition Act will be published in due course. The Minister currently has an extremely full diary and is unable to accept your invitation to meet at this time, but I hope that I can sufficiently answer any further questions you have on behalf of the department.

Yours sincerely,
Government Equalities Office
Correspondence Team
@WomenEqualities //www.gov.uk/geo

MY BOLD

[Procrastinator2]

That was before I read the rest.

[Languishingfemale]

Par for the course I think. But that's a very good follow up letter. Sometimes I can't be bothered challenging the word salad responses about wonderful inclusivity that I get in response to my numerous letters about safeguarding. The civil service seem to keep a stranglehold on these responses, only putting out Stonewall approved responses.

[Apollo440]

What do they mean 'trans people's? With or without a GRC. This is not what the Equalities act states.

[Mockersisrightasusual]

trans people should be treated according to the gender with which they identify.

But who are "trans people" in law and in reality?

Congrats to snippy who knows how to write a good letter.

[MrsSnippyPants]

Thank you.
I am working on my next response but I'm just in a rage this morning!

They are just making things up; do they actually believe this stuff?

[midclegs]

Could we try to get an appointment with Kemi Badenoch? She is the new Minister for Women is she not? Working under Liz Truss?

[midclegs]

And thanks Mrs Snippy - great letter. Mine have been a little more 'ragey' I'm afraid.

[Binterested]

Yes GEO we see you.

If you have the stomach for it, it’s better to write to your MP and ask them to ask the minister to respond to your points. That way the minister has to see and sign the letter. It’s still written by the CS but as it’s MP to MP the minister gets involved.

I would literally ask the minister to comment on whether considerations such as dignity and privacy are being disregarded now as this is what this letter implies.

[MrsSnippyPants]

I believe she is currently on maternity leave midclegs

[rogdmum]

MrsSnippyPants If any of us wanted to write supporting emails (as individuals affected by the issue) who would you recommend we contact? Liz Truss still? I have lost track of who is responsible for what!

[rogdmum]

I should add, to say that my MP is unlikely to consider my point of view would be a massive understatement. Is it still worth my contacting them- I.e. would they have to pass my questions onto the relevant minister or could they just ignore my email?

[Binterested]

I believe they do rogdmum. I think they can just forward your letter to the minister asking for comments.

[Procrastinator2]

Whilst we are distracted by the Labour Party, this is the main battle.

[NettleTea]

trans people is not correct. Transexual people, with a GRC may be treated as women under the Equality act, bar the exemptions therein.

I would also ask about the proposed maximum number of transexual people, for whom the law was intended (I believe the region of 5000 was discussed in the Lords prior to the law being granted) and the number of 'transgender people currently (some give figures of up to 1% of the population, although I think that was a few years back - some schools have reported levels amongst the young as high as 10%) and how the impact on womens single sex services is vastly different

And why the need to change a birth certificate, which records sex (and could, if pushed, be verified by XX, XY markers if we wish to remove any ambiguity caused by this madness, plus also identify the tiny number of intersex - could this be part of the heel prick test?) when they have stated that they are clearly NOT transexuals and are changing their GENDER markers.

perhaps the equality act needs to bring in, rather than the obviously confusing their little brains, sex and gender protections, stick to single chromosomal services. This also would work well for medical stuff.

[MrsSnippyPants]

I think that may be the best plan Binterested

I may respond briefly to say that as they seem unable/unwilling to answer my questions I have asked my MP to approach the minister directly on my behalf.

At this point rogdmum I honestly can't say who would be best to write to. I am hearing so many people say their emails are being ignored by their MPs. I think perhaps a proper paper letter to your MP (with an email backing it up, insisting they acknowledge receipt) asking for your concerns to be passed on to the minister.

[Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons]

Bloody hell

Fabulous letters though! mine tend to wander into the raving category as once I start I can’t stop

[DuLANGMondeFOREVER]

Excellent emails, ridiculous answers!

[MrsSnippyPants]

So much for me being brief:

Dear Mr Vickery,

Thank you for your response of the 13th February. You state that you hope you can sufficiently answer any further questions I may have, but have failed to respond to most of the questions I asked in my email of the 22nd January. Perhaps you could answer those then we can move on from there?

Also, you stated: Under the Equality Act, trans people should be treated according to the gender with which they identify.
I am unable to find the part of the EqA2010 that states this, perhaps you would be so kind as to send me the relevant quote? I am pretty certain it states no such thing, but will be happy to be corrected.

Again, you stated: Anybody seeking access to spaces such as toilets or changing rooms for malicious or violent purposes can and should be dealt with under existing criminal laws.
Mr Vickery, the whole point of safeguarding, of providing women and girls with single sex spaces, is to PREVENT harm. Not one single woman or child should suffer harm due to single sex spaces being made mixed sex, not one. Single sex spaces provide one of the best protections for women and girls; an absence of men. Dealing with a crime afterward is no consolation to victims, when simple safeguarding measures would have prevented the crime in the first place.

Finally, if you feel unable to respond to this email fully, then perhaps it would be much easier if I just pass on this correspondence trail to my MP and ask him to contact the Minister directly? I really would not want to take up your time if you are unable to provide the answers to my questions.

Please respond as soon as possible, as this issue is very pressing for women and girls who are seeing the law being wilfully misrepresented by lobby groups across all government departments, especially in the NHS and in schools.

Kind regards,

[Havannahh]

Right, you've spurred me on to write to my MP.

I think I want to go down the route of asking how the proposed GRA changes would ensure that women's spaces would be protected from men with bad intentions who claim to be trans. I'd also like to make a point of definitions of different types of trans identifying men (particularly AGP) and ask whether they think they should all have access to women's spaces, and how under current or proposed law they/we can tell which ones are to be allowed into women's spaces and which ones not.

Perhaps also throw in a bit about could they confirm if they think that women should be allowed to discuss concerns about safety in women's spaces without being threatened with violence or silenced (RE WPUK meetings but also side eye at MNHQ who have made some decisions on the subject that seem informed by TRA bully groups more than women. )

Thoughts welcome - what else should I include?