This is an article about the power of language in the transgender debate, about how the trans agenda has been advanced by the skilful capture of language, and about a government minister who has rejected that capture in favour of facts.
It’s a bit complicated, so bear with me while I try to explain a slightly technical legal thing. It’s also based on a debate that happened in Parliament last week, but which I’ve only just had time to read in full. Sorry.
Anyway, this is about what happens when a person who is married changes their gender in law. Let’s say that person – Alex – was born male, grew to manhood and married a woman, Sue. Let’s say that in his 50s, Alex took steps to change his legal gender to be recognised as a woman.
What happens to the marriage between those two people? Well, all else being equal, that marriage would continue and Sue would now find herself married to someone who was, in law, female.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in