has anyone completed the GRA consultation from the perspective of thinking it should be repealed altogether?

I just finished filling it in.

I started to fill in the consultation last night. I wondered why I was getting frustrated with my own answers. That'll be the leading questions then

Thanks this thread is really helpful, I'll go back to the beginning and add a lot more thoughts/ context to my answers

It’s dead weird that a GRC means you get a reissued (essentially falsified) birth certificate.

No other changes to legal status get this treatment, new documents can make older ones irrelevant moving forward (a decree absolute beats an older marriage certificate in paperwork rock-paper-scissors) but they don’t actually rewrite the historical record.

I think it’s utterly bonkers that this ever came about, personally.

(Especially as it doesn’t mean much as a transman with a reissued ‘male’ birth certificate still can’t inherit the family title)

I specifically said in some of my responses that I thought the GRA should be repealed.

Specifically, in the section where the consultation asks about the applicant having to 'prove' they have 'lived in the preferred gender' I said that it was impossible to do this as a name change is not proof, and in fact it couldn't be proven because the only 'proof' is impossible to come by as you can't actually change sex.

I asked why it was needed any more given that there is now same sex marriage and civil partnership and GRA creates tension with rights in the Equality Act.

Why is sex (only) something you can legally change on all your documents via GRC when all the other protected characteristics you can’t legally change? Surely all should be up for change or none?

You can write in the box without ticking ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions, it will still be accepted.

However, there are still gaps in trans people's legal rights and protections

If some MP thinks this is true, then maybe they could state exactly what legal rights and protections trans people lack. Don't expect an answer from them, though, because trans people have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

The legal fiction of changing sex was solely to enable a homophobic government to get around discrimination in access to marriage. It was never intended to be exploited in this way.

There will never be sufficient boundaries in any GRC process to restrict it entirely to the genuinely nice, well intentioned and innocent. Any process can and will be exploited, any professional can be manipulated, there are already well known and shared scripts online as to what to say in appointments to tick the boxes and get what is wanted. As with any safeguarding practice, it cant be done on an individual basis.

So yes, I agree. The only way it makes sense is to enable anyone to express their gender any way they choose, and have the same legal protections around discrimination regarding gender non conforming as for any other protected characteristic. Emphasis being on the same. And remove any legal fiction or confusion that it is possible to change sex, that the word 'woman' or 'man' should be separated from biology, or that sex as a concept should be replaced by an internal sense of gender.

No I didn't..however I do think that maybe thats the best way. The two things it was made for...gay marriage and equal pension rights are universal now anyway. I think its bonkers to allow birth certificates to be changed too..as does my transsexual family member! She can't see why anyone would bother with it these days, she can understand when marriage was an issue, but its not now. Now its basically just creating a lie for the sake of creating a lie.

Though, I flip flop a bit on this as apparently it does help peoples dysphoria a lot,. Though I don't see how really as they are not going to be sat staring at their altered birth certificate that they know is altered every day.

Gender means masculine or feminine.

So a transwoman is an effeminate male, not a woman.

I asked about rights on a thread yesterday, but no one answered (I think the way I worded it might have come across as a bit goady, whereas it was a genuine question!)

Specifically, I was responding to this comment in an MPs reply to the OP of that thread and asking which rights and protections trans people did not have that everyone else does.

'The UK has made extraordinary progress in improving the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in recent years. However, there are still gaps in trans people's legal rights and protections and I believe more needs to be done to ensure people feel that the UK is a country in which identity is respected and supported.

I am genuinely interested so that I can word my consultation answers accordingly. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated

I think the right to change sex on birth certificate should be repealed.

I have mentioned that transgender people already have all the rights that other people have, so there is less need of the GRA now than there was in 2004. It's hidden in my fairly long reply to the last question - I might go back and state it a few more times as a response to any other question where it might fit.

Sorry that maybe doesn’t sound right, I mean we don’t identify our way into oppression, it’s not a choice it’s based on biology.

As I understand it obtaining a GRC gives you a new birth certificate with the sex changed. It changes an individual's legal sex, not their gender (I did point this out on the consultation).

right to marry --> equal marriage
pension rights --> equalised pension age this year
discrimination at work/in housing/goods & services --> equality act
disclosure of information --> GDPR

The GRC allows a person to change gender not sex.

The GRA allows people to change their legal sex. They mix up the terms gender and sex in the wording of the GRA and in the consultation (despite defining them at the beginning). This mixing up of gender and sex is part of the problem, but the legislation makes it clear that it legal sex which is changed when someone gets a GRC.

Not this exactly but I filled it in saying I was non binary (because what woman isn’t? Just because we don’t advertise such a silly label doesn’t mean we identify with being oppressed). And I said I don’t need my identity legislated nor do I face discrimination because of this (as my identity is in my head of course so no one sees it to treat me any such way) but that I do face discrimination and violence because of my sex. I also put that high rates of de trans coming out of the wood work means the current system doesn’t work well enough to ensure it’s right for those transitioning so needs to be ‘harder’ or longer or something (I can’t recall what I wrote but I considered it carefully at the time).

Yes, at the end I said I thought the GRA was not fit for purpose and was causing harm as it stands, and that new legislation should made for the protection of gender nonconforming people, but should not entertain the idea that anyone can change sex.

The GRC allows a person to change gender not sex. So we could push for more clarification on the laws around sex segregated areas - hospitals, prisons, sports, aws, etc. We need a legal definition of the words 'woman' and 'female' too so we could campaign for that.

I haven't submitted my response yet, but I think I will add this. Because I agree with you.

My understanding was that the gender recognition act was originally needed to allow people to marry. Anyone can marry now, so it's obsolete.