u/lithaborn

Hi folk

I'm a single parent on UK benefits, get paid on 5th of the month and due to some unexpected bills this month I don't have enough money to last thru the last few days before payday.

I've got a number of bills to cover in the next few days and groceries needed so I'm asking for help from you lovely folk.

Thank you in advance!

My email to him:

>https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

>why haven't you signed this yet?

That's it, that's literally the total text of my email (minus my full name and address obvs)

His reply:

Dear Kay,

Thank you for writing to me regarding the updated Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Code of Practice which has been laid in Parliament by Bridget Phillipson in her capacity as Minister for Women and Equalities.

As with every step on this sorry journey since the Supreme Court’s ruling in April of last year, following the publication of the Code my thoughts are first and foremost with our trans community who no doubt will once again feel that their existence is under intense scrutiny and a matter of public debate. One of our proudest British traditions is to live and let live, to allow people to go about their daily lives without overbearing interference. For trans people, this reality has been under attack for many years, and that has only accelerated in the last twelve months.

We have found ourselves in something of a limbo in recent months given that the draft Code was leaked last year, but the final Code was only laid last week. I know this has caused a significant amount of uncertainty and anxiety, particularly for trans people and their loved ones. On balance, I think the Minister was right to hold off from immediately laying the Code before Parliament, as the previous EHRC Chair wanted her to do, because in my view it was utterly unworkable and would have excluded trans people from so many aspects of everyday life. From speaking to her, I know that she has taken extensive legal advice and challenged the EHRC on several aspects of its interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. The silver lining of the draft Code being leaked is that we can compare and contrast what the previous Chair and Commissioners wished the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgement to look like versus the Code as we now see it.

There are some promising adjustments to the Code that has been laid, but I share the view of many in the trans community that they amount to slight improvements to a Code that represents a major step backwards overall. I feel that some of this is sadly inevitable as the Supreme Court’s ruling has, in my view, created a damaging and confusing hierarchy within the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. However, I also agree with many trans rights advocates that the Code could still have been written in a more balanced and inclusive way.

On the positive side, the appalling concept of inspecting birth certificates to establish birth sex has been dropped, and the distinction between associations and services is more inclusive than I had expected, and a significant improvement on the draft Code which effectively said that any organisation of any kind could not provide trans-inclusive, single gender spaces. This came to a head with recent high-profile cases, such as one of the Hampstead Heath pools in London which is designated for women-only bathing and whose members voted overwhelmingly to remain inclusive of trans women which led to them receiving deplorable threats of legal action. The Code makes it clear that associations, such as book clubs, walking groups, public baths, community groups, etc. can “lawfully cater for people who share one or more protected characteristic, or people who have one of a combination of protected characteristics.” For example, a running group could define their membership as open to women including trans people, and they would be in line with the Code.

This offers some vital clarity and will mean that trans-inclusive associations, and those that wish to be trans inclusive but have been fearful ahead of the Code’s publication, will be able to continue on that basis. However, I am concerned that extensive litigation is likely to now follow which will legally test the Code, and possibly the Supreme Court ruling in its entirety. Whilst I would follow legal challenges to the Supreme Court ruling with interest, I am worried what courtroom battles could mean for small organisations which cannot risk immense legal fees. We have already seen the fallout from this with the way the Girl Guides have reacted to the ruling and the interim Code published last year. Reports suggest that a majority of Girl Guiding groups wished to continue to welcome trans young people but fears of successful legal challenges costing the organisation enormous sums of money led to a rushed decision to exclude trans Guides, including those already attending groups. This has been heartbreaking for the affected Guides, their families and in many cases the volunteers of their groups. Evidence suggests that many volunteers have left the Guides as a result of the trans-exclusive decision which is a great shame, particularly given that it seems to have been forced by legal threats, and it could threaten the viability of many Guides groups which ultimately rely on dedicated volunteers.

Aside from associations, the Code makes it clear that services, including any organisation providing goods or facilities to the public, cannot be both single sex and trans inclusive. In other words, a service wishing to restrict its offer to women only has to exclude trans women. Although often overlooked, this will also apply to male-only services in terms of the exclusion of trans men. The only alternatives are to either permit both genders or to offer a ‘third space’ for trans people. The latter is an aspect of the Code that is rightly facing particular scrutiny and is also likely to be tested in the courts.

