Sunday, December 21, 2003
Had a great time at S's Chrimble party in Brixton last night. Can you get high from passive dope smoking? Anyway, food was wonderful, company entertaining, then hurried along to the tube station to get one of the last trains north before they shut the station for three weeks to get rid of some asbestos they found in the escalators. I'd forgotten how noisy the trains are on the Victoria line, was shouting to make myself heard with B and this morning I'm trying to soothe my throat better.
Anyway, I know I can always rely on Tory peers to cheer me up. Tory peers angry that Howard has allowed the party a free vote on a Bill that will extend equal rights to transsexuals.
The proposed legislation would enable a "sex-changed" person legally to marry someone of their own sex
Ahem!
Normally this is the cue for wails of "won't someone think of the children" from the Tory benches in the Lords but that doesn't seem to have occured in this case.
"I was very angry indeed," [Lady Blatch] said. "I would dearly like to see us whipped to vote against this Bill. I believe the legal and scientific arguments are so powerful against it, it should be defeated. We are talking about people who are particularly tragic
Gee thanks. I think that 'bitter old lady' look you're working really does wonders.
and who need a huge amount of support but this is not the way to do it.
I see. For 'support' read 'treatment in an asylum until they stop wanting to change sex'.
I think the arguments against this Bill are absolutely clear."
It's disappointing that the Telegraph don't print any arguments against the Bill.
Other Tory peers who oppose the party's position include Lord Tebbit, the former party chairman,
Now there's a surprise.
Baroness O'Caithlan, and Lord Moynihan, the Tory spokesman on sport, who said that it could lead to "chaos" in sports as men who changed sex were allowed to compete as women.
Of course. All m-to-f transsexuals are doing it for is the chance for a gold medal. All that stuff about growing up, knowing they were in the wrong body was just a load of guff. Interestingly, when you look at the Hansard record of what was said during the reading of this Bill (see below), this has been answered by the proposer of the Bill.
Lord Tebbit said that it could prevent the police from identifying the suspect in a murder hunt such as that in Soham if the killer had changed sex.
Oh please, this is nearly as bad as the government spokesdrone the other day who insisted, with no evidence, that ID cards would have prevented the girls being killed. And again, Lord Tebbit's objection is already dealt with in the Bill below.
And here is the relevent section from Hansard. Bigots can take some crumbs of comfort though.
The Bill must also account for the situation of transsexual people who are in an existing marriage. Such marriages will not be able to continue. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that existing marriages should not have to end. However, there is an issue of principle at stake here. Marriage is an institution for opposite-sex couples. After recognition in the acquired gender is attained, if existing marriages could continue, these would become marriages between same-sex couples. The Government are not going to change the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage in this way.
The nub of the problem (and I suspect what often happens in Lord's debates about social issues) is summed up in a later speaker's words:
Transsexual people are not really trapped in the wrong body. The body is healthy and the physical appearance and chromosomes are all in agreement, which was beautifully described by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Lobbyists to the Scottish Committee taking evidence on this Bill stated that:
"The situation is actually very simple, given that gender dysphoria is a medical condition like any other medical condition. Unfortunately, because it relates to gender, that makes everything complicated. Currently we do not have the right to have our true gender recognised. We object to the use of the phrases such as 'sex change'. We have not undergone a sex change, we have aligned our gender to our true gender, which is the one in which we should have been born but unfortunately were not'.
This is surely wrong. At the risk of being repetitious, gender dysphoria is not a medical condition. We are born either male or female. To quote from Genesis 1: 27:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them".
So a non-medical book of extreme age and doubtful providence should trump the real-life experiences of identifiable people.
Anyway, I know I can always rely on Tory peers to cheer me up. Tory peers angry that Howard has allowed the party a free vote on a Bill that will extend equal rights to transsexuals.
The proposed legislation would enable a "sex-changed" person legally to marry someone of their own sex
Ahem!
Normally this is the cue for wails of "won't someone think of the children" from the Tory benches in the Lords but that doesn't seem to have occured in this case.
"I was very angry indeed," [Lady Blatch] said. "I would dearly like to see us whipped to vote against this Bill. I believe the legal and scientific arguments are so powerful against it, it should be defeated. We are talking about people who are particularly tragic
Gee thanks. I think that 'bitter old lady' look you're working really does wonders.
and who need a huge amount of support but this is not the way to do it.
I see. For 'support' read 'treatment in an asylum until they stop wanting to change sex'.
I think the arguments against this Bill are absolutely clear."
It's disappointing that the Telegraph don't print any arguments against the Bill.
Other Tory peers who oppose the party's position include Lord Tebbit, the former party chairman,
Now there's a surprise.
Baroness O'Caithlan, and Lord Moynihan, the Tory spokesman on sport, who said that it could lead to "chaos" in sports as men who changed sex were allowed to compete as women.
Of course. All m-to-f transsexuals are doing it for is the chance for a gold medal. All that stuff about growing up, knowing they were in the wrong body was just a load of guff. Interestingly, when you look at the Hansard record of what was said during the reading of this Bill (see below), this has been answered by the proposer of the Bill.
Lord Tebbit said that it could prevent the police from identifying the suspect in a murder hunt such as that in Soham if the killer had changed sex.
Oh please, this is nearly as bad as the government spokesdrone the other day who insisted, with no evidence, that ID cards would have prevented the girls being killed. And again, Lord Tebbit's objection is already dealt with in the Bill below.
And here is the relevent section from Hansard. Bigots can take some crumbs of comfort though.
The Bill must also account for the situation of transsexual people who are in an existing marriage. Such marriages will not be able to continue. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that existing marriages should not have to end. However, there is an issue of principle at stake here. Marriage is an institution for opposite-sex couples. After recognition in the acquired gender is attained, if existing marriages could continue, these would become marriages between same-sex couples. The Government are not going to change the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage in this way.
The nub of the problem (and I suspect what often happens in Lord's debates about social issues) is summed up in a later speaker's words:
Transsexual people are not really trapped in the wrong body. The body is healthy and the physical appearance and chromosomes are all in agreement, which was beautifully described by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Lobbyists to the Scottish Committee taking evidence on this Bill stated that:
"The situation is actually very simple, given that gender dysphoria is a medical condition like any other medical condition. Unfortunately, because it relates to gender, that makes everything complicated. Currently we do not have the right to have our true gender recognised. We object to the use of the phrases such as 'sex change'. We have not undergone a sex change, we have aligned our gender to our true gender, which is the one in which we should have been born but unfortunately were not'.
This is surely wrong. At the risk of being repetitious, gender dysphoria is not a medical condition. We are born either male or female. To quote from Genesis 1: 27:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them".
So a non-medical book of extreme age and doubtful providence should trump the real-life experiences of identifiable people.
