As a Basingstoke resident, I was able to request a meeting with my MP, Maria Miller. This meeting took place on Friday, 11th January and I thought I’d share it with you, as I found it quite interesting and informative.
I asked her first about what she said back in 2016:
“...there seems to be an undercurrent of opinion among some that trans people shouldn’t be treated equally, even when they’ve had a legal change in their gender, and that in some way this is a threat to women; I simply reject that.
But [single-sex services, such as rape crisis centres] should be supporting trans women”
Versus what she said at the end of December:
“... focus on getting services right first and foremost, and also be clear that there is no threat to single-sex services, they are clearly protected in law”.
She does not consider what she said in December to be any kind of back-track, despite what Helen Lewis wrote.
She told me that there is no threat to single-sex spaces because there is an adequate risk assessment process that ensures a trans person is placed either somewhere that recognises their gender or recognises that women should be kept separate from that person. With regards to the justifiable and proportionate discrimination in the Equality Act, it’s “superfluous” because this risk assessment is already being done.
She said that there’s no evidence that trans women are going around raping women and girls, at least none that she has seen. Critics have to go to other countries (e.g. Canada) or to the prison service “which is segregated by gender for very specific reasons”. However, she did say to send any evidence of trans women being a danger to women and girls, “other than in prisons”.
She equated being trans today in the UK to being black in the 60s in the UK, basically that people fear what they don’t know, and equated Gender Dysphoria with homosexuality, in as much as neither should be considered mental health issues.
When I mentioned “unconditional self ID as a legal change of sex”, her response was surprising. She said no one in Government has said that the GRA consultation was suggesting unconditional self ID as a legal change of sex. In her mind, the only change being put forward is to remove the medical diagnosis. Whilst she didn’t say it explicitly, this indicates that she expects the rest of the criteria to remain in place (2 years in acquired gender, documentary proof, etc), so a meaningful transition would need to be evident for someone to gain a GRC.
Her reason for removing the medical diagnosis is that doctors often don’t have a clue about a suitable and respectful diagnosis process. She said there are questions such as “have you dressed as a woman for two years?” We were able to agree that’s a pretty bad question to ask anyone! Given a poor diagnosis process, the push to concentrate on improving services and support seems very sensible. She’s actually quite annoyed that self ID got pushed to the forefront.
In her mind, the only reason people are criticising trans ideology is transphobia itself. “They fear what they don’t know”... (okay then, explain Miranda and Debbie and Fionne and and and...). She mentioned Bangladesh as a place where society is accepting of trans women. She feels that schools have an important role in talking to students about transgenderism.
I made a strong statement about tackling gender stereotypes as part of the education that schools should undertake. She did agree with me, which felt a quite positive outcome. I said that I hoped it would be included as part of the GRA consultation, but she replied that it wouldn’t be as the scope of the consultation had already been determined.
She got a little annoyed with me when I said that “the other side” had safeguarding concerns about men who’d abuse the system. The Government, at least, does not want safeguards to be compromised. I did say about the stats showing that men and trans women have the same level of offending, indicating that transition didn’t actually reduce the danger posed by men. The reply? NAMALT. She also mentioned trans men, only in as much as no one seems to have a problem with them.
I felt she assumed I was mostly uninformed and pointed me to Stonewall and students at Queen Mary College, as “young people seem to get it”.
She repeated her line from the Fawcett Society Courage Calls: Ask Her To Stand event (“Trans women are women, that’s the law”), my only regret being I forgot to point out that the EHRC guidance now disagrees with her. Seems it’s quite difficult to interrupt an MP in full flow!
So the main thing is that she clearly believes a trans woman is someone who looks and acts like a woman, someone who is making or has made a meaningful transition. Just saying you are one isn’t enough in her opinion, it would seem. Regardless of GRC, if you try to “pass”, you’re a woman.