Help fact-check this letter to Liz Truss from 7000+ women

[testing987654321]

This letter has been signed by many women, of all walks of life. I think it's factually wrong in many places, anyone else willing to point out errors?

liztrussopenletter.wordpress.com/?fbclid=IwAR1lLPyNAtAyxI7iJYT6ULNGduWhuaThDncWLwmNDBBpva6_PM2cwjgso-4

Could the response be a letter that says trans people should have rights, we think the Equalities Act and GRA as written provide rights, existing laws as actually written are quite enforceable, (no more Stonewall law).

Welcome that Stonewall accept no surgeries on children, and that they plan to stand down from campaigning, and will condemn the hate issued to women?

Also welcome investment in trans healthcare to the same standard as to the rest of the population, ie evidence based (NICE review to cover puberty blockers).

It's so easy to not to worry about a man intimidating you in prison or a homeless shelter when you can be almost certain that you personally are never going to be in that situation.

The letter also makes no logical sense. Doing nothing ie leaving the GRA as it is, is the least onerous thing for Truss to do. Or are they arguing she should push through (another) bad law without doing any impact assessment?

What do they want her to actually do?

“Trans men, women and non-binary people young and old have always lived among us. They have used the single-sex spaces that align with their gender identity this entire time. The Gender Recognition Act has, for 16 years, provided a mechanism for trans men and women to update the gender marker on their birth certificate.”

Well exactly: there is already a mechanism for trans people to gain legal recognition for their acquired gender.
Some will argue there shouldn’t be any legal recognition at all, but it’s clear that isn’t on the table. All that’s on the table is a potential simplification of the mechanism - up to the level of self ID.
But the existing mechanism is the check and balance. It’s to prevent abuse. It’s not there to persecute genuine trans people. It’s there to stop abusive “cis” men feigning as trans women in order to access women only spaces. We get a glimpse of what the removal of such checks and balances looks like when we see the cases of white people Self identifying as black in order to get grants and posts reserved for black people.
The conversation Liz Truss wants to have (I presume) is whether those checks and balances -which some trans people find invasive - are proportional to the risk and less or no checks and balances would entail.
Here it is relevant to note that even with the existing checks and balances (a 2 yr process I believe) there have been a number of documented cases of TW accessing women only spaces and assaulting them in very Male ways

@testing987654321

Trans equality was not widely seen as an issue until the Transgender Equality Inquiry of 2015 triggered a concerted campaign in the media to depict trans rights as a new threat to cisgender women like ourselves.

I need to look up the Transgender Equally Inquiry of 2015.

I don't know why trans rights suddenly became such a talking point, the narrative on here is that Stonewall took it up after gay marriage was accepted as they had no major legal equal rights campaigns left on gay issues.

The equality report ran to 98 pages. They did not speak to any women's groups, only accepted written testimony.

But people like Jane Fae gave evidence, Jess Bradley, Action for Trans Health (the trans organisation that wants all trans prisoners released from jail and wants all medication to be over-the-counter), Mermaids, etc.

When women complained, Maria Miller said the only objection she had had was from women 'purporting to be feminists'.

So yes, the report was a one-sided white wash with contributions from many people whose credibility has since been robustly challenged.

The link to the full report is below. The people who gave evidence is at the end. With what has come to light over the last five years, it makes depressing reading.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

How can a none binary person use the facilities of the sex that aligns with their gender identity?m

I’m wondering how they policed the signatories to the letter to ensure the undersigned were indeed only “cisgendered women”. Biological essentialist gatekeeping transexclusion!

Where is the evidence that trans ppl have used the single sex spaces that have aligned with their gender this entire time? I kept seeing this argument being made that the UK is full of TW & TM who it seems pass so brilliantly that we’ve not even noticed they were there so really all they’re asking for is to carry on doing what we don’t already notice they’re doing

Given that the vast majority of TW have no surgery & you can’t alter someone’s skeletal structure so you can’t for example guve a man a female pelvis, this argument is just nonsense isnt it?

