GRA: Committee Stage. Day 1

Gender Recognition Act:Parliamentary Scrutiny

This is part of a series on the GRA following its progress through the parliamentary process to try to understand how so many parliamentarians were captured by this ideology.

Here is the full transcript of day one:

Day 1 Official Report of the Grand Committee on the GRA

Definitions

For those of you with left wing sensibilities prepare yourself for Norman Tebbit speaking a lot of sense. He is not a closet radical feminist, his interventions are primarily motivated by opposition to same sex marriage. However, a byproduct of his motivation was a determination to seek clarity on definitions around ”sex” and ”gender”. He is not alone in this preoccupation. Overall there was little consideration of women, in general, with the exception of the of the impact on spouses who were mainly wives.

Norman kicked off proceedings with this amendment: He makes it clear his intention is to “smoke out” the Government’s definition of both ”sex” and ”gender”. Tebbit then follows up with dictionary definition; which sadly was not the rallying call of Adult Human Female.

He gives a passing nod to feminist thinking. It is not clear if he believes feminists are responsible for the mess in which we now find ourselves: 👇

Tebbit proposed an amendment that only if someone’s chromosomes were, unambiguously, of the sex aspired to could a GRC be issued. Clearly this was intended to make a point there was no serious chance of getting sufficient agreement. He emphasises that he does not wish to allow the government to hide between the euphemism of ”gender” when the legislation is a redefinition of “sex” in law, irrespective of biological fact. His next statements make it clear that his concern is with not allowing same sex marriage. Lord Filkin responds to Tebbit:

Lord Filkin will be picked up about the ”inconclusive evidence” later.

For posterity here are the groups who had provided advice/support for this amendment.

It’s well worth reading up on the British Psychological Society. I was so horrified at the documents they produced I did a series on their pronouncements.

British Psychological Society

Lord Filkin elaborates on the role of the EHRC in propelling the U.K parliament to legislate on this issue and shares snippets from a court case (Bellinger & Bellinger). Here is one which introduces the idea of a “feminine” psyche unmooored from our sexed bodies.

For reasons of space I won’t include every instance of parliamentarians claiming this will only impact a small number of people, we know how that turned out. Nowhere in this committee stage does anyone directly challenge the fact that women are being redefined, in law, based on men’s feelings. This has more impact on the female sex than females claiming a male identity for reasons rooted in SEXism, something we seem to have disregarded in the last decade.

Lord Carlile interjects to imply Tebbit is indulging in a bit of moral panic and then Baroness O’Cathlain questions the evidence base for the legislation: 👇

Lord Filkin regards the aetiology of transsexualism as a side issue so we will search in vain for any understanding of autogynephilia (a sexual paraphilia) as a motive for transition. He outlines the process the Gender Recognition Panel will follow to determine if someone has met the criteria for a GRC which contains the ”real life” test; which requires an applicant to “live as a woman”, whatever that means. He forgets about the requirment for a diagnosis of ”Gender Dysphoria” and is given a helpful reminder by another member. This is portrayed as a difficult hurdle to surmount. (Worth pointing out that we are now handing out drugs and surgeries on the flimsiest of assessments, because of the ”affirmation only” model of, putative, ”care”.)

Baroness O’Cathlain was a Conservative peer who was also motivated by concern about same sex marriage but she drops some truth bombs here. Language which, I fear, we may never hear in parliament again.

The Baroness is also keen to dispel any notion that this is related to an “intersex” condition. 👇 She also made sure to get it on record that the bill does not mandate surgery; leading to the absurd proposition that a “woman” can be in possession of a penis, with all the implications this has for women’s privacy, dignity and safety.

She was not wrong. The ”ghastly social and cultural situation” is here.

There follows some discussion about why the decision to allow pre-operative males, to be classed as women, was taken. It mainly focussed “rare” cases, for medical reasons, and it’s unclear whether this is a genuinely held belief or an attempt to convey that impression. A Bishop intervenes to express surprise the Law Lords have adopted a philosophical position in relation to a ”female psyche”. There follows a question as to why the draft bill says a man with a GRC would be treated as the opposite sex ”for all purposes” and one about why the bill switches between “gender” and “sex”.

