Thread by @Resjudicatamyft

There’s a problem with Adam’s podcast conversation with Christine Burns. Why? Christine Burns MBE is a prominent trans rights activist, Adam is a barrister specialising in human rights. That sounds like a good match. And it’s his podcast. So, what’s the problem? 1.

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1464138437787803648

Here is a transcript of a short section [3 minutes 46 seconds] of this long conversation of some 86 minutes duration. Note the sentence in bold. From the context, Ms Burns is referring not to all “people”, but to “trans people”. 2.

It seems fair to say that in this transcribed part of the conversation, at least, an activist who is not legally trained is giving a barrister who is, a law lecture within his subject area (human rights), & that she’s not challenged by him on its content. 3.

What is the effect? I contend the effect is that Adam’s listeners must, unless they know different, naturally conclude that what Ms Burns says must be true. And that’s a problem if what she says is false. The public understanding of these complex matters...well...it matters. 4.

This thread is about the claim Christine Burns makes in bold. Here it is again: “Before Corbett, as we said, you know, people were able to change their birth certificate as well.” But it’s also about Ms Burns, & trans activism too. 5.

The claim is astonishing. Yet its astonishing nature did not, (I could not see them) appear to raise so much as a barrister’s eyebrow. Yet if it were true, wouldn’t our social & legal history be different? Perhaps the landmark judgment in Corbett should not have been possible. 6.

Ms Burns’ claim is a legal one. If she’s right, it would be true that there used to be a lawful means for trans people to change (the term “correct” is often used) the sex shown on their birth certificates and that this was swept away as a result of the judgment in Corbett. 7.

In Corbett, the trans woman, April Ashley lost the case brought by her husband to annul their marriage on the grounds that she was male. Ms Ashley had previously failed, according to the judgment, “to persuade the superintendent registrar to change her birth certificate.” 8.

Any right that might have existed for trans people to lawfully change the sex on their birth certificates would have disappeared after Corbett. Only following the case of Goodwin, ECHR, 2002, which paved the way for the Gender Recognition Act, 2004, (GRA), did this change. 9.

But activists are unhappy with rights conferred on trans people by the GRA & subsequent amendments. Ms Burns believes “the Gender Recognition Act was incredibly narrowly cast as a means to formularise (sic) how to change a birth certificate.” See also: 10.
vice.com/en/article/neg…

There are three on point UK cases at the European Court of Human Rights we could refer to, post Corbett, pre Goodwin, in order to make sense of this matter: Rees v UK, 1986, Cossey v UK, 1990 & Sheffield & Horsham v UK, 1998. 11.

A summary of the outcomes of the cases of Rees & Cossey is provided by @ECHR_CEDH. 12.

I will discuss UK government submissions in Sheffield & Horsham v UK. 13.

Note, in England & Wales, the relevant legislation is: Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953. Ms Burns’s claim with regard to the change of “those other documents” is broadly substantiated. Note the position with regard to the two applicants. 14.

“...in England and Wales, the birth certificate constitutes a document revealing not current identity, but historical facts.” 15.

“...no error is accepted to exist in the birth entry of a person who undergoes medical and surgical treatment to enable that person to assume the role of the opposite sex". Note “...the practice of the Registrar General is to use exclusively the biological criteria.” 16.

Corrections are possible “in cases of a clerical error, or where the apparent and genital sex of the child was wrongly identified or in case of biological intersex, ie cases in which the biological criteria are not congruent...it is necessary to adduce medical evidence..” 17.

“The Applicants alleged that there have been previous cases where an entry in the birth register has been amended by reason of gender reassignment surgery.” But this was refuted by the government. 18.

“...the Registrar General was satisfied (on the medical evidence then available) that an error had been made at the time when the birth was registered, and that at the date of birth the child was not of the sex that had been registered.” 19.

“The principles applied...have remained the same, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN [CORBETT]. Prior to that decision, the Registrar had rejected a large number of applications by transsexuals for alteration of their birth certificate.” 20.

So, it was not, in fact, lawful in England & Wales, prior to the judgment in Corbett, for trans people, pre or post operatively, to change their birth certificates. Corbett didn’t change law in this regard. It was already law. 21.

Here are the submission references & the ECHR case summary of Sheffield & Horsham. 22.

Thread will continue after a short hiatus with a consideration of the situation in Scotland & will go on to discuss other matters. 23.

In Scotland, the applicable legislation was: Registration of Birth, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854, Section 63. A curious Scottish law case (Forbes-Sempill), which has been a staple source of trans activist claims for twenty five years, is doing the rounds again. 24.

Ewan Forbes-Sempill, christened Elizabeth & registered female at birth in 1912, corrected his birth certificate in 1952, changed his name to Ewan, and lawfully married a woman, Isabella Mitchell, a month later. 25.

He was next in line to inherit a baronetcy under the male right of primogeniture, but upon the death of his brother in 1965, his cousin John challenged his right, on the grounds that he was really a woman, despite what his birth certificate now said. 26.

A joint petition was brought under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933. 27.

After substantial submissions following extensive medical examinations and tests, Lord Hunter denied the petition of John. Ewan was subsequently confirmed in his title by the Home Secretary on advice from the Lord Advocate. 28.

Importantly, from the opinion, we learn how Sir Ewan Forbes-Sempill obtained his corrected birth certificate - because he “had been found on medical examination to be male.” 29.

Lord Hunter says: “Taking all the criteria together it is my opinion that the Second Petitioner (Ewan) is a true hermaphrodite in whom male sexual characteristics predominate, and that this has been the position throughout his life.” 30.

Hunter differentiates between “the intersex conditions...[and]...those suffering from sexual aberrations or deviations, such as certain transsexuals...” 31.

