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.

It’s a scorcher

I felt sick as well. The debate has been so lost in jargon, pseudoscience, thinly veiled sexism and false claims of victimhood that it needs to be stripped down to bare facts. We are allowing males to appropriate womens rights if they say they are one, thus rendering womens rights meaningless. There is no two ways about it.

@Wolfgirrl

Wow thank you ladies, I was somewhat expecting it to be picked apart (or worse, some glaring embarrassing error to be pointed out!). Very heartening to know I can draft a decent letter!

Thank you for your response @Manderleyagain . I did purposefully avoid the legal side of things, because I feel arguing semantically over the GRA sort of 'dignifies' it iyswim, but I will definitely incorporate it into a future response if needed. TRAs hide behind the failings of legislation so I'm trying to strip it back to the fact it shouldn't even exist.

Your letter is outstanding. I’ve written to my mp but not had a response. If needed, can I pinch some of if??

Of course! Use as much as you like. Hope it is helpful!

Well here is the response...

Thanks for your further email on the subject of the GRA and trans rights.

You emailed me in the context of proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, raising your opposition to self-ID and stating that you wanted women-only facilities to be accessible only to the female sex. It was for these reasons that I responded with details about trans people, as reforms to the Gender Recognition Act pertain to trans people, as do policies on single-sex spaces and services. Your email centered this debate around (cis) women, which I understand, but my opposition to some of your points centered around trans people, who I feel would be negatively affected by the Government’s proposals.

This is not in any way to say that I don’t support the rights of women, or that I don’t feel that women and women’s voices are important in this debate. Of course, they are, and I have listened to and considered the views of many women on this debate who have all kinds of perspectives. I also think that, given the Government’s reforms were specifically focused on removing rights for trans people (particularly given that it had previously said GRA reform would happen), that trans people’s voices are important in the debate, too.

In saying that trans people should not be denied rights because of potential risks to women and children, I absolutely did not mean that women and children’s rights should be considered as collateral damage in the advancement of trans people’s rights. No number of attacks on women and children is acceptable. I was pointing out that rather than denying trans people rights because of potential risks to women and children using services, we should mitigate and prevent the risks, and that these risks can be mitigated and prevented without entirely denying trans people access to these services and spaces. I resist the notion that trans people as an entire group are ‘a risk,’ – I just don’t think that’s fair. This is not about making ‘natal males’ (which I think is a term that is deliberately denying the identity and existence of trans people) feel affirmed and validated, it is about making them feel safe, just as women and children should feel safe in these spaces. The law as it stands allows for trans people to be turned away from women’s services and spaces in certain circumstances in any case.

Equally, this is not about doing away with safeguarding – all women, including trans women, should feel safe in women’s spaces, and safeguarding policies should be introduced to ensure this is the case. I think there are ways to have policies that protect cis women and trans women in these spaces, and that cis women’s concerns should be taken on board when making these policies. One of the issues, of course, is that the debate on this subject is so toxic that it’s hard to develop answers and solutions to these questions and concerns.

I do not view all concerns raised by women as transphobic straw men and I did not say that. I think you have misinterpreted my tone here. I was saying quite the opposite - that people do have genuine concerns that need addressing, and that these concerns should not be disregarded immediately as transphobia. Once again, I do not view the ‘feelings’ of natal males (or, as I would put it, the valid lived experiences, opinions, and mental health of trans women and all trans people) as more inherently valuable than those of cis women, and I did not say that. It is about ensuring all women (indeed, all people) feel safe using services and in particular spaces. Of course, if a trans woman has a history of violence against women and/or sexual assault against women, of course, I don’t think it would be appropriate for them to access women’s services and spaces. This is why we need better safeguarding policies that would prevent those who have a track record of harming women from being able to access them – be they trans or cis. Equally, I don’t think a trans woman who has no history of violence against women and who has been sexually assaulted should be denied access to services for women, for example.

It is hard to accurately report how many trans people are killed in the UK each year, as the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that “it is not possible to identify transgender victims in current homicide statistics” and the “sex of a homicide victim is determined by the police force that records the crime.” That is to say, there is not an official, standardized method for recording the deaths of trans people across the UK. Nonetheless, trans people are at significant risk of being victims of violent crime, just as women are, and as I have said both cis people and trans people, cis women and trans women, deserve to be protected. In certain constabularies (including Avon and Somerset), people can be charged with gender-hate crime, and I think this should be the case across the country.

