Who wants to repeal the GRA?

me

Yeah, repeal and nuke the whole Act from orbit - it’s the only way to be sure.

Me.

It’s a homophobic nonsensical law that should never have been passed in the first place.

There needs to be greater challenging of gender stereotypes and greater acceptance of people not conforming to them.

I don't.

But I now realise I don't actually know what the point of a GRC is. I thought it was so that official documents (eg passports) would reflect the gender the person presented as. But is that not the case? Is it just to sort out the same-sex marriage issue?

I'm looking on the legislation.gov.uk website and it appears to just effect marriage and civil partnership. There are sections saying it doesn't affect peerages, sport, gender-specific offences etc.

If that's the case, then I agree that the legislation is redundant and should be repealed.

I think when people say it was only brought to avoid same-sex marriage, that's not quite right. I mean, even supposing that was the main reason that it was being campaigned for, this was only one of the grounds on which the ECHR had ruled against the UK - and it's not clear that same-sex marriage would have been enough to satisfy the ECHR. Perhaps in combination with the pension changes etc? Even then, it's unclear.
I think the main people bringing up same-sex marriage in the Hansard debate were opponents of the bill (who were worried that technically it legalised same-sex marriage). Of course, the government, responding, were also keen to stress that they didn't intend to introduce it.

I think GRCs have only been issued to 5,000 people, genuine dysphoric transsexuals (perhaps the rules need tightening up a little in light of the Jay case)... That's OK, the important thing is that the medical preconditions, two-year requirement and review by a panel of experts should remain in place.

The thing I don't understand is if it's got nothing to do with accessing women's spaces/services etc, as so many people on the other side of the argument keep saying, then what on earth is a GRC even for?

Was it really just to let transsexual people get married without it being legally a same-sex marriage? If so, surely it's now obsolete. And my eyebrows are also raised at the thought that this was considered a better solution than just bringing in marriage equality.

Absolutely ...have it for those who have got it now but stop the rest.there is no point ,

Yes, and noted this in the consultation.
But several of you on this thread have expressed it far more clearly and eloquently!

I'd like to see it repealed.

It should be repealed.

Me

I think it should be repealed.

Yes. Repeal the GRA !

Me.

Me

Gender non-conformity is not real.
Non-binary is not real.

They are nonsense concepts.

We are ALL non-binary, I like maths , I wear dresses, but I also dress like a man, I like football, and I also crochet. The fact I like/do what society deems as masculine or femine things - that makes me non-binary, does it? That means each of us are non-binary.

What utter non-sense.

Complete utter mind fuck....so angry.

PipGoesPop,
It's hard to remember now how different attitudes were in 2004. Many Tories had recently voted to keep Section 28 (although they lost). Civil partnerships were controversial, not because they stopped short of marriage, but because many people thought they went too far.
The government we had in 2004 was actually the least homophobic (up to that date) in British history... And even Stonewall didn't endorse same-sex marriage until 2010.

I'm unsure tbh.

Gender non-conformity as a protected characteristic instead of reassignment would give the bullying blue-haired crew free rein to wreak havoc in workplaces etc with imagined slights and phobias (as they do now, but with the weight of the law behind them).

I want to protect 'true' transsexuals, without opening the floodgates for the gender-trenders, whilst also protecting women.

Do we know why same sex marriage was eventually waived through if the concept was so vehemently opposed as to bring about the GRA of 2004 - what changed? I read the evidence of the opposition to same sex marriage and it's connection to the GRA on twitter and could barely believe what I was reading (Hansard) but there it was in black and white.

I realise that the GRA came about due to a case brought to the ECHR but it seems to have been pushed through largely as a way to stop same sex marriage. So odd.

Yep. Repeal it, it no longer has a purpose.

Happy to have gender presentation added as a protected characteristic to the EA.

Me. Clearly it's a law that works for noone.

Yep me. Let everyone who has one keep it but stop issuing any more.

In an ideal world, where all mental health issues were properly funded, and people with gender dysphoria were able to access proper support and without waiting months and months for it, and being gender non-conforming was accepted by men everyone, there would be no need for the GRA now we have same-sex marriage, equal retirement ages etc.

WRT to the EA, I would like to see the protected characteristic of gender reassignment replaced with gender non-conformity. To reassign something means that something was originally assigned, and it was not. Sex is observed at, or before, birth. But no-one should face discrimination based on how they present themselves to the world (It feels like that should go without saying, but I guess if it did, we wouldn't need the EA in the first place).

Yep.

Said that in my consultation response too.