Isn’t it more - ppl completely noticed they weren’t the sex they were dressed as but thought they’d be kind & not say anything....and because of that TRA decided we literally couldn’t tell the difference between a man & a woman and therefore all women’s spaces must be made available to TW #nodebate #acceptancewithoutexception

Followed by “and as woman is an innate feeling I don’t have to look like one to be one”

Thanks Datun, those links are great.

I don’t believe the current GRS is accurately described as a two year process. From application to approval is pretty quick.
One of the requirements is evidence of a two year history of wanting to transition. Change the name on your gas bill online, another thing here and there, wait two years and you have a two year evidence of wanting to transition. Someone with access to an address for two years can easily achieve this. Someone without a secure address might find this harder. Maybe providing an alternative way of providing the two year evidence? Perhaps suggesting Stonewall provide a confidential, secure, mailbox to provide an alternative?

The ridiculous reaction to the JKR novel shows the concern of “real trans people” and those close to them of being aggregated with men who according to that novel, wears a woman’s coat once. Doesn’t that mean that having a proper route to trans status is desired by the “true trans” group?

The only reason to object is ideological. Transition is now considered by some as a transphobic term. I think bringing this into the open would be useful, including for those transsexuals being abused by TRAs as “trusc*m”, but who the general public think they are helping by supporting “Trans Rights”.

This purports to be a letter to Liz Truss and yet ends, right at the bottom of the page, with the statement "Liz Truss is wrong". I am not sure that is the best way to persuade her of anything, if that is indeed their aim.

the UK is full of TW & TM who it seems pass so brilliantly that we’ve not even noticed they were there so really all they’re asking for is to carry on doing what we don’t already notice they’re doing

It's odd, none of this makes logical sense.

@testing987654321

Thanks Datun, those links are great.

There have been a lot of threads on here about the entire report, the people contributing, and Maria Millers subsequent attitude.

Searching on Maria Miller in a thread title brings them all up.

A particularly enlightening episode was where she was interviewed by Janice Turner and called it a 'stitch up'.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2993425-Maria-Miller-interviewed-by-Janice-Turner-full-text

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2563673-Maria-Miller-and-minority-feminists

I don't know one person in real life who refers to themselves as "cisgender".

"Hi, we're a bunch of privileged white women who will never have to share our safe spaces with men, so we're totally fine with giving away the rights of all women!! HOW COOL ARE WE??!"

They seem a bit confused. They start off by saying that they are in favour of reform of the GRA.

Transphobic groups have argued that to protect women’s single-sex spaces, trans women must be barred from entering them. They campaign against reforming the Gender Recognition Act, and claim that simplifying the process by which trans people update the gender marker on their birth certificate will result in a rise in sexual assaults against women.

But they go on to say that GRA reform shouldn't be a priority now because of Covid.

The fact that you chose to make this a priority during the biggest crisis the world has faced in decades is even more disturbing. During lockdown, hundreds of women have been killed by abusive partners. Ethnic minorities are four times more likely to die from COVID-19. Surely these issues are more urgent?

So do they want reform or don't they? Or do they want reform of the GRA to make it possible for a man to be legally recognised as female on his word alone, but they don't want any reform which will offer more protection for women, rather than less.

Can someone explain to me why any women would be arguing for this?

'We urge you to speak to trans youth, to seek out evidence and use facts, and to reconsider sharing talking points with groups that have been widely condemned as transphobic hate groups.'

I urge this too. But I suspect if anyone actually does that the signatories won't be happy.

All of these women, whoever they are and whereever they live, are perfectly entitled to write to Liz Truss with their views, however vague and badly phrased.

The only point I take issue with is classing the groups mentioned as 'hate groups'. I'd say that was libellous, actionable and a very serious accusation.

If someone calls any group a "hate" group then I think they really ought to quote some examples of the hateful things they're supposed to have said.

That never happens does it?

this man is a woman.

What a very daft sentence!

Also noting that some of these signatories consist of a single initial.

several countries have implemented similar reforms to their gender recognition laws without any negative impact to cis women whatsoever.

Here are a couple of threads about things that have never happened and will never happen.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3309758-This-never-happens-male-offenders-in-female-prisons

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

I haven't got anything helpful to add, other than - Siobhan Fahey??! As in ex- Bananarama and Shakespeare's Sister? That was a slap in the face.