I am sure that the Code’s assertion that offering only single-sex services on the basis of birth sex “is likely to indirectly discriminate against trans people, and alternatives must be provided” was intended to be a positive and inclusive change, but it does result in trans people being treated like a third sex - an ‘other’ category. This could have wide-reaching and damaging consequences for trans people’s place in society and confirms many of our fears that the Code would result in trans people being singled out for differential treatment. Where trans people are instructed to use disabled facilities, which have effectively always been gender neutral with no issues, this would only put already pressured facilities under further demand. Where segregated ‘third spaces’ are provided, it would effectively force trans people to publicly out themselves which could put them at risk. We all know the likely consequence of this: trans people’s use of services could be seen an inconvenience or burden which providers have to account for. This is why I find the description of the Supreme Court ruling as having “provided clarity” so ridiculous; the Code will actually create a minefield of legal uncertainty in many aspects of everyday life for providers and trans people alike.

Furthermore, the approach of excluding trans people will inevitably capture a much wider group of people in the net of exclusion. An aspect of these developments which has disturbed me deeply is the rise of ‘gender policing’. There is already evidence that cis women are being thrown out of toilets or challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look stereotypically female. By extension, trans people will feel that they have to ‘pass’ as their gender or declare themselves trans in spaces and places they have previously chose not to disclose their birth sex. All of this enforces outdated and deeply problematic gender stereotypes which we have worked hard to gradually consign to the history books. This is a point I made strongly in a Westminster Hall debate last year and will continue to do so at every opportunity.

It is important to stress that the Code will not apply to employers and workplaces, but sadly there will clearly have to be guidance or legal precedents covering this aspect of life eventually. This means that at present, employers can allow trans employees to use single-sex spaces, including toilets, although some have pre-emptively applied exclusionary practices following the Supreme Court ruling and interim Code, another legal minefield. This situation throws up nonsensical contradictions in the same location. For example, there has been a lot of discussion amongst MPs over the fact that trans employees who work in Parliament will be able to use the toilet corresponding to their gender whereas trans visitors to Parliament will have to use toilets corresponding with their birth sex. Although I cannot stand the constant discussion of toilets when the Code has far-reaching consequences, I am sure you can see how that example demonstrates how confusing this new reality will be for everyone concerned.

When it comes to the forty-day period in which MPs can disagree with the Code, I will be honest with you that I am very conflicted. Although I have deep concerns about the Code, even in its somewhat improved form, I fear what could come next if it is challenged in Parliament. Unfortunately, MPs’ role in this is fairly limited. We cannot amend the Code or push back on certain aspects of it; not even the Minister has this power as all she can do is lay the Code before Parliament. The Code either comes into force if no motion to reject it is passed, or it is voted down in its entirety.

If the Code was rejected, which I have to tell you seems highly unlikely, then the EHRC would be obliged to produce another new Code that would still have to be in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The trans-exclusionary fallout from the ruling would remain; this cannot be challenged by politicians due to the separation of the legal and political worlds to prevent political interference in legal matters. We could hope that under a new Chair and new slate of Commissioners, the EHRC would come up with a better Code, but the reality is that they have already worked on a less exclusionary draft with the Minister for Women and Equalities over many months, so the likelihood of a fundamentally different document seems slim.

Furthermore, if no updated Code was implemented, this could provide a huge amount of fuel for fresh legal challenges by the groups that bankrolled the initial case that led to the Supreme Court ruling in the first place. I believe that some would delight in politicians causing even more chaos that can be taken advantage of, all to the detriment of trans people who are front and centre of my mind when approaching this matter.

Having said that, I do not feel that I could give my support to this Code given the consequences it could have for trans people who simply want to live their lives in peace. A vote against the Code, which would most likely involve me breaking the Labour whip, may only be a protest but that may be a statement I want to make. In the coming weeks, I will be continuing to have discussions with MPs who are fellow trans allies to find a way forward and I will, of course, continue to listen to the views of constituents such as you who have taken the time to write to me about this. If and when a vote on the Code is triggered, I will have discussions with colleagues and my whip and make a decision on the question that is put to MPs.

To conclude, this is clearly not a position that you or I wanted us to get to. Although I will not speak out against legal judgments as that is not my place, I remain deeply concerned about the direction of travel for trans people who deserve acceptance and fair treatment, not exclusion and othering. Where people are marginalised in society, direct and indirect discrimination follows and that is something I believe we should guard against. MPs, of course, have an important role to play in this and I want to reassure you that my support for that principles and for our trans community will continue to guide my decisions in the months ahead. As always, if you would like to discuss this with me further, I would be more than happy to meet you.

Yours sincerely,

Josh Newbury

Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase

(My thoughts: wowie. When he was first sworn in he got in trouble for posting pro-trans stuff on twatter and since then his vehement trans support he showed when he was a councillor has evaporated completely. It seems I was right that the whips are leaning heavily on him. I think this email amounts to unswerving allyship. I don't agree with his reasons for avoiding the edm but there's obviously bigger things at play that he can't talk about. We'll see what happens next)