Page 2 | Reply from my Labour MP

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 2025-08-05T07:48:30+00:00

I wrote to my newly elected Labour MP after the SC ruling asking him how his government were going to support WOMEN’S rights to access SSS, and I finally received this reply yesterday. As you will see, there’s not one mention of the word woman or women. At least he’s clarified that Labour don’t support women. ’Thank you for contacting me about this Supreme Court ruling and transgender rights in our country. This ruling comes at a time when the discourse – and media commentary – around transgender rights can often be overly simplistic, toxic and politically charged, leading to debates in Parliament and the media that may not accurately reflect the lived experiences of trans people. As responsible politicians, we must understand that this concerns real people's lives, dignity, and fundamental rights. Indeed, Human Rights Watch has expressed concern that this ruling threatens the rights of trans people, and we must not ignore these very real implications. Recent statistics continue to show concerning levels of hate crime against trans people, with 4,700 hate crimes committed against trans people in the year leading to March 2023, representing an 11% increase on the previous year. While some argue that rising numbers result from better recording of hate crime, I do not believe this accounts for the full scale of the increase. We must make the UK safer for trans people and ensure every victim of hate crime is treated equally. Following this Supreme Court ruling, it is more important than ever that we focus on supporting trans people through these challenging times. While the decision may provide some legal clarity around single-sex services, campaigners rightly point out that it could lead to discrimination, especially over employment issues. We must ensure that this legal development does not become a license for discrimination or prejudice. We must also continue supporting the implementation of the Equality Act 2010, ensuring that while legal definitions may be clarified, the fundamental principle of treating all people with respect and dignity remains paramount. I will continue to advocate for policies that protect trans people from discrimination and ensure that they can access the healthcare, support services, and basic respect that every person deserves. Alongside colleagues in Parliament, I am engaging with the EHRC to ensure that trans voices are not overlooked or side-lined following this Supreme Court ruling.’

PhilOPastry62 · 05/08/2025 16:01

moto748e · 05/08/2025 15:35

After a few green shoots lately, I was musing that maybe by the time of the next election I'd be able to vote Labour again, but then you read responses like the OP's, and realise they are still a basket-case. Obviously it's 'only' a back-bench MP, but it's still worrying.

Edited

I'm not so sure. Obviously there are plenty of batshit crazy Labour MPs. But I don't think the party as a whole is where it was, and the ideologues are on the back benches rather than calling the shots as they were a few years ago. Wes Streeting has upheld the Cass Review, and Bridget Philippson has just waved aside 'concerns' expressed by the captured committees and gone ahead and appointed Mary-Ann Stephenson as incoming chair of the EHRC amidst howls of protest about her being a transphobe. It looks to me as though Labour are heading in the right direction, though not yet where they should be.

Those of us in Scotland are going to have a decision to make next spring when we elected the next Holyrood parliament. Let's hope Scottish Labour have established some credibility on women's rights by the time we get there.

moto748e · 05/08/2025 15:35

After a few green shoots lately, I was musing that maybe by the time of the next election I'd be able to vote Labour again, but then you read responses like the OP's, and realise they are still a basket-case. Obviously it's 'only' a back-bench MP, but it's still worrying.

deadpan · 05/08/2025 15:14

deadpan · 05/08/2025 15:12

Sadly I'm not surprised. There are still too many MPs on the left who don't give a shit about women and they're so into their anti discriminatory bubble that they don't care what the plebs think. And I'm a lefty!
I had a similar response from Amnesty UK after their boss appeared on woman's hour. I wrote a friendly complaint making it very clear that I supported trans people's rights and wanted them to have as comfortable life as possible. The reply came back with a full on large paragraph about hostility and violence towards trans people. So I replied challenging this approach because all I'd said was I found the bosses responses on the programme to be lacking. I ended up having quite a conversation with the customer relations person, via emails, and gently made my position clear that not wanting trans women in single sex facilities for females was in no way saying I condoned violence and discrimination towards them. I also asked for my comments in all the emails to be forwarded to the boss. Who knows if they were 🤷🏼♀️

Don't know where the ♀️ came from 🤔

deadpan · 05/08/2025 15:12

Sadly I'm not surprised. There are still too many MPs on the left who don't give a shit about women and they're so into their anti discriminatory bubble that they don't care what the plebs think. And I'm a lefty!
I had a similar response from Amnesty UK after their boss appeared on woman's hour. I wrote a friendly complaint making it very clear that I supported trans people's rights and wanted them to have as comfortable life as possible. The reply came back with a full on large paragraph about hostility and violence towards trans people. So I replied challenging this approach because all I'd said was I found the bosses responses on the programme to be lacking. I ended up having quite a conversation with the customer relations person, via emails, and gently made my position clear that not wanting trans women in single sex facilities for females was in no way saying I condoned violence and discrimination towards them. I also asked for my comments in all the emails to be forwarded to the boss. Who knows if they were 🤷🏼♀️

