|
The early 2000's were an extraordinary period for the LGBT (Lesbian,
Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender) community. After decades of apparently
fruitless campaigning, the walls suddenly fell, and politicians and big
corporates began to compete to prove their LGBT friendly
credentials at Pride and Awareness events.
We moved in to a world where it was accepted that woman can be
genetically XY, and men genetically XX.
Trans-activists have continued to press for even more concessions, most
controversially regarding transwomen who have had no medical
treatment. They are physically men but identify as a woman and
want to be legally treated as such in all regards - from access to
women's toilets to applying for (and often gaining) jobs such as a Rape Counsellor.
Gender vs. Physical Sex
Despite all the positive developments, huge problem remains in the
wide-spread assumption that gender and sex are
the same when in fact they are very different. Gender is a mental
and lifestyle attribute), whilst is sex is a physical attribute which
includes genes, sexual intercourse and reproduction. In the UK, the ignorance of Civil Servants and Members
of Parliament about the difference between sex and gender resulted in
the passing into law of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
(GRA2004). This inaccurately confuses sex as being synonymous with
gender.
In
2016 it was announced that GRA2004 would be reviewed after a
campaign for a 'simplified' Gender Recognition procedure where
the applicant could
self-declare their gender
with no medical assessment required, and that this declaration will be
legally binding. An amendment to the Act was expected to be passed
allowing this in 2019, but other UK government priorities such as Brexit
and then Covid-19 delayed the legislation, and it was eventually dropped.
However, the Scottish Parliament, which
has extensive devolved powers, has
continued to pursue the self-declaration route, for example the 2022
census will in Scotland allow anyone to self-declare their sex -
regardless of what official documents such as their Birth Certificate or
Passport may state.
Implementation of the GRA2004
has become a triumph of the views of a small but very
vocal trans-lobby. The rights, safety and best interests of women
with a vagina (yes, I'm including constructed neo-vagina's) are
subordinated to anyone with a penis who can coherently fill in a form. Possession of a GRC permits the holder to be considered female for all legal
purposes, whilst often still
physically a fertile male with a fully functional penis.
One (and not unique) appalling example of the
consequences of this is the case of David Thompson.
Whilst on remand for grievous bodily harm, burglary, multiple rapes, and
other sexual offences against women - David applied for and obtained
a female GRC as Karen White, age 52. When subsequently convicted
as a male paedophile who had sexually abused young girls, her GRC meant that 'she' was sent to a women-only prison
- despite
having had no genital surgery or even any hormone treatment. Within
a few weeks
Karen had raped or sexually assaulted four fellow prisoners. As a
result, Leeds Crown Court described Karen as being a "predator who was a
danger to women and children". However, whilst Karen had been
temporarily relocated to a male-only prison, the court couldn't order
this to be made permanent as she was legally female! Another example of the problems granting a GRC to a
physical male is the case of
Dr Upton.
Born in Scotland in 1995 as Theodore Upton, his Birth Certificate stated
that he was 'Male'.
He subsequently qualified as a medical doctor. In
January 2022
he obtained a GRS and in August 2022
transitioned, adopting the female forename 'Beth'.
After re-registering under her new name, Dr Beth Upton
began working as a doctor in August 2023 at the Victoria Hospital in
Kirkcaldy, Fife, where
she was given permission to use the hospitals female-only
facilities despite still possessing a penis.
A nurse, Sandie Peggie, was dealing with her menstrual flow in a female
changing room when Beth entered the room and supposedly undressed in front
of her. Sandie was very uncomfortable about this experience and when
they were subsequently both in a changing room
confronted Beth about being a man. This led to Dr Upton making a
formal complaint about Nurse Peggie, claiming that she had said "deeply
upsetting and hurtful things ... I felt unsafe". The nurse was
suspended from work and investigated for bullying. Sandie countered
by taking the hospital to an employment tribunal in early 2025, she claimed sexual harassment under Equality Act,
indirect discrimination and victimisation by her employer and a male
doctor; whilst Beth responded that she was actually the one
who had been harassed - "my identity is female." I found it interesting that the UK newspapers adopted a
far more even tone about the Beth Upton case than they did with other
complaints against pre-surgery transwomen, such as
Isla Bryson and Karen White.
