Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Equality Bill: Lords revision day 3

The Hansard record of day three can be found here as a PDF, or starts here in html.
The official news report of the day is here.

There was an interesting debate on an amendment proposed by Lord Alton of Liverpool. This starts here.

What the Bishop of Winchester had to say can be found here.

The article in The Times yesterday by Shami Chakrabarti referred to in the debate, can be found here.

The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment dealing with Gender Reassignment and the Marriage Act was accepted without any difficulty by the Government. The debate about that starts here (the Bishop of Southwark stood in as the Bishop of Winchester had to leave before this was reached).

A further exchange of religious interest occurred starting here. The topic being discussed was the content of television programmes. The Archbishop of York participated in this debate.

The amendments to Schedule 9 will now certainly be discussed on Monday afternoon. There has been a change to the texts of Amendments 98 and 99. New wording is here. The old wording was in both cases simply: leave out “proportionate”. The wording was not in the 2003 SO Regulations, but was put into the Equality Bill in order to make plain on the face of the bill the proportionality requirement of the underlying European Employment Equality Directive 2000.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 at 1:01pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: equality legislation

I very much like the idea of the Bishop of Southwark standing in for the Bishop of Winchester in the debate. To my American ears, that's a little bit like, say, Dianne Feinstein agreeing to substitute for Orrin Hatch in a Senate debate on abstinence-only birth control programs. Tickles the imagination, and reminds me that yes, things can be different across the pond.

Posted by: Charlotte on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 at 8:00pm GMT

"The 2004 Act was passed to provide transsexual people with legal recognition in their acquired gender. Under that Act, legal recognition of a person's new gender follows from the issue of a full gender recognition certificate by the gender recognition panel. Legal recognition of the new gender has the effect that, for example, a male-to-female transsexual person is recognised for all purposes as a woman in English law. On the issue of a full gender recognition certificate, a person is entitled to a new birth certificate reflecting the acquired gender and is able to marry someone of the opposite gender to his or her acquired gender."

This may prove troubling to many in the TS/TG community (and I'm just talking *terminology* here, not "right to marry" as such).

For many TG/TS people, they do not believe themselves to have a "new" or "acquired" gender. They have simply taken steps (via many methods, not only surgical/hormonal) ensure both a Mind/Body well-being and/or external perception of their TRUE gender---the one they've had ALL ALONG. [For example, I know of some Transmen who refuse the designation "F-to-M/FTM". They prefer M-to-M, as they know they've ALWAYS been male.]

Think of it this way: a person born w/ a severe facial cleft, may lack a visible (even functioning) nose. Yet they know they HAVE a nose, merely requiring surgery to correct its function/make it visible.

In the same way, many Trans people perceive that they already (internally) HAVE the genitals/secondary sexual-characteristics of their TRUE gender . . . emanating from their True SELF, where identity comes from. For them, it may simply require surgery and/or hormones (etc) to correct what is---*for THEM*---a birth defect (much like the facial cleft, above).

The only thing "new" or "acquired" here, is physical wellness---and "recognition in English Law"! They prayerfully await the day that Law, Society AND The Church, *catch up*, and CELEBRATE, their wholeness and well-being.

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 22 January 2010 at 7:45pm GMT

Yet more examples of churches wishing to have their so-called 'consciences' (ie right to discriminate) recognised.

Posted by: Merseymike on Saturday, 23 January 2010 at 6:51pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.