My MP has signed the EDM, this is my letter to her…
I am writing as a constituent regarding your decision to sign Nadia Whittome’s Early Day Motion (EDM 240) calling for Parliament to disapprove the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) draft Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations.
I am going to assume that you understand that this is statutory guidance and that rejecting it does not change the underlying law, as confirmed by the UK Supreme Court. If my assumption is correct, you must therefore believe that the EHRC’s guidance does not accurately reflect the law. Could you please explain to me which specific parts of the guidance you consider incorrect or unlawful, and why?
Furthermore, the EHRC is an independent statutory regulator, completely separate from the government of the day. Its sole duty in drafting this Code of Practice is to act as an objective referee—translating the Equality Act and recent Supreme Court rulings into clear, practical instructions for service providers. By using an Early Day Motion to try to block an independent body's guidance, you are engaging in an unprecedented overreach. You are effectively attempting a political veto of a regulator’s objective statement of what the law actually is. If Parliament does not like the reality of the law, the correct constitutional path is to propose new primary legislation to amend the Equality Act, not to politically interfere with an independent commission's statutory duty to explain it.
The biological reality is that trans-identifying men (trans women) remain male, regardless of hormones or cosmetic surgeries. Statistically, the vast majority do not undergo any surgical transition at all and are attracted exclusively to women. I firmly believe that individuals should have the absolute freedom to express themselves, wear whatever clothes they choose, wear make-up, and live their lives free from harassment or hassle. However, as a biological subset of men, they absolutely belong in male single-sex spaces, and they are entirely welcome there. There is no reason for them to be excluded from their own sex demographic.
By prioritising the feelings of a small group over clear sex-based protections, the position that a subset of men should use female single-sex spaces tramples on the rights, privacy, safety, and dignity of women and girls—who make up over 51% of the population.
As an effeminate gay man in my mid-50s, I have spent decades using male single-sex spaces (toilets, changing rooms, etc.) and have never once experienced any kind of bad or threatening incident in them. If you or others believe male single-sex spaces are not safe for trans women, the logical and fair response would be to campaign for men to behave better in those spaces and for better enforcement of existing rules against harassment or violence.
I look forward to you providing me with a specific, detailed explanation as to exactly why you believe this guidance does not accurately reflect the law. If you are unable to demonstrate where the EHRC has legally erred, then I expect you to do the right thing as our representative and remove your name from this Early Day Motion.