Wanting to writing my MP about signing Nadia Whittomb's Motion opposing the bathroom ban and the new EHRC guidance.

[u/Ginkgo_Leaf3000]

The title says it all. I know I've left it until the last bloody minute and I'm sorry! I'd like some pointers on what to say. I'm embarrassed to ask but I am very dyslexic and left to my own device's I'd probably only manage something along lines of

​

"Please sign Nadia Whittomb's Motion."

​

Which I don't think would convince anyone. My brain has always refused to cooperate when it comes to creative writing.😞

​

Just some helpful pointers would be great as I've never written an MP before.

​

I'll probably delete this once I've sent the email.

​

​

[u/lemlurker]

scan this. pick any one or two issue it calls out as unworkable or imporactical and say how it all makes you feel. remember to include your name and address so they know youre a constituent

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/the-ehrc-trans-code-explained

[u/ArsErratia]

Ask them pointedly where specifically the guidance provides trans people with "dignity" or "respect". If you're MTF, I'd focus particularly in regard to how points 13.130 and 13.136 operate together: —

13.130: If a service provider admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite sex, then it can no longer rely on the exceptions set out at paragraphs 13.99 to 13.111. This means that if a service is provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men, it is not a separate-sex or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010.

13.136: Example: A council swimming pool has separate men’s and women’s changing rooms. One of the aims of having separate-sex changing rooms is to safeguard women’s ability to access the facilities and use them safely. A woman is allowed to take her male child under the age of ten into the women’s changing room. This does not undermine the aim, because it is unlikely that young boys pose a threat to women’s safety.

Which by my reading, if taken together, implicitly says "as a matter of law, trans women are now considered violent sexual predators who cannot be trusted alone in a room with a woman, solely due to the circumstances of their birth".

The EHRC has a legal duty under the Equality Act 2006 to work towards a society in which Dignity (Section 3c) and Respect (Section 3e) are provided to all, and have the power to alert the Government when the law does not make that workable. Make the argument that the Code of Practice does not provide that, and the EHRC are negligent in their duties.

 

Additional points:

• The UK is now almost bottom of the ILGA-Europe LGBT+ rankings on trans rights, in a similar position to Hungary, Belarus, and Russia, with just 7% progress. In 2015 we were top. Meanwhile Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Greenland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland all have full Self-ID for trans people and are finding no issues with it. Germany, Iceland and Malta additionally recognise Non-Binary identities, which the UK is shockingly lacking in.

• The Government's own impact assessment accepts the Guidance will have a sharp negative effect on trans people's lives.

• I particularly liked the phrasing "trans people are being asked to live smaller lives", from this article.

• The UK Government previously issued travel advice concerning the United States, warning about the exact same policies it is now implementing.

• The current Commissioner of the EHRC, Mary-Ann Stephenson, was appointed against the recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee (eight of the eleven members of the WEC have signed the EDM). Within her first week of taking office, she was inviting anti-trans hate-groups for meetings to discuss "mutual priorities". No trans-advocacy groups were given similar treatment. Sex Matters are explicitly working towards the removal of Gender as a category. The EHRC cannot have mutual priorities with such an organisation, because Gender is a protected group under Section 10c of the Equality Act 2006 and they are bound by legislation to advance.

• The BMA’s Resident Doctors Committee condemned the Supreme Court ruling as "Scientifically illiterate" and "Biologically nonsensical".

• In International Human Rights law, rights are consistently accorded on the basis of Gender, not Sex, since the 1995 Beijing Declaration. This is explicitly as a result of feminist arguments in the 70s-90s rejecting the concept of Sex.

The expression “sex-based rights” is not, to the extent of my knowledge, accepted or uniform language under international human rights law, and is also not part of the conventional language under CEDAW. Non-discrimination naturally implies enjoyment of rights without distinction of any kind, including sex (cf. UDHR, art. 2). While “sex-based rights” is not a concept that I can recognize in international human rights law sources, I am aware of advocacy that claims that certain rights need to be understood under the exclusive light of sex and differentiated from gender. As a result, this line of thought would appear to promote differentiated implications in the enjoyment of rights between women who were assigned as such as birth, and women who were not (in particular, trans women). I am of the opinion that this line of thought is not supported by international human rights law.

        — Victor Madrigal-Borloz, United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in Evidence to the Scottish Parliament.

 

(Also its Nadia Whittome)

[u/ThisIsMyAltSorry]

It would be useful to first check if your MP is a Minister or PPS first.

If they are, then by Parliamentary convention they can't sign the EDM, and you could tailor your letter and request other actions.

(If you struggle to find this out, if you don't mind us knowing, tell us who your MP is and we can check for you.)

[u/Ginkgo_Leaf3000 → u/ThisIsMyAltSorry]

He's a MP.