Help me reply to my MP? My head is too tired for this.

[Herja]

This is the reply I was sent to an email detailing my concerns about protecting single sex spaces for women. I highlighted the reason for single sex spaces, that there is a rape/attempted rape on uk women every 6 minutes and that we do not sex segregate against rapists only, but against everyone with the penis necessary for rape. Then that transwomen offend in the same patterns and at the same rates as men.

This is the reply I was sent. I am too fucking tired. I am tired of being raped and I'm tired of thinking about the times I have been. I am so sick of being told that what happened to me is a shame, but that trans rights should be put before the safety of women. Help me out? What do I reply to this, other than than 'thanks for fuck all. You will never have my vote again' ? Normally I am eloquent, with excellent points, but this email has made me sit and cry.

*Thanks for getting in touch with me recently regarding the Government’s proposals to scrap Gender Recognition Act (GRA) reform, and to introduce safeguards for single-sex spaces. I was very sorry to hear about your experience of rape and sexual assault.

I know this is an emotive and contentious issue, and I understand the concerns you raise.

However, I am in favour of GRA reform, and in light of the Government’s recent actions, the Labour Party has re-committed itself to updating the GRA and upholding the Equality Act, too. This will be done in a practical and respectful way. My view is that the current process to get legal recognition of gender identity is overly medicalised and takes too long. I support moves towards a system of self-ID as I think this is fairer, and less traumatic for trans people. While I do understand concerns about how abusive men may exploit this process, I think there are many means for abusive men to access vulnerable women and children, and I don’t think that trans people should be denied rights because a minority of people will seek to exploit a new process.

I also support self-ID in general because I think people should be able to define in a way that respects their gender identity and status. As you'll know, Labour’s All Women’s Shortlists are open to all women, including trans women, and trans women can also run for women’s officer posts within the Labour Party. I feel it is important to say that at the time of writing, I have received 61 emails from constituents opposing the Government’s stance, and 6 supporting it. Equally, 70% of responses to the GRA consultation supported moves towards self-ID.

On single-sex spaces, I think people should be able to access facilities that match their gender identity, as they have done for many years. Indeed, under the Equality Act, trans people have the right to access single-sex services in line with their ‘acquired gender’, and they are not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or have undergone any form of medical intervention, to be eligible for support in these services. However, under the Act, it is lawful for single-sex services to provide a different service or refuse their service to someone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’, in circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

Trans people, particularly trans women (and by extension, particularly black trans women) are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime and hate crime, and they, like everyone, must feel safe in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other facilities. Of course, everyone, whether trans or cis, should use such facilities respectfully, and with consideration for other users, but the vast majority of people do so in any case. On refuges, I think the focus should be on ensuring services have the resources they need to meet the needs of cis women and trans women. We do of course also need to listen to people’s genuine concerns about safe spaces, particularly those like yourself who have been the victim of assault or abuse – but I think these concerns can, and should, be addressed in a sensitive way without discriminating against trans people.

As I’ve already said, this is a nuanced and fraught debate, and one which cannot be adequately discussed and addressed on social media or through the leaking of review recommendations. These discussions must be conducted on the basis of fact and respect, and Labour is committed to listening to women and to LGBT+ communities to ensure our policies protect and respect everyone’s rights.

It’s important to note that as yet, no official proposals have been published, and it’s unclear whether they will even go to a vote. With this in mind, I think it’s important that we wait for Liz Truss to release completed official documents before deciding on a perspective.

Once again, I want you to know that I am listening and that I take on board all perspectives on this issue, even if they differ from my own. Thanks once again for taking the time to contact me.*

well done for writing.

I have received a similar reply. It's just so depressing that they won't even engage with the issues. They have no answers.

You could ask why he is so happy to accept that men will assault women that he is happy to make it easier?
You can point out the facts about the rate of assault in mixed vs single sex changing rooms

You might ask why they are happy to support transwomen, but what are they planning to do for none binary people who do not have a clear gender identity and would be hurt and discriminated against in a system that insists on a gender binary ?

You might ask how this might impact on certain ethnic minorities ?

You could ask why he is so happy to accept that men will assault women that he is happy to make it easier?
You can point out the facts about the rate of assault in mixed vs single sex changing rooms

You might ask why they are happy to support transwomen, but what are they planning to do for none binary people who do not have a clear gender identity and would be hurt and discriminated against in a system that insists on a gender binary ?

You might ask how this might impact on certain ethnic minorities ?

You might also ask him to revisit that 70% approval from the survey.

And how exactly: 'I think these concerns can, and should, be addressed in a sensitive way without discriminating against trans people.'

The Labour Party is such a load of bollocks. This stuff has left me politically homeless, I resigned my membership after the jaw -dropping spectacle of the leadership contenders spouting this nonsense. I’m so sorry you have been so hurt by it. You are 100% right to feel as upset as you do, and they are 100% in the wrong

If that's based on the latest Labour position, Keir Starmer is doubling down. Fuxake.

