Why is he so keen to campaign for stuff he doesn't understand in the least?
At this point he's got a lot of sunk costs - he was deeply involved in getting the GRA2004 passed.
Reading his contributions to Hansard debates, he was much the same then as he is now. Very dismissive of concerns, dodging questions, and seeming to believe that transwomen are in some metaphysical way "women" and that transition is a magical process.
Here are a couple of his bits:
(on third spaces) The Government also believe that separate facilities for minority groups are objectionable, and we urge the House to reject the proposal. For obvious reasons, many hon. Members fought to ensure that separate signs for minorities became a thing of the past in South Africa, and we did not engage in that fight in order to set up such prejudice over here.
And this exchange is good:
Andrew Selous: First, let me say what the new clause is not about. It is right and proper that transsexual people should use changing and washing facilities appropriate to their acquired gender. That is what should happen and I am confident that in a vast and overriding number of cases it will happen without difficulty. However, as the measure will give legal recognition, in all cases, to the acquired gender, I want the House to consider, and the Minister to explain, what would happen if someone had a gender recognition certificate but had not undergone sex reassignment surgery and wanted to cause difficulties to the management of the facilities.
(Selous goes on to cite a real-world example of a "transwoman" with a beard who sued a church for not being able to go to a "ladies prayer meeting", and wonders what would happen if such a person was refused entry to women's showers, changing rooms etc... Various dismissals, then...)
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that under the Bill a person would have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, to have lived with the condition for two years, to demonstrate that there was some permanence in the condition and to convince the panel that they merited a gender recognition certificate. He is right to suggest that that may not always mean that they had undergone an operation—there could be medical reasons for that—but those are substantial hurdles to overcome and that is the purpose of the Bill.
Lynne Jones: 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.
Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady attacks me for raising the issue, but on several occasions over the years the House has not foreseen potential developments. I fully accept that the vast majority of transsexual people will not want to go down that route, but there is always the litigious minority to deal with. I am keen to avoid public resentment and concern.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about a litigious minority. I remind him that there are more than 60 million people in this country and only about 5,000 transsexuals, and the Bill contains a number of hurdles. For example, the person concerned must have had gender dysphoria, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) explained, persons with that condition do not want to be exposed in public in that way. Surely, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with the minority becomes redundant. Has he not argued himself out of the position from which he started?