This is the week we finally got a debate, in Parliament, about the clarification of “sex” in law. I will do a series on the points made in that debate and some of the key speakers. In doing so I hope to develop my thinking around this topic. Lobby groups, for the “T” have benefited from the strategic ambiguity over biological sex, indeed, this was their intention. Nobody was pretending to be confused about “sex” when women’s sex barred us from the vote , certain professions, or even the ability to take out a mortgage. It seems straightforward that we cannot protect women from sex discrimination if we can’t define sex. What makes me hesitant about the revision of the Equality Act is our legislators may take the opportunity to strengthen the concept of “legal” sex and embed gender identity ideology deeper into the law. Nevertheless this debate helped showcase the arguments and it is to be welcomed.
Ultimately I would like the “Gender Recognition Act” repealed which is an argument that makes people nervous. Quite simply, there is no other class who is forced to accept the appropriation of our very existence by the group that causes such harm to women. Our society has developed an infrastructure so we can escape men, when we at our most vulnerable. Trans lobby groups, such as Stonewall, openly campaigning to dismantle female only, single sex spaces. (From the publicity campaign for the launch of a document called Vision For Change 2017 -22.)
The debate
The debate was opened by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. She acknowledges how contested this issue is, dividing political parties and family and friends. She also comments that there is a real fear about speaking on this topic but, also, relief that it is finally being discussed, in Parliament.
The first intervention comes early from Liberal Democrat MP, Layla Moran, who offers a counter view that her constituents have contacted her to say they are “scared” that this is going to be discussed and claiming it will cause “a rise in hatred and violence”.
An elected MP saying that discussing women’s rights causes a spike in hate! Here is Layla answering a question about whether she would be happy to share changing rooms with a fully intact man.
Tonia responds like a grownup, something sadly lacking on this topic. At least we have some adults back in the room.
What is at stake is outlined in her next statement. Female sports, single sex spaces for women, at our most vulnerable moments. The right to have our boundaries respected whether that is in changing rooms or health care. The right for same sex attracted people to have free association with others of the same sex.
Unbelievably Lesbians in Tasmania have already lost the right to exclude men from Lesbian groups.
Tonia then explains that she has met with people from LGB Alliance and the Lesbian Project to understand their concerns. As she points out, without recognising biological sex we may as well dispense with the protected characteristic of “sexual orientation”. It is noticeable that there are a plethora of “trans” only groups and nobody is going around threatening their rights of assembly, the same cannot be said for Lesbian events.
Research needs to be able to legally distinguish actual Lesbians for data gathering purposes.
This argument extends to all women. Already we have had debates , in the House of Lords, and House of Commons, which looks at the health needs of Lesbians, Bisexual and “Transwomen”. It makes no sense to look at these groups together, “transwomen” are biologically male so the correct comparator should be females that claim a “trans” identity.
Putting validation above facts doesn’t just damage women’s health, it helps obscure the health impacts of “transgender medicine”. My son now has an increased risk of multiple sclerosis nearly at x 7, added to a genetic predisposition from me. We need to research this based on biological sex. 68% of people who get MS are female, but males have a worse prognosis. I need to know if my son is l more at risk of male pattern MS and we won’t find out if our research is based on fantasy, not reality.
Tonia has also spoken to “trans” lobbyists who want the confusion in the Equality Act to remain. They claim that there is no opposition to men using women’s spaces. This is a blatant lie. 👇
So, “transwomen” are at risk if they use spaces for men so women have to budge up, no matter how uncomfortable, or fearful, this makes us? Does anyone think women deserve human rights?
This is who Tonia spoke to before the debate. Dr Paul Martin, from LGBT Foundation, who I covered in my series on the guidance he drew up for the NHS Confederation. He drips with contempt for the female sex. You can find out more about him here:
Also Nancy Kelley of Stonewall infamy. Nancy is a Lesbian who thinks you are are “sexual racist” if you don’t consider “transbians” a.k.a men, as part of your dating pool. can read more about Nancy Kelly here:👇
Male barrister, Robin Moira White, often crops up to claim that all women have accepted him in the female facilities and are not made uncomfortable with his presence. If they were, would they dare say? Here is Robin with noted trans-activists Chris Burns, Jane Fae, and James Morton.
Robin has a tenuous grasp on reality and believes that we can believe Robin is a man but should not be allowed to express these beliefs.
Dr Finn Mackay, describes herself as a “queer male” and is wheeled out to argue that women like her are at risk of being challenged in female facilities. Nobody who has seen footage of Mackay would be left in any doubt about her sex.
Dr Finn Mackay deserves a deep dive herself. She describes herself as a radical feminist. 8 years ago she spoke out against legalising prostitution, which must make her an outlier in “queer” circles. Here she is promoting her work on a channel hosted by a man who claims to be a woman. Both Mackay and the man explain that they could not be Lesbian/Gay because they need their partner to be attracted to them as a kind of “queer male” or a “trans woman”.
This quote 👇 , from Antoniazzi’s opening statement, expresses that authoritarian nature of the trans-stasi who even have the gall to try to mandate what we allowed to think.
Antoniazzi also spoke to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who agreed that clarification of “sex” to mean “biological sex” would bring clarity in some areas but “potential ambiguity in other areas”. I would like to see legal opinion about where this ambiguity might occur.
Next intervention is from a MP , Lloyd Russell-Moyles the honourable member for Brighton. He is keen to claim that there had always been an intention to introduce “Self-ID” policy. ( This would allow a self-declared statement of what sex you are.)
I have written about Russell-Moyles before. He made the following statement, about a young relative of his, in a parliamentary debate about what should be taught, in schools, on the topic of sex education. Somebody needs a refresher training on child safeguarding.
This MP has been campaigning against single sex spaces since his University days. He was also involved in an outfit that strategised to provide sex education, to children, behind parents backs. I wrote about that here.
This was the response to Russell-Moyle’s intervention. 👇 Tonia rightly points out that the discussion has moved on from 2004. Worryingly she seems amenable to codifying “non-binary” in law. We will need to be vigilant as we will see the horse trading and appeasement of the “trans” lobby, particularly as the Civil Service seem particularly captured.
Despite the note of caution there are some important voices weighing in and this is critical. We need to start from the basis of “shared facts” and get away from the emotive language so beloved of our political class.
I will turn this into a series covering the highlights from the rest of the debate. A link to the written record of the debate is below.
Or, if you prefer to watch it:
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. We need to redress the balance cos the other side have billionaires on their side. Most marginalised my a**.
Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.
£10.00
One thought on “Legal Definition of Sex”