Lord Filkin responds as follows:

Sport

There is a long section on the implications for competitive sport. Lord Moynian makes the point that all the sporting bodies he contacted were keen for an exemption for sport. The answers here lack clarity and also appear contradictory. A hypothetical question is posed about a male, athlete, who wishes to continue to compete, as a male, in the two year waiting period for a Gender Recognition Certificate, whilst ”living as a woman”. This was seen as a matter for the Gender Recognition Panel.

He is then given an assurance that transsexual’s can be legitimately excluded from playing on female teams if they are not ”physiologically appropriate” At this point Lord Tebbit interjects to raise the issue of privacy clauses.

Sex is a biological fact, gender a social pose:

Lord Filkin is clearly getting rattled by this stage and Tebbit thinks he understands why, he believes the Noble Lord is defensive because he feels the ground beneath his feet is slippy.

The issue of sport is not resolved to another member’s satisfaction and he draws the conclusion that Sporting bodies need to be exempted from the bill.

“Lived Experience”

It is in the discussion about sport that we come nearest to covering the issue of imposing these men on women’s spaces, where single sex changing rooms have been the norm. By requiring a ”real life experience” test these men are being imposed on women whose own rights have been disregarded. 👇. Here the Minister’s own words are quoted back at him as he claims female changing rooms have always been open to ”transsexuals” adding the rather naive statement about their concern not to cause alarm of offence.

Trans Widows.

Baroness Buscombe makes a valiant attempt to introduce some voice for the wives and children, of men applying for a GRC. It is, however, made clear that the bill is intended to legislate for the transsexual. It was felt it would generate unnecessary conflict if the spouse was allowed to make representations to the Gender Recognition Panel. These women would be required to annul their marriage. The proposition leads to the absurdity that a marriage contracted by a man and a woman is now regarded as a same sex marriage and must be dissolved. At the same time if a man obtains a GRC he is allowed to contract a marriage with a male because he is now a ”legal” woman! In the desire to avoid legislating for same sex marriage they have actually delegitimised some opposite sex marriages and allowed some same sex marriages!

Below, 👇 the Bishop is right about the way trans rights have been prioritised but he fails to identify the main “people” whose rights have been handed over to accommodate this category of males: The government have not only given rights to these males they have removed them from women. We no longer have single sex spaces if men can identify into them.

They did not even plan for the revocation of GRCs, in the event of fraud. In my city there is a man with a conviction for attempted rape, of a female, who tours prisons to talk about LGBT Issues . He remains a ”legal woman”.

A few members raise the issue of revocation for someone who changed his mind. The issue of detransitioners has always been an issue but now, with the lack of gatekeeping, we have over 26,000 on the reddit, detrans, forum. Currently if you wish to claim back your biological sex you have to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel. Since that requires a diagnosis of ”Gender Dysphoria” it is particularly awkward. Clinicians have a vested interest in withholding that diagnosis to minimise the scandal of medical mal-practice.

We criminalised telling the truth!

I will leave day one with this from Norman Tebbit:

I do this full-time with no income. If you want to support my work, you can do so here:

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the damaging impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, gay rights and the medical scandal being wrought on children and vulnerable youth.

£10.00

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

Featured

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: 👇

Transsexual Working Group 2000

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:

Karyotypes and Gender Clinics

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”.

Marriage

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.

Family Law

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.

Sport

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.

Legal Recognition

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, it’s impact on women and gay rights. I look at legislation, medical treatments of “transgender children” and criminal cases.

£10.00

Featured

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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.

£10.00

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

The process by which a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued is overseen by a Gender Recognition Panel. Here a judge talks, with breathless excitement, about their involvement in the process. It is rare to get any insight into the workings of the panel except, as I found, by looking at Legal Cases which do shed some slight on its ~~laxity~~ sorry, complexity. This piece is very revealing in its tone, and use of language. Remember this panel determines who can redefine themselves, in law, as the opposite sex and be treated as if they were legally a man, or a woman. Though note the legislation had amendments to prevent a woman inheriting a peerage or accessing legacies entailed on the male line. They made sure the important things were protected. Exclusions were built in to legally discriminate against females who claim a male identity. Ireland did the same with the priesthood.

