Gender Recognition Act: Hansard. 1

I have done twitter threads on the Gender Recognition Act before and two blog posts. I have decided to download the parliamentary discussion as captured on Hansard. The two existing posts, in this series, look at a legal case and an interview with a Judge, who sits on the Gender Recognition Panel. There are 44 pages and I am going to pick out a sample of quotes. The original intention was highlight those assurances that have proved worthless and the warnings that have come to pass. It did not quite work out like that because hardly anyone seemed to think women had a stake in this discussion, unless they of course the ”women” were of the male persuasion.

The first reading of the Bill is a formality to signal the passage of the bill through parliament. The first substantive debate, in the House of Commons Chamber, takes place at the second reading. There is a preliminary stage in committee so I will cover that as well. The full file is available to read here:

Gender Recognition Bill (Hansard, 23 February 2004)

David Lammy presents the bill. Early interruptions raise the issue of pension provision for spouses and the transsexual person. The bill required a married person, usually a man, to have any marriage annulled to get a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This was because there was, as yet, no provision for ”same sex” unions. Below, David Lammy advises that the bill originates from another piece of work, which I have looked at before. (I will add a post on that document). Lammy confirms that anyone who wished to obtain a GRC must end any marriage.

A number of interruptions raise exemptions, based on freedom of conscience, for religious institutions. Then Tim Loughton raised the issue of prisoners who obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). (This was one of the few interventions that seemed to think about women, the female and only kind)

Here Andrew Robathan raises the issue of detransitioners, people who revert to accepting their biological sex. Nobody really knows how many regret ”transition” but there are currently 27,000 on the detrans forum on reddit.

Andrew Robathan calls the bill a piece of ”arrant nonsense” and raises an important point in respect of those who regret their decision. This is how detransitioners find themselves having to go to a Gender Recognition Panel to have their actual sex recognised in law. This is complicated by the requirement to have ”Gender Dysphoria” which detransitioners either no longer have or they are dysphoric in relation to their actual sex. I know of two people in this legal limbo; they have re-identified with their natal sex but their legal sex remains as that of the opposite sex.

Ann Widdecombe raises the issue of mothers who wish to avail themselves of a GRC and whether this impacts on how parentage is recorded. {An issue that still rumbles on in the Freddy McConnell case}. Donald Anderson raises the danger of activists who are litigious. (This is elaborated on in a later debate and concerns the case of a bearded man seeking access to a female only church group)

Lammy advises the house that he has been advised by a transsexual constituent on this matter who had been a senior official. This was a recurring theme. Many MPs report being visited by a transsexual constituent. They were all male. Clearly the Trans Lobby groups activated their base. Where were the professional feminists rousing women from our slumbers?

John Bercow intervenes to decry those who think this bill is a threat to anyone else. 😳Dunwoody and Boswell intervene to express caution about legislation to help a minority, which is laudable, but should not be bad legislation that harms another group. (They may mean women but they don’t say so. From the proceedings I suspect they are more concerned about the registrars who have to provide the new birth certificates. Boswell also references the trans lobby group, Press for Change. Boswell seems most exercised over preserving marriage between a man and a woman and he also asks if we may encourage behaviour from those who may enjoy “flaunting exaggerated behaviour”. It’s not clear if this is a euphemism for indecent exposure.

Lynne Jones speaks to celebrate the arrival of a bill for which she has campaigned for a decade. She had previously assumed the issue was sexual until a timid transsexual male persuaded her otherwise. She then introduces the idea of the wrong body and an opposite sex brain.

Lynn Jones then goes on to play the intersex card and talk about hormonal influences in the womb. She then pays tribute to Christine Burns and Press For Change and Gender Research and Education Society (GIRES).

Mark Oaten makes a point about the Criminal Records Bureau and the issue of changing names and birth certificates. He seems more concerned about the right to privacy than safeguarding issues. Eric Joyce intervenes to confirm the Bill does not require any surgery to have taken place. Shaun Woodward then speaks up to support the bill and advises that he has a transsexual sister.

There is a lot of talk people with disorders of sexual development from a number of speakers. This is a good time to point out that gender clinics abandoned karyotype tests because people with DSDs are not a feature in referrals to gender clinics. If you want to know why ”intersex” people are used so much in this debate see my piece on Dr Ann Lawrence. Lawrence is an autogynephilic, transsexual and his work sheds much light on this issue.

Diagnostic Criteria: Gender Dysphoria

Andrew Selous questioned the evidence for a biological basis for Gender Dysphoria.

This is the second reading of the bill, which had also spent time being scrutinised by a committee. I will cover those, the House of Lords debate and the Transsexual Working Group established in 1999.

I will end with the point made by Andrew Selous and point out that not one person raised any concerns about women, as a sex class.

I am currently unwaged and thus more able to speak up about this issue. If you have a salary but not able to voice concerns yourself you can send me a donation here: All my content is free but any help gratefully received.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s, gay and children’s rights not to be sterilised in the name of the new religion.


Leave a Reply