Reply from MP: sex segregated spaces.

[sofakingg00d]

I emailed my labour MP after reading the Alex Sobel tweets. Here is the response:

I know this is an emotional and fraught debate and acknowledge that there are strongly held views on all sides. Personally, I think people should be able to access facilities that match their gender identity, as they have done for many years. Indeed, under the Equality Act, trans people have the right to access single-sex services in line with their ‘acquired gender’, and they are not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or have undergone any form of medical intervention, to be eligible for support in these services. However, under the Act, it is lawful for single-sex services to provide a different service or refuse their service to someone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’, in circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

Trans people, particularly trans women (and by extension, particularly black trans women) are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime and hate crime, and they, like everyone, must feel safe in bathrooms, changing rooms, and other facilities. Of course, everyone, whether trans or cis, should use such facilities respectfully, and with consideration for other users. On refuges, I think the focus should be on ensuring services have the resources they need to meet the needs of cis women and trans women. 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 against trans people.

I don’t think this subject can be adequately discussed and addressed on social media (or through the leaking of review recommendations, as happened last year). These discussions must be conducted on the basis of fact and respect, and Labour is committed to listening to women and to LGBT+ communities to ensure our policies protect and respect everyone’s rights. I want you to know that I am listening and that I take on board all perspectives on this issue, even if they differ from my own.

Any help in drafting a response? I want to include some stats about women Vs transwomen as victims of violent crime - anybody recall a good source?

There's a couple of similar discussions here that might have useful pointers

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4157419-My-MSP-Wants-to-Talk-To-Me-About-Womens-Rights

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

I think FairPlayForWomen website may have the stats you are looking for.

Fucking hell what a load of ill-informed shite.

(Don't put that.)

Fair play for women would be a good source. The black trans women being the most likely to be victims of a crime is just nonsense. There is no evidence for that at all.

The GRC point is wrong though he/she is right, the 'proposing to undergo' is basically Self ID. I'd also ask about what he/she considered a legitimate aim and whether addressing these concerns also shouldn't be done so in a way to discriminate against women.

I'd pull him/her up on the word C*s. Using that word alone makes it's obvious he or she is fully captured but he or she (sounds like a she to me) says she's listening.

I'd then ask about sport, rape crisis centres and prisons because this is where the Be Kind crew can get to the root of the problem. They really don't think TWAW all of the time.

The ignorance of your MP is breathtaking.
"Trans people, particularly trans women (and by extension, particularly black trans women) are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime"
NO they are not. Women and girls are especially vulnerable to being victims of violent crime.

And as to your MP also conflating 'hate crimes' onto the end of that - does your MP not know that only certain groups are DEFINED as being the recipients of hate crime?? And women are NOT included in that group? So of course the groups so defined will have more 'hate crimes' against them, as that's what the law says.

We all need to stand for parliament... get some intelligence in there

Yes this a female MP in a safe labour seat, I suspected she was pretty 'captured' before this response.

Thanks for you help, I'll have a go a drafting something over the weekend.

How blunt can you be with an MP?

Of course transwomen should feel safe in toilets and changing rooms. This matter should be addressed urgently by men.
If transwomen are experiencing domestic abuse, this is terrible and I will fully support them when they organise to provide these, I would even happily attend a jumble sale or coffee morning to raise funds for such a refuge.
Regarding sports I can imagine that transwomen may not feel comfortable competing with men. In my opinion, this should be an issue they are encouraged to explore when they begin transitioning (you know, in the extensive non directive counselling sessions they have prior to transitioning). For a very athletic person, they might want to ask themselves, 'which is most important to me...competing in sport, or 'living as a woman'?' They may find a solution that is acceptable, teams or leagues for transwomen only, but I imagine their would be logistical issues....but a committed athlete would surely try and address these rather than compete in any unfair way, as that would be unsporting.

Totally captured just paying lip service minimally to retain your vote.

Don't forget to include the 2 women murdered by male partners in UK per day figure. (Check the source I don't have it)

You could mention how a feminist meeting on the fringe of the Labour Party conference was threatened and picketed by a howling mob and that only one single Labour MP dared to say it was a less than ideal way of furthering the debate.

It's a copy and paste reply provided by the assistant I'd bet. All Labour MPs are at it, sticking to the party line without bothering to engage themselves.

Good luck in getting a response from your actual MP, Sofa

sofakingg00d
I suppose it's a marginal improvement on the "die bigot" response that some of her (mostly) male colleagues would aim at voters? ... hopeful....

a) define the 'c**' word - why is she misgendering you???! Is she actually assuming your gender? Is she aware of how offensive many people find it as a word and why, never mind that she is enforcing a political identity on you without your consent or involvement. Kind of not following her own broadcasting of virtue there, she's not as woke as she thinks she is.

b) how does she intend to sensitively enable female people who cannot use mixed sex spaces to not be excluded from all the spaces so male people can take their preferred choice of all the spaces? What she says sounds all terribly nice, but how does excluding female people from any space make things better? What for example does she think about the Hampstead Ponds situation, and how sensitive that is to the female people now with no access at all while male people have a choice of three?

c) what statistics is she going from on this incredibly vulnerable group who are not safe in male spaces? And how is the risk improved by just making female spaces available to all males? Surely the risky ones are just going to walk right in after the vulnerable ones? She can't have it both ways.

