I have just been going through some of the responses to the Women & Equalities Committee 'Call for Evidence' concerning the Gender Recognition Act reform. As we can all anticipate, they fall into two distinct camps. You can see them by clicking HERE.
The gender-critical responses often say that trans detransition is high, that trans women are going to invade women's spaces and are likely predators - that GRA reform is not necessary. The naivety of some of their responses is sickening, but that is not the point of this blog. Some people also claim they are "not transphobic" - but more on this later.
Of course, the pro-GRA reform respondents say the opposite, but what struck me was there are professional organisations like the Law Society, Nottingham Women's Centre, Barnados, the BMA and Suffolk Rape Crisis, plus many others all on our side.
But back to that word "transphobic," do the gender-critical actually know what the word means? Have they ever checked Google for the definition? Indeed do you know?
Not so long ago the Liberal Democrats released their definition of transphobia in their party. It was a forward step relating the process for definition and action. At first many of their party welcomed it but judging from the online members' comments as time went by, disagreements broke out about sex, gender, and that the definition itself some arguing the document was too long. You can visit the relating page by clicking HERE.
I very much wish my political party the Labour Party had a definition of "Transphobia." It would draw lines on what is and what is not acceptable in our party.
But let's keep it short guys.
Oxford Languages, part of Oxford University Press and purveyor of words and meanings with a history going back to 1857 defines transphobia in just nine words as this "Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people".
And if you dont like this definition well hey - ask Google but be warned they refer to Oxford Languages too and as probably the biggest purveyor on words and images on the planet - they should know.
But I moot another word. And that word is DISCRIMINATION - because it would be unthinkable that the public would be asked to put forward views on peoples colour or sexual orientation.
Still, it is perfectly OK it seems for that retired Army General or Vicar to tell me who I am.
And I object.
I know full well who I am - and I am damn sure other trans people do too!