Grammarnut · 05/08/2025 14:13

CorruptedCauldron · 05/08/2025 10:14

The free AI detector Quillbot has flagged up that 65% of the letter is likely AI generated. When MPs can’t even be bothered to write human responses to a human rights issue, then I guess we’re screwed.

And AI won't write anything anti-trans as it's 'controversial'.

Grammarnut · 05/08/2025 14:11

Did he read your letter? Doesn't look like it. And totally misunderstands the scope of the SC judgement and that it also protected gender reassignment, and the rights of transmen to maternity care!

HornyHornersPinkyWinky · 05/08/2025 12:46

Wow OP, what a bullshit reply you got - full of waffly nonsense and buzz words that mean very little, how disappointing.

I love your response, but to be honest I wouldn’t be telling them that you will spoil your vote in the next election. As much as it is how you feel and may be what you actually do, it doesn’t harm their election chances as much as a vote for their competitor would.

Vegemiteandhoneyontoast · 05/08/2025 11:57

I had a very similar exchange with my Lib Dem MP a few months ago. He sent me a reply that was almost entirely about trans people and didn't mention women. With the help of those in FWR I put together this reply to him, but heard nothing back.

"Thank you for your letter which sets out in great detail your commitment to the safety and dignity of transgender people.

My letter was about the safety and dignity of women, who you don't mention at all in your reply, nor do you say whether or not you will abide by the Supreme Court's clarification of the law - did you mistakenly send out the wrong letter by any chance?"

Original poster

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 05/08/2025 11:47

PhilOPastry62 · 05/08/2025 11:39

That's a dreadful email from your MP, but I love your response. Strikes the right balance of seriousness and sarcasm.

I had a very different reply from my MP, also one of the newly-elected ones last year. I'd been in touch with him and met with him when he was standing for election. He was reasonably open-minded, but didn't know much about the issue and I got the feeling it would never be anywhere close to his priority list, but at least he wasn't batshit crazy. Anyway, I wrote to him after the SC judgement and got this:

"Thank you for getting back in touch with me regarding the important issue of women's rights to single-sex spaces in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment. I appreciate your engagement on this matter and welcome the opportunity to share my position.

As your Labour MP, I am committed to ensuring the safety, privacy, and dignity of all women, which is why I support the provision and protection of single-sex spaces as set out in Labour's landmark Equality Act. These spaces are vital for many women, offering security and comfort in various settings, such as refuges and changing rooms. You may recall that Labour committed to the protection of single-sex provisions in our manifesto. The Supreme Court has clarified the basis on which single-sex spaces can be made available, and relevant ministers will work with institutions in the public, voluntary and private sectors to ensure compliance with the law.

At the same time, it is essential that we uphold principles of inclusion and respect for all individuals, and the Supreme Court confirmed the importance of rights for all protected characteristics. Balancing these priorities requires thoughtful dialogue and policy-making, grounded in compassion and community understanding. I am dedicated to advocating for measures that ensure women feel safe and respected while fostering a society that is inclusive for everyone. Your input is invaluable in shaping these efforts, and I welcome any further thoughts you might have."

A bit of both-sides-ing at the end there which I could have done without, but overall a much better attempt than the OP's MP!

At least yours actually read your email and put some thought into the reply, but I agree about the mealy mouthed bit at the end, they can’t help themselves can they?!

OP posts:

Original poster

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 05/08/2025 11:45

MarieDeGournay · 05/08/2025 11:19

I love your reply, LadyBracknellsHandbagg, we obviously delve into the same Handbaaaagggg of Sarcasm to respond to eejits like your MP😁

🥰🥰

OP posts:

PhilOPastry62 · 05/08/2025 11:39

That's a dreadful email from your MP, but I love your response. Strikes the right balance of seriousness and sarcasm.

I had a very different reply from my MP, also one of the newly-elected ones last year. I'd been in touch with him and met with him when he was standing for election. He was reasonably open-minded, but didn't know much about the issue and I got the feeling it would never be anywhere close to his priority list, but at least he wasn't batshit crazy. Anyway, I wrote to him after the SC judgement and got this:

"Thank you for getting back in touch with me regarding the important issue of women's rights to single-sex spaces in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment. I appreciate your engagement on this matter and welcome the opportunity to share my position.

