Reply from MP: sex segregated spaces.

"everyone, must feel safe in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other facilities."

Which would naturally lead you towards 3rd spaces as the best (if not perfect) solution. Trans-women might perhaps complain that a third space isn't "affirming their gender-identity" enough for their liking, but can they complain that they wouldn't be "safe" or "feel safe" in such spaces? Maybe they could make an argument that such spaces could be deliberately targeted, or instantly identify anyone using them, but what is the alternative? If it's a case that they supposedly have to get access to female spaces, that will inevitably make some women uncomfortable, and then "everyone" isn't "feeling safe".

Is it "everyone needs to feel safe", but women need to shut up because they already are safe and are just being irrational?

As for MPs (admittedly understandable) use of a largely copy/paste reply, maybe have a copy/paste letter to send to MPs... ,"this is typically the sort of reply that people receive... here is a rebuttal to those points...".

I’m sorry to sound ignorant but I’m still learning. Is this correct? I know people holding a GRC are covered under the equality act, but isn’t the above simply self Id?

It's not correct, sex and gender ID are 'protected characteristics' but there are exceptions so you can offer single sex services and exclude people who are trans.

I saw a recent report from the us that says even over there trans people are a third less likely to suffer violence

And in response to another pp that wondered if the low numbers is down to media reporting trans people suffering violence as women (about transmen?), we have found that the media is very keen to make it very clear when victims are trans but do conceal trans perpetrators by reporting them as women. So no.

There are zillions of genders. Which genders can use a womens refuge? Only those who have an internal self ID of woman?

Yes this is something I'm not often seeing being picked up on. The word "gender" as used for "gender identity" and often wrongly incorporating biological sex, can mean all manner of fanciful personal identities with "neopronouns". This is coming off tumblr and Twitter into the mainstream.

https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/what-it-means-to-be-multigender-the-questions-many-have-but-are-afraid-to-ask/

There is an infinite diversity of genders in the world. Each person has a totally unique interpretation and relationship with any gender they inhabit. There are at least as many genders as there have been humans who have lived.
I say “at least” because as it turns out, a person can embody more than one gender in their lifetime. They can even embody more than one gender at once. They can experience them as full and independent, or as partial and mixed. Genders can overlap and negate one another, they can be positive or negative, fixed or in flux, and they can coalesce in any number of combinations.

What Pronouns Should I Use For Multigender People?
The answer to this is the same as for everyone. Use whatever pronouns you are told to use. And, specifically, use all of them. If someone gives you more than one pronoun to use, don’t just pick the one that’s easy for you and ignore the rest. Use them all, and if someone asks you to use one more than the others, do that, too.

Are Multigender People Oppressed?
Yes. Being multigender is fundamentally contrary to our society’s hierarchical and exclusivist gender binary. This means that at the very least, multigender people are oppressed socially and psychologically. Our identities are made invisible, they are trivialized, othered, and dismissed. We suffer stigmatization, micro-aggressions, and various forms of body terrorism. The legitimacy of our self-understanding is called into question every day.

It needs to be made clear that pandering to this level of self absorption is not reasonable and should not be expected.

In related news- a poll has shown that labour have lost a load of female voters

MPs often send out copy & paste, or ‘tweak’ C&P answers. In all parties.

It’s because they get asked about lots of different topics every day, and don’t have the time or staff to research in detail and then check it fits their party line.

Most MPs subscribe to their party’s service which provides the research & party line, and then the Mp/their staff tailor it to the query.
(Or they just C&P)

If you write again in a few months about the same topic, you might well get an identical answer.

If you asks specific questions you might get specific answers. But an MP is unlikely to read around a subject in great detail unless they have particular interest in it, or it’s upcoming legislation. They just don’t have the time for every topic.

(About 50-75 daily individual emails asking policy questions to my MP, plus casework which takes much longer plus campaign emails about 100 a day at the moment)
I work for an MP.

I would also ask for a definition of 'woman', and 'trans person' and how the definition of 'trans' and 'gender reassignment' is currently enshrined in law.

I do think it's worth pushing on this, because that is where the cracks (or gaping chasms in this case!) start to show.

Indeed, under the Equality Act, trans people have the right to access single-sex services in line with their ‘acquired gender’, and they are not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or have undergone any form of medical intervention, to be eligible for support in these services.

I'm pretty sure this is not correct.

The protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' does not specifically mean that any male can access female single sex spaces. That is bullshit!

I would definitely ask them to quote the part of the Equality Act that specifically makes this clear (they won't be able to).

Also, agree about the 'black trans women' statistic. TRAs have appropriated the plight of South American trans sex workers in order to push the narrative that UK trans women are not safe in society. To see an MP doing it is pretty grim. I would push them further than this and ask to see the UK statistics on their claim.

Am so upset with the Labour Party and am dreading the next election. How can they just cast women aside like this?

There are exact details for few U.K. trans women deaths if you route around. Most linked to partners or prostitution I think from memory?

The high trans women death rates are linked to Brazil. The death and rape rate for women in Brazil is stupidly high I heard

Trans people, particularly trans women (and by extension, particularly black trans women) are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime and hate crime

In addition to the Latin American context that previous posters have referenced, this is also more or less true (for very many complicated, entertwined, and historically and culturally specific reasons that really should not be waded into by foreigners) in the USA. It's also tricky to talk about because there's a crazy amount of violence against black women in the USA, and it is not the same dynamic as violence against black transwomen (of course, none of it is acceptable - but some of it gets disproportionate attention).

