A short piece of published advice by the Solictors Regulation Authority. You can watch it here: https://youtu.be/kHXsaNMkQSU. Below is a transcript:
This YouTube was put up two years ago whilst the Gender Recognition Act was out for public consultation with a view to potential reformation. As you can see, from the title, it promotes advice about “Exceeding“ U.K. legislation in respect of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act. Interesting choice of word.
Rachel Reese is the subject of the interview. Here is a little biographical information about Rachel.
There is a PhD waiting to be written about the number of, late-transitioning males, who have backgrounds in the tech industry. I have my own theories. While women’s rights to single sex spaces, roles and services are subject to a concerted attack, Global Butterflies “comprises trans only staff” . Not the first time I have seen such rank hypocrisy. Only a trans person can understand the “trans” experience, goes the argument. Meanwhile women are not allowed to advance the same argument about our experience.
Rachel’s organisation, Global Butterflies, is an advocacy organisation for Trans and Non-Binary people. The latter category, Rachel claims in this interview, make up the majority in the Trans-Community. That’s a bold statement.
Rachel is keen to advocate for the concept of “Non-Binary” to be enshrined in law. This would create a legal category denying the FACT we are a sexually dimorphic species. I am pleased the latest attempt, to erase legal sex, failed, (Search Christine Elan for more information on this) . Rachel also argues for 16 & 17 year olds to be able to “Self-Identify”. I presume this is to cover the age group not currently allowed to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. GRC applications have a qualifying age of 18. Other activists wanted all ages to be able to Self-Identify.
Here is a bit more information about Rachel’s organisation and their own extensive networks within the legal profession, and beyond.
The final statement is incredible, coming from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I should really have lost the ability to feel astonishment, after five years studying this movement. However, my ghast was flabbered by this next statement:
The breathtaking arrogance and presumption of the above statement. Changing practice in anticipation of a legal change! Didn’t we used to call this “breaking the law”? What they did not reckon with was that women would say NO. This is exactly what we are saying and not always in approved in language!
Support for my work.
If you are able to support my work it would be gratefully received. I have no independent income and this represents my full-time work. Only do so if you can afford.