This commons library briefing paper was released today. It’s worth reading. I thought I’d pull out some of the factual errors or disputable/concerning statements I saw on the first read through. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8969/

Mere moments into the reading and the term transsexual has been called a “predominantly historical term” and “acquired gender”, which is used in the GRA is supposedly also falling out of favour to be replaced with “affirmed gender”.

The report quotes Transgender Equality which uses the language of “assigned sex” and “gender identity”. They talk of non binary people as being somewhere along the continuum of male and female and that transition is to bring gender presentation in line with gender identity.

The report quotes the government consultation paper from 2018 to say that being trans is “not a mental illness”. Many pages later in section 3.2 the report explicitly says “gender dysphoria is not in itself a mental health condition”.

Page 14 calls hormone blockers a physically reversible intervention. And cross sex hormones a partially reversible intervention (ok, yes, but this is extremely vague as a statement especially given that the irreversible things are extremely worthy of note).

Page 15 quotes GIDs saying that blockers allow time for young people to “consider their options” before “irreversible forms of treatments”. Though they also go on to quote the updated nhs information which raises concerns and, as we know, is now much more circumspect.

Page 18 states that the nhs doesn’t promote conversion therapies but seems to include within their definition of conversation therapy any efforts that would actually seek to help people come to terms with their sex.

Pg 20 explains the current scope of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. As it is described by the solicitor general in 2009 It seems to already allow for people who would pretend as well as people who are sincere to be considered the same in the eyes of the law.

Pg 22 offers a quote which suggests in order to make an exclusion of TW proportionate,in their example in a female only counselling group,one might have to canvas women’s opinions to establish it is a proportionate aim (???).

Pg 23 again quotes “legal commenters” hand wringing.

Is it not enough for basic common sense and humanity and women to be considered a proportionate reason? No, readers, apparently not.

Pg 33 addresses the “self-identification debate”. They say that those proposing it point to the “intrusive and humiliating” nature of the current process. They do not explain how it is, honestly, either of these things.

Pg 34, about those who object, opens with the doozy of a statement “some argue that biological sex differences are immutable”

You know, some also argue the Earth is a globe or to quote @janeclarejones “rain is made of water”. Some people just like facts, like that