The All Party Parliamentary group on LGBT rights is a cross party group established to raise issues affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans rights. Like many of these organisations which begin supporting all the letters Recently they made a statement about the current administrations response to a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. Crispin Blunt is the chair of APPG LGBT and nails his colours to the mast in this article. He actually calls women’s rights campaigners “strident” . Straight up, 1970’s style sexism.
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/after-his-furious-public-spat-criz-truss-trans-rights
APPG LGBT say their focus is principally international but they also include domestic issues in their remit. To this end they work with citizen groups, private and third sector organisations or, to give them another name, “Lobby Groups”.
Here I look at a document they produced in 2016. Here is the full document.
The chair of the group is Crispin Blunt. Vice chairs are Baroness Barker, Lord Cashman, Green party MP, Caroline Lucas and the SNP’s Stewart McDonald. All very familiar names for anyone who has been watching the march of Transgender Ideology through our political establishment.
At the outset the group identify 6 recommendations which lays out their strategy for embedding their policy aims across the various arms of the state, private sector and raising issues in both houses of Parliament.
- Coordination across government departments to include;
- Foreign & Commonwealth Office
- Department of International Development
- Home Office
- The Private Sector
- APPG LGBT & Parliament
The document advises that the group conducted an enquiry to which they invited those they identified as stakeholders. Stonewall are in the list of acknowledgements and their influence is immediately obvious in how the group define sexual orientation. 👇. I will unpack this statement because it encompasses a lot of the ideas of the Gender Identity idealogues in one paragraph.
The document, written in 2016, adopts the Stonewall definition of sexuality which claims sexual orientation can be based on Gender Identity. Since someones Gender may be at odds with their biological sex this undermines the idea of , exclusive, same sex attraction but we are not supposed to notice this.
It also uses the loaded term “sex assigned at birth” which is a give away that the group are captured by Transgender Ideology. The idea that the assignment of sex is, somehow, problematic is a smokescreen. It is used to create an association between the trans community and people with differences/disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Once again, sex is observed and recorded in 99%+ cases. People require more investigation are subject to karyotype tests: to determine any chromosomal abnormalities. Gender identity clinics abandoned these tests because research showed it wasn’t a factor in their patient population. This phrase is designed to imply there is a biological basis for Gender Identity which is, to say the least, a hugely contested claim.
The above statement normalises bodily modification to match your Gender Identity, whilst simultaneously defending the right to claim a Gender Identity, irrespective of bodily change. This is why we now are expected to accept concepts such as a #LadyPenis and why Lesbians are called transphobic for not accepting phallus in their wonderland.
A later statement endorses another plank of the ideology.
Firstly, in the U.K. context, there is no requirement for divorce to undertake any social or medical “transition”. What does exist is a spousal exit clause (emotively referred to as the “Spousal Veto”). In reality this allows a wife, it is usually a woman, to obtain a divorce before they are redefined, in law, as the spouse of a fellow / legal woman. Women have the right to exit a marriage whose contractual basis has significantly altered. Many heterosexual men who “transition” are autogynephiles and many of the wives find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. You can read more of their stories here: https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/
Here are two statements on DFID and the Home Office:
DFID and the home office are urged to include the nebulous idea of Gender Identity in policy and performance indicators. For DFID this could be tied to funding. Given that DFID operate globally, and do much work in regions where Transgender Ideology has not taken hold, this looks a lot like neo-colonialism. In practice this could undermine work in other jurisdictions where women are currently protected by policies which seek to extend, or establish, sex based rights for women. Prioritising “gender identity” in law, policy or practice will hurt the women in areas where DFID operates.
The home office are also advised to accept, and monitor, asylum claims based on “Gender identity”. I wonder how long this nebulous idea of Gender, which is based on a subjective sense of self, will stand up to the scrutiny of the Home Office. They are not known for welcoming asylum claims, with open arms, even when based on objective facts. Once again Stonewall are credited with making contributions on this issue:
The other interesting point is that Trans Activists have long opposed sterilisation clauses. In Norway it was normal practice to sterilise those undergoing sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). Interestingly now we know children, as young as 10, are being put on a pathway to sterilisation campaigners are peculiarly reticent about this issue. For more on this see my earlier posts on Puberty Blockers.
Here Human Rights are pressed into service in the interest of “Trans Rights”.
