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/

My Labour MP just replied to say thanks for the message and she’s passed it on.
She is not raising her head above the parapet either way, so I’m going to keep going and see if I can work out which side of the fence she’s on.

Mine still hasn’t replied - she didn’t the last time I emailed her either. Despite telling me on the doorstep that she believed in women’s rights!

I wrote to my MP just before this debate (commented on here earlier) and blow me…I received a response today!

My gast is truly flabbered! 😂 More due to the positive support from him…and he enclosed a photocopy of his response reported in the press to the SC judgement too! 🙌🏼💪👌🏻

I’ve uploaded the letter but it will take a while to be approved by MN.

Whilst it’s so disappointing that Labour opposed the amendment, it has given me renewed faith that at least some MPs are willing to stand up and voice the opinions of MANY of their constituents.

Finally got a reply from my MP (Labour, female) - disappointing word salad saying nothing at all really.

Thank you for contacting me. The Data (Use and Access) Bill will establish a statutory footing for digital verification services, enabling the use of trusted digital identities, where people can digitally present their information. New Clause 21 would have required public bodies to record sex data as biological sex, where such data is collected.

The proposed amendment was voted down on in the House of Commons on 7 May. A motion disagreeing with this was passed in the House of Lords, but then rejected in a subsequent House of Commons vote.

The Government disagreed with the amendment for a number of reasons. While it has been clear it accepts the recent Supreme Court judgment that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, it acknowledges the importance of working through the judgment carefully and sensitively.

It was stated that the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling and the specific and particular requirements of public authorities. I am also reassured that ministerial work looking at the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets is already underway.

The principle of data accuracy, requiring that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used, is already included in law. There is nothing within the Bill that alters the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender, or allows people to do something digitally that they cannot currently do physically.

Kind regards

I am also reassured that ministerial work looking at the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets is already underway.

Is anyone else reassured? I am not.

Julesjules did you post your reply on a different thread too? If not then I think some of it is a labour text. I recognise these phrases from another mumsnet post:

"was voted down on in the House of Commons"
"allows people to do something digitally that they cannot currently do physically."

And I checked my labour mp's letter to see if it was the same, but hers is different.

Or the same mp replying to different constituents.

No. I am not sure which government departments have said what about the sullivan review, and I want to get a handle on it before I rely to my mp. It needs coordination.

No, only on this thread, but I suspected a lot of it was c&p from an official script

Sadly David Lammy has decided to support nonsense:

"The Data (Use and Access) Bill will establish a statutory footing for digital verification services, enabling the use of trusted digital identities, where people can digitally present their information. New Clause 21, tabled by the Opposition, would have required public bodies to record sex data as biological sex, where such data is collected.

I did not support the amendment and it has not been added to the Bill. The Government also disagreed with it. Ministers expressed concerns that it would have inappropriately extended the reach of the recent Supreme Court judgment on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act, as the Secretary of State would have the power to define sex as biological in all cases.

During the debate on the amendment, the Government provided reassurances that the Bill will not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender but simply enables people to do digitally what they can already do physically. It expects digital verification services to be used primarily to prove things such as the right to work, age, address or professional or educational qualifications, which are not areas where sex or gender is relevant.

The Government has also made it clear that it does not intend to introduce similar legislation in the future.

I believe that trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The recent ruling from the Supreme Court, while being clear about the importance of biological sex, was at pains to stress that trans people do retain clear protections in law, and should be able to live their life free of harassment and discrimination.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this sensitive issue.

Yours sincerely,

David

Rt Hon. David Lammy MP
Member of Parliament for Tottenham"

Sadly David Lammy has decided to support nonsense

Astonishing.

During the debate on the amendment, the Government provided reassurances that the Bill will not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender but simply enables people to do digitally what they can already do physically. It expects digital verification services to be used primarily to prove things such as the right to work, age, address or professional or educational qualifications, which are not areas where sex or gender is relevant.

AIBU to think that the gist of this is, OK, perhaps the sex/gender data won't be fully accurate (and it would be much too much trouble to make it so), but hey-ho, that's not really important?

Interesting: some of that text in the David Lammy email is identical to that in the message I received from my (different) MP.

That rather begs the question: are they, in fact, human? 😄

I got a reply today....supports the rights and protections of trans people so voted against the amendment. Believes it was an over-extension of the SC ruling 🙄

I notice how they are all silent on the harassment which women have already received.

Labour?

@Bluebootsgreenboots yes

@bigboykitty yawn. So much work to be done.

My MP has mixed my email up with someone else’s and sent me the wrong reply! I used the template from the start of this thread and added a personalised intro referring to girls’ sports teams.
She thinks I wrote and email titled “Urgent- protect trans privacy and dignity”.

She attached a letter she has written on behalf of “numerous constituents” to the equalities minister expressing concern about how the bill might compromise trans people’s privacy and dignity.

Oh dear, she sounds a bit inept.

Interestingly, David Lammy has written to me again, unbidden. He really wants to put me straight doesn't he?!

Thank you for contacting me.

I strongly believe that trans people’s safety and wellbeing must be protected. Trans people deserve dignity and respect, and to be able to be themselves without fear of intimidation or abuse.

Following the Supreme Court ruling in April that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, I know there are people feeling anxious about how the judgment will affect them. Ministers have stated that while single-sex spaces must be protected, it is important to emphasise that trans people must also be protected. They must retain clear protections in law and should be able to live their lives free of harassment and discrimination.

I fully support the Government and the Supreme Court in their declaration that this case is not about winners or losers, or the triumph of one group at the expense of another. Now more than ever, it is essential that people in positions of authority, such as politicians, speak out about the importance of treating everybody respectfully, even when our beliefs differ.

As you highlight, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is independent of the Government, is working on a revised code of practice. This will support service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act.

I am pleased the consultation on the code has been extended to six weeks, closing now on 30 June. It is important the Commission listens to a diverse range of voices and consults in a broad and meaningful way. Ministers will consider the Commission’s updated draft once it is complete.

I am aware the Government has noted that the Commission’s interim update provides a perspective on how the judgment and Equality Act are practically applied in some areas, but it is neither official guidance nor comprehensive.

Elsewhere in Government, I am pleased to support Ministers’ plans to introduce a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Work is also underway to make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. At present, crimes motivated by race and religion are aggravated offences, whereas crimes motivated by sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity are not.

Moving forward, we must make sure the voices of the trans community are included within our discussions. I remain committed to a fairer and more inclusive society, and to standing up for our marginalised communities.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this issue.

Yours sincerely,

David

^^

Rt Hon. David Lammy MP
Member of Parliament for Tottenham

@hellomehere He used the word "trans" 6 times. Didn't use the word woman or women once. Says it all really.

Did he know it was his second letter to you, or has he just put your letter back in the 'to do' pile after doing it by mistake? He could reduce his workload by only replying once to each letter!