My local LibDem replied to my letter about Women's Rights. How do I reply without swearing?

[Slave2thekitty]

Weeks ago I emailed all candidates in my election ward (I'm in Michael Fabricants consituency - lucky me!) with a personalised version of the Sex Matters letter asking about protecting womens rights.
Yesterday I received this pile of word salad twaddle from Paul Ray, the standing LibDem.

"Thank you for contacting me.

Liberal Democrats believe we must ensure the safety, dignity and wellbeing of all people. We are committed to upholding women’s rights and trans rights, and do not believe that the two are in conflict.
That is demonstrated by the Equality Act, which makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of any of a list of protected characteristics, including both sex and gender reassignment.
The Act sets out certain exceptions where differentiated treatment is permitted, including in relation to single-sex services, sports, and the selection of candidates by political parties. However, there is considerable debate and uncertainty for people over the use of these exceptions.

Liberal Democrats believe that individuals and service providers should be given more clarity over how to make decisions that are often very difficult and sensitive. The Government should publish clear and comprehensive guidance on the use of single-sex and separate-sex exceptions under the Act, using worked examples and case studies from organisations providing these services.

The aim of that guidance should be to ensure that everyone who needs single-sex services – such as survivors of sexual violence or domestic abuse – can access them safely, to prevent unjustified discrimination against trans people, and to provide clarity and certainty to service providers and the public. It should be produced in consultation with those most likely to be affected, including women who have experienced sexual violence or domestic abuse, trans people and providers of single-sex services.
Thank you again for contacting me." (bold is mine)

I am steamingly angry at his response. Oh wise vipers, how can I firmly point out that 1) I asked about WOMEN only and 2) govt law should not be built on case-by-case examples?
The only other response was from Fabbers himself stating his firm intent to retain sex-based rights. Pity that he is so awful in everything else!

What are "genuine trans people"? Can anyone define this without circular reasoning or magical thinking?

(Counting down till the censorship hits ...)

@Clabony Yep - Paul Ray is a lawyer & ex-counciller. I think he is well-meaning but he is happy to hold onto a comfy local seat & agree with whatever the national team say.
Fabricant's wig is an on-going topic locally! When I had a couple of issues locally he DID respond & do his best to help. Alas though he is a long-time cheer-leader for Boris J & Liz Truss (which is why he is now "Sir"). He is happy to be awfully rude to people on Twi/X but has the thinnest skin I have ever seen in a politician. He doesn't actually DO much promote & protect Lichfield area; he is very happy to talk lots & lots about himself. Nor has he ever held open surgeries in Lichfield or surrounds.
This lovely region deserves better.

Thanks Slave2thekitty I don't envy your choices, a well meaning yes man or The Wig and his baggage.
At least Fabricant did try and help when you had a problem I suppose.

I think this is the first election I've genuinely struggled as to the candidates, and reading this Board it seems the same for many women. I'm underwhelmed with the choices I have.

Yes, exactly!

And he's very clear that the exceptions (if they actually happened after consultation with both survivors and trans people!) would only be for specific services, like sexual abuse/DV clinics and shelters.

No mention of toilets, changing rooms, medical services, social/health groups, etc.

My 8-year-old DD is the same! Has more common sense than the lot of them. Recognises the reason that facilities are single-sex is because of "privacy"!

There is a trans woman who insists on using the female changing rooms at a local sports club despite the women and teenage girls objecting. A third space is apparently humiliating. 😐 No thought for their feelings at all.

This! This is the bit of the response that made me angry, that only DV or sexual assault survivors deserve privacy.

So unless I (God forbid( experience domestic violence or sexual assault, I and my elderly MIL with dementia, just have to wave goodbye to privacy and dignity because some blokes have decided that I should.

That is just so fucking offensive.

I've written to my candidates on this issue. No reply from any, apart from the LD who said he'd try to reply in full but was busy out meeting constituents. What, like me? 🙄😕 I think I'm the wrong type of constituent.

Edited for clarity, quoted the wrong bit, doh.

And how is that even practical? I have unfortunately been assaulted but I didn't report it. Only dh knows. Would I have to report it to deserve privacy? The whole thing is ridiculous.

I got some a reply from the Lib Dems basically saying 1. the debate is toxic 2. we need a nuanced discussion 3. safe spaces, and the best one: 4. sex is a continuum.....

I replied saying unfortunately I can't vote for them

The guidance on single sex exemptions says this-
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. The guidance includes a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.

My bold
so toilets, changing rooms, intimate examinations and procedures are ALL covered under 'privacy and dignity'
the act is perfectly clear

the problem is that some legal opinion holds that a person with a GRC has a new 'legal sex' and can therefore access provision as if that was their actual biological sex
that's what needs clarification

I only get a response from my Lib Dem candidate after the election. Not impressed by the content - what is this sexist rubbish about living in a gender??

The Lib Dems and I believe the current process is too bureaucratic and intrusive, [how intrusive? Is it as intrusive as say, being made to change in front of someone of the opposite sex?]which is something the Conservatives recognised themselves in 2018 when they brought forward proposals to reform the process. Liberal Democrats continue to support these proposals, which remove the requirement for medical reports.

The key point here is that with these proposals, we would still maintain crucial safeguards [what are they?] to prevent abuse of the system, including the requirement to provide proof that an individual has lived in their gender [what does that even mean and why does gender trump sex?] for at least two years, and for the individual to make a statutory declaration that they intend to live permanently in that gender until death.[This isn't enforceable or even ethical and doesn't change the fact that nobody has actuallychanged sex].