I have had a go at unpicking some of the letter:

... transphobic hate groups and organisations such as Woman’s Place UK, Transgender Trend and the LGB Alliance.

Anyone claiming these groups are 'hate groups' are going to need receipts to prove it. What exactly have they said that is 'hate speech'? 'Transphobic hate group' sounds very emotive and dramatic, but where is the proof?

Transphobic groups have argued that to protect women’s single-sex spaces, trans women must be barred from entering them.

If transwomen use them then by definition they are not single sex spaces anymore are they, so it's not exactly a ridiculous argument? Also, a definition of 'transwomen' would be needed here? Are we talking about full on GRS and everything else that goes with that, or are we talking about 'any male who identifies as female'? It's a pretty important point.

They campaign against reforming the Gender Recognition Act, and claim that simplifying the process by which trans people update the gender marker on their birth certificate will result in a rise in sexual assaults against women. This is despite the fact that several countries have implemented similar reforms to their gender recognition laws without any negative impact to cis women whatsoever.

Well actually, Ireland (which is so often cited) does have exemptions for prisons as far as I understand, so even they know who is actually male and female.

These transphobic groups also argue against any gender-affirming healthcare for trans under-18’s and mislead the public into thinking that under 18’s are being given gender reassignment surgery on the NHS. They are not. A handful of trans teenagers each year are given puberty blockers, a safe treatment available to trans teens on the NHS since 1989. Multiple scientific studies show that puberty blockers are a life-saving treatment for trans teenagers who want them.

OK, this is the most worrying part. I can't find any information for when puberty blockers started being used on gender dysphoric kids, but I found that Lupron, which I believe is the hormone blocker used, was licenced for use in 1989, for prostate cancer. And then in 1993 for treating precocious puberty. It has never been licenced or tested for use to actually stop a normally developing puberty, its use for this is off label. Also, the NHS has recently reviewed its information about puberty blockers to say that their effects are not known and they are not necessarily reversible. Furthermore studies show that almost all children who start on puberty blockers later go on to cross sex hormones which are definitely more permanent. Also worth pointing out that Susie Green, who has signed this letter and therefore obviously thinks the idea of under 18s getting surgery is ludicrous, took her son to Thailand for surgery for his 16th birthday.

Trans men, women and non-binary people young and old have always lived among us. They have used the single-sex spaces that align with their gender identity this entire time.

It is important to say that if this has happened, this is because women have allowed this as a courtesy, not because of equality law. Under the current EA, women are entitled to single sex spaces. Sex is a protected characteristic in the EA. So is 'gender reassignment' but there is no definition of what this means and people seem to be applying it very loosely. Also there are single sex exemptions that exempt people even with a GRC. Stonewall is currently campaigning for these exemptions to be abolished. My knowledge on the legal stuff isn't as good as some on here, so someone else might be able to come along and further clarify?

The fact that you chose to make this a priority during the biggest crisis the world has faced in decades is even more disturbing. During lockdown, hundreds of women have been killed by abusive partners. Ethnic minorities are four times more likely to die from COVID-19. Surely these issues are more urgent?

Unnecessary deflection and manipulation. You could say this about any single issue.

I hope some of that is helpful?

AFAIK no country that had introduced a version of self ID has followed it up with any kind of research to identify if it has caused problems

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence

A handful of trans teenagers each year are given puberty blockers, a safe treatment available to trans teens on the NHS since 1989. Multiple scientific studies show that puberty blockers are a life-saving treatment for trans teenagers who want them.

Safe? According to the NHS, side effects can be serious, and the long-term effects are unknown.

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

What really leaps out to me about this letter is how out of date it is....

These points may have been relavent a year, 18 months ago. But anyone engaged in the debate knows that they no longer hold water; it would be a LOGICAL, LEGITIMATE point to say that the impact on women's services in countries such as Canada have not yet been fairly assessed ; it would be a GOOD POINT to say that Yaniv et al do not represent the transgender community so it would be unfair to base new laws on their activities - but yo say THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS is literally gaslighting, isn't it?

It is like the last year didn't happen?

Who wrote ti's letter!?