Article, in full, here Gender Recognition Panels

I think a lot of the people involved in the “gender identity” business feel they are claiming a place in history (the right side of history) by working in such a radical/revolutionary field.

This article is written in the language of social justice warriors not of cool, calm, deliberative thinkers. This is legislation which has massive implications for women’s rights. It directly impacts the implementation of legislation around single sex spaces and women’s right to exclude men from our political organisations. Yet NOT ONCE does this essay even touch on the potential (I would say actual) implications for women’s rights!

Will I draw fire from Social Justice Warriors if I appropriate the Chinese Curse “May you live in interesting times”. Women, in the UK, are indeed living in a cursed place.

Ms Gray is very frank about the process and the stance of the panel. I am not surprised. Much of what she says is controversial, in feminist (non libfem) circles, but has been utterly normalised by the, cognitively captured, judiciary. If only women had managed to capture the state with such alacrity we could be living in a very different world! If only women were part of this marginalised community what we could do with such power?

The use of language is highly revealing. “avant-garde” and “radical” . This is language more appropriate for someone authoring experimental fiction. Though in a sense they are doing exactly this but with real life consequences, not just a critical review in high brow literature journals. The judge seems almost disappointed that we were pipped at the post by other jurisdictions who have already moved to “self-selection of one’s gender”. The Pick and mix of Sex coming to a courtroom near you. The Judge seems disappointed she is stuck with our old-fashioned and “oppressive” desire for some “evidential requirements”, this is a Judge rejecting evidence as “oppressive”. Are we lamenting that we have we not kept pace with the social engineering that has embedded itself in western (elite) culture because we are no longer leading it?

For this judge it has been an exciting opportunity to be at the “cutting edge” ,or not, of a Brave New World. This excitement is not quite shared in the real world where ordinary women deal with the consequences. The judge wants us to know how this “small group of judges” decided how they would operate. As we can see , below, they decided the progressive thing to do was to be “enabling” and facilitative. They certainly have been “enabling” and I am not sure I would speak of what they have “enabled” in such gushing terms.

They have all we are told gained their experience via the “Social Entitlement Chamber” which is just the most fabulous name for a school of judges who seem so out of touch. Here ⇓⇓ we are told that the team work to be as accommodating as possible so that the applicants can demonstrate their “entitlement to a GRC”. Ms Gray takes this very seriously and has only refused 3 out of an estimated 2800. So less than 0.1% were refused. Even then the applicant can go on to appeal. At that stage only one judge needs make the decision. (See my earlier review of one such case: GRC Appeal)

I dare say the answer to this blinkered view is that time and time again the lobby groups advising are from one sector only. Any implications for women have been ignored and, if considered at all, clearly discounted. They have spoken to “professionals in the field” including endocrinologists and psychologists. The problem with these “experts”, who are encountered again and again in legal cases , is that they are ideologues. The “experts” are wedded to the notion that “gender identity” is a real, biological, phenomenon and only a bigot would define women as a biological sex class.

Ms Gray anticipates that her role may be at an end. No doubt seeing the requirement for any scrutiny to be disregarded in a rush to impose Self-identified status as a woman/man. I too wish for an end to the Gender Recognition Panel but for entirely different reasons. It was a mistake to enshrine a legal requirement to recognise a change of sex as if it was literally possible. The eradication of the notion of “sex” will hurt women and, ultimately, those who wish to be protected as “same sex oriented”. This is not revolutionary. Its regressive.

Gender Recognition Certificates

As activists in the trans community work to remove the “onerous” burdens placed on the community to legally “transition” I became curious about the legal cases in this area. Far from excessive gatekeeping the act is explicitly designed to be “permissive”. Has this permissiveness gone too far? It seems there is a low bar to be, legally, redefined as a woman. If you are not convinced have a scroll through my blogs. If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine, I would not believe me either! In every piece I link to the legal records. You can bypass my commentary and go straight to the Transcript

In brief no surgery, attempted rape convictions, being incarcerated for paedophilia are no bar to claiming “womanhood”! Remember that when someone tells you they “live as a woman”. Interrogate that phrase. Its ubiquitous and meaningless. Can I, a white woman, say I “live as a black woman”? Nope. So why is one form of appropriation Ok and the other is racist?