Of course women should feel safe in spaces afforded to them: I think this applies to all women, including trans women. I would encourage you to read this piece by Mermaids, which responds to a number of the concerns you’ve raised: mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/safety-and-dignity/.

I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, and that trans women should be acknowledged as women if that’s what they want. This is not to say that trans women are entirely synonymous with cis women, and again, I am not saying that. I think most people would agree that cis women and trans women have different experiences of being a woman, but these are all valid experiences of womanhood. I continue to support trans women’s right to apply for women’s officer positions within the Labour party.

I never said that the needs of trans people should come before the safety and protection of women and children. But this is not just about the ‘needs’ of trans people – it’s about their safety and protection, too. I think they have as much right to be safe and protected as women and children do. In my view, allowing trans people to ‘live as they wish’ is not just to do with letting them ‘dress as they like’ – to free them from oppression and violence, they must be allowed to identify and be recognized in a way that’s in keeping with their gender identity.

Asking trans people to access specific trans-only services is not acknowledging their gender identity. Equally, trans women have been accessing women’s services for years without issue.

Thanks once again for taking the time to contact me.

Any observations on this would be gratefully received...

1. MP more invested in defending self than seeking to understand and represent constituent.

1. Mitigation of harm to women and girls seems to be limited to 'well, if there's a history of sexual violence we might think about excluding a TW unless we think the TWs safety is more important'. In a context where all forms of sexual violence gave been effectively decriminalized, that's not much of an assurance.

1. Claim re 'years of use with no issues' is not cited/evidenced.

Great points, thank you.
It all just reads like 'Women should be listened to, but then instantly disregarded'.

It's all so disheartening isnt it.

Do you think she could have used ‘cis’ a few more times just to show how disrespectful she is of women? Just in case we missed it, the first five or six times.

On the plus side, she has let it be known that labour will absolutely push through the gra reforms as soon as they get a sniff of power. The suggestion that they had put it on the back burner, was obviously bullshite. They should never, ever be trusted.

‘Language can obfuscate so much so it would be really helpful if I could establish what you understand by the term trans woman. Please watch this video and clarify whether in your understanding this is a trans woman who should be able to access female services unopposed and if yes, how you would convince someone who may think otherwise that they are incorrect.’

Pin them down on specifics.

It was for these reasons that I responded with details about trans people, as reforms to the Gender Recognition Act pertain to trans people, as do policies on single-sex spaces and services.

Allowing men to self-identify as women affects everyone in society, in particular women and children. She seems to have missed this important point.

Policies on single-sex spaces and services pertain to the protected characteristic of sex. The additional measures which mean that transgender people may be included or excluded from those spaces for their 'acquired' legal sex are not the main reason for having these policies - the main reason is because of sex.

Your email centered this debate around (cis) women, which I understand, but my opposition to some of your points centered around trans people, who I feel would be negatively affected by the Government’s proposals.

And she is not in the least bit concerned about the negative impact self-ID would have on women?

I also think that, given the Government’s reforms were specifically focused on removing rights for trans people (particularly given that it had previously said GRA reform would happen), that trans people’s voices are important in the debate, too.

Which rights for trans people does she believe will be removed by the Government's reforms?

I was pointing out that rather than denying trans people rights because of potential risks to women and children using services, we should mitigate and prevent the risks, and that these risks can be mitigated and prevented without entirely denying trans people access to these services and spaces.

How does she propose to mitigate and prevent these risks?

One of the issues, of course, is that the debate on this subject is so toxic that it’s hard to develop answers and solutions to these questions and concerns.

She would do well to reflect on which side is sending death threats, rape threats and bomb threats, violently disrupting meetings and assaulting the people with whom they disagree.

Of course, if a trans woman has a history of violence against women and/or sexual assault against women, of course, I don’t think it would be appropriate for them to access women’s services and spaces. This is why we need better safeguarding policies that would prevent those who have a track record of harming women from being able to access them – be they trans or cis. Equally, I don’t think a trans woman who has no history of violence against women and who has been sexually assaulted should be denied access to services for women, for example.

Under self-ID, any man is a woman if he says he is. So does she believe that any man who has not got a record of violence should be given access to women's spaces and services? Has she stopped to reflect for even a moment about what she is saying?

It is hard to accurately report how many trans people are killed in the UK each year, as the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that “it is not possible to identify transgender victims in current homicide statistics” and the “sex of a homicide victim is determined by the police force that records the crime.” That is to say, there is not an official, standardized method for recording the deaths of trans people across the UK.

