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.

The initial response you received is along the same lines ad I recieved from my labour male MP. Dismissive and implying to deny self id in women only spaces that I was the loon with a discrimination issue.

If self id rights come into place and women only places are removed how do we protect vulnerable women and also those of us who just dont want to share our spaces with "people with penises..."

Frankly I would go to the Daily Mail with her first response- let their readers know that Labour are happy for the “woman in the street“ to be collateral damage as long as any man who feels like a woman’s identity is affirmed...

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?

This is what needs to be answered. She is arguing about men who genuinely believe they have a feminine gender identity. But if any man can claim to be a woman and obtain legal recognition as a woman, how does she propose that we distinguish these genuine cases from the predators, perverts and piss takers? Because her preferred reform to the law will treat them all the same.

She talks about needing to mitigate the risks, so I'd ask her how? What are the detailed plans to mitigate the risk of a natal male, with no previous record, accessing a woman's refuge to target his victim? Or following her into a female toilet?

She referred you to an article from MERMAIDS? Fuck sake.

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.

I’m sick to death about this crap about removing the rights of trans people They want EXTRA rights and what they are actually campaigning for is the removal of the rights of women and girls, but she doesn’t give a shit about that.

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.

What exactly does she mean by that, because it reads to me that if they try hard enough then they can persuade the women and girls that they’re wrong and need to centre those born male who identify as trans. Are they going to sensitively tell them that they are bigots and need to share nicely.

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.

Agreed.

All this shit is being allowed to happen under Tory rule - while we watch Labour self implode.

It suits the Tories to keep the focus on Labour and for them to continue to show themselves up.

But we need to get the Tories to actually do something. My male Tory MP states he is committed to single sex spaces (I think he gets it) and I was waiting on LT’s announcement - with her (hopefully) clear commitment to protect single sex spaces and protecting children. Now delayed. And our rights, language, safety, spaces etc are still be eroded.

If her statement is delayed much longer, or is a complete disappointment, what do we then do to get the Tories to actually stop this?

They are the government. They can stop this but choose not to. They should know their gaming of our rights this will cost them electorally too.

Thanks everyone, it is so disheartening receiving a reply like that yet so heartening when I read all of your responses on here!

My initial thoughts are:

1. She says again and again women 'need to be listened to' as mitigation against the rest of her letter, it is like a mantra that she uses to convince herself women are not being sidelined in the issue. Yet I'm a woman emailing with my concerns and I'm being lectured on the feelings of transwomen! So basically, let women vent but disregard it...

1. Again she keeps saying women deserve to be space, but how can this be enforced or guaranteed? If she truly believes self ID could work, surely she has proposals as to how it can be regulated. Otherwise she is throwing her support behind a cause with no regard for how it will affect the safety of women.

1. As for the 'gender identity', what is this? Until we define and recognise it, we cannot accommodate requests that will change the fabric of womens' rights. What does she mean 'experience of womanhood'? What can a natal male actually do to emulate the female experience other than merely dress/present like one? If it is all about the presentation, I think it is pretty dismissive to say womanhood is wearing dresses and lipstick.

1. She seems to be confusing women-specific rights with human rights in general. Everyone deserves to be safe surely? So why not grant 'cis' men access to womens toilets as well? Not all men are predators, why is it we can acknowledge this yet accept we need spaces away from them? Yet when it comes to TW the same logic is considered transphobic.

Anyway I will give it a couple of weeks and then get going on my reply.

@MsTSwift yes of course, use whichever parts you like. Glad it can be of use!

For once I'm actually hoping DM will lift a thread! Lol

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.

Assuming that she means 'safe' unisex changing rooms/toilets/prisons, how? What legislation is she proposing? What funding has been allocated to this process, given that it would require a massive amount of investment in infrastructure. What reports have been commissioned to study the impact and design of single sex spaces? If she believes this is important and possible and honestly believes in women's rights, what practical steps is she taking to ensure that women are protected?

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.

