Durham Central MP Thinks Transsexuals Don't Need Protection

[nobmouse]

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.

Comments

[anne78]

Maybe you should provide her address to this community and the 100 or so members of it can all right to her and get all their trans friends to do the same. I am sure once she recived a sack load of letters she won't be able to say a "small number of people"!

[nobmouse]

Sorry but I recently discovered that MPs are not required to read or answer communications from members of the public outside of their constituencies, unless such communications are raised by another MP on behalf of a member of the public.

[_zoetrope_]

*sigh*

Same old, same old.

[nobmouse]

Perhaps not - she's in a somewhat difficult position here, as she's MP for a university town with a disproportionate number of transpeople in it (University of Durham seems to attract us, although I don't know why) and a very, very active LGBT association containing a lot of people with political aspirations.

I'd hope she realises the seriousness of the issue and I'm happy that she's prepared to back Motion 710 (a motion for protection against discrimination on the basis of sexuality) but there's still work to be done to make sure of this.

[sermoa]

Well to be fair, Roberta doesn't appear to think that trans people don't need protection. She's just said that she's got something else on at the moment which she considers to take precedence. She has stated the reasons, and she has apologised.

Okay, so this may all be diplomacy, amounting to the same thing, but I don't feel that an all-out-attack will be particularly helpful in this case. Maybe a reply letter, thanking her for recognising the importance of the inclusion of all trans people (with or without GRCs), stating that you understand that she, like anyone else, has a list of priorities, and expressing your confidence that she will set aside some time as soon as is pratcically possible to consider how she can support the campaign for the inclusion of trans people.

I feel it will be better to put yourself on the same side as Roberta, emphasising that, ultimately, you both want the same thing. It might make her more eager to cooperate in the near future.

Good luck, whatever you decide!

[nobmouse]

Well to be fair, Roberta doesn't appear to think that trans people don't need protection. She's just said that she's got something else on at the moment which she considers to take precedence. She has stated the reasons, and she has apologised.

Paragraph four of her reply (made to me after I explained how GRA2004 works) shows either a lack of understanding of the situation or a lack of care for what we are subjected to. She has decided that, because some of us are able to get a GRC after the minimum 2 years waiting, it's acceptable to allow discrimination to continue. She has ignored that fact that many people cannot get a GRC, for a number of reasons.

Okay, so this may all be diplomacy, amounting to the same thing, but I don't feel that an all-out-attack will be particularly helpful in this case.

I don't believe we've ever met before, yet you seem to be under the impression that it's okay to suggest I'd choose a course of action that would be detrimental to the cause I'm fighting for. I must ask why you have made this

[sermoa]

I know you're really passionate about these things. I admire you and respect you for it, I really do. I am sure you will formulate a fantastic response to Roberta, and you're doing such good work on behalf of us all. Thank you.

I wasn't suggesting you'd do anything detrimental to the cause; I was merely observing that it could be possible to do so. I know it's easy to get angry and mis-understand people's motives, just as you have mis-understood mine.

The title of your entry puts words into Roberta's mouth that I don't suppose she would want to own. You've also described her letter as an 'inexusable stance'. I'm just saying, to me, her letter doesn't seem all that unreasonable. If I made an assumption, it was purely from the way your entry is written, as if you're ready for a fight with your MP, and I don't think that will be necessary.

Please forgive me for coming across as accusatory. I did not mean to. I merely hoped to provide another outsider's view. I am sorry that you mis-understood my motive.

[nobmouse]

It's hard to get a person's meaning solely through text and, unfortunately, there are so many people who are willing to send me messages to the effect of "stop rocking the boat, just accept your lot and get over it" that when a post appears to be even slightly along those lines, I have become conditioned to react accordingly.

In this case, I was wrong to do so and I apologise.

[nobmouse]

I'm already planning my response. At this point, I shall again attempt to put forward how the Gender Recognition Act 2004 works and why so many transpeople can't or won't apply for a certificate, thus leaving them in a position where they are unprotected against discrimination for more than the "short time" she appears to see as being okay.

[_zoetrope_]

Just one thought too........... the 'short time' that trans-people are not protected against discrimination, being the first two years of 'full-time' if you want to read the black and white of the GRC criteria, are, I believe, the most difficult and it can therefore be argued that during this period neccesary protection against discrimination is most critical.

Regardless of whether or not people can, can't, will or won't apply for a certificate, if there is a black hole concerning adequate legal protection surely it should be filled?

Just my not-particularly-well-read (i don't actually know how protected somebody without a grc is) opinion.

[nobmouse]

Without a GRC, it is legal to discriminate against a transsexual in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Let's have a look at worst-case scenarios for these:

Provision of Goods: It is legal to refuse to serve a transsexual customer in a shop, on the grounds that they are transsexual. Hence, it is legal for a supermarket to refuse to allow a transsexual to buy food.

Provision of Services: It is legal to refuse to allow a transsexual to hold a bank account, use your bus service or get on a train.

Provision of Facilities: It it legal to refuse to allow a transsexual to use any public facility, such as a cash machine or a public toilet (regarless of the gender they are presenting as or the gender allowed to use the toilet in question).

[lunrwolf]

Early Day Motion 710, 10 October 2005

I believe that the list of signatures shown is in the order that the Motion was signed.