Call to write to your MP before Commons debate

[GarlicSpartaterf]

On Thursday 1st December 2016, The House of Commons will debate a motion on Transgender Equality.

Maria Miller’s Committee has called for the removal of qualifying requirements for gender change, so that anyone could easily become legally a member of the opposite sex, without the need for any form of social or medical transition.

We’re asking anyone worried about the implications of this move to contact their MP.

"We" are Fair Play For Women. There's a lot more detail in the link.

thin air. Gah.

Yep.

IKR?!

assigned a sex. Stupid thing is, we get assigned a lot of stuff but not that.

I think we need to take that language (about the rights of one group not infringing on another) and keep using it to state our case, and ensure that we call out instances where this hasn't happened or where we see developments which would undermine this policy objectives, such as the recording official statistics without distinguishing between male / female / transmale / transfemale

"assigned a sex" makes me think of a sorting hat style process in the delivery room...

Oleanna, you have the opening sequence of the film right there....

"As the labour pains subsided to occasional pangs, and the sound of the newborn's wails filled the delivery room, Lily and James looked over at the midwife, anxious to find out the gender of their baby. Lily had not yet had the chance to hold her firstborn, but James had already seen a small penis nestled between the baby's chubby thighs.

The sorting hat hovered over baby, bundled in the midwife's arms - it seemed to take forever to decide - then suddenly shot upwards. The midwife, sensing her cue, took a deep breath. "Congratulations Mr and Mrs Potter - your baby has been assigned as a girl."

Hate to burst your bubble ... but why is sex assigned at birth and not on ultrasound scans? Maybe the hat needs to make its debut earlier (or trans discourse needs to catch up with technology) :).

Stupid thing is, we get assigned a lot of stuff but not that.

Yes - ""Congratulations Mr and Mrs Potter - your baby has been assigned as a girl. I'm very sorry, but that means a life of being expected to like pink, sparkles and princesses, dollies and toys that will prepare her to be the primary childcarer and to do wifework, etc.'.

You're right, of course, though the ultrasonic sorting hat will be doing head scans to look for lady brains, rather than bothering with genitals.

I'm now imagining an ultrasound done with a gooed-up sorting hat ... looking for lady brains, as you say ...

olennas

I think we need to take that language (about the rights of one group not infringing on another) and keep using it to state our case, and ensure that we call out instances where this hasn't happened or where we see developments which would undermine this policy objectives, such as the recording official statistics without distinguishing between male / female / transmale / transfemale

This would be a great idea except I can see trouble over this tricky definition of woman getting in the way. Once there is an 'F' on your documents you are, to all intents and purposes, a woman, not a transwoman.

May I request some help?
I've had a reply from MP saying I've misunderstood and there's no plans to introduce self identification
I am completely baffled.
What should I be looking at to check who is correct?

Lorelei

lorelei

fairplayforwomen.com/

Under ' unintended consequences', press continue reading, scroll down click on full screen, 2nd page, 1st bullet. Also 3rd page, 1st para.

The proposals are to push forward so identification. Your MP is misinformed.

My SNP MP didn't even bother to reply to me, she will have to consult SNP HQ for what her opinion on this is, I suspect they will take what they misguidedly think to be a 'progressive' line on this.

I had no reply either. The SNP/Scottish Government are very (scarily) pro self identification etc

Thanks Datun

I'll need to look at this later on a proper PC because I'm not getting an option to read the full page

However, I think that I will need to try and dig out something official from the committee in order to be on safe ground when I write back.

He has talked about changes to the way the GRC is allocated and mentioned Tara Hudson as an example of someone who had medical treatment but was treated according to lack of GRC.

he didn't go near addressing my other points because he thinks he's addressed it all by saying medical treatment would be required.

I'm now wondering if we are in one of those surreal Daniel Hannan, Evan Davis Brexit moments IYSWIM. You know, when we actually have a referendum and then someone says maybe Brexit means we'll pay to stay in the EU and continue open borders and everyone else goes, WTF. So Maria Miller might be saying lets talk about self ID with no medical treatment but just means it as a weird opening gambit.

I emailed my MP a week or so before the 1st Dec, and this morning received this reply
(summarised)

Dear 0phelia, I was unable to attend but I want to honest with you, if I had attended I would have spoken in favour of the motion as I do not share your perspective that trans-equality this will lead to a limitation of the rights of women. In fact I believe it is important for the feminist movement to be trans-inclusive as part of an intersectional understanding about inequality.

I think she shares the viewpoint of most "right-on" MP's. I expected her to be in favour tbh but at least she replied honestly.

Ophelia, that's so depressing. Your MP has clearly drunk her fill of the trans Kool Aid. It's so worrying that people are unable to apply critical thought to this issue and genuinely think they are being progressive and liberal in backing trans rights when in fact they are significantly contributing to the wrecking of womens rights. How can people not see this??

It's enough to make me not want to vote for them

My MP has forwarded my concerns to the Ministry of Justice. But I'd quite like to know where she stands herself...

I have finally got a response to my letter. It looks like my MP just forwarded it on. Then he has forwarded their reply to me. I answers nothing and mixes sex and gender in the same sentences. It is from Caroline Dinenage.

This is the bulk of the letter which does nothing to address my points. I just focusses on toilets and ignores any other point raised, eg sports.

Your constituent has raised some examples of the alleged conflict between
transgender rights and women’s rights. I would like to assure her that the
Government promotes equality for all - there is no hierarchy of equality.
We have rightly raised the profile of transgender equality in the past few years as many transgender people still encounter prejudice and discrimination. This focus, however, has not been to the detriment to women.

We fully understand the need for provision of single and separate sex
services, such as toilets, changing rooms, bathing and accommodation
facilities. The Equality Act 2010 allows for separate male or female services
to be provided. The Act also allows a business or service provider to decide
whether and how a transperson can use separate sex services appropriate to their acquired gender.

We have issued guidance, ‘Providing services for transgender customers: a
guide’, which provides examples of transwomen’s access to single and
separate sex services used by women. The law makes clear that separate
male or female services exist for a reason — to provide gender appropriate
services. The guide is available at: tinyurl.com/r9nmn3s.

The provision of toilets and other single sex or communal facilities, such as
changing rooms, bathing and accommodation is a particularly sensitive issue. A business or service provider can decide whether and how a transperson can use such a service, depending on all the circumstances, but the decision must be ‘objectively justified’ - in other words, it must be a fair and reasonable way of achieving a legitimate aim. This allows a service provider to consider a range of factors, from the nature of the service to the presentation and gender of the individual.

The final sentence of your reply is interesting, MrsG, particularly the reference to "presentation". Does that mean discretion can be applied in relation to the Danielle Muscatos of this world? Does "has made no effort to transition despite identifying as a woman" count as objective justification? (I get that it would have to framed around something like the dignity, safety & privacy of bio women to provide an objective justification, but is still an interesting nuance.)

MrsGWay

I had almost exactly the same letter which my MP had forwarded to Caroline Dinenage. Except that she also added that the existence of autogynephilia was controversial as I had asked them to address it directly. I am going to respond because it is remarkable that anyone could possibly deny the existence of AGP given the number of websites devoted to it.