You'll probably be wasting your time, but repeatedly trying to engage a bit of critical thinking is the only way forward.

Indeed, under the Equality Act, trans people have the right to access single-sex services in line with their ‘acquired gender’, and they are not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or have undergone any form of medical intervention, to be eligible for support in these services.

I’m sorry to sound ignorant but I’m still learning. Is this correct? I know people holding a GRC are covered under the equality act, but isn’t the above simply self Id?

May also be useful to point out to her that it's important in her care not to be accused of transphobia she is not accidentally sounding gynephobic. Or unintentionally enabling gynephobic agendas.

Silly name calling often appears to make this kind of person run around in circles like a headless chicken; so when in Rome....

Thinking about it actually I'd ask for a meeting. It is probably a C&P reply but she said she was listening. Ok, so ask for a phone call, have points prepared and see what she does. You can be blunt but it's easier with your voice than in emails.

Check out Karen Ingala Smith's NIA for the violence against women stats.

niaendingviolence.org.uk/

And the government's own data, she should know about that at the very least.

Surely WOMEN are more likely to be victim of an assault than a black trans-woman.

Doesn't sound like this MP is interested in supporting women at all.

What a terrible response. Karen Ingala Smith has also written some excellent articles about the need for single sex refuges. I will find when I have time. (You don't live in SE London do you? I'm wondering if we have the same MP)

Does she think that TWAW? If so how and why?

but I think these concerns can, and should, be addressed in a sensitive way without discriminating against trans people.
This is the kind of meaningless platitude that gets rolled out...challenge them on it. How can these concerns be addressed? How exactly is maintaining the status quo discriminating against trans people?
Especially when they also trot out that trans people have been using bathrooms etc without incident for years. If that's the case, what's their issue??

@ValancyRedfern No not London, as the pet shop boys said - go west

Wow does she want some more fudge for that reply.

Part of your reply could be is yes there should be discussion but whilst women are harassed, threatened and discriminated against for putting forward a sex based rights view that cannot happen and we need mps to step up and say that degree of harassment is unacceptable.

The Fair Play for Women meetings to discuss the legal consultation to the GRA had to go to extraordinary lengths to go ahead.

The Millwall meeting had to change venue due to a level of threat they had never encountered. Millwall

The one Prof Freedman spoke at in Reading had men shouting and banging at the front. The men (and one female) protestors allowed only a tiny gap for the women to leave and at least one attendee was followed as she returned to her car (she had to double back to lose the follower). Prof Freedman found the protestors had urinated on her office door as well as threats or rape and murder.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6463947/Law-professor-blames-transgender-activists-campaign-harassment.html

It feels like a very surface level response to me. I'm thinking I just ask a few of the questions mentioned above to try and get to what she really thinks.

Then the next follow up with the stats

Thankyou for doing this on behalf of us who can't, yet.

Hi OP,

I would reply specifically to this point.

However, under the Act, it is lawful for single-sex services to provide a different service or refuse their service to someone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’, in circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

I would request that your MP specifically supports this EA Exception and insists it is upheld as it acts to protect vulnerable women from further trauma. I would ask your MP to reassure you that she will not back organisations such as Stonewall who wish to remove this exception.

I would directly quote Karen Ingala Smith:

Women experiencing trauma after violence and abuse will, like most of us – almost always instantly read someone who might be the most kind and gentle trans identified male in the world – as male; and they may experience a debilitating trauma response as a result. It’s not their fault, it’s not a choice and it’s not something they can be educated out of. It’s not hate. It’s not bigotry. It’s not transphobia. It is an impact of abuse and they need space, support and sometimes therapy – not increased confrontation with a trauma inducing trigger; not nowhere to go that offers a woman-only space.

Taken from: kareningalasmith.com/2020/07/08/trauma-informed-services-for-women-subjected-to-mens-violence-must-be-single-sex-services/

Good luck.

Interesting. This is the standard response sent out by Labour MPs for at least two years (given what I know from another issue, it seems that MPs have once again been given a document with pre-written paragraphs to cut and paste into their constituency letters as they see fit, which is why these letters often have word-for-word identical paragraphs, if not wholly identical letters.

(Interesting because the previously standard paragraph about the MP's commitment to reform the Equality Act to better protect transgender people has been removed. The first sentence is new(ish), as is the last paragraph. This is a much softer stance than what they sent out in 2019.)

1. Misrepresents Equality Act
2. Misrepresents risk to transgender people
3. Uses offensive language (cis)
4. Does not commit to addressing the issue in a sensitive way that does not discriminate against women. (The genuine concern is only one way, otherwise the reassurance would be to address the issue in a way that upholds everyone's rights.)

From my experience, an actual meeting with the MP is more useful, but it can be nerve wracking and unpleasant.