As your Labour MP, I am committed to ensuring the safety, privacy, and dignity of all women, which is why I support the provision and protection of single-sex spaces as set out in Labour's landmark Equality Act. These spaces are vital for many women, offering security and comfort in various settings, such as refuges and changing rooms. You may recall that Labour committed to the protection of single-sex provisions in our manifesto. The Supreme Court has clarified the basis on which single-sex spaces can be made available, and relevant ministers will work with institutions in the public, voluntary and private sectors to ensure compliance with the law.

At the same time, it is essential that we uphold principles of inclusion and respect for all individuals, and the Supreme Court confirmed the importance of rights for all protected characteristics. Balancing these priorities requires thoughtful dialogue and policy-making, grounded in compassion and community understanding. I am dedicated to advocating for measures that ensure women feel safe and respected while fostering a society that is inclusive for everyone. Your input is invaluable in shaping these efforts, and I welcome any further thoughts you might have."

A bit of both-sides-ing at the end there which I could have done without, but overall a much better attempt than the OP's MP!

MarieDeGournay · 05/08/2025 11:19

I love your reply, LadyBracknellsHandbagg, we obviously delve into the same Handbaaaagggg of Sarcasm to respond to eejits like your MP😁

Christwosheds · 05/08/2025 11:12

twistyizzy · 05/08/2025 09:02

All they ever do is send a copy and paste reply from an obviously pre-prepared statement. They have them for every topic.

Yes I had a similar response years ago, no mention of women or women’s rights.

Justwrong68 · 05/08/2025 10:54

Looks like the office clerk sent you the wrong standard reply

NameChangedOfc · 05/08/2025 10:44

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 05/08/2025 10:37

This is very good advice, thank you, I too love a bit of passive aggressive barely concealed sarcasm 😂 as is evidenced in my reply-

‘Given the nature of my enquiry I find it absolutely staggering that you have omitted to use the word ‘woman’ or women’ at all in your reply, and your whole focus was on the rights of trans people. As far as the law stands, and as a result of the FWS Supreme Court ruling, no rights have been removed from trans people, they have the same rights as anyone else, it merely clarified the law in this area, and established that instead of public institutions and businesses using the interpretation of the law as set out incorrectly by Stonewall, that they should be following the actual law.
My enquiry was actually about what your government intended to do to protect the rights of WOMEN to access single sex spaces, but I can see that that isn't something that concerns you. I hesitate to point out to you that 2/3 women per WEEK are murdered in this country, and the epidemic of VAWG is unending, yet all I hear from your government are empty words about what could be done, with very little action, when one of the simplest things you could do is protect our rights to SSS, which is already enshrined in law. It would appear like many of your colleagues; you either haven't read the FWS judgement or you haven't understood it.

You have confirmed what I have long suspected, that large parts of the Labour Party have no interest in upholding the rights of 51% of the electorate, so thank you for clarifying that. It will make my voting decision much easier at the next election, as myself and thousands of other women now find ourselves politically homeless. My only option will be to spoil my ballot paper.’

Show quote history

Brilliant response 👏

Original poster

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 05/08/2025 10:41

It really pissed me off when I read it, absolutely unbelievable.

OP posts:

DCorMe · 05/08/2025 10:38

That’s really pissed me off on your behalf.
I would be sending @MarieDeGournay’s suggested response and that if wishes to get re-elected he may wish to engage with 51% of his constituents.

Original poster

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 05/08/2025 10:37

MarieDeGournay · 05/08/2025 10:29

I like the suggestion of replying by saying oh dear, a bit of an admin mix-up in your office, you sent me an email about 0.2% of the population [or whatever the % trans is], but I had asked about 51% of the population - could you please let me have your answer regarding the part of the electorate I asked about: women.
I love a bit of passive-aggressive barely concealed sarcasm in these cases

I hope you get a 2nd reply OP but as you say, it's unlikely.

Queries to MPs could be framed in such a way as to 'head them off at the pass', something like
'While your commitment to rights for transgender people are already well known, and shared - trans people are of course entitled to the same human rights as any other portion of the population - I would appreciate a statement of how you intend to protect and promote the rights of women, focusing specifically on the group which forms 51% of the population.'

Get the ref to trans rights out of the way in the first line, and make them focus on women's rights - or not, but then at least their anti-women bias is clearly revealed.

