Durham Central MP Thinks Transsexuals Don't Need Protection
Recently, I contacted my MP (Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, MP for Durham Central) to ask if she would back a campaign to add protection for transsexuals in the Equality Bill, thus giving us protection in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Her reply, received in the post this morning, is behind the following cut.
Dear Ms. Robinson,
Thank you for your email of 13 October 2005 concerning the Equality Bill and provision of goods and services for transsexuals.
As you may be aware there is currently a campaign to encourage the Government to include sexual orientation in the list of forms of discrimination which will be outlawed in respect of the provision of goods and services. I am happy to tell you that I have signed Des Turner MP's Early Day Motion 710 on this matter, a copy of which I have enclosed for your information.
Unfortunately at this point I believe we need to concentrate on this campaign. In respect of transsexuals, they will be covered under the Bill in terms of gender after receipt of their Gender Recognition Certificate.
I accept that for a period there is potential that the Bill may not explicitly cover transsexual people in the provision of goods and services. However, the fact that this lack of application is temporary and the fact that this issue affects a relatively small number of people means our campaign for sexual orientation takes precedence.
I am sorry I do not feel I am able to help you at this point. However, I have forwarded your letter to Meg Munn MP, Minister for Equality for the Government's response to the issues you have raised. When I have received a response I will be back in touch.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Yours sincerely,
Roberta Blackman-Woods MP
Apparently, because there's so few of us and she's decided that we'll all be getting GRCs eventually anyway, there's no need to provide us with actual protection against discrimination. After all, to quote her, "the fact that this lack of application is temporary and the fact that this issue affects a relatively small number of people" means it's okay to allow a free-for-all on us.
I can't believe someone in a position of responsibility such as hers would take such an inexcuseable stance on this. When I work out what the best course of action to take regarding this response, I'll be sure to let everyone know.
Oh, and she didn't include anything about Day Motion 710, like she said. :(
Dear Ms. Robinson,
Thank you for your email of 13 October 2005 concerning the Equality Bill and provision of goods and services for transsexuals.
As you may be aware there is currently a campaign to encourage the Government to include sexual orientation in the list of forms of discrimination which will be outlawed in respect of the provision of goods and services. I am happy to tell you that I have signed Des Turner MP's Early Day Motion 710 on this matter, a copy of which I have enclosed for your information.
Unfortunately at this point I believe we need to concentrate on this campaign. In respect of transsexuals, they will be covered under the Bill in terms of gender after receipt of their Gender Recognition Certificate.
I accept that for a period there is potential that the Bill may not explicitly cover transsexual people in the provision of goods and services. However, the fact that this lack of application is temporary and the fact that this issue affects a relatively small number of people means our campaign for sexual orientation takes precedence.
I am sorry I do not feel I am able to help you at this point. However, I have forwarded your letter to Meg Munn MP, Minister for Equality for the Government's response to the issues you have raised. When I have received a response I will be back in touch.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Yours sincerely,
Roberta Blackman-Woods MP
Apparently, because there's so few of us and she's decided that we'll all be getting GRCs eventually anyway, there's no need to provide us with actual protection against discrimination. After all, to quote her, "the fact that this lack of application is temporary and the fact that this issue affects a relatively small number of people" means it's okay to allow a free-for-all on us.
I can't believe someone in a position of responsibility such as hers would take such an inexcuseable stance on this. When I work out what the best course of action to take regarding this response, I'll be sure to let everyone know.
Oh, and she didn't include anything about Day Motion 710, like she said. :(