Monday, February 25, 2019





Earlier this month celebrated tennis star Martina Navratilova took the brave step to publicly comment about the changes being made around the world that are effectively allowing transgender athletes, born men, to self-identify as women and compete against women and girls. This is often possible with minimal, or sometimes no, physical modifications to their bodies.

That may read like an early ‘April Fools’ joke to most rational people. Sports are segregated between male and female competitors for a very simple reason. Men have stronger bodies developed by evolution and genetics to hunt and fight and that convey many natural advantages over women.

Yes, there are outliers and extremes - tall women, short men and a range of skills that will allow the best women to compete with the weakest men. However, for fairness of challenge, and in most sports - not all, as men and women do compete against each other in a few events - there remain different categories.

That this is necessary is shown by the records and average scores in these sports. Those set by men are consistently better than those set by women.  Even the strongest women versus the weakest men are at a physiological disadvantage because of how their bodies have developed in the early and pubertal years of life.

So far, so obvious - you would think.

Yet, Martina, in making these points, has been accused of bigotry and hatred of trans people for expressing what are plain facts of biology.

As a prominent and well respected gay woman she has even been stripped of representative roles after an outcry by transgender people who seem to think their feelings matter more than reality.

Martina is not a bigot. Nor is she transphobic. Many years ago she supported one of the first transsexual sports stars - tennis player Renee Richards - in her quest to be allowed to play tennis as a woman after previously having a (modestly successful) career as a man. 

Renee won that fight with the authorities and had an equally unremarkable career on the women’s tour. Later she worked with Martina as a friend and coach - hardly making Martina an obvious transphobic bigot.

It is worth noting - though - that Renee herself now accepts that as she competed when an older woman she was never likely to be superior to many younger female players. But at an earlier age, she now agrees, she would have likely had an advantage simply as a result of how male biology, puberty and her body had developed before transition.

We agree with this argument.

It is important to stress, as Martina does, but few in the media ever do, that there is a difference between transsexual and transgender.

A transsexual (TS) - as with those of us writing this blog - has a medical problem in which we have the need to alter our body to match the psychology of our inner selves. We do so via all means available up to and including Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) which changes external physiology and permanently removes the key source of, in the case of TS women, testosterone. This powers much but not all of the bodily changes that bring advantage.

Whereas someone who is transgender (TG) simply wishes to express their gender identity differently and may, but often does not, make permanent medical changes to their physiology.

Over 80% of transgender women retain their penis and testes - the primary source of testosterone.  Transsexual women almost always remove it - only in a few cases are there medical grounds preventing this on advice from doctors.

So TS will usually have little natural source of testosterone and very low levels in their body a year or so post GRS. This will often be at the low end or even below the female range - as all women do have some T (testosterone) in their body.

Whereas TG can only use drugs to suppress their levels still naturally being produced and rarely can reduce them to the normal low levels of women.

Consequently even on the one measure presently used by some sporting bodies to determine whether trans people should compete the numbers are set at a high bar in order to accommodate TG people, not just TS. And that bar is many times the levels of T in the bodies of most women AND of TS women.

T levels on their own are only one measure and post puberty have limited consequence on the differences in the body that they have already conferred onto men.

There will also be differences depending on age of transition and at what stage T production is stopped by surgery or drugs.

Put simply - a man transitioning into a woman in their 40s - would not be able to eradicate many of the advantages conveyed by their male body to have such meaningful effect.  Whereas someone doing so in their teens or early 20s could do so to a greater extent. The time if or when they have surgery would also make a difference.

The bottom line - though - remains that natal bodily advantages exist for all those born male over all of those born women - other things just define how more or less that advantage can be modified. And that is not a simple one size fits all.

We have some thoughts on ways forward that we will post separately after this message. But you might first notice two key bottom lines here that are very telling.


1: T levels allowed in sport participation can be up to 20 times higher than normal female levels or the levels post op TS women achieve. This high range figure is to give access to those TG who do not intend to make permanent bodily changes. But if T levels matter as much as is being claimed in adapting the body - then they will have a clear edge over a TS women they may compete against - making it even on that basis unfair.

