Response from MP about GRA and Self-ID...

[HomeTerf]

...Except she entirely fails to mention Self-ID (which was emphatically the primary concern I raised in my letter to her)

My first reaction was that it was a thorough and diplomatic response, though disappointing in that she clearly doesn't see the problem. On going back to read it again (because I felt pretty irked by it) I feel like it's just bland Stepford-speak delivered with a patronising smile, with BIGOT write large between every line. Am I being overly sensitive??
Here it is... (sorry for length)

Thank you for taking the time to contact me recently regarding the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

As you are probably aware the Government are due to launch a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act looking at how to improve the recognition process and reduce the stigma faced by the trans community. This was expected in autumn 2017 however is still yet to happen.

I think it is important that women do speak out on this issue whether in support or objection. Although our gender is the same, we are diverse in our thoughts and opinions. I do understand the very valid concerns you raise and note that there are many women who share these concerns.

We live in a democratic society and women should feel able to voice their opinion without fear of bullied by those with opposing views.

The UK has made extraordinary progress on improving the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in recent years. However, there are still gaps in trans people's legal rights and protections and it is my firm belief that no-one should be discriminated against because of their gender identity.

In January 2016, a report by the Women and Equalities Select Committee made several recommendations on transgender equality, including that the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 regarding trans people should be changed to 'gender identity'.

I am fully committed to equality for all and to protecting transgender people from discrimination. For the trans community in particular, I believe more needs to be done to ensure people feel as though the UK is a country in which identity is respected and supported.

I therefore believe that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 should be reformed to ensure that they protect trans people by changing the protected characteristic of 'gender assignment' to 'gender identity'. I would also like to see other outdated language such as 'transsexual' removed.

The Government have said that it will encourage women's refuges, women's rights charities and trans rights charities to respond to the consultation when it is launched. It is right that representations and evidence from all interested parties is taken into account and I hope that all views will be carefully considered as part of the consultation process.

Thank you once again for contacting me and for sharing your views. I can assure you I will continue to follow developments on these matters and bear in mind the points you raise, as previously stated they are valid. While I do not share the same view, I respect those that do and feel it is important that all our views are taken into account before any changes are implemented.

I am grateful to you for writing to me on this issue.

Any objective thoughts, and suggestions on whether (and how) to respond would be really appreciated.

I would most certainly right back asking how they will specifically protect women's rights in particular circumstances.

As an aside I had a thought the other day. What if a for example a muslim woman were to go to the doctors and request a female doctor (due to religious beliefs) and she was faced with a man who identified as a woman? How would that be managed? Would you only be allowed an actual female if you had the correct religious beliefs? I wonder if the government have thought about religion in this at all.

Oh shite. I don’t know what happened there! That was supposed to be yeah feminist .

We are asking why politicians are proposing a law that means any man can say he's a woman.

I actually think this is the line to take to MPs, Everyonematters. This is the question - the exact phrasing! - that every MP who supports this law should be forced to answer.

One thing I've noticed from the letters to MPs that people have posted is that many tend to be much more timid in language, carefully avoiding saying men or even male (using euphemisms instead such as 'male-bodied' or 'transwomen'), than the forthright language posters use in these threads when debating the issues. This reduces the force of the GC case considerably.

What politicians are blindly going along with here is nuts. Read the 'Please explain why you're pro self ID' thread. No one can do it. Even pro-trans people in that thread admit that it's an extreme idea that is open to abuse. Yet most lawmakers are just happily waving it through, because the euphemistic language around this issue prevents clear, rational thought about what is actually being proposed. They need to be made to see the dangerous absurdity of what they are endorsing, and the only way to do that is blunt language that doesn't allow them to dodge or obfuscate the issue. That means saying 'men' instead of 'transwomen' or 'male-bodied people'.

*write back

Sorry not feeling well today!

DonkeySkin I think that's why there was something jarring about her specific mention of 'replacing' the word transsexual. This is a debate where language is critical, and to officially replace a useful descriptive word with terms that are far more abstract and open to interpretation (and abuse) seems very sinister.

(Also - have noted that phrase and will use.)

Completely agree with DonkeySkin

Women are not the new guinea pigs to be experimented on here.

*We are asking why politicians are proposing a law that means any man can say he's a woman.

I actually think this is the line to take to MPs, Everyonematters. This is the question - the exact phrasing! - that every MP who supports this law should be forced to answer.

One thing I've noticed from the letters to MPs that people have posted is that many tend to be much more timid in language, carefully avoiding saying men or even male (using euphemisms instead such as 'male-bodied' or 'transwomen'), than the forthright language posters use in these threads when debating the issues. This reduces the force of the GC case considerably.

What politicians are blindly going along with here is nuts. Read the 'Please explain why you're pro self ID' thread. No one can do it. Even pro-trans people in that thread admit that it's an extreme idea that is open to abuse. Yet most lawmakers are just happily waving it through, because the euphemistic language around this issue prevents clear, rational thought about what is actually being proposed. They need to be made to see the dangerous absurdity of what they are endorsing, and the only way to do that is blunt language that doesn't allow them to dodge or obfuscate the issue. That means saying 'men' instead of 'transwomen' or 'male-bodied people'.*

OK, am going to write and ask this question.

Sorry bold fail.

We are asking why politicians are proposing a law that means any man can say he's a woman.

Maverick the situation Muslim women will find themselves in if this goes ahead definitely needs to be addressed, and I'll raise that. I wonder if the Muslim Council of Britain are aware of all this?

I missed your previous post Flamingowings (multi-tasking fail - am I even a woman at all?) Bloody love it. At least I've had a little laugh at her expense too now.

(If only in a dark, gallows-humour sort of way)

HomeTerf and Flamingo, I've highlighted the bit that is hopeful, which he's obviously added, and isn't part of the template they all seem to be churning out.
Not sure I will write back at this point.

I don't have time to RTFT right now but wanted to add my reply, also from a Labour MP, for comparison. Pretty vague but did acknowledge my concerns.

Destiny

That actually was less of a "you are wrong" brush off than the first one. It talks about avoiding unintended consequences which is good.

Flamingo, if I can fight that damn female socialisation that's taught me not to bother people and not to be a pain, I'll write to him again. It's heartening to see they've not all fallen down the rabbit hole.

Collidascope - they are paid to be bothered by you, it's the job he applied for.

Yes! They work for us, that's their job!

HomeTerf your MP sounds like my MP! I have not contacted her because I am guessing I will get a similar response. She was one of the people who signed a letter to the Jo Cox foundation telling them not to discriminate against their 'sister' Lily Madigan. So I am guessing the response will not be great.

Really grateful for these suggestions - thank you, as ever, for your individual and collective wisdom.

Susan that doesn't sound encouraging, but it's still worth getting your voice heard and making her accountable for her actions in parliament. As Flamingo and Mouthandtrousers said - MPs work for us and it's their job to represent our views. (And it would be very interesting to engage a Labour MP who defends Lily Madigan in discussion! I mean - HOW?!)