You might ask why they are happy to support transwomen, but what are they planning to do for non binary people who do not have a clear gender identity and would be hurt and discriminated against in a system that insists on a gender binary ?

GENIUS! I'm going to point out that to avoid discrimination, we really do need a third space...

We have previously discussed the impact on orthodox religious women and the travelling community and how this will massively affect them. Also about the impact of women in prisons, rape crisis centres and womens shelters. She didn't have any answers and just moved in to how much transpeople suffer and how I should be kind and tolerant.

I find it particularly painful that my MP is a woman.

Right, my advice is to shelve it for tonight, have a gin and/or chocolate, and watch something feel-good on tv, then get an early night.

I am sorry to hear that you have been raped, and it is dreadful that your MP cannot see the issue here.

For tomorrow, others here will likely write longer and better responses than me, but a few things that jumped out at me are:

1. Labour are not upholding the Equality Act if they support self ID, as SEX (not gender) is a protected characteristic, and it is perfectly legal to ban biological males from certain female spaces under certain exemptions.

2. Just because there are many other ways for abusive men to access vulnerable women, that does not mean we should add another way for them to do so (self ID). We should be reducing the ways they can access vulnerable women.

3. Trans people are not being denied rights. They have facilities provided which are appropriate for their biological sex. If this isn't acceptable, they must campaign for gender neutral 3rd spaces.

4. Having women-only shortlists and positions open to biological men, takes away the whole point of having these positions. The shortlists are created so that women who have not benefitted from male socialisation and favouritism in their careers hitherto, can have a chance at a position they deserve to hold. It is their experience of being discriminated against due to being a biological female, which has held them back. Women's officers should only be biological women, because they have experienced being held back due to sex discrimination, whereas a biological male would have no experience of this, whether they wore a dress or not.

5. The reason 70% of GRA consultation responses were in favour if self ID, was because TRAs encouraged supporters to fill it in multiple times, and also encouraged children to complete it (all using pre-filled responses). Maybe FPFW has more info on this?

6. I'm not sure it is correct that a GRC is currently not legally needed to access single sex spaces of the opposite biological sex.

7. I think there are statistics which prove that trans women are not the most marginalised. Perhaps another poster can point you towards the stats of violence against TW vs that towards actual women. The stats of being murdered by a partner are particularly bad for women compared to TW I believe.

I hope some of this is helpful

From the Manchester Evening News:

According to the Times insider, the public consultation received more than 100,000 responses, of which 70pc backed the idea that anyone should be able to declare their gender.

However, the insider said that officials felt the results were “skewed by an avalanche of responses generated by trans rights groups”.

I can't find a better source than this. Maybe The Times would be useful if anyone who subscribes can check?

That is helpful LittleCabbage, as is your other advice. I am going to try to ignore this for a bit and revisit when I'm calmer.

I think what really gets to me is just the lack of care. No one cares what happens to women, so long as everyone else is fine. Women get attacked? Fuck it. At least someone else felt validated that day. I have been raped twice and attacked by someone too drunk to maintain an erection, so they assaulted me with an object instead. Three different occasions, two with other people around. I already see it as inevitable that I will be raped or internally attacked again. It seems to happen every 5 years, so I'm due another next year. This is not uncommon. Yet my MP couldn't give a fuck about the safety of women.

This may be useful:

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

Women really do not make very effective human shields to protect against male violence.

About all you can do for your MP is to give them the statistics that disprove the claim that Trans people, particularly trans women (and by extension, particularly black trans women) are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime and hate crime, and they, like everyone, must feel safe in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other facilities.
Mixed sex facilities are more dangerous for women and girls.
There is no evidence that transwomen get more than the side eye when using their same sex facilities.

It's exhausting fighting it, isn't it? But I truly believe that people will look back on this gender identity bullshit in ten years time, and be astounded that it got as far as it has. We are definitely on the right side of history.

fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/

I'm so very sorry to hear what has happened to you Herja. This must feel like a kick in the guts. Sending you love and solidarity

Last one:

fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murder-rates/

I don't have any real advice, but this sentence jumped out at me:

I have received 61 emails from constituents opposing the Government’s stance, and 6 supporting it.

I think this goes to show that everyone who feels strongly about this needs to write to their MP. I need to do this too. I have written to BoJo, Keir Starter and Liz Truss but not my MP because it feels pointless. However, if we don't, the MPs will just dismiss our concerns and say 'well nobody else minds'.

Thanks for writing to yours. I'm sure others have far more constructive advice to share!

@EdgeOfACoin you are so right.

You could point out that the GRC application isn't over medicalised as no hormones or surgery are necessary.

A medical report is required from two doctors and any details of the above should be included but it is not a base-line requirement.

Also no inspectors go round to check that someone is living in their 'acquired gender'.

The government website with the guidance on the process is really clear, you could direct your MP to that.

