Should the GRA be repealed ...

Yes. Get it gone but leave people with a GRC as they are now.

ECHR (Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577) ruled that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 8 & 12).

I think the breach was regarding the fact that they weren't able to marry someone of the same sex. The change of birth certificate was a fudge which meant that a man could marry another man as long as one of them changed the sex marker on their birth certificate to female. This is obsolete since two men or two women can now marry.

Go ahead, prove every TRA activist "right" by "confirming" that we're all transphobes. Wouldn't want to waste the opportunity of finally being listened to would we?

Unless it's a workplace where only one biological sex is employed for specific reason, surely uniforms/branding will exist that are worn by both sexes of employees? It shouldn't make a practical difference who wants to wear what if they're all part of the set uniform? Or am I missing something here? Making uniforms and branding less based on stereotypes would probably help this.

Yes. With a grandfather clause so that those who already have GRCs aren't affected.

Change it to easily acquired legal recognition on documents of TW, TM, N/B, with protection for gender expression, but recorded in addition to biological sex. It's insane that legal documentation, particularly held records, should reflect anything other than reality. It negates the whole purpose of holding it and the massive expense and performance of gathering and analysing it.

Gender ID protected as freedom of expression

Freedom of expression won’t work in the many different environments where there needs to be some ‘branding’ or uniforms or health and safety requirements.

The right to wear uniform of the opposite sex could be addressed by sex discrimination.

Leaving aside marriage & pensions (resolved) - ECHR (Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577) ruled that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 8 & 12).

Now, 18 years later - when/why are people being required to show their birth certificates? This is probably an ignorant question - I was born abroad and my foreign bc is useless in the UK; I've only ever used it to apply for a passport (to prove my parentage) - otherwise I show my passport and some proof of UK residence.

As I understand it, no birth cert issued by any country of the UK is an identity doc (no pics). For people born in or after 1983, it's not proof of citizenship. So it's proof of age (along with a matching pic ID or equivalent) - and what else?

I can see how in the late '90s/early '00s when Christine Goodwin was having issues, a birth certificate might be required for any number of things like proving right to work in the UK, renting an apartment, opening a bank account, applying for a loan, getting married, etc. Are birth certificates still accepted as de facto proof of UK citizenship/right of abode even after the British Nationality Act 1981 (effective 1983) abolished blanket jus soli/birthright citizenship?

I understand not everyone wants or needs a passport: they're expensive, bulky, difficult to replace, and people have issues re the biometrics, but - couldn't a lot of the "need to change my birth certificate" issues today be solved by making available an optional, non-biometric picture ID card - government-issued and free on request with assistance to gather the required documentation - that proves identity, citizenship, and birthdate, but omits sex altogether?

Yes, and I find what Asteroid suggested in that Tweet really interesting.

Repeal the GRA.
Gender ID protected as freedom of expression/ belief under HRA and EA
Severe gender dysphoria protected as a disability
Hormones and surgery not the criteria for protection

Certainly a place to start a discussion.

Yes of course the GRA should be repealed. Now that we have same-sex marriage the problem it aimed to solve no longer exists.
I think it's simple and have never been convincedby the arguments that it isn't - what do people labelling themselves trans need in law that isn't covered by the illegality of sex discrimination under EA2010? A man wearing clothes typically worn by women must have the same employment, housing, healthcare and consumer rights as a man wearing clothes typically worn by men. If not, he would be penalised for something a woman would not be: it would be sex discrimination.
(I wish more people were more concerned with the women forced to wear makeup, skirts and high heels to keep their jobs with eg banks and airlines. Many women cabin crew develop life-changing back injury).
In addition to outlawing sex discrimination, EA2010 recognises that women's (and men's tbf) privacy, dignity and safety can often only be provided by single sex spaces.
The discussion so often focuses on presentation - clothes, make up, hair etc - when it would be much more useful to look at behaviour and actions and whether or not they conform to gender stereotypes. As has often been noted, many male trans activists behave in a hyper-masculine way, seeking to dominate, control and silence women. I don't understand why if we accept that these men need legal protection because they like to wear lipstick, we don't accept that eg my DP who doesn't wear lipstick (neither do I) but does all the cooking and lets people pass on the pavement doesn't.
The problem has always been tying personal presentation/style to something with nothing to do with it - sex. If people want to argue that presentation does need some legal or social special protection, perhaps something like the subculture hate crime category introduced by Manchester police after the horrific murder of Sophie Lancaster might be more appropriate and useful? There are of course pros and cons to the legal concept of 'hate crime'.
Finally, the actual GRA itself is a fucking mess. Sex and gender swapping about in the same sentence. It doesn't really make sense, and this has of course been exploited by the woowoo merchants. I wish I could remember who said it - a woman on Twitter I think - basically the law isn't a poem, where everyone can come up with their own interpretation. If we don't really know whether someone is breaking a law or not, it's useless by definition.

That would affect a good number of people who've lived quiet lives as women to no ill effect.

No it would not. Their status would remain unchanged (grandfathered, I think this is called). There simply would be no more falsification of birth certificates, no more legal pretence that woman is anything other than adult human female, no more legal coercion of compelled speech.

A great article here on the way forward.

thecritic.co.uk/has-trench-warfare-on-trans-issues-come-to-an-end/

Frankly I can't think of a better way to undo all the progress that's been made (and to "confirm" the opponents' view that this is all transphobia) than to call for a repeal of the entire act. That would affect a good number of people who've lived quiet lives as women to no ill effect. Maybe it's not the easiest thing in the world to reconcile the needs of trans people with that of women but there really isn't any excuse for not even trying.

Absolutely it should.

Yes. As others have said, the reasons for it are obsolete.

And it opens up far more problems (real, concrete, dangerous and damaging problems, particularly around protection of vulnerable children and young people, not to mentions protections for women in law) than it attempted to solve.

Yes

I'm hoping that Standing for Women might launch a campaign on this as Posie has mentioned it on her YT channel.

First person who starts one, I'm in. I don't feel compelled to launch this myself, I have fingers in pies.

Yes, it needs to go. We have marriage equality, pension age equality and the Equality Act which gives trans people legal protection from discrimination.

People who already have a GRC should be allowed to keep them, but no more should be issued.

We do not need a legally sanctioned lie.

Yes.

Diversity Role Models have clearly been pretty sneaky - I’m sure whatever she signed up for didn’t involve 6 year olds performing sex acts.

Has anyone drawn her attention to yesterday’s discovery?

Yes. It should be repealed.

I’m confused about Alison
Moyet - she is a patron of Diversity Role Models, the charity who are apparently working with Asda?

Does this mean there are actual terven MMA fighters?

If so, do you think they’d like to be mates with us? Are they allowed to drink ?

Can you imagine a dinner party with JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova, Alison Moyet and Ronda Rousey?

Trying SS again

And like magic here’s yet another good reason why no male should be able to access women’s spaces
mobile.twitter.com/FallonFox/status/1273024244956434438

YES!

Yes it should be repealed.
It's a legally sanctioned lie and it requires the full force of threats to compel truthful citizens to go along with it.

It is the law that redefined all females from what we are; female humans with a myriad of personalities, into a myriad of mixed sex humans possessed with what the government described as a 'female psyche'.

It's the law that changed women from female humans into a female state of mind, and that's what the law has us at still today.

It has to go.

It's the law that UNrecognised the lot of us.
And I won't rest until the law stops pretending the primary characteristic of my sex is our 'psyche'.