The above quote identifies criteria which they deem to be “Human Rights Violations”. One of these is to withhold legal recognition of your “Gender Identity” regardless of your sexed body. This demand dicktates (sic) that women accept a penis bearing male as a legal “woman”. This is already happening in many jurisDICKtions. In the U.K. we do not require SRS to be able to claim legal womanhood. We do, currently, require a diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria” and a Gender Recognition Panel (GRP), which includes a judge, adjudicates on your sincerity. A reminder about this “onerous” process; it currently costs £140 and we already give Gender Recognition Certificates to male bodied individuals who wish to be recognised as women. You won’t have your GRC rescinded even if you commit male type violence/sexual assault. This legal recognition has forced the Ministry of Justice to rehouse attempted rapists in the female estate. The process is already broken as these two blogs illustrate. Yet despite this the MOJ current policy allows males to self-identify into the female estate.
HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?
The above case is from 2009. A pre-op male commits attempted rape after being released to a female bail hostel. Now this person identifies as a “lesbian”, tours prisons to highlight LGBTQ+ issues and was invited to the House of Lords, to advise on the treatment of Transgender Prisoners.
Gender Recognition Certificates
This case 👆 demonstrates that a single judge can overturn a refusal to grant a GRC. Here a thrice married, father of seven, with convictions for obtaining explosives, to endanger life, is granted a GRC even though the GRP turned him down more than once.
The document is interesting for the linguistic gymnastics required to sometimes treat transwomen as women and , at other times, be forced to recognise them as having common interests with other men.
The Current Ministry of Justice policy on Transgender prisoners is covered below.
Ministry of Justice: Updated Policy on caring for Transgender Prisoners.
Above the experiences of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen, that is males, are treated together. This is illogical. The correct comparator here would be trans men but there is an ideological resistance to recognising sex based categories. This is ideological madness. Transwomen are not going to get Cervical cancer but are vulnerable to prostate cancer. Incorrectly recording sex, on NHS records, exposes this community to health based risks. There needs to be a way to identify sex based risks as well as recording, and following up, long term health risks associated with a medicalised “Gender Identity”. A lifelong dependence on opposite sex hormones or post-operative complications should be tracked, researched and evaluated. Not to acknowledge, sex-based, differences is to place trans people at risk. Anyone who seriously cares about this community would not collaborate with extreme sex denialism.
The above clip is interesting because it does refer to transwomen alongside men who have sex with men. Homosexual transsexual males need to be considered in this group because their exposure to risk, like HIV, is similar. However much Gender Identity ideologues join the flight from sex based realities they have to keep returning to it, regardless of their reluctance to acknowledge it.
Further examples, below, illustrate the problem.
Transmen have to be treated along side Lesbian and Bisexual women because they are dealing with specific issues that impact women who have sex with women. Lesbians and transmen face the same kind of sexual violence: because of their sex. Lesbians can be particularly vulnerable in some cultures, by men. Identifying out of sex based violence has not proved overly simple for Transmen.
Througout the document various countries are named because of legislation or practices that hurt the LGBTQ+ community. Countries are singled out for failing to recognise Gender Identity or, as in the case of Uganda the Anti-homosexuality bill. One country that is strikingly absent from this document is Iran and yet they have one of the most heinous approaches to dealing with homosexual men.
You can read about this above.
The APPG do offer some leniency for corporate clients who may face backlash or, heaven forfend, actual loss of market share for speaking up about LGBTQ+ rights. In India or China an anonymous (interesting) contributer advances this argument. Indeed the promulgation of Transgender ideology does look western because that it exactly what it is. Social engineering foisted on an unwilling public by hook or by crook but , mostly by stealth. I speak regularly to women in real life contexts, not feminist activist just ordinary women. Once they believe me about the female penis they provide a resounding NO! They do not accept this. Will not accept the colonising of women’s spaces and will not vote for any party that advocates this. Seems culturally sensitive approaches are allowed when there is commercial risk. Yet the APPG have shown no such cultural awareness to the feelings of UK Women.
Some of the comments on the international context show some awareness that the approach may generate backlash. If only they had applied this to the UK context and actually consulted women about the incursion into women’s rights. The stances taking by LGBTQ+ organisations have set up an unfortunate opposition between their organisations and the rest of Civil Society.
More and more evidence is showing that this will generate a backlash to the LGBT community because of the prioritisation of Transgender Ideology and the utter disrespect shown to women. Men projecting their own, pornified, image of women or carving these into their own flesh cannot define or be women.