The Govt knew, but refused to use the definitions of sex and gender in the GRA2004

[Barracker]

They refused to allow definitions into the GRA because it would have crumbled the illusion.

The entire Act balances upon the illusion that you can treat two entirely different concepts as if they were interchangeable when you want. Clarity kills the Act. So they refused clarity.

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1052160108489334785

Lord Tebbit was crystal clear on the definitions of sex and gender. He kept tabling amendments that provided the definitions.

The government kept refusing to allow them.

Yes, they knew and they predicted the problems too. I cannot understand why it went ahead. Who had blackmail material on who exactly?

Is there a way of contacting Norman Tebbit? Is he a Lord now?

There's not a hope, is there? This is one whacking stitch up from start to finish.

bump

He writes a column in the Telegraph. I don't have a Telegraph subscription but I was interested to find this - from last year - when I googled:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/need-investigate-causes-sudden-transgender-explosion/

Can anyone link to this? Tebbit was instantly onto all the implications when the initial GRA was being debated.

Weirdly, although I can't read the whole article, I can see the comments. One of them is quite worryingly prescient:

Importantly, there is a proposed move to allow anyone to self-certify what their preferred gender is! Personally, I fully expect that once the Trans has taken root firmly and gets all the protection of a "characteristic" under Hate laws, then in a year or so the current low level murmers of the paedophilia brigades will be mounting similar campaigns that argue that some forms of paedophilia are simply another "step on the spectrum of human sexuality". Yes, I repeat, the murmers of this are already there. Be warned. More dangers to the traditional family and our society are a'comin' !

they knew this was a shit show from the word go

ideologically they're the same as the idiots who keep coming here and telling us that if we agree with the daily mail on something we must be in the wrong

people who think being 'inclusive' is unequivocally good

people whose self image of being a 'good person' is more important than examining the reality of decisions they make

Wow. Sadly Lord Chan (mentioned in the thread) is no longer with us.

Another peak Labour moment for me.

people whose self image of being a 'good person' is more important than examining the reality of decisions they make

This is it in a nutshell. Labour really need to own this shitshow, particularly the blairs