Legal Definition of Sex. Part 3

In which I cover the contributions of Angela Eagle, Angela Richardson and Jess Phillips. You can read the series here:


Angela Eagle

Angela Eagle is a Labour MP and a Lesbian. She has been a Labour MP since 1992. Before I cover her contribution to the debate I just want to share some history about her funding. She has taken £95,000 from Antony Watson who is an LGBT activist on the board of GLADD, another gay rights organisation gone rogue. (Source: Electoral Commission)

Bear this in mind when you listen to Eagle. I will add a full profile about Eagle to my Respect My Sex series.

She opens with this statement which attacks the contribution of Miriam Cates as “provocative”. The fact that homosexuality is under attack with having being redefined as “same gender attraction, most prominently by Stonewall, was amply covered by the MP, Joanna Cherry. (See Part 2). Lesbians, in particular, are castigated for not including obvious men in their dating pools. To deny this, at this point, is extremely disingenuous. Eagle, herself, is in a same sex relationship and not forced to fish in these new dating pools.

Joanna Cherry attempted to intervene at this point but Angela Eagle was not going to allow facts to get in the way of her hyperbole. She continues, claiming that the current legislative situation is fine as it is and to clarify what is meant by sex would lead to incoherence! Gender Grievance warriors need the current lack of clarity it is “strategic ambiguity” and it has worked well for the activists; better than an all out assault on women’s single sex spaces, until now.

There is no paradox here, only a clear intention to ring-fence single sex spaces to the sex they are intended for, also an appeal to international human rights obligations no longer cut any ice since those same bodies are captured by gender identity ideology. Eagle presses on to suggest women are getting bees in their bonnets about a tiny minority and it is these men who would be left humiliated and damaged. We are talking about men, the females are only rolled out when the men need cover, there is little incursion into male spaces by “trans men” and they are not likely to be intimidating; while still an intrusion the consequences are vastly different.

The next statement is hysterical so she employs DARVO to label her opponents of exhibiting the behaviour of which she is in fact guilty. She burnishes her credential to demonstrate that she has always been a feminist blah blah blah.

Joanna Cherry is also a Lesbian, and Eagle here is smearing her using a stream of judgemental words; bigotry;prejudice;misogyny and homophobia. She also deploys another common tactic which is to shift the debate to the U.S context and imply that abortion rights will also be under attack if we allow this state of affairs to continue.” Let men in your bathrooms or abortion rights get it”. The legislation that Eagle is referring to are efforts to protect women from unfair competition in sport and stop children being sterilised and having mastectomies whilst they are in their teens, or younger.

Eagle finishes with this to which I would counter if we are honest that the legislation already meant biological sex we would uphold the law as it was passed. Women and girls would have the right to spaces for their own sex. We are not just talking about post operative males, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), because there is no requirement for surgery, but surgically unaltered males who will also appear to be the men they are , on sight. Women and girls should not have our boundaries violated in this way, it’s inhumane and unacceptable.

Angela Richardson

Angela is a conservative MP. She points out that while we’ll intentioned the attempt to bring all the different characteristics together, in one single act, has led to a lack of clarity which is harming people. (I have seen people argue for legislation on one axis because whenever you put women into a group with another minority it’s the women who get forgotten). She also makes an excellent point which undermines Eagles pretence that we are making a fuss about a tiny number of people. We are not. We gave an inch and they took a mile.

As Richardson points out we are now in a position where, even where services are advertised for one sex, women don’t know if they are truly single sex. A GRC does not confer an automatic right to breach women’s boundaries.

I am still trying to understand how, even with sex clarified, in law, service providers can be confident about enforcing this while the Gender Recognition Act exists and people are allowed to get sex falsification certificates (GRCs), from the government.

Richardson has a “radical” solution. Provide separate services for males and females were sex matters. Accommodate people, as far practicable, who are not comfortable in spaces for their own sex. What is not acceptable, and has happened, is that the mens remain mens, because urinals, and the women’s is converted to unisex.

Richardson finishes with the revolutionary idea that men, inflight from their sex, are not the same as women, we have different needs and by attacking single sex spaces it is clear that our interests are often diametrically opposed to the men colonising women.

Jess Phillips

This was interesting from the woman who was a sponsor of a bill to promote the idea of men being allowed to make “gender identity” a protected characteristic in lie of “gender reassignment” into the opposite sex category. She also opposed the spousal exit clause, which allowed women to seek divorce before their truth was rewritten in favour of their husband retconning his narrative:

I have written a longer piece on Jess Philips here.

Jess Phillips. Feminist? Meninist?

You will see why I was skeptical about her intervention but she did in fact embrace the need for clarity. My interpretation is that she is seeing a change in the direction of travel and has decided to join the winning side. Send is still allowing herself wiggle room seemingly uncomfortable about saying she is on one side or another. She also says that every “trans” person she knows doesn’t deny their sex. This is not the same thing as saying no “trans” person denies their sex is real. We all know that sex denialism is a key feature of trans activists rhetoric.

Yes, we know you did, which is why it has been a puzzle to see you so reluctant to speak up.

So Jess finally speaks up and acknowledges that sex discrimination is because of biology, the Equality Act is not working, and women need services for women only. Women who offer single sex spaces are also being decommissioned because they don’t also run services for men (and she doesn’t mean “trans-identified” men. She covers herself by saying she has, while working for Birmingham council, commissioned services for LGBT people. I will leave you to read the rest of Phillips contribution on Hansard. For me, it’s too little, too late, but at least it suggests she has seen the writing on the wall.


Or, if you prefer it, on Parliament TV.

Parliament TV

Next up Peter Bottomley, Rosey Duffield and Nick Fletcher.

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. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


One thought on “Legal Definition of Sex. Part 3

Leave a Reply