Who advised parliament on the Gender Recognition Act?
In part 1 on the Hansard audit trail, David Lammy referenced the work done by rhe Transsexual Working Group that paved the way for the passing of the Gender Recognition Act. You can read this document here: 👇
These are the groups that were consulted. Note, not one women’s rights group was consulted even though it was clear the majority of those seeking to be redefined, in law, were men who wished to be recognised, legally, as women.
The also had submissions from additional groups, again no representatives from women’s organisations.
The report introduces this as a ”medical condition”. A person has a firm conviction they are the opposite sex. It makes various claims suggesting this has a biological origin, for which the evidence is flimsy. Somehow they seem to have managed to convince politicians this is the case despite the existence of many late transitioning males, some of whom admit to having the sexual paraphilia, autogynephilia.
Intersex/Disorders of Sexual development
One transsexual was quoted claiming to have a #LadyBrain and being careful to distance any notion this is connected to ”sexual preference”. To believe this guff about ”thinking like a woman” you would have to have pretty sexist views about women.
A group of trans lobby groups were invited to give a presentation to the working group where the claim they suffered from a type of ”intersex” condition was repeatedly made.
This explains how our parliamentarians were hoodwinked. A conviction you were meant to be female/male, when your natal sex is the opposite, is a psychological condition. Its etiology varies, some may be gay males /Lesbians in flight from their sex/sexuality, some are hetereosexual men with a paraphilia, autogynephilia. They are not intersex. The main U.K Gender Clinic actually abandoned karyotype tests because chromosomal abnormalities are not a feature of their referrals. Here is the relevant clip: 👇
You can read that full article at the link below:
The report sets out the role of the European Court of Human Rights in prompting a review of legislation, in this area, after some notable court cases. Having determined that parliament would review this area the working group was established to consider three options, as follows: Retain the status quo; allow new birth certificates possibly displaying a new “sex” or grant full recognition of the ”acquired gender”. As you can see the tactic of switching between sex/gender was used from the outset.
These were the areas the working group was tasked with looking at. Zero consideration that this law might impact on women, the female and only kind.
The section on birth registration uses the intersex gambit to argue that we already amend birth certificates where there was uncertainty, at birth, because of a disorder of sexual development. It covers different ways a ”transsexual” could have a newly issued birth certificate, what it should record and how to protect the privacy of the person in receipt of one.
The report makes a clear statement about the limits of ”transition” which is a statement of fact and would nowadays be considered ”transphobic”.
The marriage section covers the right to retain a marriage after a person claims to be the opposite sex, the right to marry in a new “gender” and the implications for a marriage between two persons of the same sex; given this was not legal. It also considers existing spouses and the impact on them. This also forms a big part of the discussion on pensions if the act required marriages to be voided if one, usually the man, wanted to be legally recognised as a woman. The pensions section also spends some time looking at pensions implication for the ”transsexual”. This would eventually result in males getting a pension at 60 and females, who identified as men, having to wait a further five years. Both these issues are now resolved by gay marriage and equal pension ages for both sexes.
This section is concerned with the right to a family life, the rights and responsibilities of parents who identify as trans. The legislation proposed is not retroactive and, at this stage, activists were not attempting to change birth certificated to record a male as a ”mother” or a female as ”father”. There is some discussion about inheritance but nobody made a claim to inherit titles that follow the male line. In fact, when the legislation was passed, primogeniture was protected such that a female cannot accede to titles intended to follow a male line, even with a GRC. Neither can she become a priest in any religious denomination that does not allow female priests.
Criminal Justice System
The report reiterates the law that rape can only be committed by a male, a statement that would result in a twitter ban in 2022, and which remains the case. There is a lot of discussion about how males who identify as ”transsexual” would be treated in the judicial system. Even as far back as 1999 the situation was that someone would be treated according to the ”gender” they claimed. New names were to be respected but the report admits this may place a case in jeopardy if sex was not recognised for offences that can only be committed by a male. The report also makes it clear that intimate body searches should be conducted by someone of the same ”gender”. If THEY CONSENT!
The report does make a distinction between pre and post-operative transsexuals and recognises the impact on women.
Interestingly the report has this to say about Scottish Prisons.
The working group made it perfectly clear that “inclusion” in sport would introduce unfairness for female competitors but nevertheless made it clear a man, with a GRC, would be entitled to compete against women.
The issue was nicely sidestepped paving the way for Liar Williams and Laura Hubbard.
The report makes it perfectly clear that it was anticipated that men, even pre-operative men, would be allowed to avail themselves of a GRC. (For the avoidance of doubt I don’t share the view that this is a meaningful distinction. There are many, post-operative, men who appear to envy, even hate, women. Where sex matters female only spaces should be for females only). Despite this they determined that the marker of having joined the female sex class would be a GRC. This would be for ALL purposes.
As we now know the eventual legislation did carve out some exceptions. Women are able to exclude a male, even one with a GRC from single sex spaces. Many organisations are too afraid/complicit to enforce these exemptions but they do exist. Here’s what the working group had to say: 👇
The authors, I would suggest deliberately, chose an example of a male only service and focussed on a male who changed ”gender”. So, in fact he still met the sex specific criteria. They presumably did not anticipate that a male would lie about his sex and end up running a rape crisis centre, for women.
They did, bizzarely, worry about a transsexual Nanny and made it clear there would be exceptions for a private home. Presumably this was a scenario the MPs could identify with.
No such exception was made for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Here it was made clear it was envisaged vulnerable women would have to accept intimate care from a male with a GRC.
The eradication of Sex in life and law.
I will end my coverage here but the report also continues with a presentation by trans lobby groups. I will cover that presentation, at some stage. The presentation used the intersex gambit, veiled threats of legal action, emotional blackmail and suggested ways to accomplish the change and avoid media scrutiny. They knew what they were doing. I will just leave you with one suggestion they made. This puts the decisions about the census and data gathering, in general, into context.
If you are able to support my work you can do so here.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology, it’s impact on women and gay rights. I look at legislation, medical treatments of “transgender children” and criminal cases.