Latest recipes

Watch This Baby Be Utterly Confused and Fascinated by Cranberries

Watch This Baby Be Utterly Confused and Fascinated by Cranberries

The cute baby can’t make up his mind, shows everyone what simultaneously loving and hating something looks like

Not everyone loves cranberries, but this baby can’t quite decide where he stands.

New foods can sometimes be a little scary. But what happens when you both love and hate a new food?

Enter this adorable baby, who was taped trying cranberries for a minute. He puts a cranberry in his mouth and immediately reacts like it’s the tartest thing he’s ever eaten (probably because it might be the tartest thing he’s ever eaten). However, once he has finished one berry, he immediately goes for another. And so the cycle continues:

It’s almost as if the baby is a cartoon character that never learns. Each time he pops in a cranberry, his face puckers up, his eyes go small, and it even looks like he might cry. Then, in an instant, everything returns to normal, as the curious (and stubborn) baby goes back in for another round.

In between shots of almost painful puckering, this baby gives everyone looks that practically scream, “WHOA! These things are good.” He even starts dancing in his seat like he’s vanquished the foe that is the tart berry.

To cranberry-lovers out there, this may not seem like such a huge deal; after all, cranberries are quietly awesome, and do a whole bunch of cool things. But to anyone who hates that weird tart taste, you have to hand it to this kid for trying (and eating) something even you won’t touch.


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Page 4 | Gender-neutral passport rules are 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

Christie Elan-Cane believes the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The campaign for recognition of non-gendered identity in UK law and society started more than 25 years ago.

Last year, a High Court challenge calling for gender-neutral passports was lost but the case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal.

On Tuesday, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyer, Kate Gallafent, told the three judges: "There is little which is more fundamental and deeply personal than an individual's gender identity."

She said those affected by the government's current passport rules "face a choice between the degrading experience of applying for, bearing and using a passport that does not accurately reflect their gender identity, or forgoing the use of a passport at all."

People who do not consider themselves as exclusively male or female include members of the trans community and intersex people.

The UN says up to 1.7% of the world's population are born with intersex traits - about the same number of people with red hair.

Male, female and non-binary

The "X" stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as male or female.

Earlier this year, Canada introduced gender-neutral passports with an X category.

Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Nepal already have a third category.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation - the UN agency in charge of air travel - also recognises the "X" option.

Speaking ahead of Tuesday's legal action, Christie Elan-Cane said: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport."

It comes as the government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the piece of law that sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.

The government said it had more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, which it called "exceptionally high".

In October, the minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, said it needed time for consideration and she wanted to study it closely.

During last year's High Court proceedings, Christie Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

James Eadie, acting for the home secretary, said the policy maintains an "administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender" and ensures security at national borders.

Ruling on the case in June, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Per is on Nick Ferraris show right now. Per always uses the neutral bathrooms if possible, if it is not an option, per would use the female bathroom - because there is more privacy and per would feel safer.

So Christie would feel safer with the women in the women's toilet. Not surprising.

Who would Christie he searched by at airport security?

Maybe if a male security guard was on duty he could identify as non binary and Christie would need to accept this as non binary is valid and indeed Christie has been of this belief for years so you can't throw out your whole belief system for a brief moment due to common sense could you? Unless you were desperate for a pee maybe.

Selfish. Just selfish. Makes me angry.

Sounds like it was a no to gender neutral passports. Just caught Philip Schofield saying it was a shame we hadn't taken the opportunity to move forward, missed the discussion though.

Sorry late to the party didn't realise yesterday's news.

This statement is worth noting (from Times) & seems to suggest the ruling will be used as leverage:

"Anne Collins, a lawyer at Clifford Chance, the firm that represented Christie Elan-Cane, said the ruling meant that the government “must take into account the rights of such individuals when taking policy decisions, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights”."

Christie’s comment that having to have a sex marker on your passport is to “collude in your own social invisibility”.
Can anyone explain to this thicko why acknowledging one’s biological sex on a passport should make you socially invisible?

Trans activists blurred the definition of sex on a passport many years ago so whilst for most it refers to biological sex, for some this can be changed to refer instead to 'social sex'. A male person can apply to have the opposite sex eg 'female' on his passport having simply asserted his intention to 'live as the opposite sex' & vice versa.
Christie rejects both male & female as 'social sex' / gender markers. It may be best for all if the terms male & female were re-established as referring solely to biological sex.

You may wish to self identify as any or no gender.
Your biological sex however is fixed and cannot change.
What is there that is so difficult to understand.

It would be helpful if the GPs & gender Drs (all of whom have medical degrees) questioned why they were writing letters to the Passport Office advising that some of their patients had changed sex.
Surely all doctors know that humans cannot change sex?

Just as we all know that as human beings, we are one sex or another whether we “admit” to this or not. Astounding, the whole thing.

Its quite extraordinary the role that some medical doctors have played in constructing the idea that 'sex-change' is possible rather than supporting their patients better to accept this is a fallacy.

It's quicker and easier to validate a patient than to try to cope with the complaints and abuse you're likely to suffer if you don't, I guess.

Some of these TRAs are dangerous.

There's a long history of collusion.
It pre-dates the power of transactivists we see today.

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there? I know intractable cases eventually took the medical/surgical route, but not until they'd been in counselling for at least 2 years.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by collusion?

My friend was quite straightforward when she (now she, back then he) was telling us about it. SEX doesn't change he said, "I know that" but his presentation and eventually his birth cert etc would. Though actually I don't think she's that worried about the paper/legal stuff, more about her physical aspects. We talk about other things these days, she's been 'she' for years now.

I didn't see any collusion in that, really. Is it the 'living as female/male' thing, when we all know the childhood socialisation stops that being possible in reality?

Why? Why would there be collusion? There was no real need for it 30 years ago, was there?

Previous thread OP sunkisses wrote,

"BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".


Watch the video: Έχει πάρει θέση το παιδί; (September 2021).