This is all completely irrelevant. She is advocating for legislation that makes any concept of sex meaningless. Loss of single sex spaces is just one consequence of this. She isn't even advocating for trans rights - she is just advocating for removal of all legislation that currently protects people who suffer discrimination because of sex, whether they are female, gay, or suffering from gender dysphoria.

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

Since when did anybody have a right to have their identity acknowledged? Which bit of legislation gives this right?

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

I doubt that she has any evidence to back this up, but it is also completely irrelevant because 'trans' can now include anyone, regardless of whether they present as anything other than their biological sex. This idea that people might 'pretend' to be trans is anachronistic, because there is no way to define pretence.

Great work OP

I'm gobsmacked that she referred you to Mermaids. And 'cis women'??
If she wants to call herself 'cis', fine, but I think it's unacceptable to use nonsense words like that when responding to a constituent. Imagine reading that reply as someone who doesn't have the first idea about gender ideology and queer theory. No. Just no.

I am struggling to articulate how I feel about her response to your email.

She talks about hearing our concerns, yet she isn't.

She is supposed to represent her constituents, not base her actions around her own views.

I'm grateful that the women on this board have taken the time to share what they have written. This is the first place I come to for help when I want to write to my MP. Please continue to share any updates. I'm following with interest.

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

I would bring this back to something along the lines of “asking natal women (who may not have any semblance of a gender identity at all) to access MIXED SEX services is not acknowledging the material reality of their biological sex (and the needs that arise on that basis)”.

It’s asking women, who may have nothing in common with transwomen, to share hitherto single sex services and spaces with members of the opposite sex, who make a claim of similitude based on gender. That is de facto conflating sex and gender, which need to be considered separate protected characteristics.

Ask what provision there is for the following scenario, where there is no overlap in sex and gender characteristics:

Me:

Gender: null
Sex: female

Transwoman:

Gender: feminine
Sex: male

Why do transpeople get to make a claim of similitude, but we are shut down from making any counter claim of dissimilitude?

Enraging.

The sticking point is this genuine misplaced belief in the concept of gender essence. To this sort of mindset, challenging the concept of trans is like calling a gay person mentally ill or perverted.

You could try pinning her down to a specific on safeguarding. "Very well. You bring in self-ID. A 13 year girl is in the swimming pool changing rooms. She encounters a person with male biology, naked. Prior to self ID, this would obviously be a serious sexual harassment incident requring police intervention. But post self-ID the situation is far less clear cut Please advise on how this child and pool staff will be able to successfully distinguish between 1) a naked transgender woman with every right to be there and 2) a man claiming to be a transwoman but in fact committing a serious sexual offence."

As the inevitable derail of 'are you calling transwomen perverts' will get wheeled out, it might also be worth adding:

"There are approximately 20 million men in this country. If you cannot provide a surefire method of distinguishing cases 1) and 2) above, gender self-ID gives every single one of them the opportunity to commit such an act now with impunity, leaving every woman and child at the mercy of nothing but men's goodwill. Even if only 1 in 10,000 lacks that goodwill and abuses self ID once in some way, that would be 2000 unprovable incidents alone. They would also have the power to accuse anyone who challenges them of a transphobic hate incident. I am sure you can see why a method of distinction* of cases 1) and 2) is essential if you do not wish self-ID to inadvertently become a sex offender's field day. Yours etc."

*obviously there isn't one...

She is advocating for legislation that makes any concept of sex meaningless. Loss of single sex spaces is just one consequence of this.

^
We are talking about a fundamental societal change, and Labour doesn't seem to get it. It's astonishing.
As for the Tories - the 'game' is more important, because things like women's rights just aren't in the party's DNA. They've made it clear once again.

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

What is a "gender identity"? How is it defined in law? Why should it be acknowledged? It is not a protected characteristic in the equality act, so why should it be considered as more important than sex, which is?

a man claiming to be a transwoman but in fact committing a serious sexual offence

I think the point here is that under self ID and current Stonewall definitions there isn't a difference. There is no way to distinguish between somebody who suffers from gender dysphoria and somebody who just doesn't believed that they should be constrained by the material reality of sex.

