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
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