In an extraordinary admission, the UK’s “Government Equalities Office” confirmed that the changing of gender legally at whim, with the mere filing of a form, builds on the “progress” made with the redefinition of marriage.
In a joint media release, the Equalities Office and the Minister for Equalities declared that:
Since Parliament voted for the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, there has been significant progress on LGBT equality. In 2013 the law was changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Earlier this year, Turing’s Law was passed, posthumously pardoning men who had sex with men for these now abolished offences. And the recent election saw the highest number of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual MPs voted into Parliament. Today’s announcement looks to build on this progress.
In a near-Orwellian development, enabling individuals to change their gender on their birth certificate at a snap of their fingers is being considered as “progress”:
Proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender will be part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition, the Gender Recognition Act.
The consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, to be published in the Autumn, will look to improve the recognition process and reduce the stigma faced by the trans community. Proposals will include:
- Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
- Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system.
It really is incredible: the UK is digging itself a politically-correct hole so deep, that they have reached a point where “facts” and “medical precautions” are now considered “offensive” – even though Britain was one of the spearheads in the whole transgender movement:
Britain became one of the first countries to legally recognise people who wanted to change gender without surgery in 2004 with the Gender Recognition Act. However in the years that have followed a series of barriers to changing gender have frustrated those who want to make the switch. One is the need to prove they have been in transition for at least two years before they can legally apply to become the other sex.
The other is the medical checks needed. Currently people need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria before being allowed to make legally change sex. Campaigners said the tests – which involve seeing a panel of doctors – is embarrassing and intrusive, noting it should be a decision for the individuals.
As stated above, changing one’s registered gender has been possible in the UK for several years. Apparently though, it is not enough to be possible – it has to be super easy, otherwise, LGBTI individuals won’t have ‘sufficient rights’:
Up to now, it was already possible to change your sex in government records, but it was a laborious process. A doctor had to diagnose gender dysphoria and the person had to be living in the chosen gender for two years. Under the new legislation all that will be needed, it seems, will be a rubber stamp. No hormones; no surgery; just an uncomfortable feeling inside that things are not quite right.
Instead of requiring individuals to seek medical expertise to determine if they truly have gender dysphoria, all they need to do is sign a form.
Minister for Women and Equalities, Justine Greening, had no qualms voicing her support for the measure:
This government is committed to building an inclusive society that works for everyone, no matter what their gender or sexuality and today we’re taking the next step forward.
We will build on the significant progress we have made over the past 50 years, tackling some of the historic prejudices that still persist in our laws and giving LGBT people a real say on the issues affecting them.
However, Ms Greening’s own words show that she is either blatantly ignoring, or entirely ignorant regarding the importance of gender with regards to the LGBTI community.
“What we want to try to do is streamline the process, make it easier, demedicalise it and make it less intrusive,” says Ms Greening. A study with her proposals will be published later in the years. She recently told the media that society needed “to “stop treating people changing their gender as if it’s some medical problem that needs fixing. Actually this is a choice that people are making and we need to try and make that choice more straightforward than it already is.”
For years – nay, decades – the transgender lobby has been telling us that ‘gender dysphoria’ is an innate condition, not a choice. Now they are backtracking from, not progressing their own statements.
Redefining gender is part and parcel of redefining marriage. Neither further the progress of anyone’s rights – it creates utter chaos. Think about it: enabling people to change their gender renders biological sex meaningless. Without gender, there is no need for “same-sex” in same-sex marriage – because apparently, a person can switch between either genders without undergoing any type of alterations.
Going further, changing “sex” to something based entirely on preferences (e.g. what gender do I want to list on my birth certificate?) abolishes any “special” status or traits of the LGBTI community. Without preconceived, concrete definitions of biological gender, there is no basis for distinguishing amongst lesbian, gay men, heterosexuals, or heck, even transgender!
All of this has been clearly pointed out by articulate critics of this newest UK kowtow to radical gender reform:
Critics warned that allowing people to effectively “self-identify” as a member of the opposite sex, while maintaining the anatomy of their birth gender, would unleash a firestorm of legal cases over access to women-only hospital wards, prisons, lavatories, changing rooms and competitive sports.
Gender and sex both depend on the definition of marriage. Wherever marriage is redefined without its one man, one woman definition, we clearly see societies abandoning their definition of gender, making sex entirely based on preferences. It is not freedom – it is utter chaos.
The outright insanity plaguing the UK may seem thousands of miles away, but this is an illusion: any country considering redefining marriage placing themselves in jeopardy of falling to the same chaotic level.
There is no beating about the bush: redefining marriage brings a torrent of consequences. The traditional definition of marriage is essential to societal perception – and treatment – of gender and sex. If a country is truly considering messing with this foundational institution, then it must be a decision made by ALL citizens.