I just spent over an hour writing this:
Dear MP
I recently wrote to you to ask if you were aware that the government were consulting with and funding a group that openly advocated violence against women. and you haven't bothered to answer yet, but anyway... Having been shocked by this I have now read in some depth about the coming Gender ID bill and its possible outcomes. While I applaud the determination of Mrs May, Mr Corbyn and their MPs to further inclusion and reduce discrimination in our society, may I ask for your help with several elements of this bill?
There seems to be some confusion regarding the terminology, with the words gender and sex being conflated. If gender – a fluid, evolving personal choice of expression that should be free to all without fear or discrimination – simply replaces sex as the protected characteristic, then as a side effect all women and girls immediately lose the legal protections surrounding sex. Sexual assault and rape victims and the two women who are murdered by men, usually partners, per week in the UK, and young girls being taken out of the UK for FGM to take place, do not identify into that role through choice, and they cannot identify out of it to escape the fate inflicted on them solely because of their biology. Like the very distressing case of the transman raped in the back of a London taxi, who told the police ‘I kept telling him I was a man’. Surely it is possible to legally protect people’s right to express their gender freely without stereotypes or discrimination, alongside sex as a protected characteristic?
As you will be aware, Stonewall and trans organisations incorporate many groups under their umbrella in addition to people with gender dysphoria. These include cross dressers and those who enjoy autogynephilia, all of whom under the proposed legislation will be free to self identify into women’s spaces and have their presence there protected by law. While I have seen denial that autogynephilila exists (sexual arousal at dressing oneself, presenting as and enacting a feminine role amongst women particularly in personal and women only spaces) a search engine quickly finds forums of men who self identify as autogynephilic, and a huge amount of autogynephilic pornography (sissification). While adults’ sexual choices are wholly their own, currently a person with male biology exposing themselves to women or children for gratification are committing a sexual offence. As you will know, exposure is frequently seen in the early stages of sexual offending, which often escalates upwards through more serious offending and often leads in time to actual physical assault. Under the proposed legislation, a man will need only to self declare that he is a woman at times when it is convenient, and will be free to expose himself in any public changing room among women and children under full protection of the law, since he will be deemed a woman, changing among other women. Indeed the women and children will be guilty of a hate crime if they react to this as being inappropriate or threatening in a changing room, where as if the same man does it on the street he would be arrested.
Under the current proposed wording of the legislation, any woman or child using a public toilet or changing room would be available for use as a prop in someone else’s sexual experience, or involved in actual acts such as exposure. What are your feelings about this radical and slightly incoherent reconstruction of the law on sexual offences and about the vulnerability of women and children in this situation? Do you feel that a law meant to protect and support those with gender dysphoria should be so loosely worded that it can be taken full advantage of by any man who wishes to gain access to women’s spaces for sexual expression or offending? Do you feel that vulnerable people with gender dysphoria will in fact benefit or be protected by a law that is well intentioned but in fact lays itself so open to exploitation by others, or that they will benefit from what is likely to be strong public reaction to events that may come from dishonest people exploiting this legislation? Or that many trans people who are themselves raising these concerns are being dismissed? (I believe the word is ‘truscum’)
If I may draw your attention to the prisons’ report to the government on the sudden wave of referrals from male prisoners with no history of gender dysphoria wishing to transition: the reasons given by these men are quite open, and include increased access to victims and the additional privileges attached to transitioning. The prison service also reported that serious sexual offenders made up a very large and disproportionate part of these referrals. It seems at best extremely naive to believe based on this evidence, that sexual offenders will not take full advantage of the freedoms that self identification will permit. I understand Maria Miller’s response to this question has been that while this is likely, the rights of 600,000 trans people cannot be ignored. I agree they cannot be ignored, but is it really acceptable for this to be at the collateral damage to the rights of 30 million women and girls in the UK not to be victims of sexual abuse and violence? Is there no really no better way to achieve this?
Considering the extreme effort many sexual offenders will go to in order to groom victims, in particular child victims, what increased immediate access will a sexual offender have if they can merely enter a changing room at their local pool to watch children undress and shower rather than spend weeks on the internet coaxing a child to photograph themselves? Or to follow a woman into the privacy of a bathroom? You will no doubt have heard of and may well support the #Metoo campaign. May I ask what thorough investigation of safeguarding, connected with the police and the prison service’s wealth of data, and the years of intense government effort around the creation of better child safeguarding, has been carried out in the formation of this proposed legislation? There seems to be some serious cognitive dissonance taking place.
This proposed legislation, while obviously positive in intent, in its current wording creates a number of serious questions to be answered, and so far the answers are vague if they exist at all. It disproportionately affects women and children, and will inevitably lead to some very serious unintended consequences for those groups in its current form. Once it is enshrined in law, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for a government to undo. For this reason I would ask for your insights on the above questions, and I hope very much that this legislation will be responsibly delayed by parliament while a thorough investigation of possible outcomes and effects of the proposed wording takes place, with the results reported back to the house for full discussion.
Yrs, Buckets
Many many many elements missed, but I'm trying to keep my letters shortish, specifically to a couple of facts at a time rather than a huge rant, and the hope is to prod the wretched man to at least think a bit.
........And then I went to double check my facts on 'truscum' (trans people who believe that trans means gender dysphoria and are about as hated as terfs are) and went back down the rabbit hole of the headfuck that this is, and realised that no doubt my MP and probably everyone else involved in this bill knows perfectly well that the people they're enabling don't HAVE gender dysphoria, they just want to do whatever they want to do to be 'their true authentic selves' and are fine with that.
I'm seriously getting to the point of being so depressed about this that I'm losing the will to bother fighting. 
This is not a society I want to live in.