Illuminating Twitter thread about the origins of the Gender Recognition Act

The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that, plus boiling frogs. If you went through time and showed them the Karen White evidence, the Jess Bradley story, the Aimee Challoner and father story, the court cases being pushed through and the millions of tweets - they'd be utterly horrified. This is never where it was supposed to go

Important thread with history of trans rights activism prior to the GRA

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

I suspect she assumed that every male-to-female applicant would want a penectomy, and that an applicant who did not want a penectomy would be rejected as being not genuine trans.

It shows at the time it was assumed that those wanting a GRC and the legal fiction it enabled would be transsexual people who desired and had undertaken full SRS, so that the males they were allowing into women's spaces would not be males with penises. And that this was, to them, a serious issue to consider inflicting on women.

It also shows the foundational sexism in the implication that women really are just men without penises. And where's the harm in women having to accommodate those men.

The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that, plus boiling frogs. If you went through time and showed them the Karen White evidence, the Jess Bradley story, the Aimee Challoner and father story, the court cases being pushed through and the millions of tweets - they'd be utterly horrified. This is never where it was supposed to go.

see also the role played by Andrew Landsley:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396859-Weve-been-lied-to-about-Single-SEX-wards-since-2010

This thread has been referred to quite recently and bears resurrecting I think.

Perhaps contacting all the politicians who expressed reservations about the GRA at the time would be a worthwhile exercise? All the problems they predicted came to pass.
(Those who are still active, obv).

Cynicism, howard.

yes, so incredibly disappointing that all the consequences for women were foreseen but the government did it anyway

it's truly ok to just not give a shit about women's privacy, dignity and safety

depressing

It’s infuriating this nodebate was had at the time and the things that have come to pass were handwaved away.

JellySlice: "It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that no democratic government would even consider passing a law that would force the population to lie and that risked annihilating the rights and protections of over 50% of the population...wouldn't it?"

It wouldn't be 'perfectly reasonable' to make that assumption, because we know that the government has considered it.

Sir Patrick Cormack is in the Lords now, I just googled him.
Lynne Jones (Lab) is no longer in politics; she stood down in 2010.
Andrew Selous (Con) is still an MP.

which, if any, of those MPs are still in Parliament today?

I'm no Tory but on reading further into the link above (re the debate on Olympic athletes) I couldn't agree more with Sir Patrick Cormack (Con) of South Staffordshire:

At the end of the day, we are faced with a Bill that obliges people to say things that are not so [...] We know that those who are persuaded that that they are of the wrong sex or gender do not necessarily have physical differences and do not necessarily have to undergo surgery of any sort, yet they are to be recognised and issued with a birth certificate that contradicts the natural facts of life. That cannot be right and I am profoundly disturbed and troubled that the House should be passing such legislation.

Blair will go down in history not only for Iraq, but for the fact that shockingly that wasn’t the biggest fuck up he made.

It really makes me wonder what else happened on his watch that we haven’t even uncovered yet

I don't think we should assume anything, howard97A. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that no democratic government would even consider passing a law that would force the population to lie and that risked annihilating the rights and protections of over 50% of the population...wouldn't it?

Yes agree that all GRCs should be stopped and the GRA repealed. We are now fully in the picture.

All of this background debate information simply supports the notion that the GRA 2004 should be repealed and no more GRCs should ever be issued.

We need to put an end to all this.

JellySlice: To imply, in a 21st century democracy, that the government can hold an individual to hostage unless they undergo major bodily modification, is utterly disgusting.

I suspect she assumed that every male-to-female applicant would want a penectomy, and that an applicant who did not want a penectomy would be rejected as being not genuine trans.

Fascinating. I suspect Norman Tebbit and I would disagree on just about everything, but he was asking really pertinent questions here. Ditto Anne Widdecombe. And Lord Moynihan who was minister for sport and before that (IIRC) a successful sports person and clearly knows a lot about competitive sport.

Were there any questions from the many labour women MPs who had got into parliament (thanks to all
Women short lists) in the 1997 election? I might go and check Hansard but I think I might be disappointed.

That is an amazing read. Kudos to Lord Moynihan, among others.

How foolish some of the rest of them look.

Yes, we were all rather distracted by that in the news! I had a toddler and was experiences miscarriages, so had zero clue anything was passing that might in the future effect my rights.

At the end of the day the government probably thought: ,ah, let‘s just get on with it, it can‘t possibly become a worse mess than Iraq!‘

It really is an enlightening set of tweets. I'm surprised it's not getting greater coverage.

It makes me wonder how many of those original 5000 who were to be given GRCs were married and were opposite-sex attracted. I thought the percentages of opposite-sex attracted trans people was meant to be low according to medical literature.

Not at all, irishfeminist. That statement to me is just another proof of how impossible and conflicting the whole notion of 'changing sex' is.

So you believe in self-id then Jellyslice, and that any big old hairy trucker can declare himself female? Which is where we're at now anyway.

It should never have happened. In Ireland it happened the same year as same sex marriage was legalised so there was no need for it. Just lobbying from powerful well funded interest groups and a clever conflation of trans rights with gay rights.

“Quite frankly, the idea that a male-to-female trans-person would be granted a recognition certificate if they did not undergo a penectomy is unthinkable.”

That statement itself is unthinkable. GC as I am, I am appalled at that. To imply, in a 21st century democracy, that the government can hold an individual to hostage unless they undergo major bodily modification, is utterly disgusting.