So how exactly can they possibly be in fair competition with women who undeniably have a disadvantage even against we post op TS women who acknowledge our body retains significant edges given prior to our transition?


2: We are talking here about transwomen and not mentioning TS or TG men.

Almost one third of all adult TS and two thirds of younger TG today are girls who live as boys.

We are not discussing them here because someone born and going through puberty as a girl will never have all the same strengths and physiology of a male body even if taking testosterone to build muscle mass.

The lack of concern over fair competition against men by trans men occurs because there is little evidence they will be a significant threat to born male athletes.

Does that not necessarily imply the opposite conclusion when the argument is posed from the direction of trans women?

If no male athletes are fearing the invasion of trans men in their midst, it should be more than clear why female athletes DO see a threat to both their safety - in contact sports -  and to their hopes and dreams of success and setting records given the disadvantage they will always start under.




Can we find a way that more fairly allows trans people to participate in sports?

The first question perhaps is - should we even want to do this?

All people should be encouraged to take part in sporting activity to maintain a healthy body.  And in none competitive situations we do see a different case to allow participation than those where livelihoods or careers are jeopardized by an unfair challenge from trans people.

Many who have a medical condition reluctantly accept the limitations on their body’s capabilities. It is a trade-off to live a happy balanced life which might restrict some possibilities whilst enhancing others.

We think most transsexuals would understand this life balance argument in sports. If it means that for reasons of safety and fairness that they cannot enter major sporting events or turn professional in this endeavor because their situation would impact the careers of other sports people, then we believe they would accept that consequence.

Unfortunately, we would not anticipate a similar level of understanding from transgender activists based on what we see from their reactions to the Martina Navratilova statement.

This may be because TG view transition as a lifestyle expression and regard validation in their identity as essential to ongoing mental health.  

Whereas TS are resolving a medical condition in order to live as normal a life as possible but are aware of the trade-off between acceptance by society over rights of access and the implications of that access for other people.


So, are there other options with regards to sport?

One often suggested is to create transgender teams and competitions.
Can that work?

An immediate problem is one of numbers.  There are currently under 5000 people out of the 65 million living in the UK who have legally changed their sex marker - about 3700 TS women and 1250 TS men. Currently you must be medically diagnosed as TS not self diagnosed as TG in order to do this.

There are believed perhaps two or three times as many TS who have not applied for legal status. But numbers even on this measure are tiny and creating meaningful sports competitions between them hard to see as possible. 1250 TS men would have a difficult time creating any serious sports competition at all.

On the other hand there are an estimated 500,000 TG men and women - more evenly split between genders. Possibly there would be a chance of some kind of competition here. But the question then is, how do you determine who goes where?

Remember that on T levels alone TG women have a big edge over TS women and that is without taking into account the fact that many TG do nothing to their bodies to alter them physically and so will have the natal advantage or disadvantage against all others who have.

How many categories will you need to define and who does all the testing to measure fairness? This could easily be as impossible to work with resulting low numbers in multiple categories as it was with transsexuals alone.
Separating men v women in sports seems fair and in none trans situations usually is, but it becomes less fair in terms of TS & TG and the vast differences between a ‘trans woman’ with a fully male body identifying as a woman and a fully transitioned person who took puberty blockers then had surgery and never gained most natal sex advantages.
Here it is quite clear we face an almost impossible problem of sub division.


So, is there a way to grant access more fairly to trans people into opposite natal sex categories of sport?

We would argue that priority number one has to be safety.  There are some sports where a male bodied person, even a post op TS such as the authors of this blog, could be a significant threat of accidental harm to a female competitor.

This must always be the first deciding factor and, if there is any doubt, the option must be to exclude.

Beyond that point, perhaps there is a way in which sports scientists could get together and properly define a series of measures that go well beyond the testosterone level tests presently used by some sports to grant access.

We do not believe T levels alone are anywhere near enough and that they are set too high to be balanced towards inclusivity and away from fairness to women.  The latter must be the primary aim not the former.

