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.*

Kellie-Jay Keen interviews MP Jacky Doyle-Price (Conservative)

Towards the end of the inteview Jackie Doyle-Price gives clear advice to all women about how to encourage their MP to recognise the importance of standing for women's rights and Safeguarding.

Its well worth watching.

Excellent, excellent things here. Thank you all so much.

And thank you particularly CharlieParley. That's very interesting, I will be highlighting that to her almost verbatim. I am excellent on emotion, on safety concerns and statistics, but my knowledge of law can be a bit lacking...

I agree that labour, as a party, are frankly an irrelevance for the foreseeable, yet this is my MP. The person who should represent my views in parliament. And one who has campaigned on the strength of her support for minorities and women (and someone who I have actively supported in the past). I will not allow her to write off women's safety concerns as the bigotry she does (which she does. This is not our first communication on the subject), even if I have to share my views with her on a fucking daily basis.

Thank you. I'll watch that now.

I've pinched things from here and also from another thread, with someone who it seems got the same reply as me. Thank you all for you help! While calming down would have probably been a better idea, I couldn't, so having your support was really helpful in writing a coherent response...

This is what I went with:
Thank you for your reply to my previous email. I think it is important to first clarify something from your reply: You state that “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”. This seems to be a misrepresentation of the law as it stands, I believe that the EHRC corrected 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.

You explain that the Labour Party has re-committed itself to updating the GRA and upholding the Equality Act; I would argue that as the Equality Act has the protected characteristic of sex, rather than gender, that the two are incompatible. You cannot both protect the characteristic of sex, of ‘woman’ and ‘man’, whilst also committing yourself simultaneously to opening the protected category of ‘woman’ to all. It is an obvious logical impossibility. You also explain that you believe the current process to obtain a GRC is too long and medicalised a process; personally, I disagree strongly that the year it currently takes to obtain a GRC is too long, when considering the permanence and importance of legally changing one’s sex – something highlighted by the stories of people who have gone on to de-transition, returning to the appearance of their biological sex. I would also argue that a process that does not require any surgery, hormones, or medical transition of any kind at all, cannot be described as “overly medicalised”.

You mention Refuges and that you “think the focus should be on ensuring services have the resources they need to meet the needs of cis women and trans women”. I wonder what your view is on the fact that for many, many, women in refuges, the primary resource they need is a space free from all male bodied people, however they identify, to recover. Would you find this acceptable, or do you believe that all refuges should be decided by gender rather than sex? You also describe cis women and trans women, there is no need for the prefix ‘cis’. ‘Woman’ is the entirety, not the subset. It is becoming more widely recognised that many, myself included, find the term ‘cis woman/en’ actively offensive, seeing that it attempts to erase women as a class. I ask you to consider this perspective when deciding whether to use this terminology or not.

You say that you “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”. I’m interested, do you extend this to gender identity alone? Should those who are trans-age, or trans-species (both well documented) also have their respective identities and statuses defined legally? Separately, gender is entirely socially constructed. There is simply no such thing as an innate gender identity. Women are protected from men because of the dangers to us physically; these dangers come to our female sexed bodies, not our feminine genders. Someone’s gender should have no place in laws which are to protect the sexed body, not the mind.

You state that “while [you] do understand concerns about how abusive men may exploit this process, [you] think there are many means for abusive men to access vulnerable women and children, and [you] don’t think that trans people should be denied rights because a minority of people will seek to exploit a new process”. I feel this is carefully sanitised language. What this means is, that while you do understand that abusive men may rape and sexually attack women and young children, this already happens anyway and if it happens more frequently, that it’s simply collateral damage and it is more important to increase the rights of trans people. Who I would point out already have the same rights as all other people in this country, they just don’t have any extra ones.