I'm very sorry

Quite honestly (and as a Labour voter even at the last election) I wouldn't waste any further time replying.
It doesn't matter what Labour says. They are out of power for at least another 4 and a half years and seem set on making it longer.

I think we would be better off using our energises to encourage Liz Truss to stand firm.

I have received 61 emails from constituents opposing the Government’s stance, and 6 supporting it.

MPs should not be removing parts of the Safeguarding framework on the basis of proportion of supportive letters to their inbox.
MPs core responsibility is to all their constituents.
The women in prison, care homes, refuges, homeless shelters, hospital wards, bail hostels etc will not be aware of the implication of this policy.

I wonder how this MP would respond to the two young girls who were terrorised and assaulted by K. Dolatowski whilst using women's supermarket toilets in Scotland
Dolatowski is male and self identified as female.

Dundee Courier February 2019
(extract)
"Dolatowski, 18, sexually assaulted the girl in the toilets of Morrisons, Kirkcaldy.

She grabbed the terrified youngster by the face, shoved her into the cubicle and ordered her to remove her trousers.

But instead of being jailed at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, Dolatowski, who identifies as a woman but was believed by her victim’s family to be a man, was given community payback and tagging orders.

The mum felt “very, very let down” and said: “I don’t have any confidence whatsoever that he will not go out and do something equally as bad or worse.”

The girl had been sledging when the assault occurred on March 4, last year, a month after Dolatowski had filmed a 12-year-old girl on the toilet in another supermarket in Dunfermline.

When she came out of her cubicle, Dolatowski shoved her back in and told her there was a man outside who would kill her mother.

The brave schoolgirl, however, punched Dolatowski in the face, stomach and groin and ran to her father and siblings waiting just outside the toilets.

Her mother said the girl was hysterical after the attack and continued to suffer flashbacks.

She said: “This is something that will remain with her for the rest of her life.

“He was stalking the toilets. He went there specifically to attack a child. (continues)

Dolatowski admitted sexually assaulting the girl and following another girl into the toilets at Asda Halbeath, Dunfermline, on February 8, and trying to film her urinating by holding her mobile phone over the cubicle partition." (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3496984-Article-in-Dundee-Courier-about-assault-of-10-year-old-girl-in-supermarket-toilets

This is a standard pro forma letter, it looks like, that all Labour MPs are sending out.

It's irrelevant, because they're irrelevant - and seemingly determined to remain that way.

I'm just so sorry. It hurts to be dismissed like that and it's pathetic that people like your MP seem clueless or not to care that organisations set up and funded to help female survivors of male violence are also now frequently dismissing us just like that.

In this brave new world your MP supports, first the existing safeguards are removed and then the ever increasing number of new victims are denied the help they need to recover. Because denying a man claiming womanhood the right to provide rape counselling to female survivors violates the former's human rights.* And who gives shit about the latter.

*Not speculation, not a terribly bad joke. Although I wish it was. That meeting shook me.

To be honest I’d be tempted to forward it to the Daily Mail with a copy of the letter you sent in and point out that a Labour MP is saying it’s ok if some women get attacked to save the feelings of a small minority of men who have opted into an oppressed group that women cannot opt out of.

I cannot see how Self ID can ever be acceptable, the minimum for a legal change of sex should be a medical diagnosis (sorry, but if you’re not willing/able to get this then are you actually serious and well intentioned?) and a review before a panel to a) prove you are making some effort to present as the acquired gender and b) prevent people with a history of violence or other undesirables manipulating the system. We don’t just take people’s word for it that they can drive and give them a driving licence, do we?

I’d also point out that as fewer than 5,000 gender recognition certificates have been issued since 2004 but an estimated 200,000 - 500,000 self identify as trans that it is likely a large number of those people are appropriating the label but are not serious about it being a life long change and that the Stonewall Trans Umbrella is too vague and wide reaching to enable predators to take advantage.

Indeed, under the Equality Act, trans people have the right to access single-sex services in line with their ‘acquired gender’, and they are not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or have undergone any form of medical intervention, to be eligible for support in these services. However, under the Act, it is lawful for single-sex services to provide a different service or refuse their service to someone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’, in circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

Your MP misrepresents the law here.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is tasked with ensuring that the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) is upheld and does so by providing statutory (that is legally binding) guidance about the EqA, had to correct its own guidance in 2018 and has now made unequivocally clear that those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but not in possession of a GRC have no legal right to access single-sex sex provisions provided for the opposite sex to their own.

None.

They don't get a look in, they don't have to be given any explanation or justification - where men are generally denied access, men claiming womanhood who remain legally male, are denied access, too.

That is precisely why handing out GRCs on a self-ID basis is so damaging to our sex-based rights. Because when a male becomes legally female through a GRC, denying that person access to female-only provisions is far less easy. It's not impossible, but in practice very difficult to do. That's because of the way the Gender Recognition Act interacts with and impacts on the sex-based exemptions stipulated in the EqA.