Hi all,
Here is the latest response to my local MP regarding women’s sex based rights. Posting for feedback, as suggestions for others, and just for anyone interested in reading it really. Please let me know if I have missed anything! The highlighted bits are the MP’s previous response to me. TIA
Thank you for your further response to my email. I have allowed some time to elapse before responding as the last six months have been very significant in this area, and I wanted to see the outcome of reviews and court cases first.
I am sorry if you felt my response was not respectful in tone; it is very difficult for me to clearly say what I want to say without sounding facetious, in part due to what I believe to be the objective ludicrousness of the entire debate. I simply cannot make my opinion known without appearing blunt, as engaging in the never-ending word salad around this issue simply doesn’t represent my position correctly. I hope you do not take personal offence.
I am absolutely delighted at the outcome of the GRA reforms. Not only that self-ID has not been implemented, but also the new guidance for teachers on ‘gender identity’, which states:
‘You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. While teachers should not suggest to a child that their non-compliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support.’
This clearly states that children’s non-conformity to their ‘gender’ (aka gender stereotype) is not synonymous with being a trans child, which I feel is an important step in preventing sexist stereotypes being promoted to children in schools. Children will now be free to play with whichever toys they want, and dress how they please, without their school potentially suggesting that girls playing football means they could be a boy, or boys playing with dolls means they could be a girl. They will also be told they cannot be born in the ‘wrong body’, which was once an assertion of the charity you referred me to, Mermaids. Can I ask whether you agree with this guidance? If so, please can you explain this part of your response:
‘Personally, I don’t think it is helpful to conclude that woman means only adult human female, or only those with two X chromosomes. This is a strictly biological definition, and while of course I appreciate this, gender and gender identity is also socially constructed, and my own conception of being a woman is not only dictated by biology and by body parts – it is considerably more complex than that.’
If you agree that a person’s ‘gender’ identity should not be associated with sexist stereotypes, such as clothes and toys, then can I ask what you mean when you say that ‘gender identity is socially constructed’? Please can you give clear examples of the sorts of constructs you are referring to?
‘I don’t think it is for me (or anyone) to make a determination on how a trans woman can ‘be’ a woman, or what unites them with cis women – it is up for every individual person to decide how they identify, and I think, in the spirit of respect, tolerance, and kindness we should acknowledge this identity’.
There has to BE a societal position on what constitutes a woman, otherwise as I previously said, any laws which refer to ‘women’, and ‘women’s rights’ are meaningless, as they could apply to anyone who chooses to identify as a woman. In which case, they are redundant and useless. As a Parliamentarian, I would expect it to be very much for you to make a determination on issues such as this, and I find the reluctance to take any meaningful stance on what a woman is, while purporting to be supportive of women’s rights and freedoms, to be contradictory.
My view is: quite simply, anyone who defines ‘woman’ as anything other than ‘adult human female’ is encouraging sexist stereotypes, because any other characteristics of sex besides the biological are socially constructed. Social constructs – fashion, toys, likes and dislikes, certain sports and pastimes, are ALL gender stereotypes. If you feel this is not the case, can you please inform me of a social construct relating to women that is NOT a harmful stereotype?
‘In saying that there is not a standardized method for recording the deaths of trans people across the UK, I was clarifying that numbers are likely to be higher than those cited by those who seek to deny the risks faced by trans people.’
So there is no reliable data on violence against trans people, but you can assure me that the numbers are likely to be higher than the scant information we have due to some kind of cover-up? Firstly I would like to point out that more reliable and accurate information on violence against trans people could be obtained if data recorded victims’ trans status; however the decision to allow trans people to self identify on ID documents means this information is lost. If you support a person’s right to self identify on documents, then essentially you are promoting to loss of vital information on crimes against trans people, before then saying the loss of such data is due to people who seek to erase it. Is this not counter-intuitive to you? Do you believe it is important that a person’s trans status is accurately recorded? Or do you believe people should self identify on all documents, and as such you accept valuable data cannot be recorded? If the latter, I feel it is nonsensical to criticise the lack of data, and even blame it on others without foundation.
‘The wellbeing of prison inmates, and more widely of all cis women and girls, of course needs to be taken into account – but again, this should not in and of itself be used to deny trans women access to all women’s spaces either.’
So effectively – no amount of cases such as Karen White’s can be used to prevent trans women, including those accused of abhorrent violent and sexual crimes, from being housed in womens prisons? The need to affirm the ‘gender identity’ of males should be prioritised over the safety of women in all circumstances? This issue is now subject to a Judicial Review, and I will be interested to see if the judgement contrasts with your own view.
‘I cannot answer the question of what gender identity is, because I am not trans, and because I have not experienced the pain and mental anguish trans people may feel as part of acknowledging they are trans. To deny the reality of these experiences, and to deny the gender identity that provides some comfort from these feelings as a ‘scientfic untruth’, seems to me to be cruel.’
So you are expecting women to be comfortable with their rights being eroded, with sex offenders being places in womens prisons, with the risk of attacks in womens spaces such as the links I previously sent to you, with the word ‘woman’ being taken from them and redefined as a meaningless term in order to make males feel better about their ‘gender identity’ which in itself has either no meaning, or refers to sexist stereotypes?
It seems the position of trans allies in defining ‘gender’ is to make it so incomprehensible, it could mean anything you want it to mean, and any woman that questions its definition or whether it is worth sacrificing her rights for, is painted as difficult and bigoted.
I would implore you to rethink your position on this issue; I cannot imagine there is any other view you support, while being unable to define even the most basic terms of it.
Thank you for reading.