How many additional women being attacked is acceptable? 1? 10? 100? 1000? At what point would attacks on women become an issue again, rather than just something to be brushed aside in the wake of new rights? This is the wrong framing. The question is not ‘Should a vulnerable group of people be denied rights, because members of this and other groups may seek to exploit these rights?’, it is actually ‘Should one vulnerable group of people have their rights in law removed for the benefit of a different group of vulnerable people?’.

Finally, I am interested to know if it’s your personal opinion that it’s acceptable to knowingly allow additional attacks on women, or if this is the current Labour party stance?

Excellent reply OP!

Excellent, excellent reply. The only thing I would add if possible, is after the penultimate paragraph, some stats showing why UK transwomen are less vulnerable than actual women.

Also, if you are sure that your MP has got the following wrong, I would correct the wording to:

This seems to be is a misrepresentation of the law as it stands, I believe that the EHRC....

Well done for following this up.

Awesome reply.

Agree - take out ‘I believe’ when referring to actual law.

I went with 'I believe' because I don't actually know! I was going from what CharlieParley said, but I was not in the mood for additional fact checking... I will do some record checking today. I don't ever state anything as fact, that I don't personally know to be, incase it comes back to bite me on the arse.

I could only find stats relating to murder last night @LittleCabbage. I'm 100% sure I have read ones relating to assault, also showing UK women at higher risk. I will have a look for some of these things today and add them on. From what she says about black trans women, I assume Labour are going with the Detroit study that showed them as disproportionately at risk. Which doesn't hold up for UK use.

Maybe just an entire second email, debunking false statistics and facts to be sent to her today. From previous communication, she seems to stop reading half way if it gets too long, so a separate one could be better.

Why not go one further and ask to meet with your MP in person?

I know they may not hold surgeries presently due to covid but I have just emailed my MP asking for an appointment when they become available. She did send quite an encouraging reply when I wrote to her, but she's Conservative so may have Liz truss's ear more directly....

Herja brilliant letter.

I'm so sorry for what has happened to you and really admire your strength and tenacity in following this through with your MP.

All the advice and information here is brilliant. I'm struggling with my awful male Labour MP, who sent a pathetic pro self id cut and paste job back in response to my very personal letter.

I asked him to actually read my letter - as he clearly hadn't. And told him I'd patiently wait for his considered response.

It's been weeks of tumbleweed now so I will have another go.

That's not a bad idea rabbitwoman. I think I will. I would really enjoy watching her squirm as she explained that women are just collateral... I think it would be harder to maintain that stance in conversation rather than writing.

I would also like her to see that I AM her demographic in this area. That I AM the skint, single mother, left leaning hippy type, that she professes to stand up for. Because you could see the confusion when she door stopped me last election and I started talking and saying that I felt she had let me and all women down. She, like many, sees this as an issue between the kindly left and the bigoted right. Wish I'd got Starmer then! He was door stopping here too.

Ooh, I know who your MP is because I got the same form letter and I am also working on a response. I won't name her as that will geolocate both of us. Sadly, that means that 3 of the 6 were you, me and my mum.

I wrote to this MP after the "expel me" fracas and got a rather muddled reply, clearly she has spent no more energy on thinking about it since.

Sorry, I didn't realise you'd already sent it. It's still a really good reply though. I know what you mean about finding the stats re violence against TW vs violence against women. I know they exist but can't remember where I have seen them.

Definitely point out to her that she is using US stats for an entirely different UK situation. Or ask her for the source of her figures, then take great delight in pointing out that they are not relevant here

I've been talking to her for a few years now Mujeres. Her opinion never changes, but has also obviously never actually been thought about critically. I am determined to keep going. This was actually a bit of a breakthrough, she has never before agreed that there might be any risk to women at all.

I am going to start encouraging any GC women I know in the constituency to write to her also.

Brilliant letter Herja. Also thanks for the timely reminder to email my MP, finally got round to it this morning!

Here is the statement on sex and gender that the EHRC issued in July 2018.

It makes clear that the sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act [...] apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

(Which is of course the opposite of what your MP has claimed.)

