My MSP Wants to Talk To Me About Women's Rights

[BuffysBigSister]

I emailed my SNP MSP today to say that much as I liked him and thought he was a good local politician, I wasn't going to vote for a party that didn't support women. I mentioned all the recent events: Joanna Cherry, Hate Crime Bill, Nicola's video and the Forensic Examination Bill. He has emailed me to ask if we can talk.
Any thoughts on what I should say?
He has not spoken in public on the topic that I know of so not sure what his opinion is

I would just list your concerns, maybe pick your top 3 or 5 and speak from the heart about how it affects your life, your family, what your worries are about the future.

It might be useful to find relevant stats for the subject like if it was prisons or sport I'd pick out things from FPFW or if it was children/schools and toilets I'd refer to the Katie Dowalotowski case.

If it's the SNP/Cherry you can talk about all that.

You can always say there is more but you want to focus on just a few given the time available.

It's great he wants to talk to you and he should listen, he may not agree of course but it's encouraging. Well done and good luck!

I'd accept, and kick off with asking him his view on the position that NS led SNP have adopted, without allowing open discussion & while implying women are bigots?

Offer to explain how you feel personally about this, how it impacts you & those you know. Use real life examples, emphasising the negative impact - being unable to use services/facilities that are changing their facilities to mixed sex (make sure you always refer to sex, not gender, and correct him if he uses gender). Elderly requiring female carers, school girl unable to use mixed sex loos when in period etc. Reference male violence & the threat of that in scenarios where women are vulnerable/in a state of undress & ask him if he's ever asked women around him how they feel about it. Because if he's that uninformed, he's either mixing with plenty of ideologues who will always say they aren't bigots/there's no issue.

I could ramble on & on but that I think what I'd kick off with

Well there’s a first! If only some of the Labour Party politicians did the same. Mine, Alex Sobel has said no to women’s rights to sex protected spaces. At least we know where he stands when it comes to the next election

Thanks for the suggestions. I agree its a good idea to stick to 2 or 3 points and try to give some personal examples. My goal is not necessarily to change his mind (although I don't know his opinion at the moment) but I do want him to go back to party HQ and tell them what people are saying.

Fairplay for women have a lot of really good articles, short, punchy, unemotional and to the point, very good for finding facts, evidence and information to refer to when talking.

There was a really detailed thread in here a couple of years ago (I know, because it was a real life friend of mine) who gave her experience of talking to her MP.

I'll see if I can find it ...

The examples suggested are valid ones. I'd also suggest thinking about the religious aspect, and whatever we think of the various faiths, an MSP might want to remember the importance to many in Scotland.

Disability is a frequently missed aspect too. Many women and girls with Autism have talked about how impossible it is for them to see and believe one thing but say another, and on the AIBU thread a mother was talking about her daughter having a meltdown and refusing to enter a toilet where she perceived a male was present.

Its the question that needs asking again and again: this will exclude some female people from being able to use female facilities. What alternatives do they have? What happens to them, the women of faith, culture, disability, trauma? Is it right that female facilities don't meet the needs of all females and some are excluded from any facility so that people born male may have their preferred choice from all the facilities? How is that justifiable in its sex class based discrimination?

@peak2021

The examples suggested are valid ones. I'd also suggest thinking about the religious aspect, and whatever we think of the various faiths, an MSP might want to remember the importance to many in Scotland.

My sister converted to Islam many years ago so will definitely cover that aspect. I also want to mention the impact on women in prison and the redefinition of the word "woman". I work in financial services and the number of women in senior roles is appalling. It infuriates me that a man could simply self-identify as a woman and that would improve our "gender" pay gap

There are some good posts in this thread from a while ago.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3964332-MP-response-In-shock?msgid=99227406#99227406

This from packing is very good advice

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.

I knew I could rely on the women here to give me good advice on this. This is all really helpful. Going to suggest to him that he call me next week so I can spend the weekend preparing.

That advice is gold. Its inspired me to write to my MP again.

I’d start with making it crystal clear that ‘identify as’ means ‘identify as’ (no baseline requirement as to physical changes, surgeries etc). I think many people are so blustered by the language.

We cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of looks or surgery.

I’d use ‘males that identify as... etc.

Following Ova's excellent post, have a look at the legal feminist analysis of the stonewall champions programme - I'm sure there are some excellent solid examples of where these self ID based policies can be discriminatory towards women/girls etc.

Ask him whether he was going to rebel and vote for Johann Lamont's "six words" amendment, or whether he waited until the party leadership changed their minds on it. If he says the former, ask him why the SNP opposed it until the last minute; if the latter, make him justify that to you. Make him do plenty of the talking.

Here's a thread from a few years ago:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3365443-Visit-to-my-MP-Plaid-Cymru

[quote QueenoftheAir]Here's a thread from a few years ago:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3365443-Visit-to-my-MP-Plaid-Cymru[/quote]
That's perfect. It's reminded to mention how important it is to collect clear data in the census - sex not gender. Will have a look at some of the work Murray Blackburn Mackenzie have done.

Good luck. You could also look at @Glinner 's website and newsletter. His latest is about Leeds MP, Alex Sobel, whose answer on Twitter, to the question:
"Do you agree that there should be sex-segregated facilities for women in hospitals, schools, refuges and prisons?"

was just
"No"

@OvaHere

There are some good posts in this thread from a while ago.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3964332-MP-response-In-shock?msgid=99227406#99227406

This from packing is very good advice

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.

I would keep it simple and not try to get too many different themes as it is quite complicated for the uninitiated. Maybe pick 5 key themes and spell them out clearly:

1. Issue with transitioning children - it is impossible to change sex yet these children are being told that they can, prescribed PBs, XSH etc with no evidence. Recent JR vindicates women's concerns in this area. Gender non-conforming and potentially gay kids should be allowed to grow up with intact bodies.

1. Women's spaces, particularly vulnerable women. Placing men who claim to be women ( particularly men with a history of sex offending) in prison with vulnerable women constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. Same applies to DV refuges and rape crisis centres etc.

1. Women's sports. Clearly unfair and it is unconscionable that women who object are being (mis)cast as bigots. Men are bigger, stronger and faster than women which is why we segregate by sex. Women have historically not had a level playing field in terms of sponsorship, prizes, training opportunities etc...now these are being taken away by males. This travesty is supported by sporting bodies.

1. Disproportionate effect on young women. Gender 'care' pathway has increasing number of unhappy young women taking hormones and having mastectomies. Teenage girls and young women 'fleeing womanhood' in an increasingly misogynistic environment. The female body somehow seen as defective and this idea is being promoted by gender clinics.

1. The cumulative effect of this ideology is damaging to women's rights and the rights to safeguard children. Even our language is being removed (this is complex and I might avoid in a queer theory 101). No doubt though that women's voices are being silenced on this - Duffield, Cherry, Truss, Kemi etc .

Find out how much time you have, plan what you want to say and leave plenty of q&a time. Fantastic that people are waking up and wanting to hear what we have to say after years of Stonewall miseducation.

In addition to the above, make it very very clear he's lost a vote unless demented misogyny ceases to be an actual policy position.

It's interesting to see when religion is apparently worthy of respect depending on whose religion it is. I don't support such arguments. You don't have to be religious to have the right to private women's and girls' toilets, hospital wards, prisons etc.

And schoolgirls' rights are overlooked and don't merit even a mention. No girl should be put through the hell and humiliation of having to share toilets with sniggering boys and worse, in schools. It is just appalling that anyone could think of forcing that on them.

I grew up free from even having to think about such things. Now people never stop talking about mental health of young people but they don't actually care what sort of world is being and has been created around them and the lack of space and freedom for them to grow up in peace and safety.

Ask about the hate crime bill which will make it a criminal offence to discuss female sex based rights, even at home or even question the trans ideology and will become an excuse for many vindictive people to persecute females.

I agree that we need to keep making the point that women & girls have the legal right to single-sex spaces. All females, not only those who have suffered assault/trauma, or have a strong religious reason.

And women & girls shouldn't have to disclose abuse to assert their legal rights.