He finds then, that Ewan Forbes-Sempill is, to use the term referenced in the government’s submissions in Horsham, “biologically intersex”. And that he was always male, as an historical fact. Note Hunter’s contextual reference to “a spectrum” as an account of hermaphroditism. 32.

Rachel Horsham used Forbes-Sempill in her own submissions to the European Court of Human Rights in her case. It didn’t help her cause. 33.

There was no evidence from science that the law in these jurisdictions at this time regarded as persuasive, to change its settled determination that sex was to be understood in biological terms and fixed at birth. Ormrod, the judge in Corbett added, “at the latest”. 34.

Since a birth certificate was a record of facts established at birth, recorded shortly after birth, there could be no lawful facility for trans people to change the sex on their birth certificates, because the only grounds available were that facts had subsequently changed. 35.

And, as we know, Ormrod’s reference to “a mistake”, had no bearing on the claims of trans people, but was concerned only with people who are intersex. 36.

The term “intersex” is now sometimes used as a “catch-all” term to describe up to some 40 conditions under the umbrella of “DSD” (Differences of Sexual Development). 37.

nhs.uk/conditions/dif…

dsdfamilies.org

The distinction between trans & intersex is recognised by “@stonewalluk, [who]...does not, after discussions with members of the intersex community, include intersex issues as part of its current remit at this stage.” 38.

stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/fa…

But some trans activists conflate the notion of being trans with an intersex condition. 39.

https://twitter.com/zoeplaydon/status/1459255907762814976?s=21

Continues...40.

But they must not be conflated. 41.

In 1957, after Forbes had corrected his birth certificate but before his baronetcy dispute, another case in Scotland was settled in the same way. In “X petr”, a trans woman was denied the right to change her birth certificate. (1957, Scottish Law Times, Sheriff Court Report). 42.

Dr Leslie-Anne Barnes Macfarlane discussed the three cases of X petr, Forbes-Sempill & Corbett in the Edinburgh Law Review. The precedent set by Corbett would be unaffected by consideration of the preceding two cases in “endorsing a medical sex-determination approach”. 43.

But trans activism has appropriated Ewan Forbes as a trans man, despite the law having said decisively that he was not one, & despite his family’s distress that his life is now being used for ideological reasons. They felt compelled to issue a statement to Wikipedia. 44.

A preposterous & shameful book was recently published by @BloomsburyBooks in the U.K. & @ScribnerBooks in the USA. In “The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes”, @zoeplaydon misuses the case to advance a conspiracy theory of an establishment cover up to deny rights to trans people. 45.

It makes multiple false claims about history, law, medicine & biology, and it brings the UK unfairly into disrepute. Here’s a flavour: 46.

The former lawyer @mrsSkys had this to say: 47.

https://twitter.com/mrsskys/status/1463985848282664964?s=21

And @queenchristina_ & @sarahditum highlighted some of the more offensive comparisons the author makes. 48.

Christine Burns was allowed to review the book for @TheTLS on a page headed “Law”. She’s not a lawyer. At the foot of the review, she’s described as a “trans community historian”. But on this evidence she doesn’t know much about history. 49.

the-tls.co.uk/articles/hidde…

The book also promotes the claim that prior to Corbett, trans people could change their birth certificates. Ms Burns’ review has no literary, historical or legal merit. The lack of relevant disclosure by @TheTLS is scandalous. Why? 50.

Because Zoe Playdon & Christine Burns are activist colleagues in “Press for Change” & connected via @lynnejones_exMP by the “Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism”. cc. @CatharineMorris 51.

voicesandvisibility.org.uk/timeline/chris…

Another related activist is “Press for Change” co-founder & academic lawyer @stephenwhittle. It is notable that neither Jones or Whittle have yet referred to Playdon’s book on twitter, or anywhere in public I’ve noticed, let alone endorsed it. 52.

But Helena Kennedy, Baroness of the Shaws QC (coincidentally, she & Adam are members of the same chambers), endorsed the book as “A landmark work of history, law and social change”. Kennedy can’t have read it before endorsing it. And she’s got form.

53.

https://twitter.com/drmatthewsweet/status/1357987121508802560?s=21

Trans activists are invited to vouch for the claims of their colleagues in serious publications & an impartial critical examination of these claims, generally, is avoided in the media, perhaps because of political sensitivity. It’s an unwelcome development in our culture. 54.

And @AdamWagner1, a decent & sympathetic fellow, has treated his public conversation with an experienced media savvy activist with an agenda, more like a private fireside chat with a trusted friend. “I’m a long term admirer of your work”, he tells her at the beginning. 55.

But Christine Burns is, arguably, one of the UK’s most astute political operators, within an extensive & well organised network of similar operators. The history of her decades long activism begins when Adam was in primary school.

There are rights based counter-arguments. 56.

And, right on cue, to confirm the extensive connected nature of this activist network, here is Christine Burns again, after the podcast, extracting the maximum political capital from Adam’s kindly indulgence, to endorse Zoe Playdon’s propaganda. 57.

https://twitter.com/christineburns/status/1464972240865398787?s=21

Remember this from the transcript at the start of this long thread? “So, it was only the birth certificate. I don’t think we’ve had time in this show to really explore. Before Corbett, as we said, you know, people were able to change their birth certificate as well.” 58.

“Adam and me” 59.

https://twitter.com/christineburns/status/1465234857345404930?s=21

“Christine is the star” “team effort” 60.

In conclusion, perhaps Adam might consider having an intersex advocate on his podcast. People with intersex/DSD conditions could benefit from the attentions of a human rights lawyer with a public profile. 61.

And it seems to me that the debunking of the activist myth that trans people & intersex people are the same, would be a public service. 62/ends.