My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Repeal the GRA

91 replies

alexpolistigers · 21/06/2018 15:24

The more I read about it, the more I am convinced that the best solution is to repeal the GRA.

  • Gender critical women are not happy with it
  • Trans people are not happy with it
  • Ordinary people with no skin in the game think it is nonsense.

    It seems to me that it is a badly-thought-out piece of legislation. It has created a legal fiction that people can change sex, ludicrous from a biological point of view, and it is badly misunderstood and wilfully misinterpreted. I think we need to start again from scratch.
OP posts:
UpstartCrow · 21/06/2018 15:27

If a characteristic such as gender presentation was in the Equality Act and did not conflict with biological sex, it could replace the GRA.

That would be the fairest solution all round; so call me an old cynic but I dont believe its the one we'll end up with.

PermissionToSpeakSir · 21/06/2018 15:32

Also the GRA was 'sneaked' in with little public discussion or consideration of its impact on the rights of other groups at the time.

Now that gay/lesbian couples can get married, it is not needed any more and the only purpose it serves is to give a minority of people a legal free pass to ignore other peoples boundaries, consent and rights - which is unethical and, of course, hits women and girls the hardest.

invisibleoldwoman · 21/06/2018 15:35

"Now that gay/lesbian couples can get married, it is not needed any more and the only purpose it serves is to give a minority of people a legal free pass to ignore other peoples boundaries, consent and rights - which is unethical and, of course, hits women and girls the hardest."

Exactly. It is the protections for women in the Equality Act that need strengthening.

LoudTrousers · 21/06/2018 15:35

Legal fiction.

Artemis7 · 21/06/2018 16:56

I agree, the GRA needs to go, it was sneaked in, and gives males the right to violate females boundaries. It is not a ‘right’ they should ever have. It should be repealed, and either a new sex discrimination act should be passed, which also makes it illegal to discriminate against someone due to how they dress etc, which I think would be ideal. Or the GRA needs repealing, and the EA needs to be completely overhauled to protect sex based rights, which includes presentation, while doing away with all the nonsense that relates to the GRA. I think it is going to take a lot of lobbying to repeal the GRA and re-establish proper sex based discrimination laws, but it must be done.

I think more women need to become aware of what the GRA actually means, i.e. that a male does not need full surgery to legally change sex, and the impact that has on females rights. If they become aware and support repealing the GRA, then politicians would not be able to stay silent. The problem is, at present only a small percentage of women are aware of what the GRA allows, and its negative impact on females. Most women (if they are aware of the GRA at all) think the GRA only covers males who have had full surgery, and are not aware of how this effects them, more need to become aware, so that we have the numbers to fight for its repeal, in my opinion.

Those who sneaked the GRA though have been spewing propaganda out since day one, so few women are aware of the facts, I think the focus should be on countering that propaganda. The problem is it is not easy when the mainstream media and many politicians support this sexist law, and won’t allow the truth to be circulated to the public at large.

ChickenMe · 21/06/2018 17:25

When I found out you could get a GRC and keep your winkle I completely thought the whole thing should just be scrapped. It's ridiculous

loveyouradvice · 21/06/2018 17:45

My understanding of the GRC is that it was recognised as a "work-around" when it was written - I don't have the references but know someone posted the published discussions at the time - which included that because they estimated only 4,000 or so would be eligible, the impact would be small and "absorbed" easily I think was the phrase used?

Someone more knowledgeable than me, able to hop onboard?

My challenge is understanding how a piece of legislation for a specific purpose for a very small number of people which has "worked" for them has now been coopted by a much larger number to claim "it isn't working for us, the community it was designed for" and e listened to!!!! It was never for you in the first place, is clearly an anachronistic piece of legistlation (re same sex marriage).... How is everyone so happy to polish it up and represent it as a "law for today"?

I just don't get it - obviously I don't get the "self-identify" - but even excluding that, do the law- makers not understand what it was designed for and how it is now irrelevant?

CuriousaboutSamphire · 21/06/2018 17:46

And just think...if the more recent overt TRA actions had never taken place we wouldn't really know much about it. It would have remained, much unknown and wholly unquestioned.


An own goal, perhaps!

massivelyouting · 21/06/2018 17:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

massivelyouting · 21/06/2018 17:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OldCrone · 21/06/2018 18:04

I think more women need to become aware of what the GRA actually means, i.e. that a male does not need full surgery to legally change sex, and the impact that has on females rights.

The case in the European Court of Human Rights which led to the GRA involved a transsexual (born male) who had had full surgery and wanted the right to marry a man. Now that we have equal marriage rights for same sex couples, there would be no violation of human rights, with respect to the right to marry, if the individual could not change legal sex.

The other violation was to do with the right to change documentation following full surgery. People who have had full surgery and live full-time as their acquired sex are in a fairly strange situation if they appear to be one sex but all their documents are in the other. But apart from their birth certificate all other documents can be changed without a GRC, so again, the GRA is redundant.

mancheeze · 21/06/2018 18:37

Judges in USA are claiming that gender presentation is covered by Title IX, which is nonsense. They are also claiming that 'sex' in Title IX doesn't mean biological sex, even though Title IX explicitly refers to MALE AND FEMALE. So be careful what terms you introduce into law.

I think the entire GRA has to go as well. FYI

Bottom line is that sex based spaces must NEVER be compromised by gender identity and the surrounding terms referring to gender.

There is a case I'm about to research where a woman was fired because she didn't perform femininity. The Judge claimed it was 'gender presentation' discrimination under Title VII and subsequently Title IX. As you can see, a case can be made that sex discrimination occured because she was female but by using gender presentation it opened the door to trans being allowed into opposite sexed spaces.

Artemis7 · 21/06/2018 20:37

OldCrone , Yes my family member (who is a lawyer, but doesn’t work on cases such as this) said now that same sex marriage is legal the GRA could be challenged on the grounds that it is redundant. Personally I don’t think people should be permitted to legally change their sex, even if they have had cosmetic surgery to be honest. The reason is it can then open it up for males to gain the right to enter females spaces, participate in female sports, have their stats included within females etc, which I do not think should be permitted. There are also cases of males who have had full surgery now claiming to be ‘lesbian women’ and speaking on behalf of lesbians. None of these things should be legal in my opinion and need opposing. The fact that they can change their sex on documents without even using the GRA also needs to go. Those who wish to have or have had surgeries (for whatever reason) have to accept the limitations of those surgeries in my opinion. Those who do not wish to infringe on females rights won’t push themselves into female spaces and initiatives designed to address sexism, or call themselves ‘lesbian women’ etc., so any law that forbids those things should not really impact them.

Mancheese that is interesting. I think maybe using the word ‘stereotypes’ could avoid the muddle. For example, everyone should be protected from discrimination due to their sex, regardless of any stereotypical apparel they choose to wear or not. It really needs to be made explicitly clear that a male wearing a dress, make-up etc, should not experience discrimination in work, employment etc, due to not following stereotypes associated with males. However, it does not entitle him to force others to pretend he is a female, or entitle him to use spaces, initiatives, etc, reserved for females.

The problem in my opinion is those that benefit from sexism (and the accompanying stereotypes), do not really want it to be eliminated, instead they just want to pay lip-service to opposing it. That includes judges, who will interpret the law in whatever way reenforces sexism and stereotypes, which I think is why we get the results you highlight. I think we must make the law very clear, in order to prevent them from twisting it to their own ends, and circumventing females rights.

bd67th · 21/06/2018 21:31

Mancheeze, we had two similar cases here: the PWC temp receptionist who was fired for refusing to wear heels, and a Harrods worker who was harassed out for refusing to wear makeup.

bd67th · 21/06/2018 21:41

I'm increasingly also drawn to the repeal stance. The law we needed, and should have had passed in 2004, was the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which would have granted marriage to ALL same-sex couples, not just couples where one partner is trans. I wonder why Whittle and Burns didn't fight for that?

jgrobinson · 21/06/2018 21:47

The GRA was intended to cover a tiny minority: 5,000 people was mentioned in the parliamentary debates.

To this point 4,850 GRCs have been issued. So it's served its purpose.

I would support ending the GRC system to new applicants while keeping the rights that the existing-GRC-holders have acquired. (It's interesting how most transactivists have deliberately not acquired a GRC, at least that's my impression.)

Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights holds that it's a human right to change sex, and so this is impossible in the foreseeable future.

bd67th · 21/06/2018 21:54

European Court of Human Rights holds that it's a human right to change sex

How can it be a human right to do the impossible?

massivelyouting · 21/06/2018 21:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChattyLion · 21/06/2018 22:14

I agree GRA is an anachronism. GRC system seems inherently flawed. if you can’t ever ask to see a GRcert what is the point it just eroded trust that it can’t ever be requested in a relevant circumstance.
i had expected GRC to be some kind of a public identity document- but it seems more like a small part of a very obscure outdated complex legal paperwork mechanism.

BettyDuMonde · 21/06/2018 22:29

Oooh. If I'd seen this before I would've posted my oddysey here instead of starting a thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3285204-The-New-Equality-Act-according-to-Betty-2018-what-do-yall-think

I absolutely agree that the GRA and the Equality Act need to be reformed together, one without the other won't work.

Bespin · 21/06/2018 22:30

Chatty you are exactly right when you say it's a small part of a very obscure outdated complex legal paperwork mechanism.
That is exactly. What the GRC is its a legal. Way to work people who don't fit into the binary system into the system but only for those wishing. To stay within that system but change gender which legally in a lot of cases was not. Recognised only. Sex on birth certificate is so the easiest and probably cheapest way was to fudge the system so that we fit it and not. To actually. Change the system. This was done with some compromises that were argued by gender critical. People at the time some of who. Work for the civil service. No. One at the time agreed it was perfect but it was all that could be achieved to solve the number of. Court cases that had prompted the UK. Government to resolve this after dragging it's feet for a number of years.

QuarksandLeptons · 21/06/2018 23:15

Thanks for the Parliament link massivelyouting
It’s remarkable that so many groups rights were deliberated on at length but the effect on the safe guarding on women and children was not even touched upon.

The section which documents the debate on whether religious groups should be allowed to make a consciencious objection on the inclusion of transsexuals was very interesting.

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/may/25/religion

One MP actually brought up an example of whether a ladies prayer group who discussed intimate things may feel uncomfortable if they could be forced legally to accept a male person.
He said that there had been a recent case where just that had happened and the transsexual person had tried to sue a church. BBC allude to it here:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1765935.stm

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

QuarksandLeptons · 21/06/2018 23:29

It’s very clear reading through the various politicians comments that they are unclear and uneducated about what they are discussing. One politician seems to think transsexuals (transgender wasn’t used as the description) are intersex, another seemed to believe the unscientific assertion of being born in the wrong body.

One very good quote though:

“In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, when a Member of the other place, said that a Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman and a woman a man. Parliament is doing precisely that today. That is why this is an important legal landmark.”

jgrobinson · 21/06/2018 23:38

ECHR French case 2017
making recognition of the sexual identity of transgender persons conditional on undergoing an operation or sterilising treatment to which they did not wish to submit amounted to making the full exercise of one’s right to respect for private life conditional on relinquishing full exercise of the right to respect for one’s physical integrity.

massively outing
Does this not mean that article 8 gives anyone the right to have their (new) "sexual identity" recognized in law?
Now the ECHR does allow the state to impose some administrative process to gain recognition, though that must not require medical treatment.

OldCrone · 22/06/2018 00:19

It’s very clear reading through the various politicians comments that they are unclear and uneducated about what they are discussing. One politician seems to think transsexuals (transgender wasn’t used as the description) are intersex, another seemed to believe the unscientific assertion of being born in the wrong body.

Despite all the media coverage now, I imagine a lot of people, politicians included, still know very little about this issue. Until quite recently, I thought that transgender meant transsexual, and the majority would have had surgery, or been intending to do so. I don't think most people know that that is not the case. Intersex is often conflated with trans, often deliberately, to make various arguments more compelling.

None of this is helped by the fact that MPs in general seem to have a very poor grasp on anything scientific, so are more likely to swallow the 'born in the wrong body' line.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.