Whose fault does she think this is? Stonewall et al have campaigned for people to choose their sex when both victims of crime and perpetrators of crime. Asking someone to out themselves as trans is considered transphobic. So we have no record of whether or not victims and perpetrators of crime are transgender, or even what sex they really are. If the statistics are in a mess, blame Stonewall and the rest of them (and the police and justice system for doing Stonewall's bidding).

I would encourage you to read this piece by Mermaids

Oh dear.

I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, and that trans women should be acknowledged as women if that’s what they want. This is not to say that trans women are entirely synonymous with cis women, and again, I am not saying that. I think most people would agree that cis women and trans women have different experiences of being a woman, but these are all valid experiences of womanhood.

Is she wavering a bit about TWAW? What does she think a woman is?

Oh for god sake. Now I need some rum.

This is why we need better safeguarding policies that would prevent those who have a track record of harming women from being able to access them – be they trans or cis.

If we were able to do this, we wouldn't need the safeguarding we now have.

For instance, in which way would you ban a previously convicted offender from single-sex facilities in thousands of shops, and restaurants and leisure facilities but allow law abiding male citizens to enter? And how does she propose to deal with male predators who have offended, but never been caught? And how about the predator offending for the first time?

There is only one way to safeguard against all three types of predatory, violent males, and that is to exclude all males as a group from female-only spaces.

Given that the minimum threshold for trans inclusion in opposite sex spaces is now a verbal statement of identity, how will she enforce any safeguarding? If no changes to one's appearance are needed at all, how do we tell an obvious male who identifies as trans from one who doesn't? And how do we distinguish an obvious male who merely claims a trans identity but doesn't have one from either of the others? Someone who crossdresses because of a genuinely held belief of a trans identity from someone who crossdresses for erotic pleasure? And the one who crossdresses for a laugh from the others?

There's only one thing they all have in common: they are male. None should be in female-only spaces .

What makes me even more cross about women like your MP is that they spout platitudes on this matter, but show no evidence of having considering their preferred policies through to their logical conclusions.

Be nice, be kind, be inclusive. Those are easily said when you're not the one having no access to public spaces because the facilities you need are now mixed-sex. When you can't recover from male violence because every therapeutic environment now includes males. When you can't get a program offered only to women because your space went to a man claiming womanhood. A man who never experienced the issues that made the program necessary in the first place.

Asking trans people to access specific trans-only services is not acknowledging their gender identity.

That's their belief, not mine. In the UK there is no law or cultural obligation that forces its citizens to affirm the faith of others. Transgender ideology has no basis in science or material reality, it is entirely faith-based. What other religious tenets would the MP like to force non-believers to espouse?

Equally, trans women have been accessing women’s services for years without issue.

No, they really haven't. But when services refuse to acknowledge those of us who have problems, and when reports like the Stonewall one selectively omit testimony from services who did experience issues, then yes, you can claim there aren't any issues. If I refuse to see a problem, I can confidently state I don't see it. Doesn't make the problem disappear though.

I’m just catching up with this thread. Your original response was awesome, her response was weak.

I’m a Brit, living in the US, and until now, I’ve always used www.emilyslist.org/ to research and vote. But since Elizabeth Warren was full on TWAW, I really feel like woman are being streamrollered. And I’m sick of it. Apologies for the moan.

Keep up the good fight everyone.

Your letter was absolutely outstanding.

Her reply was not really able to go beyond speaking in platitudes and engage with the actual substance of what you said. She just needs to do that and she’ll not be able to substantiate her views, so it would be great to press her on the detail.

So, OK, she elected to focus on trans people in her original letter, but surely she doesn’t think anyone can isolate trans people’s rights and focus solely on those, while not addressIng the needs of people for sex-based rights, in any clash of these two groups’ interests- of which your previous letter pointed out several instances?

Will she acknowledge that biological sex is real, and unchanging, however much anyone might wish they’d been born of a different sex? How would she define women and men? Presumably she appreciates that sex is a legally protected characteristic under the EqA 2010?

So can she then appreciate that while it is possible to speak of women’s rights and interests (based on a real, widely understood sex category and inclusive of transmen) without making any detriment to trans people’s rights and interests- say where these relate to female biological processes or how society is misogynistic to women....which also affects transmen..

then she must be able to see that it is NOT possible to speak of trans people’s rights and interests (based on a not biologically real, not widely understood or readily identifiable, self-identified ‘gender’ category- which would say it was inclusive of women- because if TWAW then W are also TW).. without making any reference to sex-based rights and interests?