One sensible option where inclusion might be discussed as a possibility would be if individual trans people as a condition of entry into a competitive sport have their entire body scanned and measured so that things like muscle mass, bone density, arm and thigh strength and any other factors deemed an advantage by sports scientists are carefully assessed and regularly checked.

Then, perhaps, some kind of scale can be defined against the average of natal sex competitors they will face to factor in a handicap. This can then be applied against trans competitors that removes the edge that they will otherwise always have. 

Or, in the case of trans men competitors, where the balance may be more difficult to judge because testosterone is injected to boost natal levels, possibly sometimes a positive handicap to balance out fairness may be required if competing against natal men.

We are unsure whether such a solution is either practical or would be regarded as fair by other athletes, but to us it seems the minimum starting point for any discussion.

The aim should be to seek a balanced and fair competition that does not actively discriminate against women and girls.
That surely has to be the main consideration - second only to safety - when we open up any debate about how to resolve this difficult question. 

Tuesday, February 12, 2019




We are a group of transsexual men and women - different human beings sharing one thing. Each of us knew early in life that something was wrong.

Physically we were defined as one sex but had internal dissonance that we were the other. It manifests to us as an overwhelming body/mind miss match, but its cause is not assumed or yet known.

Faced with this we did what most people would do confronting gender dysphoria - seek help from doctors, be examined, look for causes, try solutions and only after lengthy physical and psychological assessment consider surgical and hormonal transition to adapt our sexual characteristics.

Some of us are passing through this process. Others completed these stages decades ago. We accept our transition is an accommodation but it is the recommended medical pathway.

With safeguards this process works. We are able to live happy, productive lives and contribute to society in many ways.

Our legal rights were once few but we lived peacefully and respectfully with others and got on with our lives.

Things changed around the turn of the century when the GRA (Gender Recognition Act) was created in the UK. Parliament in 2004 was told by doctors that about 5000 transsexuals would apply. 15 years later 4910 have. So this was not reflecting a sudden fad. It was well predicted by medicine after decades of study.

Things have altered dramatically and we are very concerned. The GRA was a mutual bond of trust between us and society. For the right to be legally defined as the sex we transition into, we accept a need for lengthy assessment and gatekeeping. We also accept exemptions where in things such as refuges, shortlists and sports one on one assessment is made and we can be excluded.
Then Stonewall, a charity advising the government, promoted a 'transgender umbrella'. We 5000 transsexuals were made one tiny part of 500,000 now defined as trans or transgender.

There is a bewildering array of others, from those who are genuinely gender confused or identify as both genders, live as cross dressers, or appear to have psychological problems. We are as puzzled by such concepts as many others.

The reason is simple - these are trans gender variations. They come from discomfort with ability to express gender roles.

Trans sexuals are not driven by gender expression - but have dysphoria caused by rejection of their bodily sex. Its cause is not known but it produces severe distress. The important need of transsexuals to physically transition results from this cause and there is a consequent lack of necessity for physical transition for those who are trans gender.

We respect the rights of transgender people to express their lifestyle without repression.

However, gender and sex are not the same and some of those seeking to remove all gatekeeping were in the past medically excluded from the NHS transition process because they did not have this dysphoria. Different treatment protocols and protections for society may be appropriate in both cases and could be compromised if treated as being equivalent.

As such we fear safety is at risk for those transitioning unwisely without considering all options or being assessed for appropriate causes. Cases of de-transition are being reported more often when, with gatekeeping, these were rare.

We also worry about children who may be put on irreversible medication too young for them to be sure whether they are trans gender or transsexual or something else that may not require it.

Much more research is necessary but is often blocked by activism claiming it is transphobic. We regard it as nothing of the sort, but rather essential to offer better options for an insidious medical condition we wish upon nobody.

Consequently we believe that as transsexuals we cannot continue as part of this Stonewall umbrella, which, we feel, conflates a sex based medical condition with lifestyle choices and gender expression. And makes statements and decisions we disagree with profoundly.