Reading through these cases the co-morbidities of mental health conditions is striking, even as they are dismissed as “co-incidental”. This has implications for treatment pathways and women’s safety. The recurrence of the same “experts” also shows how “gender identity specialists” are influencing the judiciary. The case I cover in this blog can be read, in full, here 👉: Ms Jay October 2018

Ms Jay versus the Secretary of State was instigated after three, unsuccessful, applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Presiding was a single judge, Lord Justice Baker. This case, as the Judge points out, was the first under new rules governing appeals against a GRC refusal. Below is some background about the complainant.

The clip below includes details of the short marriages, a self-reported feeling of being in the wrong gender, from puberty, and a secret history of “cross-dressing”. {Neophytes should search “autogynephelia” at this stage}

In addition to marrying three times, and fathering 7 children, the appellant has a criminal history. In 2011 they were sentenced to eight years in prison. The judge makes it clear that the appeal is not concerned with the criminal offences. Also the papers detailing the offence were not included and, moreover, that this was not relevant to the “wider public debate”. For the terminally curious. Here is a brief allusion to the offence so you can judge for yourself whether it is “relevant”

Some of the reasons the panel resisted awarding a GRC were; inconsistencies in the information supplied, the reversion to male names during “transition” and a Gender Identity specialist casting doubt on the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Ms Jay appears to have had more than one name change during the process and questions were raised about multiple addresses. Questions were also asked about misleading information supplied about the marriages and why redacted documents were submitted to the panel. Here we are told the applicant has lived full-time as a woman since December 2008. Yet driving licence and passport were renewed, in the male name, in 2013. This a year after making a statutory declaration, to a judge of their “intention to live full-time as female until death”. (whatever living as a female means). The appellant had a name change in 2013 , whilst imprisoned, a surname change and then another first name change in 2018. I hope someone is keeping track of all those names! I echo the panel statement which questioned whether the applicant had something to hide!

I sympathise with a panel presented with this applicant. A person whose Gender Dysphoria remitted enough to marry three times and father seven children. Someone who manages to suppress their femininity sufficiently to amass explosives with intent to endanger life. ( No! I hear your outrage. You are right. Women can also amass explosives with homicidal intent. Must learn to Lean In….Bad Feminist!) Naturally, because of the name changes, I have found it impossible to trace the background to those offences. I can’t shed any light on the womanly way in which the crime was committed. I am actually not clear whether tracing this history is even possible if a GRC holder does not reveal past identities. It might even be an offence for me to try!

Warning! Tone Switch..

Having justifiable concerns about the impact of these decisions, on women, does not necessitate abandoning my humanity. The clip below paints a sad picture of the claimant. Nobody deserves to be vulnerable to sexual assault and I do wonder whether anyone is joining the dots between maladaptive coping mechanisms and prisoners undergoing transition. However I would also love to hear from the trans-widows in this case. Those women are the really brave and stunning ones in all of these tales. They may tell a very different tale.

The first application to the Gender Recognition panel appears to have commenced from within prison. The medical evidence submitted is from Dr James Barrett, a regular expert witness in these cases. He is generally very sympathetic to Transgender Appellant’s. His statement and comments are worth quoting in full. The history presented by the appellant is disputed and a concern focus on transition may be misdirected. A long history of psychiatric problems is noted. When even Dr Barrett thinks its a bad idea….its probably a bad idea!

The prisoner is released in March 2015 and finds a new doctor. Unfortunately the release didn’t last long and they were recalled to prison in less than 3 months, Here a new doctor appears on the scene. Dr Helen Webberley. Interestingly the panel note that they had not previously heard of Dr Webberley, in this field, which shows how recently they d£cid£d to ~~cash in~~…oops I mean support such a vulnerable community:

The relationship with Webberley doesnt seem to persist and another doctor appears. The next Doctor issues a report which is submitted, in redacted form, the the Gender Recognition Panel. This doctor again refers to Ms Jay’s personality disorder and maladaptive coping mechanisms but does diagnose Gender Dysphoria. The diagnosis leads to the recommended treatment (gender reassignment) to resolve the psychiatric issues. Nobody asks whether craving Gender Reassignment is another maladaptive coping mechanism. That would be transphobic, just in case any of you are thinking that now! Gender Dysphoria has been rebranded as an “identity” not a mental health issue, it’s now a slur to suggest this. As an aside this expert also recommends consideration is given to moving the prisoner to the female prison estate. In March 2016 the application for a GRC was turned down. The doctor disappears from the case.

