DwarfPotato's website

One day I will put some links here

Home

I wrote to my MP.

I am so hacked off about the Supreme Court decision on trans people. As the BMA says, it's medically unsound. It's also just bigoted.

I've written to my MP about it. I'm a cis woman so my voice is vital on this matter. Also, as a cis white woman, I had to make a good chunk of the email about me. (I hope that it means they listen rather than going 'eh, trans person, must be mentally ill, gonna ignore it').

Here's my email:

Good morning,

I am writing to you to express my concern about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding trans people and their right to access certain spaces.

I have contacted you before regarding trans rights (case ref; IS00030) and your response then included the following statements:
" We believe that everyone’s human rights are inalienable – and that includes trans rights. Far too many trans people do not have their rights and dignity respected, preventing them from living freely and fulfilling their potential."
" The Equality Act has been working well for over a decade. It protects both hard-won women’s rights and trans rights, and shows that the two are not in conflict. There is no case for unpicking those protections now, and doing so could cause serious harm. At the heart of this issue are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they must not be the victims of a manufactured ‘culture war’."
" Rather than stirring up fear and division, Liberal Democrats will always stand up for dignity and equality for all, and work to end discrimination and abuse. Liberal Democrats exist to build a free society where every person’s rights and liberties are protected. Everyone should be able to live their lives as who they are"

I believe that the Supreme Court's ruling is directly in opposition to the viewpoints given in your previous email.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance following the ruling. (from EHRC interim guidance)
"The Supreme Court ruled that in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), ‘sex’ means biological sex. This means that, under the Act:
- A ‘woman’ is a biological woman or girl (a person born female)
- A ‘man’ is a biological man or boy (a person born male)"

I asked a midwife about the process of assigning sex at birth. She tells me that the process is that a midwife looks at the newborn's genitalia and assigns a sex accordingly. If there is doubt the baby has their chromosomes tested. Thus, 'biological sex' is based almost entirely on genitalia, with a small minority of cases determined by chromosomes. This method entirely ignores the many ways in which the genitalia of a person may not match other aspects of their so-called 'biological sex'.

For instance, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome can result in a person with XY chromosomes presenting with female genitalia. If they have XY chromosomes but a vulva, what is their biological sex?
Chimaerism refers to a single organism with cells from multiple genotypes, which can happen in humans when two (or more) embryos fuse. In humans this can manifest in multiple ways, one of which is people who have more than one blood type. "Blood group chimerism in human multiple births is not rare" (van Dijk, Boomsma, de Man, American Journal of Medical Generics, 1996) finds that 8% of twins and 21% of triplets demonstrate some level of chimerism. A genetic test of a person with chimerism may then show that they have both XX and XY chromosomes. What is their biological sex?
de la Chapelle syndrome is a condition where an individual has an XX karotype but develops male external genitalia. Swyer syndrome is a related condition where an individual with an XY karotype presents with female external genitalia. If their external genitalia does not match an individual's karotype, how can we assign a definitive and immutable 'biological' sex at birth and restrict people's entire lives based on that assessment?

Last year there was a case where a baby was incorrectly registered as male instead of female. Their birth certificate states that she is male and it cannot be changed. Under the supreme court rules she is no longer allowed to use female spaces. (Guardian article on the case from 19 Nov 2024)

The EHRC guidance continues on to say that "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities."

As a cisgender woman, this guidance makes me feel significantly less safe. The ruling has empowered transphobic people to police the gender presentation of ALL women, not just trans people. I am an active and sporty woman and as such I am muscular with broad shoulders. I often wear clothes that reduce the visibility of my hips and chest. I am now afraid of being confronted and forced to leave bathrooms or other women's spaces due to a ruling that was supposedly made to protect me.

The Equality Act makes it an offence to discriminate based on a person's gender reassignment status. The new guidance says that a trans woman is not permitted to use designated women's facilities. It then goes on to state that the law also allows 'in some circumstances' for trans women (so-called 'biological men') to be banned from men's facilities. If they are not permitted to enter facilities based on their lived sex nor their sex assigned at birth, purely because they are trans, then surely that is unequivocally discriminating based upon their gender reassignment status? It's a rule that is only in place for trans people.

I also question if this really does make cis women safer. Above, I refer to the line that says 'in some circumstances' that a trans man can also be banned from women's spaces. How limited will those circumstances be? An oft-made argument is that a male sexual predator could force access to women's spaces by claiming they are a trans woman. This ruling makes it more reasonable for a cis man to force access to women's spaces by claiming they are a trans man and actually a 'biological woman'. The 'some circumstances' that exclude trans men from women's spaces would need to cover effectively all circumstances to prevent this supposed threat. As it is, if a person is intending to force their way into bathrooms for the purpose of sexually harrassing or assaulting occupants, they are not the sort of person to be deterred by legalities.

A final point I wish to make. This ruling was brought about by cis women who 'feel unsafe' in the presence of trans women. Do we ban black people from spaces because they make racists feel uncomfortable?

I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours,
[Name, address]

Yeah I've not even decided what should go over here

A logo declaring that this content is 100% human made, no AI used.

A logo that says 'hosted by neocities'. It includes the neocities logo, a ginger cat in a hard hat holding a spanner and a paintbrush.