He's my MP. I've emailed him today to ask what his justification is and whether he doesn't think that it is suppression of highly relevant debate this close to the closure of the GRA consultation. I have had an auto reply saying he will respond within 10 working days.
Dear Mr Bercow
You are my constituency MP. Coverage of your refusal to allow the proposed UQ prompted by the Karen White case has alarmed me.
As the consultation period on changes to the GRA nears closure, stifling debate on one aspect of the impact on sex-based rights of allowing self-id, is very worrying.
I appreciate as president of an LGBT-advocacy group that you may feel in a difficult position on this. Please make yourself aware of the agenda of groups such as Fair Play for Women and A Woman's Place, and read the compelling journalism of Janice Turner to understand that there is no intention to discriminate against transgender people, but that the extension and protection of transgender rights needs to be progressed without diminishing the vital sex-based protections that women have fought hard to achieve.
Single-sex spaces are vital for women and girls for so many reasons. Many women in prisons will already have been the victims of assault and sexual violence by men. Allowing prisoners who are still intact males into women's prisons puts all women there at risk and is cruel beyond belief to those who have been victims of male violence and abuse.
Girls dealing with menstruation for the first time, or seeking refuge from the constant 'banter' on breast size and bras from their boy peers, need girls' toilets in schools.
Women and children sheltering in refuges having suffered or witnessed violence and abuse need space away from men: they do not need men, whether ill-intentioned or not, in the spaces that have been designed to help them recover from that trauma.
You will, I am sure, be aware of the multitude of strategies that have been employed by pressure groups and a small but very vocal group of academics to stifle public debate and questioning of the risks to women of allowing self-id: these include physical violence, attempts to remove women from their jobs (sometimes successfully), intimidation and no-platforming. Parliament should be above this.
I am a mother of two teenage children, one of them a daughter. I have fought for and celebrated equal rights for people regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. I firmly believe that transgender people should be afforded the same protection from discrimination and violence as anyone else. I do not think that that translates into allowing someone who retains a penis to be classed as a woman for the purposes of entry to places that are designated as single sex spaces for women.
The Karen White case is one example of the risks to women and came about because of interpretation of right-based law by a government institution. If that is not worthy of debate in Parliament, I would like to know why.
I look forward to your response.