Joint Committee On Human Rights Written Evidence

42.Submission from Brenda Lana Smith

  This dog's breakfast of draft legislation is the result of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its predecessor having been confusingly and unduly pressured into mixing apples with bananas. Particularly by the like of Press for Change, a self perpetuating oligarchy that, contrary to what it would prefer us believe, certainly does not represent the interests of all transsexual persons in the UK.

  The UK government needed only, and should pragmatically learn to walk before running by first necessarily remedying the deficient human rights of certain intersexual persons whose sex organs have been altered by evolvement through natural development or by therapeutic chemosurgical treatment opposite to their registered birth sex. Legislation required in the European Court of Human Rights judgments favouring the chemo-surgically intersexed applicants in "Goodwin v UK" and "I v UK . . . " before graciously presenting separate needed draft legislation to ensure the full human rights of the remaining transfolk in the UK.

  Meanwhile, despite its best intentions, the Draft Bill on Gender Recognition in its present state:

  Creates a third sex indelibly stigmatised on a registry societally regarded akin to the "Sex Offenders Register" to be called "Transsexual Persons Register".

  Makes no mention of the lawful well-being and the courtesies presently enjoyed by those who prefer not to be pressured into becoming a member of a third sex. Will these gender-uncertificated transfolk automatically be treated as cross dressers? The curtailment or removal of present courtesies and enjoyments, even the threat thereof will undoubtedly lead to further litigation.

  Makes no mention of the legal validity and future availability of comfort documents that cannot be substantiated by a "Gender Recognition Certificate." Particularly passports, drivers' licences presently in circulation that blatantly identify their uncertificated gender bearers as being other than their registered birth sex.

  Requires "Gender Recognition Certificate" applicants to contribute to what is a continuum and validation of a therapeutic medical process that is available under the auspices of the National Health Service and should be treated as such.

  Does not require proof of a "Gender Recognition Certificate" applicant's sterility/inability to procreate.

  Permits discrimination to occur in the supply of goods and services.

  Archaically still permits a person's sex to be defined by the late Mr Justice Ormrod's outdated 1970 Corbett v Corbett ruling that has indelibly determined a British-born person's sex ever since.

  Unaccountably advantages the issue born prior to the enactment of the Gender Recognition Bill of professional AID inseminated trans men's partners over the issue of their "turkey baster" inseminated peers' partners.

  Affording "Gender Recognition Certificates" to alien residents will antagonise the sending states of applicants where the sending state does not recognize other than the person's registered birth sex. Especially so should an alien "Gender Recognition Certificate" holder call on their sending state to protect them as recognized by the receiving state with the issuance of a passport bearing a congruent identity to the receiving state's "Gender Recognition Certificate".

  Overlooks the freedom to public ridicule regarding the disparity of opposite sexed forenames gracing gender specific titles that "Gender Recognition Certificated" peers opt not to relinquish.

9 September 2003

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 4 December 2003