Singularly unhelpful response from my MP

[DappledOliveGroves]

I've been emailing my MP for over a year on my concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the GRA. She finally responded yesterday - I've copied and pasted her text below:

"Thank you for your email following media reports of a leaked paper that the government may have decided not to introduce changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA).

At the General Election last December I stood on a manifesto which supported updating the GRA and upholding the Equality Act, and my position on this has not changed. It is not appropriate for the government to side-step Parliament by leaking their response to the 2018 consultation on changing the GRA.

When the government do, finally, publish their proposals later this summer I shall scrutinise them carefully. I have grave concerns that instead of seeking a collaborative and inclusive approach the government will seek to further divide opinion on this sensitive issue.

Yours sincerely,

Karin Smyth
Labour MP for Bristol South"

Notwithstanding the fact she's taken over a year to respond, I find her tone and comments dismissive and a failure to address any of my concerns. I don't vote Labour anyway, but this abject failure to take note of women's concerns is utterly depressing.

Over a year to reply with no apology.

That's pretty basic as a start. Very poor.

Can you reply to say that your concerns were not addressed?

You could copy Liz Truss?

I stood on a manifesto which supported updating the GRA and upholding the Equality Act, and my position on this has not changed.

I'd be interested to see how updating the GRA fits with upholding the Equality Act which lists sex as a protected characteristic and allows for single-sex provision where appropriate. Could you press her on how this balance would be struck?

Also, given how Labour performed at the last election, given the rifts that must be healed within the party, and given they now have a new leader, perhaps clinging to the old manifesto isn't the best way forward.

I'm drafting a letter to my MP and I expect a similar dismissive response. But at least they can't say they haven't had any concerns from their constituents. It's the first time I've ever written to my MP, never thought it would be on this!

My whole family votes Labour and now we don't know who we will vote for. I am mentioning that in the letter. They'll only pay attention when it costs them seats, and seeing their response to the last election probably not even then.

At the General Election last December I stood on a manifesto which supported updating the GRA and upholding the Equality Act, and my position on this has not changed.

Perhaps your MP could explain how that is possible, if effectively the protected characteristic of 'sex' is removed because nobody can explain what it means.

I have grave concerns that instead of seeking a collaborative and inclusive approach the government will seek to further divide opinion on this sensitive issue

Dappledolivegroves do you feel your MP has addressed your concerns? Does your MP have a collaborative and inclusive approach?

Karin Smith is aware of the issues: she was among a group of MPs who met with Fair Play For Women, Woman’s Place UK and Transgender Trend in October 2018 to discuss women's rights and the GRA.

See www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps. Also note from that report that it's not just Labour that's waving its hands on this rollercoaster: LGBT+ Conservatives called one MP’s comments that "someone with male genitalia is 'definitely not a woman' transphobic and abhorrent".

Out of interest are there any Conservative MPs who stick with the TWAW line?

Out of interest are there any Conservative MPs who stick with the TWAW line?

Maria Miller?

Sounds as dismissive as mine.

Shame cause her labour predecessor (male) was far more engaged and willing to discuss with me.

Ahh, of course merrymouse. Maria Miller is probably stuck with that position now.

I was disappointed - I'd known that she'd attended the Fair Play for Women meeting, so expected a response that actually dealt with the issues I'd raised. Clearly that was too much to hope for

I get the impression she's annoyed at being asked about this.
It's a very tribal answer, taking digs at the Government. I agree it's cheap using leaks to disseminate information - oh so handy when you don't want to be the bearer of bad news.

I have grave concerns that instead of seeking a collaborative and inclusive approach the government will seek to further divide opinion on this sensitive issue

Translation: I am worried that the government won't capitulate to the trans lobby. Like Labour has.

I think she's probably scared stiff. That's a response that doesn't actually say what she thinks, just makes digs at the government, fudges how 'sensitive' an area it is, and then provides vague word salad about how she's going to square a circle and somehow make single sex provision and self-ID compatible by magic. Which usually means, TWAW so single sex provision includes male people as long as they say they aren't male.

It's always worth writing, of course. But I won't vote for any party which makes misogyny in its most basic form policy, so Labour can go whistle. Here's hoping Starmer reins his party back in, because it's just bullshit that all young people think this. Most are too scared to say anything. That's not the same thing.

