Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Illuminating Twitter thread about the origins of the Gender Recognition Act

35 replies

Destinysdaughter · 08/10/2018 22:59

This is a very long thread from Twitter about the origins of the GRA 2004, including quotes from Hansard, showing the debates at the time. Illuminating and shocking!

“Tweets from 2003: The Gender Recognition Bill

I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.
#GRA2004

It was, in the Govt's eyes, FAR preferable to convert a same sex couple into a heterosexual couple via 'sex change' than it was to make same sex marriage legal”

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

OP posts:
Original poster
Destinysdaughter · 08/10/2018 23:00

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 08/10/2018 23:08

Why should women and girls suffer now and going forward because politicians in 2003 were homophobic?

KatVonGulag · 08/10/2018 23:12

Illuminating research that thread is

Melamin · 08/10/2018 23:15

All the circumventions of same sex marriage and the fudges to avoid it seem to have caused long term problems.

KatVonGulag · 08/10/2018 23:17

The comments from the original debate on sport are particularly scary. It all came to pass... even though "that would never happen"

Looks like the fightback in Oz against this nonsense is picking up pace.

www.facebook.com/388525541220058/posts/2394991477240111/

Melamin · 08/10/2018 23:19

Ultimately, we seem to have the same motivations for introducing the GRA in this country as Iran has for transing gay men.

PurdysChocolate · 08/10/2018 23:23

Wow. The potential problems were pointed out and they did it anyway. Legal fiction indeed.

theOtherPamAyres · 09/10/2018 00:51

How interesting to see that Lord (Norman) Tebbit, Conservative Peer, was spot on in recognising the absurdities and risks involved.

howard97A · 09/10/2018 02:27

A couple here by Lynne Jones (Chair of the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism) in 2004:

“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.”

and

“To be candid, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who sports a full beard would have their application for a gender recognition certificate granted, I wonder what world he is living in.”

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/may/25/olympic-athletes

Original poster
Destinysdaughter · 09/10/2018 06:51

I feel so angry about this, look at the bloody mess they’ve achieved and all the problems it’s creating for women. And then they went ahead with gay marriage anyway! Angry

OP posts:
JellySlice · 09/10/2018 06:53

“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.

irishfeminist · 09/10/2018 07:09

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.

JellySlice · 09/10/2018 07:13

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

Ifonlyus · 09/10/2018 07:21

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.

deepwatersolo · 09/10/2018 07:26

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!‘

Ifonlyus · 09/10/2018 07:37

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.

hackmum · 09/10/2018 07:51

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

How foolish some of the rest of them look.

Thecuriousmonkey · 09/10/2018 08:10

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.

Original poster
Destinysdaughter · 09/10/2018 18:34

Bumping. Please read!

OP posts:
howard97A · 09/10/2018 18:43

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.

JackyHolyoake · 09/10/2018 19:05

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.

Angryresister · 09/10/2018 22:07

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

JellySlice · 09/10/2018 22:16

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?

RepealtheGRA · 09/10/2018 22:23

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 Angry

Zeugma · 09/10/2018 22:46

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.