The EHRC only put out this statement after women's rights groups* told them their guidance was in conflict with the law they exist to uphold, and they subsequently changed some, but not all, of their erroneous guidance on the Equality Act's sex-based exemptions. Without making that public btw. Just quietly deleted the wrong stuff and replaced it with correct guidance.

This passed most of those by who advocate for transgender ideology and legislation, as the previous misrepresentation of the law was widely disseminated while the correction was not. For obvious reasons.

Hence they keep on telling people what they believe to be true - that trans-identifying people had legal access rights regardless of their legal sex - and so are typically very surprised when you tell them the facts of the matter.

(*I seem to remember that was mostly due to Fair Play for Women, but I might be wrong.)

Just read your letter. It's really good and I'm glad you found my answers helpful in writing it.

Did notice though that I made a slight mistake here:

have no legal right to access single-sex sex provisions provided for the opposite sex to their own.

That free-floating second instance of sex is superfluous, but I don't think it changes the meaning of the sentence, so I would delete it from the letter if you want to reuse it, but not worry about it being in there. IYKWIM.

That is a really, really, REALLY good letter. Well done. So impressed.

Thanks for that CharliePaley, I was looking for it earlier and couldn't find it; I will use it in my letter.

Someone’s gender should have no place in laws which are to protect the sexed body, not the mind.

That's a brilliant sentence, OP.

I’m sure I’ve read on here that in the UK figures were such that there were more transwomen that had committed murder than had been murdered which struck me as a useful stat to be able to pull out of the bag. I think it was in maybe 2017 or 2018 - don’t know if anyone knows more info?

Also the fact that there are so very few women found guilty of sex crimes, marking down preferred gender rather than actual sex is beginning to impact crime stats and make it look like there has been a big increase in sex crime committed by females when there hasn’t been - it’s due to men identifying as female.

Can you (or anyone on mumsnet) get a fellow resident of your constituency to write in a similar letter to see if they are still sending out the same old reply with the wrong information in? It would be interesting to see if they have taken your reply on board or if they will conveniently ignore it and continue to spout misinformation!

It’s a very patronising response she sent you as well - saying that it’s a nuanced and fraught debate, implying that they understand the nuances better than you but completely ignoring any of the nuances that show understanding of the female viewpoint!

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

So you want to add another way for abusive men to abuse women?

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.

The purpose of protected characteristics is not to respect identity or status (disability and age are not an identity), it is to protect rights, regardless of identity. I would link to stories in past fortnight about women's medical issues and disproportionate effect of lockdown on women, and ask what these have to do with 'identity'.

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.

Please provide statistics, and also explain what 'trans', 'gender' and 'sex' mean under self ID.

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.

Please provide details of dates and venues for these meetings where Labour will be listening to women.

That's good merrymouse.

Labour (and men like Billy Bragg & Owen Jones) have made it abundantly clear that they will throw down women's rights and safety to worship at the alter of trans rights.

Transwomen are not women, and yet again, women are being asked (demanded) to budge up a bit, because some males want to "identify as women" - whatever that means. So women will be less safe - and some males - a group that also includes cross dressers, who admit themselves that there is a sexual thrill linked to dressing as women, will be allowed access to women's spaces - because they want to. No other reason really - it's "because they want to".

And Labour now admit they know that this WILL be abused by predatory men, but nothing matters more than the rights of a group of males who want to be women.

The world has always been dominated by males, and now they will dominate a whole lot more by invading the spaces that women have carved out for themselves - because they erroneously assert that they are more vulnerable, and more oppressed than women. They are not.

This response from Labour MPs makes me hope Labour never get into power again - they have betrayed women utterly.

Well done herja and to all who have written. The fact that your MP has overwhelmingly received letter's in favour is a problem.

I just now received my own from a libdem MP and it basically was minimise, minimise all the way. Oh... and, can you provide evidence of where this is happening. I must admit that I did not put as much thought into my reply as you have, so you have inspired me to send another. Thank you.