The prisoner is once again released in May 2016. Within 3 months he has found another doctor who provides this evidence ↓ Pay attention to the dates and the extensive treatment the patient has, we are told, undertaken in three short months. ( As an aside Dr Pasterski appears in other cases I cover & most notably opposed a Local Education Authority when it raised concerns about 3 unrelated “trans kids” in a foster family).

At this point the claimant becomes frustrated with the panel who have requested more clarification. The claim “I have always been female” would seem to write three wives and 7 children out of history! In August 2017 the Gender Recognition Panel again turned down the application. They expressed doubt about the credibility of the supporting evidence and , in particular that of Dr Pasteracki. They cast doubt on evidence supplied by the claimant.

3633A2A3-83DE-4B91-B111-3D288A48F961 — ***Inconsistent, unclear, vague, evasive. Nothing to see here***

Some awareness of the condition of Autogynephilia, in the Transexual Community would help the Judge here. Those who fit the profile for autogynephilia have a condition rooted in shame. Sufferers tend to be steeped in denial. Here is a quote from a Gender Identity Specialist:

1334EE62-7FB8-4A16-98ED-FA1DB0C6154D — The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey.

We have seen this in an earlier case I covered GRC from Prison. In that case a male claimed to be homosexual, his attempted rape was minimised on that basis. Yet, since leaving prison, they now self-identify as a lesbian.

Back to this case. In November 2017 the prisoner was again recalled to prison. The judge noted that the claimant was still in prison at the time of the hearing.

Thereafter yet another doctor enters the fray! As the claimant is detained at her Majesty’s pleasure it is not clear how any assessments were carried out. This one is in Sheffield. Can’t change the opinion so change the Doctor!

Now we get to the aim of the court case. It turns out they there is provision for a GRC to be issued by this one judge who can bypass the Gender Recognition Panel. The advocate for the claimant also shares this interesting nugget about GRC applications. Less than 5% are refused its designed to be “permissive not restrictive”. You have to admire the fancy footwork of the Legal team. Ms McCann that the prisoner met the legal standard and that this Judge had the authority to award the Gender Recognition Certificate himself. Is it possible that some Judges are a tad vain and like to set precedents? Does the advocate absolutely know this fact about male vanity? [Strike that: Snarky opinion! My bad]

Ms McCann reminds of that many of these decisions emanate from the European Court of Human Rights. (If we Brexit do we lose Sexit? Sobering thought for a remainer such as myself!)

The right to self-determination includes “gender identification”. Laywoman opinion: Your right to self-determination is not absolute. If it denies me the personal autonomy to recognise and relate to someone as the sex they are!

To demand that I accede to your self-identity which may contradict my sex recognition skills springs from a totalitarian impulse. Chances are I will see your sex and if you walk behind me, late at night, I will react accordingly.

Furthermore can a person be “master” of his “ethnicity” as per the extract below? If I am objectively black can I identify out of racism? As a woman can I identify out of sexism?

To cut a long story short the Judge was persuaded by these arguments. He recognises that he is sitting alone, without assistance from a medical member of the panel but, in a Brave and Stunning decision, he decides to confer a Gender Recognition Certificate on Ms Jay, assuming that is still her name.

For those of you following this discussion just a reminder not to mention the elephant’s trunk in the room. That would just be rude.

I will leave you with this question. In making these determinations the Judge has to have regard to the individual’s Human Rights but also the wider rights of the Community. Are we well served?

HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?

Featured

Biological Males in the Female Prison Estate.