The vast difference in the severity of their supposed crimes is hopefully
the predominant factor, but I suspect that the 29-year-old Beth also
benefited from presenting as a normal and
reasonably attractive woman. In court she was at no
great disadvantage in appearance and demeanor from the 50-year-old nurse.
Concersely, Isla and Karen were more like "Ugly Sister" drag artists with
obvious wigs and OTT make-up. But being positive, GRA2004 has helped to legalise
thousands of marriages in the UK between a man and a transwoman. For
this, both partners must complete a statutory declaration for submission to the Gender Recognition Panel. Whilst the vast majority of husbands are aware that their wife
is transgender (or vice versa), there are a small number of instances where
she has successfully been in deep stealth and this is a
huge surprise, and a source of magazine articles!
Great Beauty = Woman?
Historically, physical beauty has always been a
key measurement for identifying women. If young transwomen are now
setting this standard, does that mean they are women and it is cis-women
that are struggling to make the grade? Of course, until recent
years female beauty was usually associated by men with fertility, so
that may give genetic women some hope that they won't cease to be
irrelevant!
Problems
The pendulum swung extraordinary quickly and by 2020 it
had become almost mandatory for “progressive” politicians, sports
administrators, charities, et al, to advocate the rights of
transgender women. Indeed it now seemed that
the rights and interests of self-declared transgender women were
more important than those of cis-women.
I was depressed but not
surprised about the ever increasing number of cis-women complaining about
the often scary prevalence of
transwomen
who had often not had GCS, or indeed any medical treatment. For
example: using
women's toilets and changing rooms
being admitted
to women-only hospital wards and prisons entering
women-only refuges, safe houses and havens demanding access to women-only societies and events enrolling for women only courses and workshops, e.g.
yoga, pilates and even maternity classes participating in
women's sport events
availing of state benefits available only to women (such as an earlier pension
age)
Other issues in the UK include: the misstatement of someone's preferred gender
becoming considered a hate crime, with a criminal record potentially
resulting suggesting in conversation that
"biological sex cannot be changed” or that "transwomen are not women" can
have serious consequences, such
as the loss of your job the introduction of confusing
pronouns such as "them" and "they"
lesbian and bisexual women (10% of cis-women in the UK in 2022) who do
not want to have sex or a relationship with a transwoman who still has male genitals
being verbally abused, branded as unacceptably transphobic by activists,
and even raped by a "woman" physically far larger and stronger
reading leaflets, newspaper and articles that go to extreme lengths to avoid
sex specific words such as
"vagina". E.g. a
UK charity refers to the vaginal opening as the "bonus hole",
whilst an Australian professional medical publication uses
the term "front hole"
discovering that the in-print edition of classic books by JR
Rowling, Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, Ian Flemming - amongst others -
have been re-written to remove sexual stereotyping potentially offensive to a
very small minority
the NHS's National Menopause People Policy Framework claiming
"It is important to note that not everyone who
experiences menopause is a woman."
parents discovering from schools (e.g. at parent meetings when their
son is unexpectedly referred to as "she" by teachers) that their
child has asked to change their gender, and they legally can't
prevent this!
I'm going to be controversial by stating that I consider some of the complaints to be valid as I've been personally affected by the increasing backlash against transwomen because a few men (I can't find an alternative word) and "trans activists" have abused the rights that it took decades for us to win. Although "trans" I found extraordinary the belief by
“progressive” politicians, sports administrators,
charities, et al, that the rights and interests of a few thousand self-declared
transgender women were more important than those of millions of cis-women.
 The Thought Police
Extreme and polarised views are now dominating the transgender agenda in the UK and in other western countries.
For example, a lesbian woman (normally the good person in WOKE thinking) who refused to have sex
with a self-labelled lesbian transwoman who had not had "bottom surgery" and obviously had a functional penis was damned on social media as being 'transphobic'.