Not a derail I assure you but ethnic minority women also have many issues with the removal of single sex spaces. Labour has always been the party for BAME but BAME is not an homogeneous group. There are very strict rules governing women in places where men can access (be they trans or any others). How will Labour protect these women. Has Labour changed it's policies with regards to equality for BAME groups, or is it now a case of some are more equal than others

I'm sure there's a poster with much more information than I can give but there are just too many circles to square and Labour needs to get a grip

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

Asking women to share their sex-segregated spaces with natal males means assigning all women and girls a "gender identity" without their consent, and without defining it, in order to give males the ability to self-declare themselves 'the same' as those women.

I agree merry I was just running with the MPs concept of a magic difference and asking how she proposes to police it. Obviously you can't.

Given all the articles showing that rape has effectively been decriminalised, and given the majority of sex offenders are never even charged, it's fairly naive of her to think that "we just won't let anyone with a record of offending against women in" is a good approach in this situation.

Her reply to you is ridiculous. She's rattled and keeps repeating the same lines and saying "I never said that..." She's out of her depth. And referring you to Mermaids... What a joke.

highame

I don't think Labour have given a seconds thought to how this may impact women from other cultures or religions.
They are unable to apply any critical thought to the concept of self id and how this impacts everyone.

Interesting thread and I am very impressed with your letter OP.

I am new to this board and trying to understand the issues.

Is it true that 80% of transwomen have not had any surgery or have no intention of doing so? Why is that?

Just looked up Karen White - that is truly shocking. I presume there are other similar cases?

Am I right in thinking that the needs of transwomen are being put above those of cis women?

Chatty lion
I agree there is lots of evidence that mixed sex changing is a lot more dangerous for women -is it this article that you mentioned that said:
Mixed sex changing rooms are associated with more than an 800% increase in sexual attacks on women, and also increase the risk of voyerism and hidden cameras.

*The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms.
Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger*

What counter measures could be realistically put in place to protect women when women are already unprotected in these circumstances?
Also recent evidence shows girls are 4times more likely to be targeted by sexual predators boys, what measures does she have in mind to protect them?
There have always been men trying to tear down these boundaries and often for the worst reasons and she is naively helping them.

I am heavily involved in local governance. My advice with this is to be brutal and clinical.

It is only when you put their arse on the line that they stop bullshitting, and that inevitably involves financial liability of some sort. At the moment, there are no real world consequences for holding a position that ideologically opposes single-sex spaces -- so you have to nail it to the door.

Ask your MP if she will personally accept liability (political, financial, and legal) for any criminal offence that occurred due to the eradication of single-sex spaces in favour of mixed sex spaces in the climate created by the self-id legislation she supports.

Ask her if she will step down if such an incident occurs. If not, why not?

Ask her if she would be willing to publicly defend mixed-sex spaces in the aftermath of such an incident, remembering that the single-sex spaces that would be affected also extend to hospital wards, psychiatric wards, prisons, certain healthcare clinics (particularly sexual health), homeless and migrant refuges, and sleeping quarters in residential children's homes and elderly care homes.

Ask her if she would be prepared to print her opposition to single-sex facilities, particularly hospital wards, on her re-election campaign literature.

Ask her if she accepts her support of self-id legislation could be perceived as an attack on the rights of religiously conservative women, particularly BAME women. And if not, why not? Does she think that such women deserve to be informed that this is her position before the next general election?

Again, ask her if she thinks that her opposition to single-sex spaces could be construed as a form of institutional racism against women and children of Islamic, Hindu and Jewish heritage.

Ask if she accepts your letter as evidence that she had been made aware of the potential safeguarding issues inherent in self-id legislation.

Don't be wordy. Fire these points like bullets. In fact, put them in bullet points.