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

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.

The exemptions don't seem to be working very well in that case.

A sex offender who is currently undergoing a male to female transition has been given a protection detail after being remanded to the Dochas Centre Women's prison in Dublin.

The prisoner was remanded in the women's prison in Mountjoy on Monday after being convicted of 10 counts of sexual assault and one count of cruelty against a child

www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/sex-offender-undergoing-male-female-16623261

More about how the law in Ireland was passed without considering that this would be the result.

www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners/

Is this a new letter? Because I’m sure it a few months old at least.

Well exactly @rabbitwoman. I think that's why the list is overwhelmingly the dafties (actors, marketers, publishers etc) and vested interests. No one with any awareness of the situation (even if they still are supportive of changing the GRA etc) would sign something so out of date and inaccurate.

Am I reading it correctly, apart from a short list they picked out, including call workers and waiters, is every single other person on the list in the arts? No scientists, doctors, healthcare professionals? None?

And yes, I don't think it's a new letter. But new people are reading it, so refutations are necessary.

The government seem well aware of the gaming of the results of the public consultation though, so I don't think Liz Truss will give it a second glance.

I can't help wondering if it's just a useful list of people to ignore.

Anyway, over 7000 of us signed a different kind of letter....

twitter.com/WomenUnitingUK/status/1272920955623333888?s=20

If you click through to the google doc @Datun they have split it out by sector. There are some medical professionals and scientists (in what, not sure), and a handful of medical students/academics but very very few compared to the rest.

I don't think they realised what they were doing but they've kindly compiled a list showing the size of the gender circus industry and the sheer number of people who are dependent on keeping the gravy train going. And this is only the women (well, self IDed women anyway). There are all the men too.

Very illuminating, thanks so much letter writer, you've done a great service in showing your hand.... the law of unintended consequences and all that.

Describing the need for single sex spaces and services as 'bigotry' shows you don't understand safeguarding, trauma or PTSD.
Its no different from the arguments conservative men use to control and shame women.

I thought it was more recent, it seems to have been circulating since May.

I had a look at the relevant sector and two women I know personally have signed this, including someone who was a good friend at university. She definitely knew what a woman was back then. That's depressing.

@Tootsweets23

If you click through to the google doc *@Datun* they have split it out by sector. There are some medical professionals and scientists (in what, not sure), and a handful of medical students/academics but very very few compared to the rest.

I don't think they realised what they were doing but they've kindly compiled a list showing the size of the gender circus industry and the sheer number of people who are dependent on keeping the gravy train going. And this is only the women (well, self IDed women anyway). There are all the men too.

Very illuminating, thanks so much letter writer, you've done a great service in showing your hand.... the law of unintended consequences and all that.

Thank you. I did think it was incredibly telling and odd. However, the fact that it's still very few scientists who have signed it, is just as revealing, really.

And YY to the previous poster who has wondered where on earth these signatories have been for the past year. Since so much of what is written in the letter has been reported on and refuted publicly.

Airily waving away concerns over drugs which the NHS themselves say they have no evidential studies on just looks like juvenile and alarmingly irresponsible.

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.

These are countries with different legal systems. Specifically in the UK, women's rights are protected by the EA which uses the protected characteristic of sex. If the word sex has no objective meaning, the protected characteristic cannot be defined.

These transphobic groups also argue against any gender-affirming healthcare for trans under-18’s

Explain 'transphobic'. Explain 'gender affirming healthcare'.

Trans men, women and non-binary people young and old have always lived among us.

Define these words, particularly non-binary.

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.

Please don't apply the term 'cisgender' generally and assume that all women feel affinity with a gender stereotype. The 2015 Inquiry raised concerns because the submission by Stonewall asked for sex based exemptions in the GRA, e.g. for sport to be removed. Plenty of trans women understand why this is a problem.

We reject this assessment. As cisgender women, we are angry that these groups claim to speak for us

No, the women who object to the GRA speak for themselves. You are also welcome to express your views.

bigotry against a vulnerable minority

No, women are concerned about men, who are not a vulnerable minority. However, if you want to continue to describe trans people as a vulnerable minority, you might need a clear definition for 'trans'.

organisations such as Stonewall

Stonewall have made it clear that they are happy for women to be seriously injured on the rugby pitch. I wouldn't listen to them.

Trans men, women and non-binary people young and old have always lived among us.

There's no evidence of children identifying as trans prior to the 20th century.

Not in the historical records, not in the extensively documented medical records of the Romans and Greeks, and much more importantly, prior to Money, there's also nothing in the work of the child psychologists who've been studying all manner of disorders in children for 150 years or so. It's all in the last fifty to sixty years.

[quote TheFleegleHasLanded]Anyway, over 7000 of us signed a different kind of letter....

twitter.com/WomenUnitingUK/status/1272920955623333888?s=20[/quote]
Ah, good to see. And people are still signing. And I had already, it seems!

