UK MP, Nick Fletcher caused a stir during a Westminster Hall debate, encouraging parents to ‘push back’ if their child claims to be non-binary.
Fletcher addressed parents, saying: “If their child comes home with those concerns, they should talk to them but be strong. They should not ever give in to them or to peer pressure from other adults. Their child was born either a boy or a girl”.
He emphasised: “I believe that making non-binary a legal identity, and having an acceptance that that is an easy path to take, will have hugely detrimental effects on many young people, when I know as a certain fact that they are not old enough or mature enough to make that decision and understand the long-term and life-changing consequences.”
Fletcher continued: “If children say that they are unhappy, think for a second about how unhappy they will be when their best friend is having a child and they cannot; when their best friends are dressing up beautifully and they are having to shave.”
Another MP, Miriam Cates also came out as gender critical saying “in this country our law is based on facts, evidence and material reality; it should not be used to embed contested and unevidenced ideologies that can sometimes be harmful”.
She remarked: “Let us remember the ultimate consequences of transition: infertility and loss of sexual function for life; and for girls, permanent facial hair, a deep voice, male pattern baldness and lifelong health problems.
“This is a failure of safeguarding. It is not biology; it is ideology, and in many cases it is indoctrination.”
The MP concluded: “To recognise non-binary as a gender identity in statute would be a mistake, separating law from reality and putting vulnerable children at risk.”
Binary spokeswoman, Kirralie Smith, said more public figures need to speak out.
“It is fantastic that these two MP’s have spoken out. Their statements are logical, reasonable and factual,” she said.
“This is exactly the kind of conversation that is needed in Australia. Politicians and other public figures must be able to share facts without threat of cancellation or intimidation.
“Our children deserve this debate to ensure they are treated respectfully without threat from activists who want to indoctrinate them and expose them to treatments that cause irreversible harm.”