It came as a shock to find that pre-operative “transgender” males were being housed in the female prison estate. Given the jaw dropping idiocy of the policy I assumed, wrongly, this was a recent phenomenon, a temporary loss of State Sanity. I was wrong. While high profile cases, which resulted in sexual assaults on female inmates, (see Karen White and Paris Green ), have only just penetrated the public consciousness, it is not a recent aberration. It is policy. This has been going on since at least 2009! Because of legal cases like this one 👇

Transgender move to women’s prison.

The claimant, in the above case, was a pre-operative, transgender male who had been convicted of manslaughter and imprisoned. 5 days after his release he committed an attempted rape. Following this offence he was returned to prison and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The prisoner had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in 2006. Thus, only two years after the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)had been passed, a bodily intact, biological male, who would go on to commit attempted rape, was recognised as a “woman” for all purposes. Because of this legislation the prisoner was allowed to mount a legal challenge to his incarceration, in the male estate. Let that sink in. 👇

[As an aside the wording of the above reports the historic offence as “committed whilst a man”. This strongly suggests that, at the very least, post GRC offenses are recorded as committed by a female. Work is still on-going to find out the exact legal record keeping when someone “self-identifies” as female. More on this here Crime statistics:Sex v Gender]

Update September 2019: Going by the details provided in this case it seems likely that this is the same person invited to speak to the House of Lords on how we can better serve Transgender prisoners Sex Offender Advisor to the House of Lords

Details of the offence are below. Note that this offence was committed whilst staying in a female bail hostel.

Our law makers have re-defined woman and granted legal rights, as women, to males. This is an issue regardless of an individual’s criminal history. However, in this case, a GRC has been granted to a fully intact male who went on to attempt to rape a woman and still retained his GRC! This law (in practice) legally compels women to admit male bodied individuals into sex segregated spaces. The is a measure of how much contempt the legal systems has for women’s rights. Our right to privacy, dignity and safety has been stripped from us, by a male centred legislature. We have, by stealth, had our right to congregate, as a sex, and enjoy the company of other women, free from male interference, removed by a state sanctioned lie. Refugees from masculinity exist but women should not be legally compelled, or emotionally blackmailed, into running the refugee camps.

Below is a reference to the Gender Recognition Act from this court case. This is a lie. It is impossible to change sex. Women were assured this was only a “kind” “legal fiction”. Yet judgements are being handed down which show the State is treating it as a literal truth! This gives the lie to the, oft repeated, assertion that the GRA has no impact on the protected characteristic of sex (Equality Act 2010). The GRA collapses the female sex class into a male’s subjective sense of self-identity.

Men see only the societally imposed notion of what it means to be a women. They now take the objectified version of “womanhood” for women’s lived experience and reflect this stereotypical version of ourselves back at us.

See David Thomas, becoming a woman. David has a “previous” life as a Men’s Rights Activist and is the author of these two books:

The first book is a rebuttal of feminist charges against men focusing on sexual harassment, child abuse and domestic violence endured, by men, at the hands of women. In Girl the main protagonist is a man who is mistakenly given gender reassignment surgery. This is a staple of some fetish porn known as “forced feminisation”. An MRA and a Porn devotee. Welcome to the Sisterhood David!

Back to the case….

The Legal muddle this has created is even pointed out by the prisoner:The fact “trans-men” can select to remain in the female estate, and they do, tells its own tale. Sex Matters, it seems, when the State decides it does. Here is a discussion between Transmen on prison location. Male Pronouns yes. Male Prison? Hell no! Transmen discuss prison

State capture, by Transgender Ideology, inevitably involves the regressive endorsement of sex stereotypes. Below is a description of how this, legal, woman is enabled to live in the male estate. A case is made that the prison has been accommodating by allowing access to cosmetics, blouses and skirts. The Prisoner, we are told, “lives as a woman” . This is demonstrated by the inevitable links to the most regressive sex stereotypes which feminists have been deconstructing for centuries. Make-up doth not maketh the woman!

A wise woman on twitter (@HairyLeggedHarpy) interrogated a more reasoned, commentator on what he means by “living as a woman”. Ask to define it he listed sex stereotypical behaviours associated with a female role. Pressed to confirm whether he would say “living as a Black or Indigenous Man” he didn’t answer. So why is it OK to say “Living as a woman”? Do the cultural expectations of “being a woman” confer some sort of Lady Essence on women, which gender non-conforming men share?

