The States defeated a proposal from Deputy Yvonne Burford which would have required an anti-discrimination law to recognise biological sex as binary - male or female.
Deputy Burford's amendment was seconded by Deputy Andrea Dudley Owen. But it was lost by 23 votes to 10 after several deputies argued that the amendment was not the right way of settling controversial debates about definitions of biological sex and gender.
Deputy Burford was trying to amend a proposition put forward by the Committee for Employment & Social Security as part of a debate on how to deal with religion and sexual orientation in an anti-discrimination law which the Committee will present to the States next year.
The Committee defined sexual orientation as an attraction to "persons of the same sex; persons of a different sex; or persons of both the same sex and persons of a different sex".
Deputy Burford argued that the Committee's definition provided for more than two categories of biological sex - male and female - which she said was inaccurate.
“Sex is demonstrably binary and it does not exist on a spectrum,” said Deputy Burford.
“I asked the officers why they chose that wording and the answer I got, and I quote, was: 'I believe the reference to different sex rather than opposite sex may be to include protection for intersex people'."
Deputy Burford then explained in detail that intersex is a term which has since been dismissed and that DSD (differences in sex development) is now considered a more appropriate term.
“In biological terms, people with DSD are either a male or female. They are not a third sex. This is a law on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is based on sex, not on gender identity," she said.
“Everyone has a sex, even those who ascribe to having a gender identity, so everyone is covered on the basis of their sex without complicating it further."
Pictured: The alternative wording proposed in Deputy Yvonne Burford's defeated amendment (top) and the original wording proposed by the Committee for Employment & Social Security (bottom).
Deputy Burford's amendment would have changed the definition of sexual orientation to: "persons of the same sex; persons of the opposite sex; or persons of either sex".
In debate, Deputy Charles Parkinson was critical of the timing of the amendment, which he said was a distraction from the substance of the Committee's proposals.
“Deputy Burford clearly wants to make some point about how there are only two sexes and it is a binary choice,” said Deputy Parkinson.
“The point is we don’t need to go into all those definitions here and now. We are not discussing who the person is and we don’t really need to define who they are attracted to. All we really need to say is people should not be discriminated against for who they are attracted to.”
Deputy Tina Bury agreed that the amendment was taking debate too far away from its original purpose.
“It’s never about what it seems to be about and this is exactly one of those times," said Deputy Bury.
“Deputy Burford’s speech focused heavily on sex, not sexual orientation. This is what this amendment is surreptitiously asking you to do - decide, without any of the information or consultation that members need on this very complex subject.”
Pictured: Deputy Neil Inder, who said during debate on Deputy Burford's amendment that “we have moved away from gods and monsters and we do something called science".
But Deputy Neil Inder commended Deputy Burford’s bravery for raising such controversial and sensitive issues in the Assembly.
“In the end, I will go with the science," said Deputy Inder. "The real truth is the fear of the conversation. I can guarantee you that Deputy Burford is going to get torn apart on social media for even daring to bring this conversation up.
“Normally I would stand by her side to make a point. I think I know where this should go, but I think we should be obligated to have that conversation.”
Debate continues today on how to deal with religion and sexual orientation within an anti-discrimination law which, as directed by the States' Assembly, is currently being developed by the Committee for Employment & Social Security.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.