MP response. In shock.

[Wolfgirrl]

Response from my MP when I emailed to object to self ID contained the sentence:

I don’t think thattranspeople should be denied rights because a minority of people will seek to exploit a new process.

So, there you have it. Men seeking to exploit self ID to attack or sexually assault women is a price worth paying to let other members of the male sex use our facilities.

I just want to cry.

Any suggestions for response will be gratefully received, but for now I am going to pour a glass of wine.

Can you name and shame?

You will need more than a glass. FFS

What rights are transpeople being denied? No one else, no one in this country, has the right to legally falsify information on their birth certificate.

LibDem or Labour?

The process isn't changing so there is no Self ID recognised by law.

Hopefully the minority this MP refers to will be denied GRCs is they are gaming the system.

She didn't even make the usual BS assertions that women will be safe. A minority of people will abuse the system to attack women; her words. I am sickened. Just going to have a drink then I will post the whole response, just need to check it for anything outing (about me).

Is it from a Labour MP? I just got a very similar reply, posted in full on another thread on here. If it is, I think that might just be the new party line.

I never get what rights trans people don’t have

I really really don’t

They got the same rights as anyone else. In law as they are human beings

If it's the new Labour Line to Take, it needs plastered on every social media post about them. I genuinely cannot believe that a UK political party would publicly state that it's ok for women to be assaulted because an absolute minority are unhappy that UK legislation is based on biology and not gender identity.

Why not write back and ask how many rapes does she think is a reasonable price for women to pay? How many assaults on children?
How many Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women should be unable to swim, shop for clothes, use a gym?

Ask her how many women and girls attacked would be too many. What is the proposed scale in terms of how many female people it's acceptable to sacrifice to make each male person happy?

I don't understand the thing about the "right" to be where you shouldn't.
I identify as a 3 year old. Why should the fact that a few random weirdos would also get access to toddlers affect my right to attend nursery?
Hmmm.

Not good. Collateral damage is supposed to be limited to warzones.

What rights exactly are they being denied?

The right to use facilities of, or compete with, the opposite sex isn't a human right at all

I don’t think thattranspeople should be denied rights because a minority of people will seek to exploit a new process.

Do they intend removing other parts of the Safeguarding framework on the basis that only a minority of men would seek to exploit this?

Here is another gem:

We do of course also need to listen to people’s genuine concerns about safe spaces, particularly those 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 againsttranspeople.

Er - I have to go through a heightened safeguarding process at work because of a small minority who would exploit the opportunities that my job brings to harm others.

I gladly do it. It is but a slur on me. I know vulnerable people need to be protected.

Why do suddenly a subsection of the population get a free pass?

I don’t think thattranspeople should be denied rights because a minority of people will seek to exploit a new process.

That 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 actually is Should one vulnerable group of people have their rights in law removed for the benefit of a different group of vulnerable people?

His framing allows your MP to pretend that there are no conflicting rights, but only a lack of rights for a vulnerable group for which the remedy has no effect on anyone else.

In reality, the situation is this:

Both groups, as well as several others are protected under the Equality Act. Situations where their rights conflict are carefully explored amongst over a thousand explanatory notes issued alongside the law which explain how it works.

Through the Equality Act, UK law recognises that female people are discriminated against on the basis of their sex. It gives them the legal right to define themselves in a category of their own, separately from males and allows for female-only legal set asides such as refuges, dormitories, sports and scholarships etc as well as the right to ask for a female nurse or carer or rape crisis counsellor and furthermore it gives them the right to organise and assemble outwith the presence of males to (amongst other things) advocate for their rights as a sex.

Ask your MP if he seeks to abolish this right.

If he does not, then you expect him to listen to your concerns about how self-ID will impact on our sex-based rights and to consider how the resulting conflict can be resolved without removing existing legal rights created through the protected characteristic of sex.

I would probably also want to know how he justifies treating as mere collateral damage the harm already inflicted on women and girls as a result of self-ID policies adopted in advance of the law reform. And how much more collateral damage he considers acceptable and how much he would consider too much.

Topic 'Write to your MP' page 10 has some really good ideas

Really, really good post @CharlieParley.

Ask them what legal rights trans people are being denied

Trans ppl have exactly the same legal rights as Me

What TW can’t have is women’s legal rights

Sorry, misread your post and see that your MP is a woman. Who has no understanding of the sheer scale of the damage male violence does to women and girls.

4 in ten UK women and girls have been affected by physical or sexual violence inflicted by males, 7 in ten have experienced sexual harassment. In some communities a majority of women are from backgrounds where sharing intimate spaces with male strangers is taboo.

We are talking more than ten million women and girls who have survived male violence whose needs she at least wants to consider, even though, again, her framing misrepresents the issue as if it was rare. Furthermore, unless these survivors out themselves, she cannot distinguish them from the women and girls who haven't experienced male violence, so how will she cater to their needs once she has abolished the existing general female-only provisions? Do survivors have to out themselves in her brave new world before they can have the female-only spaces and services they need? And do those who didn't experience male violence but value their privacy and dignity all the same not deserve them? The Equality Act specifically refers to privacy as a legitimate reason for single-sex provisions, does she disagree?

I have nothing to add but just wanted to say CharlieParley‘s post is excellent.

Its getting more honest, which is helpful.

Yes, those supporting this agenda believe that harm to women and children is fair collateral damage to advancing the ownership of males over female only spaces. They're not often this frank about it, but this is their belief.

However it opens the door to say, ok, how much is ok. How many women, how many children? Where is the line as to too many rapes, assaults, trauma and how will this be measured considering less than 1% of rapes get to court? How many females is it ok to exclude from all provision and leave excluded from society?

And how are you going to sell this to the female tax payers you are willing to throw under the bus to please this small group of males you feel so passionately about?

Open, honest conversation. The more open the better. This is how politics works: you honestly state what you believe in and your voters either support you.... or they go what the actual fuck are you on, and abandon you in droves.

Also necessary to add up the distress and dysphoria of the less than 1% of males in question and weigh it up against the harms already done to women and children and the potential ones to come.

Why are the males so intrinsically more valuable?

Why must males feel happy and affirmed but females must cope with their issues upto and including trauma?

Why must males be entitled to all the spaces, even if this removes any space at all from some female tax payers?

The sexism is bleeding obvious.

Charlie excellent post thank you I shall be using that when I reply to my “who gives a fuck about women/girls trans people can already do whatever they like” SNP MP

wolf