Does anyone pay any credence to Rachel Dolezal’s claim to live as “black”? No. In a delicious irony, completely lost on MB, this was not Monroe Bergdorf’s favourite Netflix recommendation.

TransRacial Identity was roundly rejected but pay attention. This is the blurb for a course on Trans Racial Identity at Rhode Island University. “We will use the discourse of Transgenderism to build an alternate vocabulary of race”. Feeling a bit too weighed down with your white, male, privilege? Here’s a handy way to garner oppression points! If anyone can “identify” into a marginalised group any laws or policies enacted to protect or empower them, are rendered meaningless. Imagine if Dolezal had preached to black people that they had “cis-black privilege” and were her oppressors?

I digress. (Homage to Ronnie Corbett!) Back to the case in hand.

Below is a list of the reasons the prisoner was not felt to be a suitable candidate for parole. To release him into society presented “a risk to life and limb” but to incarcerate with vulnerable women was OK?

Below a recognition of the “risk” is cast aside because the claimant has a clinical need to associate with women for therapeutic reasons. So the women are to be validation aids for a male, with a history of sexual assault against women. Who asked women if we thought we were “peers”? Women should have had equal representation in these court cases but because of the insistence the GRA has no impact on women’s rights these wrong decisions are consistently made.

The nature of the risk to women is imperfectly understood by the participants in this legal farce. Here is what, in their view, constitutes mitigation for the rape attempt. Don’t worry it wasn’t that type of rape. The motivation was less sexual and more frustration and jealousy!

Witness the absolute rage of *some* Transactivists, when facts threaten their validation as female. Women cannot help being born female. Our very existence is a direct affront to those who aspire to be women. Where “passing privilege” is that rarest of things a threat to a “female” identity will always be embodied in the woman who merely exists. This is a different kind of misogyny. 👇

Dr Ann Lawrence, a transsexual and self-proclaimed autogynophile, on this topic. This paper on narcissistic rage is worth perusing to gauge the potential risk, to women, from AGP transsexuals. AGP, Shame & Narcissistic rage.

This clip from the claimant is very striking for the insistence that nobody can take away their “female” identity.

Because it is literally not possible to change sex many , older, transsexuals report significant counselling to reconcile themselves to this fact. Without this counselling in an era of “Transwomen are women” how much harder to face the truth on the occasions, when it is brought to your attention? Women are literally the emodiment of the denial that TWAW. Here is a clip from Dr Lawrence’s paper on the increased risk of narcissistic disorders in AGP males.

Despite the obvious risk to the female population it seems pretty clear that it is not the practice to actually *tell* the women that amongst their number is a male-bodied, attempted rapist, with a potential, predisposition to narcissistic rage. Another clip from the legal judgement 👇

At least one of the expert witnesses spelt out clearly the claimant’s own narcissism fuelled rage. Controlling, Aggressive, violent and sadistic. Does that sound like a risk to which women ought to be alerted. Is this compatible with “Living as a woman”?

Up next is Gender Identity Specialist, Dr James Barrett. Here we have a belated recognition that the women may have opinions about co-habiting with a male-bodied, attempted rapist. Predictably this is what he has to say about those uppity Prison women. They would be the “sort of women who enjoy conflict“. Women asserting boundaries is always badged aggression by those who wish to deny them.

So there you have it. A prisoner deemed to be too high risk for release, who had attempted rape, and was still equipped to do so, placed in a female prison. Female prisoners are disproportionately victims of male violence and sexual abuse. They are predominantly working class and have no social capital or voice. The silence of female MPs on this topic seeks volumes. Maybe, like, Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat MP) they will need to cultivate a talent for seeing into male souls to minimise the risk.

Are you angry enough yet?

Category: Gender Recognition Act Series

GRA: Committee Stage. Day 1

Like this:

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

Like this:

Gender Recognition Act: Hansard. 1

Like this:

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

Like this:

Gender Recognition Certificates

Warning! Tone Switch..

Like this:

HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?

Biological Males in the Female Prison Estate.

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

Share this:

Like this:

Warning! Tone Switch..

Share this:

Like this:

Biological Males in the Female Prison Estate.

Share this:

Like this: