Good News

Good idea !!

Well! They'll have a hard time persuading anyone that the Baroness is transphobic from that email. She, very cleverly as you'd expect form her, sticks to the law and its misapplication, She states very clearly that it is illegal tactics and destruction of law that she objects to. Nothing to do with women's rights, TWAW etc etc. She just doesn't like illegal liars!

Maybe we should take out favourite bit of that and post it to every TRA troll that pops it head up! I'll try Like a certain UK Legislator I abhor the deliberate attempt to foil parliament’s careful wording by spreading false information far and wide. If you want to change a law, use the legal process, don't lie, finagle and cheat. Nobody likes a cheat!

Yes. The GRA should be repealed.

Makes no more sense than having a race recognition act or an age recognition act.

I'm predicting a mess.

It already is a mess. The whole GRA needs overhauling and reforming - even outright retracting - to prevent the current mess turning into an unstoppable train crash harming millions.

As with the earlier Liz Truss tweet that launched an avalanche of over the top articles in an number of news papers about her attack on trans rights, the publicising of her letter has got Pink News screaming about how it is an attack on trans rights.

It is very noticeable how every time women's rights are written or spoken about as being needed, trans activists immediately say it is transphobic. What does that reveal about what they actually think. It implies to me their intention is to erase women.

Quote from article:

In an email to PinkNews, Baroness Nicholson said that she wrote to Liz Truss about the Equality Act because her stance is that it’s being “deliberately mangled”.

“If you look up my correspondence with the health minister, my question is on the misuse of the 2010 Act,” she said. “I see this as a deliberate attempt to foil parliament’s careful wording by spreading false information far and wide.

“I very strongly disapprove of such illegal tactics whereby hospitals, which are exempt from the 2010 Act, are given apparently mandatory ‘guidelines’ instructing their administration to accept self-ID patients as of law.

“This is justified by filleting the act’s clear statement in schedule 23 of the act; taking out words and concluding a different meaning to that clearly stated in legal wording in the act.

“This wholesale destruction of law has been promoted through many government departments. As a legislator I am objecting and will continue to explain why what has been stated is not the case at all.”

“The Equality Act 2010 has been misquoted,” she added. “The act has been changed and represented in a different set of meanings.”

The rest of the article is all about Liz Truss conspiring against trans people and a certain person from Mermaids saying how scandalous it is, just like Section 28 blah, blah.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/05/19/liz-truss-equality-act-gender-recognition-trans-rights-baroness-nicholson-marsha-de-cordova/

I'm not sure of the numbers but it could affect 1,000s of trans men/women who would either get to keep their GRC or would have to change it back to what they started with.

It's not ideal but there are less than 6000 of both sexes.

So Liz Truss talks about changing government guidelines but not actually changing any laws as yet. Any new GRA/GRC (assuming laws are changed) would have to accommodate the current GRC holders while not creating a bigger problem going forward. It would be almost impossible to verify who has which type of GRC, I cannot imagine that trans people would be prepared to trade in their old GRC for a new one with less rights. I'm predicting a mess.

False Thats not really our problem to solve-laws do get overturned/altered and sometimes that affects a tiny number of people very negatively-not our problem though.

When the UK government stopped issuing the visa category that I was on, I didn't have to change anything or have my visa revoked. It just meant that no new entrants would be allowed to apply for that visa category. These sort of issues are not new and governmental administrations know how to handle them.

If a different sort of GRA / GRC is brought in that does not interfere with single sex rights or modifies birth certificates, it will be like civil partnerships and same sex marriage. Those in civil partnerships are currently able to convert to marriage without any further requirements needed. I'd imagine those with GRCs will be invited to convert to a different legally recognised category for free.

I'm not sure of the numbers but it could affect 1,000s of trans men/women who would either get to keep their GRC or would have to change it back to what they started with.

So what happens to people with a GRC + new Birth Certificate if the GRA gets repealed in the future?

The same thing that happens when certain visa categories are removed from immigration policies. GRCs that have been issued would continue to remain valid and recognised. It's just that no new ones are issued so the category will eventually phase out.

I expect there will be some sort of sleight-of-hand Legacy Fudge proposed re existing GRCs, that is even madder than the original GRA.

It is pretty weird looking back that less than 20 years ago people were so opposed to same-sex marriage that instead they were prepared to pretend that man were women.

Agreed. No more GRCs. It really shouldn't be hard to prove why they are no longer necessary.

Yes. Repeal this ill thought out, badly drafted, obsolete law.

So what happens to people with a GRC + new Birth Certificate if the GRA gets repealed in the future?

I'm about to write to my local health Trust re their trans guidance infringing rights to single-sex spaces. I wonder if there's a way I can reference this letter.

This is very good news.

I hope it's good news but note the lack of definition of women and girls with trepidation. It'd be easier if I felt I could trust politicians (from any party)

Looks good. Now can we scrap the GRA?

The letter seems unequivocal to me - none of your usual flim-flam about understanding concerns, looking at both sides of the argument, must protect trans people blah blah.

I think Liz Truss is on our side. That can only be a good thing.

Yes, the GRA is nonsensical, at least now that same sex marriage is legal and the retirement ages between men and women have equalised.

It is difficult and slow to get legislation repealed, hence why it is important to not allow gender identity to entrench itself into existing or new legislation.

Hopefully one day, feminists will be able to put together a legal team that can make a case before the European Court of Human Rights that the GRA directly conflicts with women's sex based rights in the Equality Act. The two are fundamentally incompatible if males are allowed to change their birth certificate to female via a GRC. If and when we win that case, then i can see the GRA being repealed or amended to stop GRCs from being issued in future.

I think the GRA was madness from the get-go.

Sounds promising, but it's best to wait until the government response to the consultation is published so we can see exactly how they intend to uphold women's right to single sex spaces.

If males are allowed access via a GRC, it makes single sex exemptions pointless. And unless the law is enforced properly and doesn't leave single sex spaces up to the 'discretion' of providers, then I doubt we will see any sensible reversals of policies in different areas.

Agreed. No more GRCs. It really shouldn't be hard to prove why they are no longer necessary.