Gender Recognition Bill 2004 - Hansard records

[PencilsInSpace]

I've found all the debates, written answers etc. for the gender recognition bill when it was going through parliament in 2004.

Does anybody fancy a thread for poring through these?

I think there may be quite a lot in there that we can use to challenge the proposed changes to the GRA. Reading through the debates we can see what the original intentions of the law makers were. Biology hasn't changed since 2004 and neither has male violence. What has changed is the range of people who might seek a GRC and what their intentions are.

I think a case could probably be made that the self ID proposal runs counter to the intentions of the original act.

For example, the very first paragraph of the first written answer, even before the draft bill was published, states that the gender recognition bill was introduced in response to 'the Government's commitment to legislate to allow transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the acquired gender to gain legal recognition in that gender'.

That's not what is happening now. No 'decisive steps' necessary, no living 'fully and permanently' in the acquired gender.

Is Baroness Caithness still in the House of Lords? I hope so, and that she has applied her critical thinking skills to lots of other legislation.

Imagine how different things would be if Ammendment No 1 had gone through: Page 1, line 3, leave out "gender" and insert "sex"

Discussion at 2GC (Official Report of the Grand Committee).

Oooops. Sorry, it's not Baroness Caithness it's Baroness O'Cathain.

Baroness O’Caithaij is still a member. She is also a right wing bigot who has dedicated her life to campaigning again gay rights, gay adoption, section 28. You may like her position on this issue but she won’t do the cause any favours by associating herself with it.

Yes, the person making the point can really ruin the position. Tebbit brings up the v. important point of sex and gender being distinct things and then ruins it by going on about how people could then use it to !!be married to a person of the same sex!! oh no.

It seems lots of consideration was given to religion and how a GRC could lead to gay marrriage but nothing except in v. brief passing about how it would affect women.

Right wing and against gay rights she may be, but she's got some good points on this.

Let us not forget that some of the people who will receive, as they want, gender recognition certificates, rendering their original birth certificates null and void except in the case of the police and criminal prosecution bodies—they have the right to use the original documents—need not have had gender reassignment surgery. It is rather feeble to say that if a male transsexual becomes a woman, he may use the ladies' lavatory and not cause distress. I put it at its simplest.

www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-02-10a.1060.0&s=gender+speaker%3A13165#g1076.2

And here's Norman Tebbit

On secular grounds, I objected to a law that requires a public servant to certify as true that which is not true. That is not that a person may have changed sex.

This thread is a really good idea OP, if nothing else to give us an idea of how the arguments can be made (successfully or otherwise)

But when it comes to voting on the legislation, nobody will vote with O’Caithain. They won’t want to be associated with someone who opposed same sex marriage, sex education covering homosexuality etc. They won’t have an open mind listening to her arguments because they are used to her bat shit crazy bigotry. The cause needs a reasonable champion in the House of Lords where the legislation could easily be defeated if the right people lead the charge.