Without claiming to know causes for either condition nor arguing that sex can be literally changed we see real dangers in equivocating things that require very different treatment and have consequences that will also impact themselves on society differently.

We feel that, in listening to this advice, government planning for self-ID into safe spaces that are currently well gatekept by psychiatrists is doing a disservice to many people - notably women and girls, the 5000 transsexuals for whom the GRA was written specifically and the many thousands of others it may inadvisably encourage to transition by making it too easy to do so.

Potentially this will have serious long term irretrievable consequences on those for whom gatekeeping may before have given time for careful thought or deterred such actions.

Therefore, the undersigned, as transsexual men and women, formally advise that we no longer wish to be considered part of the Stonewall umbrella.

At present we are 14 who have taken this stand but we believe that there are more of you ready to offer support. If you feel able please make that known.

       If you are transsexual and agree with our concerns, add your name, or a user name, initials, or just an occupation to this statement.  

Thank you.


Signed:- Amanda Dee, Emma Haywood,  Jennifer Kenyon, Leanne Mills, Jenny Randles, Melissa Symes, Gillian (electronic engineer), Sarah (broadcast engineer), Sarah (university lecturer), Zia, FP (business owner), JY (support worker) & usernames - babywantsbluevelvet & seven hex.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Defining the word transsexual

Our members have noticed the start of a new internet group - Transsexual True Meaning - seeking to redfine the word transsexual. 
We were surprised by this for two reasons.
Firstly, as the originator of the group admits, transsexual has a well established definition that has existed for over 60 years
Here is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) entry:
:- A person who has undergone treatment in order to acquire the physical characteristics of the opposite sex.
The Cambridge English dictionary is similar
:- Used to describe a person who has had medical treatment to change their sex.
It adds an example of appropriate use in a sentence

:- Bagger, who started life as a man and had a sex change operation, made history by becoming the first transsexual woman to play on the Ladies' European Tour.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of a transsexual woman taking part on a ladies sporting tour - which we do take seriously - the meaning of the word is made clear by these world renowned authorities.
As you can see it differs from transgender in that it involves those who specifically alter their body physically to live as the opposite sex.

We wish to make clear that we do not make the claim that biologically we can change sex as the dictionary definition might imply. However, we do what is medically possible toward that aim.

Transsexual is not simply a feeling or dressing up to resemble a man or woman by expressing gender stereotypes. It involves medically assisted major bodily change.
Trans activism is pressing for self ID and has a much looser and wider concept of what the word transgender means. They have attempted to absorb transsexual into it and that idea has gained traction.

As a consequence we transsexuals have become very protective of the word, much as women rightly have of their definitions.

Trans activism accuses us of being old fashioned but the term says what it is and differentiates from the often non medically routed transgender identity which we consider important.

Not because we are better. We believe every person must earn respect through concern over the rights of others. Surgery does not change that.

However,transsexual and transgender are different and it sometimes matters - to put it bluntly - if a trans person has chosen to retain their natal sex organs (as many transgender do) or altered their body and removed them (as most transsexuals do).

It gives to others added information when judging a person in their presence.

So using this word accurately matters, not just to us but often in particular to women.

Of course, it matters to men, too, and there are transsexual men. About 30% of transsexuals transition female to male and make whatever bodily changes they can make too.

Which brings us to the second concern. This new site wants to redefine transsexual as a person who is sexually attracted to a transgender person - because such people presently have no word to apply as others have heterosexual and homosexual.
We think this suggestion was well intended and we cannot speak for how those who are in relationships with transgender men or women feel about themselves.

They are free to decide if they are gay or straight in their perception and we would not seek to instruct that choice.

As for someone in a relationship with a transsexual person most of us have one and these are again open to the individual to define as they prefer.
There are transsexual women married to women and others married to men. The same is true for transsexual men. The proportions do not seem very different from non transsexual relationships. Though, of course, there are different social consequences that we would not seek to minimise.