Not that I think Twitter is anything other than a swamp of shit, but she should look up the hashtag #labourlosingwomen, I haven't got the right accounts to check how many times it's been used but I'll bet its in hundreds of thousands. All those votes lost and they still can't reconsider and remember that actual science is a thing.

Why do they never answer the actual questions. Whatever stance you have surely theres an answer anyway. Do they think we won't notice the complete lack of engagement with the points that have not onky been presented by made mainstream news in many cases so are not even something they can keep quiet

"Thank you for your email following media reports of a leaked paper that the government may have decided not to introduce changes to the What to do if 2001: A Space Odyssey is True Act 2001

At the General Election last December I stood on a manifesto which supported updating the SOTA and upholding the Alien Rights Act 1975, and my position on this has not changed. It is not appropriate for the government to side-step Parliament by leaking their response to the 2018 consultation on changing the SOTA.

When the government do, finally, publish their proposals later this summer I shall scrutinise them carefully. I have grave concerns that instead of seeking a collaborative and inclusive approach the government will seek to further divide opinion on this sensitive issue."

It's an amazing letter - it works for anything - all you need is cut and paste!

Out of interest are there any Conservative MPs who stick with the TWAW line?

Penny Mordant, Crispin Blunt?

Its still not known which member of the 2018 Conservative cabinet threatened David T Davies MP with police action if he continued to host women's groups in Westminster.

talkradio.co.uk/news/david-davies-threatened-police-action-holding-meetings-transgender-concerns-18101628380

I said this in a letter to my MP

I do support people's wish to express their personal identity by how they dress and what they want to call themselves, but that must not come at the expense of the protected characteristic of sex. Also the right of women and girls to single sex spaces on the grounds of safety, decency and privacy when they are in a state of undress and therefore vulnerable.

His response was as follows, which if I understand it correctly, has completely misinterpreted my concerns. Conservative MP

Thank you for contacting me about the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA).
I know that colleagues in the Government Equalities Office have been doing a lot of work on this recently to form their response to the consultation. Understandably, the Coronavirus outbreak has complicated things somewhat, but I have received reassurances from the department that they plan to publish their response in the summer.

I understand that there are concerns about how this may affect transgender rights more widely and I want to assure you that I will pass these onto my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office. I do not wish to pre-empt the consultation response, and I would like to take the time to study the detail of it in due course. This is a very sensitive issue and I appreciate the opportunity of having received your own perspective on this.
This is a complex area and I want to ensure that the Government gets the balance right.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

At least you were spared the new stock response the other Labour MPs are sending. Here's one highlight:

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.

You'll find a lot of suggestions for replies here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3964304-Help-me-reply-to-my-MP-My-head-is-too-tired-for-this

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3964332-MP-response-In-shock

For your MP I would suggest asking about the interplay between the GRA and the Equality Act. The EHRC MADE clear in 2018, that when it comes to the sex-based exemptions and female-only provisions, there is a difference between a male who identify as trans but remains legally male and a male who identify as trans who is legally female after receiving a GRC.

The former can be excluded without explanation or justification - where men are generally excluded from female-only provisions, such an individual is excluded too.

However, there are a number of legal opinions that posit that once a male is legally female through a GRC, excluding such an individual from female-only provisions is no longer lawful discrimination, but becomes illegal.

Furthermore, even if this legal opinion is incorrect (and it may well be, we simply don't know yet as this hasn't been tested in the court), although it is not impossible to exclude such an individual, in practice it can be very much so. And while this can be done with some effort, once you open up the GRC process to 100 times more men, employing the sex-based exemptions will be made much more difficult (dealing with a handful of cases may be doable, dealing with a 100 may be beyond the capacity of most smaller organisations). Without first clarifying this issue, without first strengthening the sex-based exemptions (for instance by making them opt-out by default where single-sex provision is the better option rather than something you have to actively opt-in a d by clarifying that funding decisions must not penalise organisations that choose to provide a single-sex service).