Supposed transphobic behaviour (e.g. posting a comment on Twitter that a
post-GCS neovagina "goes nowhere" - which is physically true) has become so unacceptable in
the UK that it can
lead
to a visit by the police, with a formal warning issued that "whilst a
criminal offence has not been committed, you now have civil offence
record for a hate incident". Thousands of UK companies, schools and public sector bodies
thus now subscribe to schemes run by the LGBTQ charity Stonewall,
which is largely
taxpayer funded. It's unclear why Stonewall qualifies
as being a charity as
when it appointed a new CEO in May 2020, her
salary was more than
the £160,000 paid to the UK's Prime Minister! Stonewall
advice participating organisations to avoid the use of the words
"mother" and "father" (instead suggesting "parent who has/has not given
birth"); "boy" and "girl" (instead use terms such as "learner"); and
"he" and "she" (use "they").
As a result, for example, the NHS Scotland has been removing these
offensive words from all of its publications, forms, leaflets and
websites.
Compliance with Stonewall's guidance will gain Bronze, Silver and Gold awards.
I find it impossible to defend this situation - it's a modern
incarnation of the Thought Police in George Orwell's novel 1984.
If
the recommendations of Stonewall and similar organisations are followed, the resulting genderless
society seems akin to a science fiction book - and certainly does
nothing to advance women rights. Indeed, women's rights are
becoming subsumed into the rights of transwoman, even if the later have
had no medical treatment.
A
scene in the 1986 movie the
Life of Brian lampoons the current situation with surprising
accuracy: There has since been huge pressure to delete this scene from both the movie and a prospective stage show because it might offend some people.
In October 2021 the European Commission published communication guidelines which attempted to ban gender specific words and phrases such as "man-made" and "ladies and gentlemen" and replace them with neutral phrases like "human-induced" and "dear colleagues". This was withdrawn a month later with the official reason that it was not "a mature document and more work was required". An alternative reason provided is that examples were in English but the French language categorises every noun as masculine or feminine - France is strongly advocating that French should replace English as the primary working language of the EU post-Brexit.
A Moment of Sanity? T Examples of where restrictions would be applicable include:
In July 2024 the EHRC tried to clarify its guidance by stating that if an employer wanted to advertise for a woman-only job, that must only mean biological women or those who have received a gender-recognition certificate (GRC). Unfortunately it is very easy to obtain a GCS and no evidence of medical treatment such as hormones or surgery is required.
Woman or Transwomen? A massive challenge that is never addressed by lawyers or trans advocates is the physical reality that there is a huge difference between transwomen, for example: Example 1. A 20-year-old who is 160 cm tall (5ft 3in), weighs 48kg (106lbs), transitioned and began hormones age 17 under supervision after a medical assessment, had SRS age 19 and identifies as a heterosexual woman attracted to men. However, her USA passport still states that he is "Male". Example 2. A 58-year-old who is 185 cm tall (6ft 1in), weighs 102kg (223lbs), and transitioned age 56 without any medical supervision and doesn't take hormones consistently. He is pre-SRS but identifies as a lesbian attracted to women. He has obtained a UK Gender Recognition Certificate and her passport now states that she is "Female".
Example 3. A 25-year old who transitioned after three years taking estrogen hormones and facial feminisation surgery. She then began a successful career as a model and appeared in Nike adverts promoting their sports bras. But she has not had GCS and is still attracted to CIS-women. Sadly, we are in a situation where there is a huge subjective element. Not accepting example 1 as a woman seems unfair but conversely accepting example 2 as a woman raises many problems - from women's toilets to women's sports to women's hospital wards. As for example 3, the evidence initially seems compeling that she should be treated as a woman, but what happens if a CIS-woman claims to have been raped by her? Applying a law where just completing a form makes an adult man legally a "woman" not only doesn't work, but it can dangerously abuse the rights of other women. Impact on ChildrenPersonally, I'm very concerned about the impact that saturation trans-advocacy on social media is having on children. In 2000 I was a strong supporter of the earliest possible medical treatment of children with GID. But that was when just 1 in 4000 of UK children (the majority male to female) under 18 were being reported as having GID, in 2020 the number astonishingly reached over 2 in 100, with 76% female to male! Something has surely gone badly wrong when so many teenagers, particularly girls, are questioning their gender. The increasing number de-transitioners in their twenties - who have often had irreversible and ironically named "gender confirmation surgery" - need to be listened to.