'Gender marker' - your birth cerificate records your sex, a biological and unchangeable fact about you. Nothing to do with gender.

'Puberty Blockers' - NHS has recently changed guidelines in line with latest research - I think Prof Carl Hagans assessment, heis Director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford - ' An unregulated live experiment on children'

Harm to women? I like to start with sport, very clear. Connecticut female college athletes done out of medals when 2 boys 'identified' as girks and started to run in the girls races. Our own World Rugby guidelines, opposed by Stonewall.

Not having accurate sex data - Prof Alice Sullivan

'Gender marker' - your birth cerificate records your sex, a biological and unchangeable fact about you. Nothing to do with gender.

Exactly, its a copy of the information held on the public register.

The GRA 2004 was written after Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] held that previous law violated the right to marry (no longer relevant) and right to a private live.

It was not intended to formally recognise gender, it was intended to hide sex in cases where disclosure of sex would violate privacy.

On the other hand, Stonewall think that the GRA should recognise 'self determination' of gender which is different.

www.stonewall.org.uk/gender-recognition-act-gra-take-action-trans-equality

There's no evidence of children identifying as trans prior to the 20th century.

And you also have to question what 'trans' would have meant, given that women's lives were previously so restricted. Women who just wanted to receive an education were accused of being 'unfeminine'.

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.

There is evidence, from every single country that adopted self-id in law and policies, that these have been used for purposes other than the intended.

Mexico: men undermine the democratic process seeking to grant equal representation to women by identifying as women;

US: rape, sexual assaults and harassment, intimidation, physical violence and aggression against women in prison (several law suits), in shelters and refuges for homeless and/or battered women, removal of fair competition in high scholl and college sport leading to the loss of opportunity and scholarships for girls; increase in voyerism and assault in sanitary facilities and changing rooms;

Spain: self-id abused by men tried for domestic violence offences to gain access to their children;

Ireland: a number of exemptions for privacy, now that self-id is being utilised by males who identify as trans and who have not fully (or at all) transitioned, issues are starting to arise;

Norway: self-id used by fully intact male to shower and undress in communal women-only changing area. When challenged by female user, management agrees this is not ok and communicates this to the male. Who does not care, does it again, is challenged again, then sues the woman challenging him for transphobia, discrimination and harassment. Three year journey through various courts results in judgement for the woman. In the judgement, the judge criticises the badly thought out law. Currently the Norwegian government is trying to push through an amendment to their hate crime laws that will make a fair, equitable and above all public discussion about how self-id harms women's rights all but impossible;

Canada: much discussed here, problems in prison, refuges, rape crisis support. Problems with women being sued for offering services specific to women for women only;

UK: self-id policies causing problems in all aspects of life that impact men and women, boys and girls differently.

There's many more examples from other countries, too.

A handful of trans teenagers each year are given puberty blockers

This is an odd statement and obviously incorrect - I’m sure I read that GIDS or GIDS whistleblowers have said that nearly every child of the 3-4000 referred to them over recent years progressed to puberty blockers. (Can’t find the source atm but I’ll keep looking).
It should be very easy to verify for the NHS number of prescriptions but slightly more difficult for the private prescriptions from places like Webberly’s GenderGP It certainly sounds like more than a handful but what an odd way of quantifying this. Also, if they are so life saving and safe, why is it only a handful?
This whole letter is very strange and badly put together - I’m sure the lobbying groups have produced much better quality writing than this - my suspicious mind wonders if it is a smokescreen or diversion from something else but I can’t work out what.

my suspicious mind wonders if it is a smokescreen or diversion from something else but I can’t work out what.

I know what you mean. They have tried this tactic so many times now, from similar letters to petitions to flooding the consultation with identikit responses, and it hasn't worked.

Or maybe they are this daft and desperate?

Is there any way for people to verify if the text they saw when they signed the letter is the text now being shown?
I’ve got no idea how these ‘open letters’ work. Interesting how the 7000 odd they have is similar to the open letter we saw recently (to the Scottish gov’t??) - have they seen that letter and want to match it?

Or maybe they are this daft and desperate?

Also this Sunset :-)

Sorry me again. Back from the depths - apparently, on a name check sample of some of the signatories the ‘c_ women’ include d_ qs , non c__ women (they/them pronouns in bio) and non UK residents. Hmm

This can’t be a real name, can it?!

@Feminist10101

This can’t be a real name, can it?!

Yes I follow her on twitter

@gardenbird48

Sorry me again. Back from the depths - apparently, on a name check sample of some of the signatories the ‘c_ women’ include d_ q__s , non c__ women (they/them pronouns in bio) and non UK residents. Hmm

Shocked.