Transsexuals under the present GRA rules since 2004 have been able to marry heterosexually and - since same sex marriage has more recently been legalised - can do so homosexually as well.
Our spouses are what they are. Men, women, straight or gay, and need no special word to define their relationships with us.
Indeed we suspect a heterosexual man married to one of us (and they do exist) would probably find it offensive to be told that they are now a transsexual for having such a loving relationship with someone they regard to be a woman.
So, with respect, we would ask transgender people NOT to appropriate the dictionary definition of what we are - transsexual - in much the same way as they seem to be trying to dispute the dictionary definition of the word woman. That is equally unreasonable.  
We make clear we do not consider posters defining the word woman to be transphobic. They report the true dictionary description of the word much as we have done above with the word 'transsexual'.

We support the official definition of  the word woman.

So we request kindly that transgender activists please leave the word woman alone and allow the word transsexual to mean what it has meant since medically defined in the 1950s.

Friday, November 9, 2018

Transsexuals and crime statistics

We have been concerned by several stories in the media about horrific sounding attacks by 'transgender women' - on both men and women.

A major issue is over the impact this has on crime statistics - specifically - How are these crimes being recorded?

There seems an implication that police are relying on what the arrested person declares their sex to be and does not make further checks for fear of being accused of transphobia.

In our view this would be unacceptable if it results in figures for violent assaults carried out by women to be escalated in future records.

We wish to point out that under 5000 people in the UK have legally altered their sex via the existing Gender Recognition Act, which requires psychological assessment and medical approval in order to do so.

Self-ID might be employed via the Equality Act in certain circumstances for access to spaces, but in our opinion legal sex should be what is recorded in terms of legality such as criminal charges and, even then, trans status could also be indicated if it were relevant.

Of under 5000 people who have legally altered their sex marker only at most 3000 are transsexual women who have also obtained a copy of a legally altered birth certficate denoting this.

The chances of all the recent 'trans women' arrested for violent offences being in that number are slight, given the estimated 500,000 transgender people in the UK.

Police are allowed to access birth certificate records during their investigation of a crime even for those who are in this 3000. It is necessary to do that for the true facts to be established and transparency against abuse of identity during the commission of any crime - such as fraud  - to be possible under the current rules of the Gender Recognition Act.

We wonder how often police are actually doing this - and if not, then why not?

As transsexual women we support that right of access in legitimate circumstances such as these.

We feel it is important that correct information is entered into crime statistics and that it is a betrayal of women not to do so as the impact on them from misleading data left for future generations is clear if this is not done.

It is also a betrayal of transsexual women such as the authors of this blog - who followed all the existing rules.

We were medically and psychologically assessed in a process that involved lengthy physical transition because we believed that society deserved that level of reassurance.  And we willingly left the decision on whether our birth certificate marker should be changed to doctors, not our own feelings.

If we achieved a change of legal status in the right way and yet accept that police should still have access to accurate information, then how can it be right to not correctly record someone in official statistics?

Especially not someone who has had no medical and psychological assessment but is simply self-identifying to the authorities as regards their apparent change of sex?

Monday, October 22, 2018


We have been grateful for the many respectful replies we have received on here and on social media.

It is heartening to know that our call for moderation and curbing the excessive use of language is something that others also support.

However, there has been an increasing tendancy to see appropriation of intersex people brought into this debate.

We wish to make clear that intersex conditions are not the same thing as being transsexual or transgender. We have been told this by more than one such person with an intersex condition and we urge that you listen to them and not seek a way to imply you are like them. It is unfair.

These unfortunate people face a partially understood medical condition that carries many problems but is not known to be related to whatever is behind being transsexual.

We fully support research by scientists wanting to look for causes of transsexualism - be they physical, psychological or sociological. Knowledge is power to help future generations deal with what we know is a traumatic experience.

Yet we are very concerned to see some activists calling out academics who are endeavouring to fund meaningful investigation. Some even seek to get them into trouble with their colleges or employers just for doing this.

That is utterly wrong.

The search for a cause to transsexualism is a valid enterprise and we should not pre-determine any conclusion it might reach.

Science is evidence led - not conducted only if it agrees to prove what someone wants to be true.

