Written evidence submitted by Mr David Henty [GRA1488]



First, as a Primary School Teacher from the 60s to the 90s, a parent and a grandparent, I’ve taken great interest in the extent at which boundaries were pushed back by extreme liberal views and minority groups, the me-culture of today, that selfishly pushed for what they wanted (and believed they were right in doing so), without thought or consideration for anyone else. Such activists, particularly the groups supporting LGBT ideology, have steadily infiltrated positions of power throughout the whole of our society, particularly into the public sector, civic service, social services and the media. With so many LGBT activists now having risen into these influential positions, we must all be extremely discerning of their ideology and what it stands for. This is especially the case in education, through which both the whole of society and government bears a great responsibility in the physical, social and emotional development of our future generations. Indoctrination in selfish ideologies, which adversely affect the majority, should be avoided at all costs, for the benefit of a balanced and civilised society.

I strongly feel that in a democracy, where the majority acts through its democratically elected government (which then has a duty of care for its citizens), is to make laws that nurture a state of well-being in the country. Laws, for example, that legislate against actions by its citizens that adversely affect their own well-being and those with whom they come into contact (e.g. smoking, drugs, theft, murder). Having said that, I also feel that it is the duty of governments to consider the well-being of minority groups, who wouldn’t otherwise have the power to determine certain necessities for their own well-being against a majority; for example, the disabled, blind, deaf, soldiers returning home from war, who are all granted necessities such as accessible toilets, ramps, bobbly pavements at crossings, hand rails, PTSD rehabilitation and signers to help improve their well-being. What I strongly disagree with is when some laws are made to suit and ‘please’ some minority groups, but which adversely affect the majority in many ways. For example, the same-sex marriage law for a minority group of gays, when the rest of us were told there wouldn’t be any side effects that would adversely affect the majority. This has subsequently now been proved untrue to a very great extent.        


Secondly, many of my following statements and views have been the result of much reading of research and psychological studies over the past ten or more years on LGBT ideology, Transgenderism and Gender fluidity from countries that went down this route long ago and have for some time been experiencing adverse physical, social and emotional effects on its individual citizens and their societies as a whole.

This particularly occurred when governments, wishing to look good on the world stage, yielded to a very tiny vociferous minority (and its activists) who proclaimed a questionable ideology which has often been refuted by scientific evidence and the many associated, unhappy case studies. 
I feel therefore that problems, which have already arisen, will continue to do so if the Government were to continue down this legal road of allowing free self-identification.

Although I do not believe a person should be lawfully allowed to change their biological sex.

              I do not believe a person should be allowed in law to change their biological sex.


              Present legislation provides an independent assessment, just like I’m required to fill in reams of questions, show a medical assessment and sometimes get a physio assessment on the effects of my stroke in order to gain my Parking Blue Badge. Just like millions of other people have to get a medical assessment in order to gain certain privileges and exceptions in society and law.

Genuine gender dysphoria MUST be recognised by trained unbiased medical practitioners. If not, the floodgates are opened for both adults and children to decide on a whim that they would like to change sex. This would lead, and has already led, to many disadvantages and dangers in many areas of society. For example, in sport; the safeguarding of females in their private spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms and even prisons for women.


Young children, especially, are most vulnerable, through peer pressure and ideologically-led teachers, psychologists and parents. Regrettably, for some years now, they’ve been persuaded, at the first sign of any ‘tomboyish’ by girls or ’girlie’ behaviour by boys, to undergo sexual surgical changes. Approximately 80 percent of gender dysphoric children grow out of this subjective feeling and later become comfortable in their bodies.

There are many cases of transexuals, even those who’ve been certified, who suffer from mental health issues later in life, many wishing they hadn’t had surgery.
“Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism.”

It would not be a responsible, caring Government that allowed this to happen easily. Biology matters and both children and adults should be counselled that they have a role to play in society in the sex in which they were born.


Just as we have to provide an address when getting a new bank account, with its attendant lengthy proof of identity and length at present and past addresses, so trans people should be required to live in their acquired agenda for a certain period of time.
This time allows thought to be given to their life-changing experience that they are contemplating, especially if it includes sexual surgery changes. An increasing number are later having regrets. This time span gives the opportunity for medical and health consultation which I feel should be obligatory. Some even resent the fact that they were persuaded to be certified without time for being assessed.
World-renowned genital reconstructive surgeon Miroslav Djordjevic said, back in 2017, that his clinics were experiencing an increase in “reversal” surgeries for those who want their genitalia back. These people express crippling levels of depression and, in some instances, suicidal thoughts.

This does not go far enough. A medical diagnosis and two-year waiting period should be maintained. Although a statutory declaration strengthens intention, it should not prevent someone changing their mind later and de-transitioning.

A spouse must not be forced from an opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex marriage. Millions of people in England disagree with same-sex marriage.

The law already recognises that 18 is that age of ‘maturity’ and understanding. It’s been shown that the number of under 18-year olds referred to clinics has risen dramatically over the past number of years, mostly due to materials flooding into education and through peer pressure and social media. Children under 18 who are confused through these reasons need proper medical and mental assessment, not being referred to gender-change clinics. They should NEVER be introduced to the teaching of transgenderism in any government-run educational or public setting.


Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:

Laws should be made according to facts, not to pander to someone's perception of who or what they are, or want to be. There is no scientific evidence for another ‘sex’ or multiple genders. Biologically, there is only male and female. There is no biological basis for a person to consider themselves ‘non-binary’. Legislating contrary to biology would make a mockery of the law and bring it into disrepute. If another ‘sex’ is made up and allowed without biological evidence, this will open the floodgates for an ‘infinite’ number of genders that some transgender activists, like the Mermaids group, claim there to be on their ‘gender spectrum’. This would create confusion and remove gender further from biological reality. Such a change would also more than likely require alteration to marriage laws, therefore undermining traditional marriage.

Actually, much research has shown that the claims for multiple genders is a subjective feeling in the mind and not scientific facts. Society cannot, and should not, legislate for subjective feelings, however strong they may be.

Many experts assert that gender dysphoria is based in the mind and should be treated as any other mental illness, with "patience and compassion" for the individual.
"Our hormones system is shown to have a role of maintaining male as male, and female as female. Our genes, our hormones, our biochemistry and physiology, all signify maleness and femaleness," "Doctors, surgeons, paediatricians and professional scientists, all state that we should be offering some form of cognitive therapy, rather than radical surgery that does not solve the issue, but in fact can lead to deep regret and a high rate of suicide,"  

November 2020