Repeal the GRA

Resources typo

"Oh, it can. Nobody would have campaigned for it, if transactivists hadn't decided it wasn't enough. But a movement of trans extremists declared war on female spaces. So now we want them ALL back. Any law can be repealed. Any law can be amended."

The UK would have to pull out of the European Convention on Human Resources Rights and probably several UN treaties

Oh, it can. Nobody would have campaigned for it, if transactivists hadn't decided it wasn't enough. But a movement of trans extremists declared war on female spaces. So now we want them ALL back. Any law can be repealed. Any law can be amended.

"The earliest I know is Michael Dillon, changed from F to M in 1944."

Interesting. The didn't know there was any visibility on changes during the informal regime

Which means that the Gender Recognition Act cannot be repealed, nor can it be diluted.

Birth certificates were changed for over half a century before the GRA. The earliest I know is Michael Dillon, changed from F to M in 1944. Michael (née Laura) was the world's first transexual TIF and the UK's first transexual.

Hi CuriousaboutSamphire what snappity said is true it was only April. Ashley case in the 70s that altered this fact and the creation of the GRC was from the court cases that followed that challenged that decision the GRC is infact a culmination of outcomes from various high Court and European Court ruling that had overturned aspects of this original ruling.

Cos I wants it [stamps feet, crosses arms, pouts] !

Does this not mean that article 8 gives anyone the right to have their (new) "sexual identity" recognized in law?

I don’t get this. How does a ‘right to respect for private and family life’ lead to anyone having their ‘sexual identity’ recognized in law?

I agree that it should be scrapped.

Instead, gender non-conformists could be given protection to present/dress however they like without being discriminated against, but without telling the lie that humans can change sex.

DO you know Snappity You make these things up so often that I know assume that any 'fact' you type is false... so tell me.. how did that actually happen?

" 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."

No. For years and years people were able to correct the sex shown on their birth certificate. It was an informal arrangement. That changed in the 70s and a new, formal mechanism was needed. That was created by the Gender Recognition Act.

The nonsense is exposed when we look at why we classify by sex.
We classify by sex because of the physiological differences between males and female and the impacts these differences make.
It makes no sense to include anyone in the wrong category because that defeats the object of the classification.
By including males in the female sex category (and vice versa) the classification no longer is a sex based one.
The GRC changed what was a sex based classification to sex and gender dysphoria. Self ID would completely eradicate the classification by sex and replace it with an identity based classification. Regardless of how many people chose to get a GRC, their entitlement to do so would mean that sex would = identity.
Of course we will always be able to classify people by sex, we just might not be allowed to speak on it or act on it, which is the crazy part.

I completely agree with this. The law needs to strongly protect gender non-conforming people against discrimination. I would make gender non-conformity a protected characteristic. It doesn't need to pretend that people can change sex.

It also needs some definitions of sex and gender. Also needs to specifically point out that gender identity is entirely subjective and not possible to protect.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

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?