Urgent BH terfing- write to your MP TODAY 5th May on the Data Bill

[CriticalCondition]

I think this should have its own thread for visibility. The Data Bill is being debated this week and will introduce self ID by the back door unless an amendment is made. Sex Matters has a template letter on this to send to your MP. It will only take a few minutes but it MUST be sent today (Monday 5th) so please make this your Bank Holiday terfing.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/urgent-action-email-your-mp-today-on-the-data-bill/

So, everyone's allowed to have sex-based rights in theory, but the Lammys of this world are going to strain every sinew to make sure we can't exercise them in practice, by allowing people to conceal their sex? I see.

Can he hear himself? Did he read that back and think, yes, that responds to my constituent's concerns? It reads more like an AI-generated parody reply someone might have dreamed up on MN, bingo card items ticked off.

Not sure he does this himself, probably just issues the orders to his minions "Just shut those dinosaurs up please". But maybe without the "please"!

the Secretary of State would have the power to define sex as biological in all cases.

So Lammy’s first email suggests we need a Secretary of State to define sex? That what is evident 95-99% of the time from our own eyes is somehow private information?

No. Thats not how it works.

If a wheelchair user who refused to identify as disabled be able to accuse an employer or service of discrimination if anyone mentioned the fact of their observable wheelchair?

An employer is not allowed to ask about pregnancy but would they be guilty of harassment or discrimination if they deduce pregnancy from observable morning sickness and other behaviours?

By 15 weeks women are obliged to declare pregnancy to employers to obtain maternity benefits - so privacy and medical details are balanced with the employer’s need to run their business.

Someone who wears a hair piece might think no one knows but colleague can all see it. They will hopefully treat that person politely but they aren’t obliged to believe it’s real hair or be accused of bullying if they make a relevant mention of the wig’s existence

Privacy is not an absolute. This has to be brought into any guidance

Reply from Joe Morris, my local MP

“The rights of transgender, non- binary and intersex people should not be a political ploy for the Conservative party. This amendment would have represented a significant rollback of rights, undermining the Gender Recognition Act, the Equality Act, and the Human Rights Act. Moreover, it would have compromised the safety of individuals”.

Often seems to me that the evidence of MN posters suggests that writing to MPs is a massive waste of time. They are not swayed by constituent's opinions, and a boilerplate lecture is the most you can hope for.

I disagree moto, it's relatively easy to do, and doesn't give them an opportunity to say "my constituents aren't worried about this" . I will definitely keep contributing to the democratic process.

@moto748e & @April1625
I think both are true!
Based on the posts above the MPs are following the Party line and they don’t seem at all informed. That WEC was very revealing in that regard. But by politely writing and raising concerns it will eventually raise awareness that a) it’s not a vote winner and b) we might have a point. So it’s defo worth writing on specific issues especially about personal experiences/spwcific examples. Because general talk is easily skimmed while cases like Sandie Peggie’s make them have to think it through…

The response from MPs on here, plus the behaviour of the Women and Equalities Committee (with a couple of notable exceptions) really makes me despair though. So many MPs seem to, at best, not fully understand the judgement, and, at worst, seem determined to undermine it.

It feels like we have such a long way to go. I know this was always going to be the beginning of the end, but the fact that so many MPs don't even mention women once in their replies, is such a kicker.

Response from my MP Fred Thomas. At least he used the word "women" 🙄, but he'll be getting splinters in his arse from the fence sitting.

Thank you for contacting me about the Supreme Court ruling on the appeal brought by For Women Scotland. I know that this is a deeply sensitive and emotive topic, so I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me. I know this will affect people across Plymouth Moor View, and I am committed in making sure their voices and concerns are heard.

I would like to stress that I am absolutely committed to the wellbeing, safety and dignity of trans people of all ages. I also support the Government's focus on women's safety more widely. I do not for a second believe these two commitments are in competition with each other.

In its judgement on 16th April, the Supreme Court announced it had reached a unanimous decision that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. It ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Act.

I appreciate this is an issue with very strongly held view on both sides of what has become and extremely polarised debate. It is essential that people in positions of authority, such as politicians, speak out about the important of treating everybody with dignity and respect. Freedom of speech much not descend into harassment, violence or intimidation, no matter how strong our views.

I know ministers will be carefully considering the judgement in detail. In the first instance, the UK Government has acknowledged the clarity this ruling brings. Ministers have restated their commitment to protecting single-sex spaces and have highlighted the importance of making sure clear guidance is available across a range of settings, from healthcare and prisons to sport and single-sex support groups.

I would like to echo the words of the Government and the Supreme Court: this case is not about the triumph of one group at the expense of another. While the Supreme Court was clear about the importance of biological sex, it also emphasised that trans people retain clear protections in law and should be able to live their lives free of harassment and discrimination.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has advised it hope to have a new statutory code of practice ready by summer after a short consultation, which will then be reviewed by the Government. I appreciate stakeholders want clarification as soon as possible, but also that as a complex area, this must be a thorough process. The Commission has issued an interim update in the meantime.

More widely, I will continue to back the Government in its work to protect women. I support its mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and to raise confidence in the police and criminal justice system. I also share its commitment to protecting trans people, such as through a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, and its work to equalise all existing standards of hate crime in England and Wales.

Thank you again for contacting me about this issue.

@FatLarrysBanned

I know ministers will be carefully considering the judgement in detail. In the first instance, the UK Government has acknowledged the clarity this ruling brings. Ministers have restated their commitment to protecting single-sex spaces

I’d be tempted to write back to say:

1. you’re very worried that based on the Hansard footage of the WEC meeting it’s clear that ministers have neither read nor understand the judgement. So you are very concerned that they are not considering this in detail!
2. Ministers have been saying that they have always protected single sex spaces but in practice there are none in the NHS for staff or patients. So they either don’t understand or are wilfully blind. whats he going to do about this?

Quoting myself here because I'm going to try and draft a response to my MP.
Reading it again, she's tra through and through in her beleifs/assumptions, except that she is able to acknowledge (& not dismiss as bigotry) the alternative positions. She claims to understand & respect where I'm coming from, but basically she completely disagrees.

I'll leave the data bill stuff because the relevant amendment was defeated and won't come back. She doesn't actually answer my questions about implementing the sullivan review, but she does outline thoughts on the supreme court ruling:

• she has a narrow view of what the ruling means - "it simply restates the position that single-sex spaces are allowable in law but as an exception based on proportionality" - but thinks it is being interpreted wrongly & too brasly by ehrc and other orgs. She thinks ehrc update gets the law wrong.
• is viewing it v much from trans point of view, in all examples and statements about rights. Eg she understands concerns about single sex intimate care but frames it as objecting to trans ppl, not to eg make ppl.
• thinks ruling is not scientifically literate because it doesn't consider dsd's in its understanding of biological sex
• is worried that ruling is causing difficulties including harrassment to trans ppl and also gender non confiorming ppl & v worried about dehumanising language and how the debate is being conducted.
• worried about trans women not being able to access services eg womems domestic violence support services

-saya ruling will have no impact on safety of women. Threat to women comes from men not trans women.

I habe bolded the one thing that really jumped out.

I can respond to most of it. My main problem is that I think the ruling will have a huge impact on womens safety, but especially dignity and ability to be confident that a service/space/professional will be same sex only, but this is not happening yet because places are not following the law yet. Are there any examples?

Maybe this is now the wrong thread cos its no longer about data?