I'd be in favour of sending it on to Labour HQ or something, as an example of how badly their MPs are responding to queries - irrelevant AI-generated stuff that is alienating voters.

This is very good advice, thank you, I too love a bit of passive aggressive barely concealed sarcasm 😂 as is evidenced in my reply-

‘Given the nature of my enquiry I find it absolutely staggering that you have omitted to use the word ‘woman’ or women’ at all in your reply, and your whole focus was on the rights of trans people. As far as the law stands, and as a result of the FWS Supreme Court ruling, no rights have been removed from trans people, they have the same rights as anyone else, it merely clarified the law in this area, and established that instead of public institutions and businesses using the interpretation of the law as set out incorrectly by Stonewall, that they should be following the actual law.
My enquiry was actually about what your government intended to do to protect the rights of WOMEN to access single sex spaces, but I can see that that isn't something that concerns you. I hesitate to point out to you that 2/3 women per WEEK are murdered in this country, and the epidemic of VAWG is unending, yet all I hear from your government are empty words about what could be done, with very little action, when one of the simplest things you could do is protect our rights to SSS, which is already enshrined in law. It would appear like many of your colleagues; you either haven't read the FWS judgement or you haven't understood it.

You have confirmed what I have long suspected, that large parts of the Labour Party have no interest in upholding the rights of 51% of the electorate, so thank you for clarifying that. It will make my voting decision much easier at the next election, as myself and thousands of other women now find ourselves politically homeless. My only option will be to spoil my ballot paper.’

OP posts:

99bottlesofkombucha · 05/08/2025 10:34

NameChangedOfc · 05/08/2025 10:30

What a disgustingly patronising reply. God, I hate politicians.
Also, what's the difference between that nonsense and anything written by ChatGPT?

This prob was ChatGPT; but I’ d say the difference is ChatGPT can generate a wide range of response types and this mp can only generate bullshit.

NameChangedOfc · 05/08/2025 10:34

CorruptedCauldron · 05/08/2025 10:14

The free AI detector Quillbot has flagged up that 65% of the letter is likely AI generated. When MPs can’t even be bothered to write human responses to a human rights issue, then I guess we’re screwed.

See? It's obvious!

On the other hand, maybe it is the AI that has learnt to write nonsensical babble that feels devoid of substance and humanity from precisely these kind of manchurian candidate individuals.
What a waste of space these people are.

RoyalCorgi · 05/08/2025 10:30

The endless stupidity is very depressing. You could understand that maybe five or six years ago this stuff wasn't much reported on and therefore MPs could be excused for not having a full grasp of the issues. But now? After the Supreme Court ruling? Come on.

NameChangedOfc · 05/08/2025 10:30

What a disgustingly patronising reply. God, I hate politicians.
Also, what's the difference between that nonsense and anything written by ChatGPT?

Original poster

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 05/08/2025 10:29

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2025 10:17

It’s shocking that he’s sent some copy and paste AI shite without engaging with the actual point the constituent was asking about. Can you make an appointment to see him?

He said this at the end of the email -

‘I feel you may like to discuss your concerns regarding these matters further?’

What is the point of discussing my concerns with him when he hasn’t even bothered to read my email properly and has completely ignored them with this reply?! It’s actually really helped to clarify things for me, because he’s told me the truth by mistake, so at least I won’t waste anymore time with Labour. They don’t value women’s votes.

OP posts:

MarieDeGournay · 05/08/2025 10:29

I like the suggestion of replying by saying oh dear, a bit of an admin mix-up in your office, you sent me an email about 0.2% of the population [or whatever the % trans is], but I had asked about 51% of the population - could you please let me have your answer regarding the part of the electorate I asked about: women.
I love a bit of passive-aggressive barely concealed sarcasm in these cases

I hope you get a 2nd reply OP but as you say, it's unlikely.

Queries to MPs could be framed in such a way as to 'head them off at the pass', something like
'While your commitment to rights for transgender people are already well known, and shared - trans people are of course entitled to the same human rights as any other portion of the population - I would appreciate a statement of how you intend to protect and promote the rights of women, focusing specifically on the group which forms 51% of the population.'

Get the ref to trans rights out of the way in the first line, and make them focus on women's rights - or not, but then at least their anti-women bias is clearly revealed.

I'd be in favour of sending it on to Labour HQ or something, as an example of how badly their MPs are responding to queries - irrelevant AI-generated stuff that is alienating voters.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2025 10:17

It’s shocking that he’s sent some copy and paste AI shite without engaging with the actual point the constituent was asking about. Can you make an appointment to see him?