We seem to be reaching a once Science Fiction like scenario where every child can decide if they want to be male, female or something else - both legally and in their secondary sexual characteristics (i.e. external physical appearance). As a society, we need to consider carefully the implications of giving children that choice, a choice which that they may later bitterly regret. In my own (medically unqualified) experience there's a small proportion of transgender children who after expert medical assessment should be given pro-active medical assistance (including blockers, hormones and surgery) at the earliest possible age. But there's also a greater number where it would be best not to intervene medically - even if that meant them passing through puberty. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of children in the middle that require the "Wisdom of Solomon" to assess correctly. Earthquake in the UKAs
described on this website, for good or bad, trans activists have been on
a winning roll throughout the early 2000's, with high watermark arguably
being the introduction of laws in some countries that allow anyone to
designate their preferred gender and legal sex. In the UK the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA2004) the subsequent anti-discrimination Equality Act 2010 were soon being abused by a small number of opportunists, criminals, rapists and other sex offenders, and what I can only call perverts. They used these to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) stating that they were "Female", despite having zero medical treatment, still living as a man, and possessing a fully functional penis. Their possession of a female GRC gave them access to women's toilets, changing rooms, jails, hospital wards, sports, jobs, and social welfare benefits. This led to extraordinary situations such as a transwoman (Mridul Wadhwawith) who had had no medical treatment and was physically completely male being appointed as CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Three years later - after numerous complaints, a critical tribunal ruling and an investigation by Rape Crisis Scotland - he/she was finally sacked for "inappropriate behaviour" and a failure to protect "female only" spaces. Headlines were also made when in April 2025 two players (Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith) with female GRCs contested the final of the UK Women’s Pool Championship Final. In Scotland, the SNP Government took the view (like many other bodies to be fair) that the definition of a "woman" now included transwomen with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). However, the feminist campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) bought a case to the UK Supreme Court, asking whether transgender people are actually legally a woman or man based on their preferred gender. To widespread shock, on 16 April 2025 the five judges unanimously ruled "that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex". The ruling also states that existing legislation gives transgender people "protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender". That is presumably legally true, but the implications are that woman's spaces are no longer accessible by transwomen in any circumstances. E.g. A transwoman who's been living successfully as a woman for decades, is post-GCS and legally married to a man, can apparently no longer use the Women's toilet. Another example is that the roughly one thousand MTF children believed to attend the UK's 230 girls-only schools can potentially no longer do this. It is going to take months, if not years - and probably more legal cases - for it become clear what the means in practice. However in the short term, the reality is that in the UK transwoman are suddenly no longer being accepted and treated as equivalent to ciswomen by employers, recreation centres, gymns, medical centres, sprts cluvbs, et al. Before 2004 it was the ambition of most passable British transwomen to go deep stealth with no evidence left that they were ever a "man", that may again but the goal - but it will be very difficult to achieve. My Experience Since 2020 the term Sex-Reassignment Surgery (SRS) has largely been replaced by the term Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS). I prefer the later term as SRS didn't change my physical sex - I'm still genetically 'XY' so it just seems a better fit.
After several difficult years in my late 20's I reluctantly accepted for reasons that I can never adequately explain that I needed to live my life as a woman. An odd starting point is that when my sister had rhinoplasty to improve the appearance of her "family" nose, I accompanied her and had the same procedure.
