The Minister for Women and
Equalities, Justine Greening has announced a government proposal on altering the legal requirements involved in a person changing their gender identity. The
current legislation includes a number of safeguards before a person is allowed
to legally change their gender identity, including a clinical diagnosis of
gender dysphoria and the requirement that a person has lived in line with their
chosen gender identity for two years. Under Greening's proposals those safeguards
would be scrapped, allowing people to self-identify their gender. The intention
is to ‘de-medicalise’ the process. But gender dysphoria is a psychological
condition that requires expert diagnosis and treatment. Should a person wish to go ahead with hormone
therapy and gender reassignment surgery, that would by definition involve medical intervention.
The process cannot therefore be ‘de-medicalised’. The current safeguards should
be retained as an absolute minimum.
A person cannot simply assert
that they are a man or a woman, contrary to their birth gender, and expect society
to recognise that as a fact. Birth certificates should not be retrospectively
altered to change a person’s birth gender, or so they can identify themselves
as ‘X’ opposed to male or female. In terms of genetics and reproductive
functions, human beings are born either male or female. That is a scientific
fact that cannot be altered. People who feel ‘trapped in the wrong body’ should
be treated with kindness and respect, but the best way of dealing with their
gender identity issues is to help them come to terms with the person they are
by birth (see here). The tiny percentage of people born with an intersex condition is not strictly
relevant to this discussion. The matter concerns those who were born male or
female, who wish to identify with the opposite sex as a matter of choice.
As a Christian I believe that
human beings are made in the image of God as male and female. It is part of
God’s good creation that men and women are equal and yet different. The
differences between men and women should be celebrated as part of the natural
diversity of the human race. No attempt should be made to deny or overcome these differences. Giving a man female hormone treatment and subjecting their
bodies to surgery in order to give them a feminised appearance does not alter
their genetic maleness or bestow upon them female reproductive functions. Similarly
with women who seek to identify as male. Biological facts are not malleable and
cannot be changed at will, or even by medical procedures.
The ‘Trans Movement’, whose agenda
the government seems to be championing seems to have a very restricted
understanding of what constitutes male or female gender identity. Gender
stereotyping needs to be challenged rather than reinforced. A boy who enjoys
cooking and dancing is a boy who enjoys those pursuits, not a girl in the
‘wrong body’. A girl who prefers playing football to dressing up as a princess
in bright pink is a sporty girl, not a child who is ‘gender fluid’. It is a great
disservice to vulnerable children to suggest that they may be suffering from
gender identity problems that may be resolved by boys seeking to become girls
or visa versa.
The number of children who
have been referred to gender identity clinics has grown exponentially in recent
years. This is due in part to a culture where children are encouraged to
question whether they are in fact boys or girls. Hormone suppressing drugs are
prescribed to children in preparation for gender transitioning. Commentators
have rightly expressed alarm over these developments. Feminist writer Camille
Pagila recently stated, "The cold biological truth is that sex changes are
impossible," and "I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty
blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this
practice as a criminal violation of human rights.” (Life Site 20/06/17).” Dr. Joanna Williams was quoted in the Daily Telegraph (23/06/17),
Although
the number of transgender children is small, it is growing rapidly. Children -
encouraged by their experiences at school - are beginning to question their
gender identity at ever younger ages.
In doing
more than just supporting transgender children, and instead sowing confusion
about gender identity, schools do neither boys nor girls any favours.
Writing in The Times (27/07/17), Clare Foges
pondered the harmful implications of your policy for children,
Widespread
mental health problems, from self-harming to eating disorders and anxiety,
reveal that children are suffering increasing distress. The causes for this are
complex but might we quietly suggest that encouraging them to question the very
essence of their identity will not help?
The proposed gender
self-identification policy only stands to make things worse for children.
Ms. Greening is the Minister for Women
and Equalities. It is therefore surprising that she seems unaware that the measures she proposes
are likely to have a detrimental impact on women. Already there have been cases
where men who identify as women have been incarcerated in female prisons, where
they have gone on to sexually assault and even rape women prisoners. Women will
be more vulnerable to sexual assault in changing rooms and toilets if
men are able simply to self-identity as women and use these facilities
themselves. To say nothing of the implications for women’s sport, should men
who self-identify as women be recognised as such. The physical strength and
speed of ‘trans women’ will put natural women at a disadvantage, which seems
manifestly unfair to female athletes. The policy proposal Greening is now
championing was drawn up by her predecessor in the role of equalities minister,
Maria Miller. When Janice Turner pressed Miller on these matters in a probing
interview in The Times (29/07/17), Miller failed
to come up with adequate answers and threatened to walk out of the interview.
The facts of life cannot be
altered by legislative fiat. The government’s proposals on gender
self-identification will require society to accept a fundamental untruth,
namely that it is possible for a person to become a member of the opposite sex
simply by making a statement to that effect. People do not share my Christian beliefs may be tempted to dismiss my
arguments out of hand. It is not
only Christians, however, who share my concerns. Dr David Starkey is no friend
of the Christian faith. Yet writing in The
Spectator (29/07/17) to celebrate
the 50th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality,
Starkey, a self-confessed ‘Gay Tory’ heavily criticised these proposals,
So where
does this leave Justine Greening’s recent announcement — deliberately timed to
coincide with the anniversary of the ’67 act — that the government hopes to
make gender reassignment a simple matter of statutory self-declaration with
none of the ‘demeaning’ bother of medical assessment? Is it, as she claims,
part of a properly conservative long march? Hardly. We fought, as conservatives
should, for the recognition of facts. On the other hand, Greening and her
sidekick Nick Gibb believe in defying them, since they appear to deny that
gender is based in biology.
Legislation in defiance of
established facts cannot be acceptable. These wrong-headed proposals on gender self-identification should therefore be
abandoned.
* This blog is an edited version of a letter sent to Ms. Greening, with a copy to my own MP. Go and do likewise if you share my concerns.
* This blog is an edited version of a letter sent to Ms. Greening, with a copy to my own MP. Go and do likewise if you share my concerns.
Yes that is alarming how those gender debate have become TV news on all stations, and our politicians also are trying to find ways to legalise same-sex marriages.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am disgusted that most churches are silent about those things.
One (perhaps minor, perhaps not minor) point. When I was at school (and here I risk being misunderstood) people had sex. Words had gender. Has the shift in terminology in recent times been a part of a deliberate strategy to help with the introduction of this postmodern destabilisation of former certainties?
ReplyDelete