“We Shouldn’t be Asking How Easy it is to Change Gender, but How Easy it is for a Predator to Get Access to Children”

British Conservative MP Miriam Cates gave a powerful speech in the UK House of Commons criticizing “transgender” males in female bathrooms, and fearing that “predators will exploit any loophole that they can find to get access to children.”

“In a restaurant recently, I had an experience where a man dressed as a woman walked into the toilets where I was on my own. He stood behind me and stared at me in the mirror, looking me in the eye”, Cates said. “I have no idea whether he intended me any harm, but my evolved instinct as a woman was to be frightened, because unlike in almost any other species, women are far less powerful than men and we cannot defend ourselves. [heckles] No, it is a fact.”

“Women are evolved to be wary of men in intimate spaces,” Cates said, “which is why we have single-sex spaces and why they must continue to exist for the safety and privacy of women. “

Cates was immediately and viciously attacked by the groomer lobby for even mentioning women’s and children’s safety from perverts.

“That speech was probably one of the worst transphobic, dog whistle speeches that I’ve heard in an awful long time… you should be ashamed…”, said groomer enabler MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour)

Russell-Moyle had to apologize for his abusive outburst, while still blaming “extremists” who don’t want perverts abusing children.

Miriam Cates’ full speech:

I rise to support the Government’s decision to use their section 35 powers with regard to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. As is the case for many other hon. Members, I am afraid that I have not had a chance to read the statement of reasons in full and in detail, so I will focus on a few key areas that are significant.

In paragraph 27, the Government point out that the Bill does not create “sufficient safeguards”. They are right to be concerned about “fraudulent and/or malign applications” because of the implications for child safeguarding. This morning, the Education Committee heard from Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired the inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse. It was harrowing to hear the stories of decades of child sexual abuse throughout institutions across the country. One key feature of such abuse is that predators will exploit any loophole that they can find to get access to children, and I am afraid that that is what will happen with the Bill.

We should not be asking how easy it is for someone who is uncomfortable with their sex to obtain a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate); we should be asking how easy it is for a predator to get access to children. The Bill would make it vastly easier for a predator to get access to children by changing their gender with an eye to exploiting loopholes to access children and women in particular.

The naivety that the Bill has been written with is astounding and hugely worrying. The reduction of the age limit to 16 is a significant safeguarding risk, because the human brain does not stop developing until about the age of 25. People cannot drive a car when they are 16—in fact, there are an awful lot of things that people are not legally allowed to do when they are 16 because they cannot assess the long-term implications for their welfare. Changing legal gender, with a potential route to long-term changes to fertility, sexual function and health, is not suitable for 16-year-olds and is a huge safeguarding risk.

Paragraphs 30 and 48 mention membership on the grounds of sex and single-sex spaces. Sex Matters recently did a report that looked at the impact on single-sex spaces of men’s ability to access them by changing their gender. Women say, “I never went back to that swimming pool,” or, “I never went back to that counselling class,” because for many of them, the dignity of having a women-only space and knowing that there will be no men there is important. We will see a chilling effect on important single-sex rights if the Bill passes.

As a woman, I fully understand the threats to dignity and safety that the Bill poses, because it will change the social contract. In this country, we recognise that in toilets, changing rooms and public spaces, there are areas where only women are allowed.

In a restaurant recently, I had an experience where a man dressed as a woman walked into the toilets where I was on my own. He stood behind me and stared at me in the mirror, looking me in the eye. I have no idea whether he intended me any harm, but my evolved instinct as a woman was to be frightened, because unlike in almost any other species, women are far less powerful than men and we cannot defend ourselves. [Interruption.] No, it is a fact. The difference in strength between men and women is phenomenal, which is why we have separate sex categories for sport. Women are evolved to be wary of men in intimate spaces, which is why we have single-sex spaces and why they must continue to exist for the safety and privacy of women. The Bill threatens that social contract.

Finally, this threatens the understanding of our law, which should be based on fact, and someone cannot change their sex any more than they can change their place of birth or who their parents are.