has anyone completed the GRA consultation from the perspective of thinking it should be repealed altogether?

I was going to start this exact same thread today! Thanks OP.

Without saying it should be repealed as such, I am saying in the final question that it is obsolete and explaining why, and that the only remaining things it is good for are nefarious purposes.

I am saying that the current proposals are not reform but repurposing and that I believe the new purpose is to eradicate sex as a legal category altogether (not just in the EA).

So I'm strongly hinting.

I have. You can do both.

I made it clear self-id would be a disaster, but that the act itself (and the way it clashes with other equality legislation) is the real problem.

You could tell them why you think they should keep the need for a diagnosis/waiting period etc. as a minimum in the GRA, then tell them your opinion on the the GRA giving an individual access to spaces and rights usually reserved for the opposite sex.

The 'any other comments' question is very useful for this, but I did it with most questions.

They're asking for our views (although they're making it as hard as possible).

You could also do the stringency argument, but open each answer with Pennies answer. Followed up by calls for such tight stringency which would effectively make the act redundant.

Apologies if i've duplicated others' points. Shite phone takes ages to type.

Perhaps there is a way of doing that in the consultation.

Doing it the way i've outlined, allows you to put your reasons for opposing them into their leading questions.

You could say something along the lines of

If the stringent requirements mean that the number of GRCs issued is 0, that is acceptable because the GRA is a legal fiction that humans can change sex which is rooted in stereotypes and deceit and was rushed through without due consideration of the other impacted parties and should be repealed at the first opportunity.

The 'stringency' argument is a way to argue against the GRA. Basically if your argue that all alternatives were explored and eliminated - there is no reason or justification for a GRC in its own right, apart from 'because I want one' - which is a pretty weak justificationfor falsifying your legal documents.

Bookmark, I list all
My responses to the consultation and have to start again. This is useful. Thank you 😊

I did - I replied to each and every question that I thought the GRA should be repealed as it created a legal fiction and was no longer required as we now have same sex marriage.

And people can't change sex.

'Scuse the typos.

You can answer the questions from the perspective that a GRC should only be issued after a person has met stringent requirements, eg-

1. All other alternatives to 'transitioning' have been exhausted, including eliminating all other causes for dysphoria, such as other mental health problems, conditions such as autism, cluster b personality disorders, sexual motivations and fetishes, trauma and child abuse, shame about sexual orientation,etc. There must be evidence that all the possibilities have both been explored and eliminated as causes for dysphoria and wanting 'sex reassignment', with supporting evidence.

1. After a thorough risk assessment with supporting evidence that confirming the person has no criminal record, hostility towards the opposite sex and presents no danger to them.

3 Proof of having no alter desire for advantages which woild be abusing/exploiting a GRC or stereotypes about the opposite sex having an 'easier life' or wanting a total identity change for any other reason. There must be proof there is no alterior motive for seeking a GRC.

All this engagement with caseworkers and psychologists to gather the necessary evidence would take longer than the curent 2 year period. It would be more akin to the 7 year period for citizenship.

If the stringent requirements mean that the number of GRCs issued is 0, that is acceptable because the GRA was rushed through without due consideration of the other impacted parties.