The Gender Recognition Act consultation

Lex malla, lex nulla

A bad law is no law

It's impossible to provide answers to a government consultation based on fallacies, the main one being the existence of "gender", a bit like being consulted on the value of Father Christmas. I tried, and managed to provide answers to the questions they don't ask.

My concluding remarks:

This consultation is biased in favour of the beliefs of a small minority of psychologically unhealthy people who've adopted a catch-all explanation for their conditions, for a variety of reasons. The original act is deeply flawed. The proposed changes would make things worse. Transgenderism isn't like homosexuality; it's not an innate characteristic. It's a collection of ideas about what it means to be masculine or feminine between two stereotypes that are largely determined by the fashion and beauty industries. Just as the inhabitants of Fiji suddenly developed anorexia when TV became available on the island and they were able to watch soaps that featured characters with the disorder, transgenderism has spread through the popularity of socials media and the encouragement of those with a pecuniary interest in it. Who has a gender? No one.

Remember the false memory syndrome scandal? And how many people have conveniently forgotten it? It'll be much more tricky to forget about gender nonsense when you've further enshrined it in law, won't it?

A woman wrote on Twitter that her husband had responded to the consultation with a lot of words she wasn't sure they'd understand, like "paraphilia", but she thinks he refrained from writing "Bollocks!". I did too, though I was sorely tempted.

Anyway, you have a go.