That tells you all you need to know about how genuine Parliament thought transition was when it passed the Gender Recognition Act 15 years ago
see threads by
Vulvamort
@ HairyLeggdHarpy
(extract)
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.
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 (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html
(extract)
"This one about how critical it is to define SEX and GENDER in law and never to conflate the two.
And how the Government repeatedly refused to allow that distinction, despite being asked to. (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1052160108489334785.html
(extract)
Thread#3 of the GRA debates of 2003/04.
This time, SPORT.
Funnily enough, although the govt argued that all females were to be rendered legally indistinguishable from MalesWithFemalePersonalities 'for all purposes', they DID decide that sports was a bridge too far." (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1052199906105016321.html
finally,
(extract)
"If those who voted the GRA into law had known that 14 years later the EHRC would be lobbying to remove every criteria and safeguard the govt promised would keep the legal lie in check, this law would never have existed.
The GRA only exists BECAUSE of these checks and balances. (continues)
concludes: These quotes I'm sharing are not from the people who raised concerns about this legal lie.
These quotes are the promises and reassurances the GOVERNMENT made to objectors to persuade them the law would not be open to abuse.
These are the foundations upon which the Act is built."
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1053968824356274177.html