Here's my reply. I fear it is not all entirely coherent because I was fucked off, but it's sent now so too late. I am so pissed off. This is someone I stuck up posters for in the last election, not again. I was particularly annoyed by 'cis' too knicknack.
Dear Ms McCarthy,
I thank you for your somewhat delayed response to my request that you consider attending today's meeting between MP's, FPFW, Women's Place UK and Transgender Trend. A meeting which I note was requested due to Equalities minister Penny Mordaunt declining to meet with any of these groups to discuss many women's wide ranging concerns, despite recently meeting with transgender rights/activist groups.
You have kindly detailed your personal views on various matters relating to some areas of concern surrounding potential changes to the GRA. As you suggest you are open to hearing alternative views allow me to offer my response to them.
Sex specific spaces:
Whilst you correctly point out that changes to the GRA would not impact on the equalities act, I feel it must be noted that many councils throughout the UK (notably Scotland) have already been preemptively disregarding the equalities act in some of these areas in anticipation of changes to the GRA, particularly sex segregated spaces such as the women's toilets you mention. The current climate of unswerving insistence that transwomen are of no threat in any instance to women, that women who object to this are bigots, that changes to the GRA would have no impact on this, can only be heightened by GRA changes being made. Services which are able to segregate by sex will not in our current climate, regardless of if they are legally able - something which we have recently seen (as noted by you) in our prison system.
In the matter of domestic violence shelters, or rape crisis centres (which matter vastly more to me than toilets) as you point out transwomen are able to be excluded if detriment can be shown to female users. Women are now labled bigoted for stating that transwomen are not female, are not women; I cannot help but feel that no exclusions would be made as the women so affected by having male bodied people in these spaces would be given these labels of bigot, terf, delusional, transphobic. The female only spaces abused and traumatised women need in these situations will be taken from them. I assure you, when I was raped I would not have felt safe sharing my space with someone male bodied, regardless of the clothing they wore, their hair, or their make up. When I was violently sexually assaulted on a separate occasion, again, I felt safe only around women - the one's without penises, which over 80% of transwomen still have. Leaving women with the knowledge that they may be with male bodied people in these situations renders them unusable by many, many women. I absolutely agree that transwomen need equal services, but not at the expense of all the women this will alienate. Let us not pretend that transwomen 'pass' as women. They don't. having separate, specialised, services will not 'out' transwomen; it will enable female users to continue using female abuse support services, provide equal support for transgender people and hopefully also provide the unique and specialist support I'm sure transgernder people would need, which may not be available in current support set ups.
I feel this issue of enforced acceptance will equally also impact on area's which require shared sleeping areas varying from inpatient mental health support and hospitals right across to hostels (youth and homeless); both times I was attacked it started when I was asleep. I can no longer sleep in the same shared space as anyone male bodied that is not a family member or a sexual partner. If my assumption is correct, I will (and other women like me) be left unable to access many things. You note that checks would need to be more rigorous that they currently are to allow proposed changes to the GRA: I suggest that it is not possible to know who an abuser or rapist is until they abuse or rape you. This is the basic premise for sex segregated spaces. Sex, not gender. By no means are all men rapists, but we still sex segregate to enable the safety of women. Absolutely by no means do I consider that all transwomen are rapists or sex offenders! But some are, just like some men are (45% of transgender prison inmates have committed sexual offences), to enable women's safety, to protect them from this minority, transgender individuals MUST be excluded from female only spaces. Changes to the GRA WILL impact on this; it furthers the expectation that transwomen must be accepted in to female only spaces. Minority groups such as various religions, Romany, Irish traveller and others will be unable to use hostels, changing rooms hospitals, public toilets. Abused women will feel unsafe seeking help and support.
Distinction between sex and gender identity:
You state that sex is assigned at birth. This is incorrect. Sex is innate rather than assigned. I am female, a women, because of my chromosomes. These are not assigned to me.
Transwomen are not women. They should not be acknowledged as women, but as transwomen - with their own unique identity and experiences, which are not, cannot be, the identity of a woman. I am not a woman because I identify as one any more than I was a cat as a 5 year old when I was being one for weeks. I am a woman because of my genetic make up.
The risk of violent men entering women's spaces:
As I stated above, I do not feel it is possible to safeguard against this. In the same way that we do not ban only men with a violent or sexual criminal record from women's spaces but all men, it must be the same with transwomen. It is NOT POSSIBLE to identify who is a rapist until the first time they rape someone. This is why we segregate by sex. As we see in the media and stonewall guidance, there is no suggestion or expectation that a transwoman should physically appear as the gender to which they identify. Self ID opens women only spaces up to this minority of transgender individuals, it also opens them to the abusive men who would take advantage of this - while looking like men - who women would feel unable to challange.
You note that it is a tiny minority of transgender individuals who have harmed women in women only spaces. I would counter that transwomen criminally offend in the same pattern and at the same rates as men. Again, we sex segregate to protect women. Transwomen offend at the same rates as men. 98% of sex crime is by men. 90% of violent crime is by men, this is the pattern mirrored in trans offending.
TERF/ Silencing of women:
I applaud and whole heartedly agree with your opinion. Perhaps you could consider suggesting debate on all sides to Penny Mordaunt?
AWS:
I agree that there is little trans representation in British politics. We must not forget that AWS are used in politics because women are also under represented. It is wrong for women to be denied fair representation to allow for further representation for transgender individuals. Both need fair representation, not transwomen at the expense of women. Transwomen have a unique and different experience of life, not of womanhood; they are not women. The fact that Lily Madigan is a women's officer should be an embarrassment to the Labour Party; not I stress because of her trans status, but her inability to act in a professional manner (indeed frankly the manner of an adult, let alone a professional). The fact that she remains in her position, I can only think to attempt to prove Labour's liberal credentials on this matter, makes a laughingstock of Labour politics.
Sport:
In short, Transwomen have a larger frame, higher bone density, greater muscle building ability, higher testosterone (even when factoring in hormone medication). This means a transwoman will always be able to have physical superiority to a woman. Women will slowly be eradicated from professional sport.
In answer to your own questions:
I find the first difficult to answer as I am fundamentally against self ID. If pressed I would suggest at least 2 years, in line with current guidance. Particularly when one notes the current increase in teenagers identifying as transgender and then look again at the numbers of them detransitioning back to their birth gender. As it would not be reasonable to discriminate using age, I feel that this recent change in young people must be accounted for when making decisions on time frames.
In the context of health, whilst chosen pronouns should of course be acknowledged, the focus must be on sex not gender, Self ID must allow for obvious notes on medical files and also for a mechanism to be created in routine screening so that transwomen are still offered prostate screening and transmen cervical smears. While being reminded of there biologican sex may be unpleasant, it is an inescapable fact. Perhaps screenings could be done in GP appointments rather that specialist clinics as smears often are (and I presume also prostate exams)? This would hopefully remove some entirely avoidable upset around the situation.
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not think it is possible to appropriately improve risk assessments and safeguarding. The fact it is impossible to do so with men is why we sex segregate. The same is true of transwomen.
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response, even if t is in disagreement to my own opinions. I would point out that the term 'cis' is considered offensive by many women, myself included; this is perhaps something you could reconsider using in the future.