In both of these actions we urge that those applying them for what they consider to be valid reasons please think again.

Similarly, we have noticed analogies used on social media to make those with a gender critical perspective look as if they have reasons for their opinions that seem unpalatable. Not merely genuine viewpoints, which we accept that such views very often are .

We cannot and should not impose our beliefs onto anyone.

Comparing treatment of transgender people with how the Nazi regime handled those of which they disapproved 75 years ago has become commonplace.

And transsexuals who support the rights of women to self determine their boundaries - as we 14 creating this blog do - get called truscum or quislings and even collaborators with agents of terror.

Many brave and honourable women challenged totalitarianism in occupied France and their sacrifice should not be demeaned.

As we approach Remembrance Sunday and the 100th anniversary of the end of the Great War the use of such analogies to blacken the reputation of any woman, or trans woman, who does not follow ideology is disrespectful.

It unfairly appropriates and also diminishes those women who stood against oppression in past generations.

Friday, October 19, 2018


The GRA Consultation has now closed.

As you can see we are now 14 members of this informal gathering hoping to seek a way towards mutual understanding.

There are other transsexuals supporting us and we are grateful for their encouragement.

We have been overwhelmed by your response on here and elsewhere. Thank you. There are a few replies from people who disagree with us but we respect your right to have a different opinion. We have not deleted these posts from comments. That is not how we intend to engage.

Rather we seek to find a way to move this debate forward from the polarised attitudes that dominate social media. Disagreement is fine so long as we all respect one another's right to an opposing view and try to work together. If replies are civil then they can be critical.

Words are too often used as weapons in a war of ideologies. This pushes discussion further apart. We need open discussion in search of a way forward that might be acceptable to all.

Hopefully, government will now be doing this and we would ask that the media, also, follow a more positive stance when seeking answers.

It is easy to select examples of awful events or activities that prove your own beliefs. We do not minimise them. If they call for condemnation on either side we will do so without reservation.

We have listened to your ideas and thank you for suggestions.

Under consideration is finding a platform where discussion can be friendly and words that demean either side are excluded. Blogger is not designed for this but we will continue to post messages here and hope you, too, will continue to offer your thoughts.

Hopefully we will find a place and time where we can have a good debate over a couple of hours, perhaps, as a trial run. Then, if that is successful, we can take it from there.

You deserve to have your say free of the political ideology that  has so far dominated all sides of this debate.  That is why we are here. And we respect your help, advice and support in trying to achieve this aspiration.

Watch out for our next update with further details of the next step that we hopefully take together.


It is not the policy of this blog to approach the media. However, we welcome anyone making reference, or quoting from, its content if they so choose.

Nonetheless we were asked to give a comment as the GRA consultation period ended. It was not used, but we thought you might like to see what we wanted to say. 


Really this is all about respect.

Transsexual women have always respected women, because, whilst we do not claim to literally be one, we live as one through mutual respect and a bond of trust between us and them over many years.

The transgender movement seems to have lost that concept. It is now about acquiescence and rights not mutual understanding.

No wonder women - and society in general - are starting to disrespect trans people.

You reap what you sow.

We just wish they would wake up to how this is not all about us. But about all people. All of us live in a community and you do not become part of that community by demanding entry and telling them that their rules are wrong.

Transsexuals understand that.

Transgender people need to or they will find themselves facing a less bright future than they deserve.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Why we are afraid

NB:- Please bring this blog to wider attention. If you support the contents then pass on the link. Post any comments below. We will respond to these in our next statement on this blog. 

 We are a number of individual transsexual women who are expressing deep concern over planned government changes to the GRA
 (The Gender Recognition Act; an act passed by parliament in 2004 by large majority.)

  • It was written for transsexual people
  • Doctors giving evidence then predicted there were 5000 of us in the UK who would qualify.
  • As of August 2018 there were 4910 registered. About 3000 are transsexual women (who transition male to female) and the rest are transsexual men.

Yet the UK government state the act is not being used by enough applicants and want to extend it to add up to 500,000 people who define as transgender - including cross dressers.

