This group was founded in 2015 and its membership is drawn from all political parties in the UK Parliament. They are also closely aligned with Stonewall as is made clear on their website. https://www.appglgbt.org/secretariat.
The APPG is administered by Anna Robinson, who has served as the APPG Researcher and Coordinator and Researcher since February 2019. The Secretariat is supported jointly by the LGBT+ non-governmental organisations Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, and Frontline AIDS.
APPG LGBT group was brought to my attention because of their, negative, reaction to the Government statement on the Gender Recognition Act. Liz Truss, the minister responsible, announced that the government will not be allowing anyone to Self-Identify into the opposite sex class. You can read the statement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-responds-to-gender-recognition-act-consultation.
Saved file is here in case of Trans Revisionism.
APPG LGBT+ Chair’s Statement on the Government’s Response to the GRA Consultation — APPG on Global LGBT+ Rights
The APPG LGBT group, issued a statement expressing their disappointment with the government response. They also revealed they had attempted to broker a deal, behind closed doors, which they claimed would resolve the tensions over this issue. Unfortunately the document wasn’t published, prior to the decision. but I will cover the one they published after the fact and include it in APPG LGBT 2.
Argentina, and Ireland are frequently held up as exemplars of the policy of self-identification. Women’s groups were not consulted in either country. The Argentinian regime, then in power, seemed to be using it to distract from unsavoury elements of their government. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the countries who legislate for self-identified “Gender” whilst having less than progressive atttituded to women’s right to control her fertility. For more on Argentina see this thread: https://twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1215336108776706050?s=21.
Anyone who has read my blogs on the Gender Recognition process may take issue with the idea that it is an invasive and onerous process. I have covered some of the people allowed to claim the status of “legal women” in a few of my posts.
HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON? This is a case from 2009. GRC obtained whilst a serving prisoner and pre-op. Released to a female bail hostel. Attempted to rape a woman 5 days later. Recallled to prison and won a legal case to be moved to the female estate, still pre-op.
Gender Recognition Certificates Or this case. The Gender Recognition Panel turned this prisoner down multiple times. A single judge was able to overturn the refusal and grant a GRC. This to a thrice married, father of seven with a convicion for obtaining explosives with intend to endanger life. How very ladylike!
Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks. Here a judge speaks of her work on the Gender Recognition Panel. She describes the process as “enabling” and I agree; though I suspect I use the word in a different way to the way the good judge intends. A reminder. The fee to apply for a GRC was £140. There is no requirement for any bodily modification and applicants are not required to have a face to face interview. This latest announcement commits to reducing the cost and streamlining the process. Onerous? Invasive? Or Reckless.
Nothing is more galling than the “bad people on both sides” representation of this “debate”. It’s not women who are dishing out the threats of rape and violence. It is self-identified women, i.e. males, who appear to retain a very masculine committment to silencing non-compliant females, through fear. The idea that this is a “narrowly…held view” is laughable. Most people have not caught up with the idea that women must accept that women can have penises. When it is made clear that we are expected to give male-bodied access to female spaces it is roundly rejected. It remains to be seen whether the agression shown, even by *some* post operative transsexuals, has fatally undermined acceptance for this group. Not an outcome I wish for… Sex is a material reality. Gender is a set of reductive sex stereotypes. Males, who identify as women, have somehow internalised sex stereotypes as being natural and inevitable and this has given rise to a belief these can be transplanted into a male body. This is not Progressive and, interestingly, more and more transsexuals reject this dogma. They know they are male, or female, that sex is real. Many never anticipated that a tiny minority with real, intractable, Gender Dysphoria would be used like a battering ram to compromise women’s and gay rights.
We do not, routinely, assign a “gender” at birth. Nobody can, literally, change sex. Elsewhere the APPG LGBT argues for de-medicalising the process of “transition” which means nobody is expected to take “serious. life-changing steps to change their gender permanently“. Stonewall , their partner, include part-time cross dressers under the trans umbrella. It is clear that we are not expected to research transvestic fetishism which is sexually motivated. I expect there are half a million “trans” people in the UK due to the wide ranging, criteria. Hell! We are pretty much all “trans” or “non-binary” by Stonewall Law.
The APPG LGBT group quote the high rate of responses to the GRA Consultation, which agree with the proposal to dispense with any medical evidence and remove the requirement to “live in their acquired gender for two years”. What they fail to mention is many of these responses clearly co-ordinated by an organised Lobby Group. Indeed, rather shockingly, a children’s entertainer, on YouTube even persuaded children to get involved in filling out the GRA consultation. Now deleted but if you check out Pop ‘n’ Olly he is a childrens entertainer who is pushing this on Kids, relentlessly. This is a transcript of his content. Note it was produced in collaboration with Stonewall and Fox Fisher & Owl who are both trans activists. ( I will do a series on Pop ‘n’ Olly and will include the blog which is the source for the clip below , with acknowlegement.)
I blogged on Fox Fisher and Steph Kyriacou. Both produced content for ChildLine ( run by the NSPCC). Part-Two covers Fox Fisher, who also is linked to the Mermaids Charity for “trans-kids”/ Fox objected to being associated with Lesbians, Gay males and Bisexuals because it associated being transgender with “deviance”. A clip is included because Fox has now deleted it from their youtube.
Queering the NSPCC? Part Two: What it means to be Transgender.
Parts 7 & 8 cover some of Steph’s content, first for Child-Line and from their own channel.
Queering the NSPCC? Part 7: Trans Identity
Queering the NSPCC? Part 8: Sexual Identity and Gender Identity
No statement could be complete without reference to the idea that Transgender people and suicide attempts. The statistic that 50% of trans people have attempted suicide has been debunked many times. It goes against Samaritan’s guidelines for responsible coverage of suicide. It is based on flawed data. It may actually foster suicide ideation in the very group you are purporting to be concerned about.
I blogged about it the flawed data around suicide attempts here:
Suicide in the Trans Community
The next issue that the APPG LGBT group are focussing on is a ban on Gay Conversion Therapy. This follows legislation passed around the world and of course I support a ban on any attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation. Its regressive, harmful and it doesn’t work. However, the APPG LGBT group are insisting that any legislation also includes “gender identity”. Thus any parent of a gay male or a lesbian who takes time to accept their sexuality and identifies, instead, as the opposite sex would, potentially, be criminalised for opposing medical treatment to modify their childs sexual characteristics , block puberty or commence cross-sex hormones. Geraint Davies, a Labour MP, tried to pass a private members bill which also included “Gender Identity” in a ban on Conversion Therapy.
So yes. I oppose any ban on “Conversion Therapy” when it includes “Gender Identity. This will result in a prohibition of therapeutic responses to a discomfort with biological sex/sexuality. We would not have an epidemic among young people, adopting a trans-identity, if we were not inculcating it in School teaching. I have covered many of these policies on this blog.
By banning therapeutic responses to Gender Dysphoria we may, actually, be promoting a medicalised “Gay Conversion Therapy”.
Have a salary but can’t speak up for fear of losing your job/family/networks? I do this full-time with no income. Anything you can send my way allows me to keeo on keeping on ,