It’s Sex Not Gender


Every now and again a public consultation appears that everyone ought to be made aware of. Anyone with a family, especially one with girls or young boys, this impacts you.

The UK Government’s consultation into updating the 2004 Gender Recognition Act is now in full swing and shall come to a close this coming October. For most of us this may seem a trifling issue that is likely to only affect the lives of a tiny fraction of the UK population – but do NOT be fooled. You can fill in the Government consultation here.

This legislative change could have the most far reaching consequences for every man, woman and child in the country for decades to come. The following publicly available reply to the consultation by the writer Daniel Moody offers, in the Squires’ humble opinion, the best summation thus far of the impact that the suggested alteration of that law shall have on each and every one of us. In reality, what is now proposed is that we, as a nation, should now laud postmodernist subjectivity over and above that of rational objectivity – and in so doing make a mockery of each and every statute on the books.

If passed into law, any male-bodied person can simply fill in a form and immediately have access to all designated safe spaces reserved for women on the protected characteristic of their sex without the need for any form of medical intervention. Grown male-bodied persons with beards and fully functioning genitalia shall have the right to enter changing rooms and toilet facilities currently reserved for natal women and no one shall have ANY right to object. In fact, if one were to object, one may even find oneself charged with a form of hate crime.

This is possibly the most radical rethinking of our society at the most fundamental of levels ever conceived. It should not, cannot, and must not be allowed to come to pass. Please read Daniel’s wise words below and let your MP know that the 2004 act as it stands goes far enough, thanks. This is not progress. This is Foucault on speed and we’re better than that in this fine land.



Evidence Submitted to the Public Consultation on Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004

  1. My name is Daniel Moody. I have spent the past five years immersed in the notion of self-chosen legal identities. I am the author of The Flesh Made Word (three books on identity, language and law) and my work has been published at The Conservative Woman, Public Discourse (US), The Federalist (US) and MercatorNet (Aus).
  2. Unlike sex, which is objectively knowable, gender is internal and defined without reference to sex. While this does not tell us what gender is, it does tell us gender is neither the sex one is nor the sex one thinks oneself to be. (That is, transgenderism is not transsexualism.)
  3. This submission is a response to Question 19 (page 19) of the Online Survey: “Do you think that changes to the Gender Recognition Act will impact on areas of law and public services other than the Equality Act 2010?” Part one of this submission shows that de-medicalizing gender in law will amend the Equality Act by effectively removing sex as a protected characteristic, whereas part two provides a brief analysis of said amendment by pinpointing a crucial fact: replacing sex with gender changes the legal understanding of what it means to be a human person; as such, it changes all laws, not just the Equality Act.


  1. The Equality Act (2010) protects nine characteristics, including gender re-assignment and sex. At present, the average person cannot access the protected characteristic of gender re-assignment because he or she does not meet the relevant diagnostic criteria. Under a self-declaration model, however, he or she can access that protected characteristic because there are no exclusionary criteria.
  2. The move from medical model to self-declaration will not streamline the gender re-assignment process. Rather, it will change the legal understanding of what gender is. As an analogy: if in a bid to streamline the process of becoming an airline pilot the government scraps the intrusive need to pass a test, any person unable to fly a ‘plane can become a pilot. As such, the phrase airline pilot no longer refers to persons able to actually fly an actual airplane.
  3. With everybody able to change legal ID, there will be two kinds of person: those who can and have (transgender), and those who can but have not (cisgender). If John changes ID, law will protect his gender but not his sex, whereas if Joan does not change ID law will protect her sex but not her gender.
  4. Obviously, this situation is intolerable. How can gender be protected if changed but unprotected if not changed? And how can sex be a protected characteristic for Joan but not for John?
  5. Law cannot house within itself two fundamental human identities. They will at some point come into conflict with each other, leaving only one of them fundamental. Said differently, the state cannot simultaneously protect objectivity and subjectivity. (As a practical example, we cannot reserve some female loos for the female sex while opening up some other female loos to anybody.)
  6. The problem is brought into focus by observing that we protect sex (objective) from gender and gender (subjective) from sex. As such, sex and gender cannot simultaneously be (i) protected and (ii) protected from each other. Parliament is not in the luxurious have-your-cake-and-eat-it position of being able to create a legal environment capable of accommodating sex and gender. No, Parliament must choose: sex or gender. If it plumps for gender, everybody’s subjective identity will be protected.
  7. The more revealing perspective comes from looking through the other end of the telescope: law will no longer protect the objective physical reality of embodied identity. The disturbing outcome of declaring gender self- chosen and superior to sex, then, is the ejection from law of the body—downgrading everybody from somebody to somemind. Yes, the words sex and gender will continue to feature in the Equality Act, but sex will be just another name for gender. Which is insane. For the transgendered, gender will be protected as gender re- assignment, while for cisgender folk gender will be protected as sex.
  8. Parliament will have silently amended the Equality Act.


  1. Gender (AKA sex) will then exist in the form of an active legal denial of (actual) sex. This unnoticed truth is easily illustrated. Just imagine you say to me: “Your name is Damian.” What you are unavoidably also saying is: “Your name is not Daniel.” But it is. Likewise, in insisting I am a gender, the state will unavoidably also be insisting I am not a sex. But I am. Here in reality I will continue to be sexed but law will no longer fit my body, nor anybody else’s—be they male, female, adult or child.
  2. Further to this denial of sex, we should observe the switch from body to mind does something other than change one area of law. Consider: all laws have something in common (they govern persons) and all persons have something in common (they are sexed). Now combine the two considerations: in ejecting sex, we change the legal understanding of what it means to be a person. Thus, we can without exaggeration say the ejection changes every law.
  3. That does not mean the state is required to, say, raise (or lower) taxes. But it does mean the state will need to consider tax to be something paid by people who are one or more of potentially an infinite number of genders, rather than one of two sexes. Areas of law relating directly to sexual difference must fall away, hence this anti- body ideology manifesting itself most acutely in sex-specific contexts—third-person pronoun use, sex-separated spaces, the status of family bonds, etc.
  4. A straightforward way to illustrate the self-defeating nature of the switch is to imagine the state sends me a census form. It is reasonable for law to require me to indicate my sex, and at a push a case can be made for asking me to give both my sex (fact) and my gender (opinion). But it makes no sense to ask for gender alone. Why? Because the returned form will indicate an opinion without indicating whose opinion it is—”This person thinks this person is X.” But who is “this person”? The form does not say! In which case, why bother sending it to me? And why should I bother to return it?
  5. Sex only? Yes. Sex and gender? Maybe, if gender is considered inferior to sex. But gender only? Impossible. The switch will see us enter a new legal paradigm. Within a post-sex legal environment our laws will be correct in terms of a false, disembodied version of mankind and incorrect in terms of true, embodied mankind. In making us strangers to law the switch will bring about a reciprocal effect, making law a stranger to us, plunging the nation into something like a state of sensory deprivation, wherein, by force of law, everybody’s mind will need to make everybody’s body disappear—up to and including his or her own.
  6. Seeking as it does to hide the body, such a project can only ever be entirely illegitimate. Law will mock the body. In turn, the very existence of the human body will make a mockery of law. Every law will be a lie.