Apart from the sex-by-deception case that’s in court again this week, there’s another sex-related case doing the rounds of the internet at the moment. I find this one very interesting for the liberal dilemma that it raises, being the case of the man “banned” by the court from having sex (The Telegraph) because his IQ is “too low”.

Firstly, let’s refer to the exact court report to clear up a few bits that have been misreported elsewhere. Most notably, he appears to be bisexual, not gay, but towards the homosexual end of the spectrum. Secondly, it’s not specifically his IQ that’s discussed beyond the opening paragraphs but more his inability to understand the consequences (Health risks and pregnancy) of his actions. The judge himself notes that 0.5% of the population have an IQ that’s 50 or below (In this case, his IQ is 48) which equates to quarter of a million adults. I hope we’re not about to try to stop quarter of a million people having sex, even if it was possible to do so.

And finally, the order is merely to leave existing restrictions in place for six months while sex education is organised.

Although it’s not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I regard reproduction as a fairly basic human right. If we consider it otherwise, we’re crossing a dangerous line into eugenics such as the forced sterilization carried out in Australia and other countries. You can probably already tell from my choice of language that I don’t approve of such things. Control over ones own body is important and certainly an issue that the Trans community struggles with against those who think they know best.

The council are in a tight spot. If he was not being looked after full time by them, they would not have a duty of care towards him and it would not, from what I can see, be an issue. At least that means we don’t have to stop those other 249,999 people from also having sex. There is a separate problem that he’s unable to appreciate who it is and isn’t appropriate to approach for such things – it seems he’s not able to understand that children are off limits for example – but as he’s being closely supervised at the moment that doesn’t seem to be an immediate concern.

But they do have a duty of care and the court does conclude, rightly or wrongly, that he’s incapable of giving informed consent as he does not understand the risks or take appropriate precautions. (He was unable to demonstrate how to put a condom on a a fake penis) If he can’t give informed consent and the council permitted him to have sex while under their care, they’re possibly allowing an illegal act to take place.

They’re faced with the choice between violating what can be regarded as pretty basic rights or possibly allowing him to come to harm while in their care.

I think the judge came up with the right solution with the temporary restriction, merely because it may render a morally difficult question moot in teh longer term if the sex education is deemed successful. The psychological staff did not want to attempt this as they felt it unlikely to work and might just confuse and upset him. But a permanent ban could be seen as draconian and he’s expressed an interest in being allowed to have sexual relations again.

The new police rules on searching anyone Trans, “Annex F”, that I wrote about at the weekend were up for discussion in parliament yesterday. LibDem MP Julian Huppert was kind enough to question the Minister about the topic, even though the minister did not mention Annex F at all in his opening statements.

The debate is online both in video format (The section on Annex F starts around 15:21) and in text format. (This link may become outdated as it’s the rapidly-prepared text version, I shall update it when the permanent version is available.

Here’s what Dr Huppert said on the topic, edited for length:

There is an assumption in the code that gender is binary, and that what must be done is to establish the person’s gender. However, there are a number of intersex conditions, for example, and people who would describe themselves as being somewhere between male and female, which is increasingly recognised in various bits of official documentation.

Surely we are not actually interested in establishing gender. As the police said last night, we are interested in establishing the gender of the officer who should search them; we do not actually care to categorise that person by gender. I am also interested in how much consultation there was on the measures with groups that represent people from the transgender community. I suspect, from the people to whom I have spoken, that there was little.

To go through the details, annex F3 looks at gender recognition certificates. A person who possesses a gender recognition certificate must be treated as their acquired gender. That is very clear, but there is an issue, because the current training provided—certainly to the British Transport police and to the Metropolitan police—specifically states that a gender recognition certificate should not be asked for. … Under paragraph 3(c) of annex F, rather than asking them what preference they have and how they should be dealt with, it would be simpler to ask who should deal with them, which I think would be a better approach.

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it an offence to disclose information about gender recognition certificates, except in certain circumstances. There are cases of gender recognition certificates having been demanded inappropriately at various events; Pride was one example. I am worried that what is being said to police is that if they establish this, they should out the person with whom they are dealing to any other police officer who deals with them.