Consultation on this plan is about to close.

Transsexual person
A medically diagnosed condition from childhood.

It involves acute stress from knowing that psychologically
that person is of opposite sex to the physiology of their body.

A transsexual person knows that you cannot change biological sex but extensive psychotherapy and medical assistance alter their body to match with the mind and live in harmony.

A large majority have had surgical alteration.

A desire to adopt the lifestyle of the opposite sex, full time or part time, often expressing this via clothing and make up.

The desire to have surgery or other medical treatments is much less common (some suggest as low as 10% of cases only).

Few wish to see doctors or be psychiatrically evaluated. Some transition back and forth.

The transsexual women who have approved this statement say:-
(please quote or tweet any of the following)

“Transsexualism is not just a feeling in our heads or about dressing up. We knew we had a problem, sought medical advice and followed treatments proposed to try to resolve the problem."

"Medical transition was the last option after following medical treatment, not the first. It was not a choice.”

“Government suggest removing all medical gatekeeping and the crafted bonds of trust that establish medical necessity to change our legal status. We believe these safeguards are vital as a show of respect from us to society when seeking access into protected spaces such as toilets. Nobody should just demand this by right.”

“Transgender individuals deserve rights. However, women already have reasonable concerns about ceding their own rights to transsexuals via the GRA. Now transsexuals with rights gained through years of medical assessment are asked to hand them on to people who have done none of that. Diminishing further still the rights of women.”

“We worry that many of the 500,000 transgender accessing legal status would still be physically intact with male bodies or even capable of rape. Medically transitioned transsexual women would be as much at risk from them as would women.”

“Adapting the law would mean that it no longer covers a long established medical condition. The planned GRA changes would allow any person to state that they have changed sex and obtain a birth certificate proving so without any medical involvement at all.”

“We firmly believe that birth certificates should only be altered when doctors agree there are legitimate reasons. This change would remove that long standing principle.”

“As Transsexual people we know surgery does not mean that we literally become women. But we will happily engage in discourse with women to set boundaries based on mutual accord. We respect their right to do this.”

“We make these physical changes to live within society as women without wishing to usurp women's necessary needs for privacy. Our medical treatment has left us mentally healthy adults who have for years afterward contributed fully to society. That is all we have ever sought.”

“We are very concerned by the aggressive tactics and angry demands of the trans activists and just want to continue living peacefully via mutual respect as we have done for half a century. But changing the GRA from medical assessment must concern society, in particular women, who understandably say NO.”

“They may conclude that the only solution will be to exclude everyone - including us. They cannot possibly know the physical or mental status of all those newly self-identified women who now selfishly demand acceptance because they say so.”

“The proposed changes materially disadvantage women in order to benefit up to half a million who merely choose to self-identify as the opposite sex for various undiagnosed reasons. The 5000 presently registered transsexual people for whom the GRA was created 14 years ago are unhappy to be expected to cede rights to those unprepared to give society more than just their word that this should occur.”

“If government choose this route, our years overcoming a medical condition and establishing our life to contribute fully to society becomes minimized to the status of a part time cross dresser or a sex offender asking for transfer to a female jail. Both are real events that have occurred recently.”

“Some transsexual women who transitioned half a century ago are so scared about how this may damage their life we fear they might become prisoners in their homes. They are being told they may no longer be able to enter ladies toilets despite not having had male anatomy for most of their lives."

"As a consequence - and like many women - we transsexuals ask the government to listen to us as we say NO to self ID."
We are 14 transsexual women who do not know one another but have come together to express these concerns.

Our occupations are as follows.....

1 x Writer and Event Organiser, 1 x Railway Engineer, 1 x Author and Radio Broadcaster, 1 x Chartered Engineer, 1 x Caterer, 1 x Retired Teacher, 1 x Broadcast Engineer, 1 x University Lecturer, 1 x Talk Show Host, 1 x Advisor at Citizens Advice, 1 x Electronic Engineer, 1 x Support Worker, 1 x Wedding Planner, 1 x Content Creator