Assuming there is not an unexpected time warp, I'd guess that your MP is NOT representing any US communities - and should not be appropriating their experiences? And then I'd suspect this person is way too lazy to do the work of understanding what is going on in her own community/constituency and in the UK.

This person sounds like a complete idiot. I'd just keep on asking her - if you have the time and energy - to justify her stances in a local or even a UK-wide context. Betcha she can't.

I'd start with sarcastic politeness:
"Thank you for taking the time to copy and paste a response."

I would then go on to ask her to evidence some of her wacky claims.

Well I wouldn't waste any time being polite to someone who has just done a cut and paste job and not bothered to reply to your points.

I would just reply and say they have been misinformed about the EA, violence against TW, and so on.*

Can she please reply after she has done her research by replying with correct information, and if not you will just have to conclude that the Labour Party no longer values Women's Rights.

• www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

For example the comparator to determine discrimination for a transwoman (male) would be another male without the pc of Gender Reassignment for determining whether that other male would be allowed (or not) to do thing that transwoman wants to do.

So in the case of a transwoman hcp where the female client asked for a female hcp, the transwoman brought a discrimination case but the comparator would be another male so that male would have been treated the same as the transwoman ie. not allowed to visit that client. the Legal Feminist website is useful for more info on the legal stuff.

The EA 2010 (the bit preventing discrimination on grounds of sex) has exceptions allowing discrimination on grounds of sex in certain cases ie. all rape shelters, all places where women will be undressed or sleeping, hospital wards etc. breastfeeding groups etc.

In the case of those exceptions, it is lawful to exlude all males (regardless of GRC) from those places/services. Having a GRC makes it a little harder but still allows exclusion.

Many orgs have been lied to by Stonewall in their training and the captured EHRC with the information your MP has. It is not correct and this was clarified by Liz Truss last year but many organisations are still claiming a lack of clarity and using that to argue that it is based on gender id and single sex facilities are open to all. The government needs to crack down on this hard.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

It’s sounds like your MP has just copied that from Stonewall. Is it too much to ask they engage their brains and read around a subject a little? This one doesn’t even seem to know or understand the Equality Act.

Toilets are single sex. One’s ‘gender identity’ is irrelevant. Gay men are also at risk of violence. Do they use our toilets too? The women’s toilets are for females. They’re not a general effing shelter for anyone who wants it.

I also love the way the only balancing of rights involved is for women to give theirs away.

He doesn’t care

Trans people, particularly trans women (and by extension, particularly black trans women) are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime and hate crime, and they, like everyone, must feel safe in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other facilities

I'd point out that in prisons natal males pose a risk to natal females- fpfw have references for this. And the people most vulnerable to being abused in prison are those who are the most marginalised, so people who are black or minority ethnic groups, and people with disabilities or trauma or severe mental illness or learning disabilities. (So it depends if she cares about those females)

I should have divided the 45 by 1/5 for the 200,000 figure and 1/2 for the 500,000 figure so the rate is per million

FFS...I really haven’t explained it well there either.

Times the Trans persons homicide stats by 5 for the 200,000 figure or by 2 for the 500,000 figure for a direct per million comparison. (UK)

So if where none last year - which is what everyone wants - in fact it would be 90 x times (2x45) the homicide rate for the under ones for the 500,000 figure and multiple that for the 200,000 figure.

Bloody hell - that’s is really shocking.

I think that is rights, someone else can correct if not. I am not going to correct myself again even if my calculations are in error.

Apologies - I should have divided the 45 by 1/5 for the 200,000 figure and 1/2 for the 500,000 figure so the rate is per million - to enable a direct comparison. This would be UK based - not just Eng and Wales as per the under ones stat.

Other posters can comment/provide links for the rate for transpeople - which thankfully is very very low or nil last year.

And that statistic comes from an organisation that embraces transgender ideology, so cannot even be accused of anti-trans bias.

Here you go.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/media/1652/statistics-briefing-child-deaths-abuse-neglect.pdf

P5-6 ‘children under one are the most likely to be killed by another person... 45 per million of population’ Eng and Wales

Estimates of transgender people = 200-500,000, (I had to google), and I believe - happily- there were no/very few murders of transgender people in England and Wales last year - please could someone correct me if I am wrong.

Therefore the under ones are 45 times more likely to be murdered than adults framed by your MP/Labour as the most vulnerable/at risk in society.

This is a disgrace - resources should be fully diverted/tailored to the reality of harms and risk in society.

This reads almost word for word the same as my male labour MP. I didn't actually bother with follow up, as it was clear he was just copy and pasting a stock response tbh. And not even thinking, even slightly about the points I brought up.

female victims in refuges must let male bodied people share their safe space

Female victims who are able to must.

Many of the most vulnerable female victims will not be able to be in refuges at all on those terms.

This involves excluding some females from any support, provision or resources to allow male people their preferred choice from all the provisions available.

That anyone can read that sentence without utter outrage at the gynephobia and the male supremacist values it has to be predicated on to exist at all, continues to stagger me. Unless you see people born with penises as inherently of much higher importance and value than those without, you cannot believe this is ok. That those who do will also often want to tell you all about how they don't believe in sex at the same time.... tells you how very little the brain has been engaged at all.