Because it remains that those of us born female have had gender (which just means ‘stereotypes of femininity or masculinity‘) weaponised against us to further the cause of the patriarchy all our lives. However we identify. Sex based discrimination- sexism- is obviously real.

As a girl, woman, then female MP she personally must have experienced treatment that is not in her male colleagues’ experience.. so what would she say that is this down to, if not a recognition of her biological sex and overlaid on to that, how gender (stereotypes) is used to specifically limit and damage women?

^Sorry for bad formatting there.

So, bringing her back to the detail: she rightly condemned a toxic debate that makes it hard to develop policy positions. (Is she aware that attempts to debate have been met with #nodebate and threats one-sidedly...and so presumably she would like to condemn the aggression and authoritarian attempts to silence women at women’s meetings...including WPUK fringe meeting of the last Labour conference?

However, she and you are conversing with politeness and open mindedness. So therefore you could welcome her to give more detail on her policy thinking. Since she clearly has done her own careful thinking around the principles relevant to this topic already (Do try to resist the temptation to include a massive at this point..)

So Eg given she is confident that safeguarding can be unaffected by self ID, a matter of great concern to women and parents- then how in practice would she propose that employers, schools, colleges, hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, shops, leisure facilities, prisons etc can create and implement and monitor policies that would protect women (and their children) in the way that she has suggested is possible? Given that she appears to have rejected a ‘third space‘ option, how should this be done?

Maybe you could add some of those stats on how vastly more attacks and harassment of women happen in unisex spaces than in single sex spaces-Eg from the Times a few years ago in relation to changing rooms? And ask her how women and girls in these spaces should have been protected better, and crucially, in a way that wouldn’t have affected their chance to use the relevant facility or organisation’s services just as freely as anyone born male could do?

Like how actually would she say that can it be done, rather than simply assuring you that of course it can all be worked out somehow ..? Presumably she can also point you towards practical examples of where her approach is already working well, so that we could seek to emulate these?

As a tangent what really pisses me off about this argument for mixed sex toilets (I’m excluding single occupancy loos) is why am I donating monthly to a charity who’s sole aim is to build single sex toilets in developing counties so women can have access to clean, safe from men, private sanitation, while we here seem hellbent on removing this provision for women.

It could be inferred that we in the West believe ourselves to be more civilised than our poorer neighbours because men here can behave themselves in mixed sex toilets

That letter is fantastic! Can I nick it for my mp ( Libdem)

Well you certainly rattled her cage. Do you think she wrote that herself? It's a long response and close to incoherent in parts, plenty to pick at. Great work!

So much to state F Off to, but:

Asking trans people to access specific trans-only services is not acknowledging their gender identity.

F* right off.

My DDs sexed-based rights to be destroyed to ‘acknowledge’ the feelings of men.

Validation is not a right.

The MP says given the Government’s reforms were specifically focused on removing rights for trans people (particularly given that it had previously said GRA reform would happen), that trans people’s voices are important in the debate, too.

That’s the opposite of true. The proposed reforms are specifically to increase rights for trans people, eg allowing self-ID. (Making it legal, I mean — I know it’s already being widely allowed by police forces etc.)

I know there was a rumour recently that the government wasn’t going to go ahead with this extension to trans rights, but I thought it wasn’t yet decided? Have I missed an important development?

Link for source: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3353054-andrew-gilligan-in-the-times-sex-pests-target-unisex-change-rooms

The House of Commons library will give MPs access to paywalled articles in the Times or wherever If they need it.

The government wasn’t going ahead as far as I’m aware. My GC friend informed me Carrie Symonds is pro TWAW and has persuaded BJ to take another look. Ffs.

Woman gets pregnant and has baby. Thinks that woman is a feeling.

BJ is keen on his wins and knows TWAW does not go down well in many areas of the UK. BJ may be happy to throw women under a bus in normal circumstances but not where he could lose lots of votes.

There is a game going on Labour is in an absolute mess with it's woke members and the way the TU's have got on board with this (that's another thread) and it is not in BJ's interests to make things easier. We are collateral damage for the time being.

Also, I think I spotted it somewhere but just to add. All the public services (in the upper echelons) and Labour woke MP's are saying things like 'taking into account' 'listening' ohhh and 'learning' (god I'm sick of that bloody word) and doing nothing.

Wolf wonderful stuff, plus the responses on this thread are great. I'm glad it's back