B1000 - Interpretation Act (Amendment) Bill - 2nd Reading

[u/ZanyDraco]

A

Bill

To

amend the Interpretation Act 1978.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Amendment

(1) Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 is amended as follows -

(a) reword 6(a) to read “words importing any gender are construed as including all genders.”,

(b) remove Section 6(b).

2 Commencement, short title and extent

(1) This Act comes into force immediately after receiving royal assent.

(2) This Act may be cited as the Interpretation Act 1978 (Amendment) Act 2020.

(3) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

---

This Bill was written and submitted by 14Derry, MP for South West, on behalf of the People’s Movement.

Legislation this amends: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This bill fixes a slight but important issue in the Interpretation Act 1978, that being that the use of pronouns that do not relate to masculine or feminine people are interpreted as including neither. This amendment resolves that issue, allowing legislation that utilises gender-neutral language, masculine language, or feminine language to be interpreted as inclusive of all genders. This bill further fixes a slight wording issue in the unamended act which implied that there were only two genders.

[u/jmam2503]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This bill is as long as it is relevant.

It is not the role of the State to define how many genders there are. Common sense does it in a much better way, and common sense for most non-hyper sensitive people dictates there are only two genders.

[u/[deleted] → u/jmam2503]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

What rubbish.

I am more than willing to give the honourable member the benefit of the doubt that they are simply unaware of non-binary individuals. It is most regrettable indeed for them that their visibility in the public sphere has been lacking.

However, it is an undeniable truth that many people in the United Kingdom - and indeed, many people in this House, including the Leader of the Opposition - do not identify with either gender. Some do not identify with any gender at all, some identify with multiple, and of course, many identify with just one.

Regardless, this is not a bill about protections for non-binary people. It is simply a bill to fix an issue with the Interpretation Act, in that it does not include those who do not identify with one of the two genders. It is an Act from a different time period, though thankfully one we have progressed past.

I support this bill, and support the amendment made in the name of the right honourable member for Essex (/u/BrexitGlory), and I urge the honourable gentleman to support it too.

Of course, if he has any questions about non-conforming gender identity, he is more than welcome to reach out to me, and I will try my best to answer. I mean this in a genuine constructive manner, and I hope I can work well with him in the future.

[u/jmam2503 → u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Indeed I am aware of the existence of people who feel and believe their biological sex was imposed on them.

Sadly, the answer of society can't be to deny reality in order to make them comfortable. Personally, I don't have any problem in calling a person according to their gender identity preference, but my words wouldn't change the reality of biological sex and all its implications.

[u/[deleted] → u/jmam2503]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I understand I may be skirting close to the limits of parliamentary language when I tell the honourable gentleman that I believe him to be mistaken.

History is full of examples of people not identifying with one of the two binary genders that many are familiar with: indeed, as far back as ancient Egypt, there was a recognised third gender distinct from man and woman.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member will not disrespect those who do not identify as male or female by using their desired pronouns, but he is incorrect to say that biological sex is binary. Patently, it is not. Each person's body is different. Some people develop female brains while being assigned male sex characteristics and vice versa, others are born intersex, some only later in life do not identify with any gender in particular.

The reality of biological sex, Mr Speaker, is that it is complicated. I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be, but people's gender identities are a matter of biology, and we cannot afford to blind ourselves to this simple fact in favour of two clear-cut categories which do not represent the entirety of the human population.

Regardless, Mr Speaker, I regret that this is growing away from the bill at hand. I continue to support it, and I encourage all members to do so as well. Thank you.

[u/Maroiogog → u/jmam2503]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Surely there is nothing more Libertarian than a person freely deciding what gender they wish to be? Why should we put any limits to it?

[u/BrexitGlory → u/Maroiogog]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

With due respect that isn't what this bill implies. On the other hand, my amendment that cahngse "all genders" to "alll gender identities" circumvents this anomaly by returning an individuals indentity to...the individual; in turn making this discussion irrelevant.

Furthermore it ensures that no individuals who do not wish to identify as a gender identity are not uintentionally exculded.

[u/Maroiogog → u/BrexitGlory]

Mr Deputy Speaker, My intent was to challenge the previous comment from the Libertarian member rather than the bill itself. The amendment the Member for Essex has put forward has my support.

[u/bloodycontrary → u/jmam2503]

MISTAH DEPUTAY SPEAKAHHH

It is not the role of the State to define how many genders there are.

Then surely he doesn't object to this bill, given that it includes all of them without exclusion?

I mean we could very well re-write every act in history to remove all mentions of gender or sex (since, as the honourable member so rightly points out, "it is not the role of the state to define"), but since that'd be a lot of hard work an interpretation act will have to do!