Not ATAAT, but I started a thread yesterday quoting a TRA lobbyist who attended parliament yesterday. As well as trying to find the humour in the TIM's indignation that, despite having a handbag and wearing tights, they were correctly identified as a man, I also asked this question:
Should we be writing to our MPs asking for their support in defending women's rights? Are we at risk by not raising our voices to match the volume of the TIMs? We will not urinate on statues, and I personally don't want to expose my tired, drained breasts in the street. But we can write letters. We all need to write letters, and make sure our MPs hear our resistance.
I've written the below letter to my MP. I'm going to send it this afternoon. I know this board is full of much wiser, well-informed women than me. If any of you have any suggestions for additions, please let me know.
Dear...
Following the transgender lobby that took place in parliament yesterday, I am writing to express my deep concern about the ongoing attempted erosion of sex-based rights in the UK and to seek your support in defending the dignity, safety, and freedoms of women and girls.
Over recent years, voices from transgender rights activism (TRA) have grown disproportionately loud and influential in policy and public discourse. While many of these campaigners speak from a place of personal distress, the demands being made are increasingly incongruous with legal precedent, biological reality, and the principles of women's rights. The resulting push to dilute sex-based protections is forcing women, once again, to fight for rights that we had already fought hard to secure.
Sex-based rights exist because biological sex matters, especially in contexts of vulnerability, fairness, and safety. These protections are grounded in statistical realities: the overwhelming majority of sex-based violence is committed by males, regardless of gender identity. In fact, if we take the UK prison population as an example, 2-4% of the female population are incarcerated for sexual offences. Compare that to up to 17-19% of the male population, and, significantly, 57-59% of transgender males. While the transgender prison population is a small sample, so too is the transgender population in the country. Laws and protections must be based on statistics and reality. My male husband is not offended that he is not allowed to enter a women's changing room. He does not find this policy to be accusatory of him being a sexual predator. Most males accept that protections such as these are important and will respect them without question. Laws cannot be made based on feelings of disappointment. I will point out that the above statistic does not include inmates with a GRC. The current system, particularly the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) and de facto self-ID policies and Stonewall law, has allowed men to be recorded as women in official statistics, rendering data on crime, healthcare, and equality efforts increasingly unreliable.
Gender dysphoria, as recognised in the DSM-5, is a psychological condition. While compassion and care are essential for individuals suffering from it, no psychological condition, especially one rooted in discomfort with gendered expectations, should override the legal and social boundaries of sex. "Women" is not an identity to be performed, but a biological reality. It is deeply regressive and offensive to suggest that “living as a woman” can be measured by adopting stereotypes, clothing, or social roles. No one would claim to "live as a human"; we simply are. Womanhood is no different.
Sex is not defined by roles, stereotypes; it is defined by reproductive biology, specifically gamete production. This classification is not an insult to infertile women, nor does it reduce anyone to their reproductive organs. It is simply the scientific basis on which all taxonomy functions. As a child, I bred small animals. I knew how to sex them, and did so responsibly to protect their wellbeing. This wasn’t discrimination; it was biology.
To illustrate this point further: many people experience distress about their age, even seeking surgery to align their physical appearance with the age they "feel." Yet we do not allow people to legally change their age, access services meant for minors, or compete in age-restricted categories. This is not a denial of their distress, but a recognition that the legal and social framework must be based on material facts, not internal identities.
Sex-based rights remain essential in many critical areas: in sports, where male bodies retain significant advantages; in changing rooms and toilets, where privacy and dignity matter, especially for young girls; and in support services for female survivors of male violence. In developing countries, girls are still campaigning for access to single-sex facilities to manage their periods with dignity. How is it that in a developed country like the UK, we are now allowing a minority of males to override those same rights for our daughters?
Legally and practically, we cannot sustain policies based on exceptions. We cannot create laws for "some males." Would access be based on passing? On surgery? If so, this becomes an exclusionary policy in itself, only accessible to those with the financial means to medically transition. And if we cannot legally create spaces exclusively for women and, say, only Chinese men; how can we justify allowing any category of male into female-only spaces?
Ultimately, the Gender Recognition Act is no longer fit for purpose. The premise that one can change legal sex should be revisited. Difficult conversations must be had with honesty, compassion, and a commitment to truth. People with gender dysphoria deserve care and support, but they cannot change their sex, and therefore cannot be granted the rights and protections that are in place for the opposite sex.
For too long, women, and indeed the majority of the public, have felt afraid to speak this truth. We see the emperor has no clothes, yet we are punished for saying so. Fired for defending our rights. Cancelled for questioning. Language that once protected and defined us, “woman,” “mother,” “breastfeeding”, is being stripped away and replaced with dehumanising euphemisms like “birthing person,” “chest-feeder,” or “cervix-haver.”
I ask you directly: do women and girls have your support in defending our sex-based rights?
Yours sincerely,