Finally, paragraph 7 of annex F explains what should be done when a person has elected which gender they consider themselves to be, but is not treated as being of that gender. There is nothing that I can see in the rest of the code—perhaps the Minister can point it out to me—that says what should be done when someone whose gender is very clear is not treated as being of that gender. Why are we saying that it is all right not to treat somebody who is transgender as being of the gender that they use to describe themselves?

Having made a number of criticisms of annex F, I should say that I am quite pleased to see that there is an annex F and that the issue has been taken seriously. I just wish that the final outcome had been more perfect.

And it seems that his remarks went down well with other MPs, as Labour’s David Lammy in the subsequent speech stated:

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge. I took the Gender Recognition Act 2004 through Parliament and it was there that I came across the transgender community and learned about the sensitivity of the issue and the discrimination that this small minority group faces in broader society. I hope that the Minister will answer all the questions that have been raised.

Unfortunately, the questions were not answered by Nick Herbert, Conservative Minister for Policing. My guess is that this was due to not having the information and not expecting any questioning on the topic until rather shortly before the meeting rather than any true reluctance:

[Dr Huppert] asked a number of detailed questions on annex F, which is designed to provide additional guidance to the police service on the conduct of searches involving members of the public who appear to be transsexual or transvestite persons. We consulted various lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.

My hon. Friend asked a number of other detailed questions, but I do not really have time to respond now. I am happy to write to him, but I hope that I can reassure him about how we have represented such a vulnerable section of the community.

I have a couple of issues with that. Mr Herbert states it is guidance on searches of people who appear to be Trans in some way. That’s not actually the title of the section, although it seems that about half way through the notes they change tack away from the “how to deal with someone of uncertain gender” towards “how to deal with trans people”. The former, more generalised approach seems more appropriate but the slip here may be revealing.

Secondly, they apparently consulted with “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups“. Regular readers of my witterings will know this sort of thing annoys me, because he’s saying that it’s likely they went to talk to some LGB organisation and the draft guidelines, which are near impossible to find, probably hadn’t seen a Trans person before this weekend. Dr Huppert described the paperwork as “not quite in the locked filing cabinet, and there was no sign on the door saying, Beware of the leopard, but it was tending in that direction” I hope he was merely giving a holding answer.

As far as I’m aware, the committee only had to look at and comment on the codes and had no power to approve or disapprove them, so there was never really any real chance of getting changes at this point. However, even if nothing comes of this particular exchange it’s cast some light on the issue and it should make ministers and officials increasingly aware of Trans issues, which is good in the long run.

The minister has promised to write to Dr Huppert with more details and if I’m able to get a copy of that response I shall be sure to pass it on.

Late last year, the police told MPs that they thought 10 year olds should be allowed firearms licences for all types of firearm, not just shotguns. Despite growing up in rural England, I’m not a fan of this position and personally I would not let my nearly 10-year-old daughter even handle my air rifle unsupervised, let alone something like a shotgun or rifle.

In fact, doing so would be illegal – You can now be prosecuted if an under-18-year-old gains unauthorised access to your air rifle (18 seems a little old given you’ll be trusted with a fully automatic 5.56mm rifle if you join the Army at 17!) and it’s been illegal for some time for an under-14-year-old to handle an air rifle without supervison.

Watching the video of the proceedings at the time, it seemed that MPs also thought this was an odd police position and even governmental policy is heading towards restricting children accessing firearms.

My gut feeling looks to have been correct as Labour MP Thomas Docherty has introduced a Firearms Amendment Bill to impose a minimum age limit of 14 on shotguns. Here’s what he had to say on the matter in parliament when introducing the bill last week:

At present there is no minimum age for possessing a shotgun licence. This is at odds with the legislation covering other firearms, where there is a minimum age of 14. According to figures that I obtained from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), almost 5,000 children in England and Wales possessed a licence to fire a shotgun. Of those 5,000 or so licences, 26 were issued to 10-year-olds, 72 to 11-year- olds, 134 to 12-year-olds and 231 to 13-year-olds.