The second thing I would point out to her is that the case for reform has not been made by the government or the Labour Party. Misinformation has been at the heart of much campaigning about this. What we currently have is being held up as best practice in other countries. The Labour Government of the time, which created the Gender Recognition Act, strategically decided to make only a medical diagnosis mandatory, but not a medical transition to meet what they expected to be the European Court of Human Rights' changing stance away from requiring the latter (that was an entirely correct assumption. In a landmark decicion in 2017, the ECHR held that making a medical transition mandatory before granting a legal sex change violates the human rights of those who identify as trans, but crucially making a medical diagnosis mandatory does not. They deemed this ti be an entirely reasonable requirement).

And unlike any other application to the state, an applicant can receive support from a civil servant. The Gender Recognition Panels were set up in this way to avoid applicants having to appear in person and today it merely rubber stamps all applications with the correct paperwork. No one has to justify themselves in any way. If for any reason you are rejected, you can try again after a six months wait. The fee can be waived if you cannot pay it.

95% of all applications for a GRC succeed. That success rate speaks to a system that works entirely as intended, without any issues and is better than everything else we have (if you look at visa applications, disability or any other benefits, the huge failure rates there would lead you to a very different assessment).

So make the case for reform based not on emotional appeals but the fact. Then let's look at what needs to be done to improve the system we have and address whatever actual problems people who identify as trans have with the application.

Sorry for the grammar mistakes. Shouldn't rely on autocomplete! And proofread before posting.

Out of interest are there any Conservative MPs who stick with the TWAW line?

Amber Rudd?

Although she’s no longer an MP

This was my email to my Conservative MP on 16 June:

“I am writing as one of your constituents to urge you to support Liz Truss in her attempts to protect the rights of women and girls in the face of attempts to water down the provisions of the GRA.
I have no problem with men identifying as women, but I have a big problem with men undermining the rights of women.
I have an 11-year old grandson, who is vulnerable by reason of his autism; and I have three grand-daughters, aged 13, 6 and 2. All going through a woke school system.

I am desperately worried about how they might be affected by pressures at school and in social media to conform to the fashionable transgender ideology.
Please support Liz Truss. “

And her reply on 8 July:

“Thank you for taking your time out to write to me. The current works of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) have been delayed I understand by the specific issues around Covid but I can assure you that alongside the Covid work, our officials do continue to work on the Act and make sure the needed rights progress. As you are aware the Rt Hon Liz Truss MP, Minister for Women and Equalities, released a statement in June highlighting areas that the GRA will be examining and I will address these points.

Ms. Truss spoke of the protection of single-sex spaces, many comprehend this area as one that concentrates on the use of single sex bathroom and changing rooms, but as a government we must to look at all areas, such as women refuges, and make sure the government creates a safe place for women to go to in times of need. I whole heartedly support the rights and protections for Transgender citizens wishing to self-identify. However, we will always make sure there proper checks and balances in the system and young children will be protected until they are of an age to make decisions for themselves. The government view this age as 18.

As mentioned, the Act has been delay and is still under examination. Please keep an eye on my website for any updates. The government would not want any family to feel their children are being pressurised in school and take changes to the national curriculum very serious.”

I have a phone call scheduled in with my MP on Friday. I asked her about her surgeries and she said she is doing them over the phone - I sent her an email outlining some of the main issues - mentioned Yaniv and White, Mermaids, Stonewall, Allison Bailey, JKR et al, and she has me booked in.

I said in the email that I am weary of arguing the issue round in circles, and I just want a way forward. I will point out that the 2018 consultation was unadvertised and that people are much more aware of the issue now, so a second consultation would be fairer. I will suggest that liz truss consult representatives advocating for women's and children's rights as well as LGBT groups. I will tell her that pretty much everyone I have spoken to agrees with JKR, and at the next election a stand for women's right would be a vote winner, definitely for me at least...

(she is a Conservative. And I tell you what, if she can persuade me to vote Conservative for the first time ever then she deserves my vote.....)

I had a very cautiously balanced response from my Tory MP... the carefully chosen language for the avoidance of any kind of TRA gotcha was almost palpable. In the end, she didn’t really say anything (I didn’t expect her to really) but I at least wanted to stand up and be counted.

This was around the time of the labour leadership contest and all the nonsense some of the labour candidates were going on about... a rapist should be able to choose the prison they identify with because a child in my constituency is very sad, strawman, less heat, more light etc