I began taking female hormones (oestrogen) age 30 and increasingly went
out in public as a woman, but I was 35 when I
finally transitioned in
December 2000. Post transition I failed to consistently pass as a woman at work and in daily life. I had facial electrolysis and professional voice training but still failed to pass. I finally crossed the Rubicon when two years of hard won experience living as a woman were combined with having an orchiectomy and breast augmentation. By late 2002 I was finally passing successfully as a woman physically and socially, but the financial cost was enormous, the bills got ever larger whilst my take-home pay had dropped to about a third of that pre-transition. In late 2004 I had GCS, and just a few weeks later I married (in a church - anything else would have felt wrong) my long-time boyfriend. Legally our marriage was initially in a rather grey area as whilst I had managed to change my passport to "F", my Birth Certificate was still "M", and it was also several months before we were able to consummate the marriage. Thankfully changes to the law in first the UK (2004 and 2010) and later Ireland (2015) resolved any potential problems, and there is now no doubt over the legal validity of my marriage. However, being legally a wife doesn't necessarily mean that my "sex" is female - indeed I'm dubious that this is reasonable or factually correct. For example, when we married I was still just young enough to have children and was constantly asked if we had plans to start a family, often with a hint that my biological was ticking. After the marriage I was soon being asked the odd sly question as to whether I might be pregnant. It being physically impossible for me to get pregnant, my answers were always evasive or along the lines that I hadn't been exercising enough and had gained some weight. However - for good or bad - I would have liked to have experienced periods, pregnancy and childbirth, it's a gaping hole in my life. I'm registered with the Health Service in Ireland as
"Female". Given my increasingly mature age, I regularly
need intimate medical examinations and tests - which can be a cause of
confusion. I haven't found the mammograms offered to me every
two years since I reached 50 to be a problem, I inform the staff that I
have breast implants and have [so far] always received an all clear letter
a few weeks later. However, it's not always so easy. After several
letters asking me to attend a cervical
cancer screening for a PAP test, I eventually complied after discovering
that there was a small possibility
that my neo-vagina (constructed from penile skin) can contract
this. But my visit resulted in a confused nurse, a very
puzzled doctor, and having to out myself as trans MTF.
A particular hate that I have is the advent of gender-neutral toilets, these basically allow an establishment to advertise their WOKE credentials whilst saving money by having just one rather than two sets of toilets. I had a horrible experience queuing in a gender neutral toilet to use the only cubicle, whilst a steady stream of men used (with varying degrees of embarrassment) the urinals.
In another example, I swim at a local pool during a women-only session as the time is
ideal for me, but I now must sign for entry a form whose small print now
oddly includes "people who are not having menstrual periods can be
excluded". As an alternative I tried another
swimming
pool and spotted a notice advising swimmers to "Use the
Changing Room (Male or Female) you are most comfortable with".
This means that I could potentially be sharing the Female changing room with physically complete and sexually fully functional
males. It seems to be a victory for a tiny number of
transactivists (often pre-GCS/SRS) over several thousand times more
cis-women.
Even outside a women's changing room or toilets', I've met some very scary (both physically and behaviourally)
individuals whom I've struggled to accept as being women.
I was astonished in a meeting to hear a very large and masculine looking transgender activist proclaiming as
apparently a
positive to 'her' LGBT+ credentials the fact that 'she' had not had
any medical
treatment!
Some countries such as Japan (since 2002) and Sweden (until 2013)
require an applicant requesting a legal change of sex to have been
sterilized (most commonly via an orchiectomy) or have completed sex-assignment surgery
before this is granted. There is a lot of well-argued
opposition to such rules, but
after many bad experiences I can also reluctantly see some merit in favour of
this. I've become worried that it has become too easy for a
man or even a teenage boy who is wondering if they are transgender to be quickly sucked in to
the system. Any man with $25,000 to spend can almost on an impulse catch a flight to Thailand and arrive back home two weeks later minus
his
testes and penis, but with a breast implants and a neo-vagina.
Transwomen are often emerging from the process of changing their
gender much poorer, jobless, disowned by their family and friends, struggling
to pass as a woman, infertile, unable to sexually attract 'normal' men,
and suffering from mental and medical complications.
From my own experience I favour the rule in the now defunct versions 4
to 6 (published September 2001) of the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse
People which recommended a year long real-life experience/test before a
surgeon can perform SRS/GCS.
|
|
Last updated: 1
May, 2025
(c) 2000-2025 Annie Richards |
Even without the amendment, under GRA2004 it is possible
in the UK to legally to change sex from male to female, or vice-versa, without having
had any medical treatment. The requirements are: fill in a form; find a
registered doctor who will sign it; and pay the requisite fee (just £5).
About
a month later a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) will arrive in the post. 
By 2021 the trans agenda was so succesful that a leading medical journal,
(No spaces)