Should the GRA be repealed ...

I think it's enough that the GRA isn't going to be reformed and there will be extra protection for women's spaces.

I'm afraid as direct result of bitter experience in all this, I can't agree with your faith in the system.

All females have gained is a little breathing space. The current commission work is so biased to the point it's appearing actively bent; there is no recognition that when a TW speaks for a women's service they have extreme end bias in justifying their presence there and avoiding and denying any evidence to the contrary. We know from MNetters the women in the refuge who tried explaining to refuge leaders, TW among them, how they could not cope with mixed sex spaces, many ending in tears at how little the people they were speaking to cared, and by report from those MNetters those people went straight out to give a statement that no one had raised any issues .

The work is going on right now to make the 'protection of single sex spaces' as meaningless, difficult and unrealistic as possible, and to set this up so that it continues to work to the benefit of those born male.

The GRA is the first, big chunk of salami in the endless, quiet back room meeting, tea drinking, lobby group seeking to sneak this agenda in slice by tiny slice. Women's rights and needs are no less under attack than they were before. The only way to stop this endless assault is to get rid of the whole salami.

Women's rights, needs and provisions in law should never have been seen as a resource male people could draw on in the first place.

I agree. And I don't see what repealing it would gain.

I think we need to at least have a honest assessment of the gra and how it has impacted on women, women's services and general safeguarding procedures.

If it's working well, why not prove it? Was the system designed to allow men to have both female and male id indefinitely? Is the gra making it easier for males to be placed in women's prisons and refuges or be able to hide their sex when working with vulnerable women and girls?

So why are the NHS covering cosmetic treatments for a certain group of people and not others?

Female people are the table.

This is true. And it is constantly, and increasingly resonating with me.

We are the cohort. We are the category.

This is our lives that are being discussed. Our sex. Our rights. The GRA undermines our rights.

Women make up over half the population of this country. We constitute half the electorate.

We have a fucking table and we can decide who sits there.

Quite, OldCrone.

No. I think it's enough that the GRA isn't going to be reformed and there will be extra protection for women's spaces.

We don't know that the GRA won't be reformed. The WESC are currently publishing submissions about the GRA after gathering "evidence", yet again. If Labour get into power it's likely all sex exemptions will go. Women haven't won the war, just a couple of important battles, and I haven't seen any evidence of "extra protection for women's spaces" on the horizon.

Also, people suggesting that sex dysphoria should be treated as an illness/disability: TRAs don't want this and have successfully lobbied the WHO to this end. It's surely a non-starter.

But if it's not an illness or disability, why does it need medical treatment?

You shut Mumsnet down, you take away their support but I suppose that would make them dance with joy.

It would. They don't care.

There is lots of other work to do which is important: getting rid of the Self ID that has crept in ahead of the law, undoing the harmful training/indoctrination of gender ideology, fighting Stonewall and Mermaids...

Also, people suggesting that sex dysphoria should be treated as an illness/disability: TRAs don't want this and have successfully lobbied the WHO to this end. It's surely a non-starter.

I don't like this or feel comfortable with it, sorry.

and that creepy no-mark comedian think MN should be shut down

I can think of several Twitter regulars that might apply to

As people have said, this place is a valuable resource for women. These crybully tactics are typical of coercive control abuse.

Now I’m starting to read this thread, so many great points on it. Michelle I hope you write or work in politics for a living because you’re bloody good at it.

@Helmetbymidnight

I saw this thread mentioned on Twitter - "Its a hateful attack on human rights" Loads of anime 'kink' avators and that creepy no-mark comedian think MN should be shut down. This place is full of anti-abortionists too apparently.

There are forums on here that are a life line to women that have gone through some traumatic stuff and can reach out to other women who have gone through the same thing. Things that can ONLY happen to females, to women.

You shut Mumsnet down, you take away their support but I suppose that would make them dance with joy.

Be kind my arse.

Not RTFT but to answer the OP yes. GRA needs repeal. It’s objectively not operating in the specific legal context it was enacted to address (wrt same sex marriage, equal pension age and so on now Ll longer being an issue). GRA’s actively causing problems for people with other protected characteristics who are finding their own rights to (say) use single sex services or have single sex spaces or opportunities are no longer respected.
This has a knock on effect for safeguarding culture and for women and children including those from vulnerable, disadvantaged or minority groups, to access public services, spaces, opportunities, education etc- by effectively excluding them because these are no longer single-sex use.

GRA fails badly for the people with protected characteristics relevant to GRA. It fails for GRC holders. It was so naively and poorly drafted to such a sexist agenda that eg It can’t be revoked for GRC holders not adhering to its own GRC requirement stipulations. It can’t be revoked even with the active consent of the GRC holder who no longer wants it. It’s a new legal status imposed until death. That’s ridiculous. It takes no account of detransitioning people.
It seems to have been written with an entirely woman-erasing agenda, written for older men who transition after having a family eg it takes no account of female biological issues such as pregnancy or birth at all.

I would like to see it repealed by Parliament after full democratic debate. That would need to happen after a detailed review of the GR Act had been carried out by the relevant government department including a full public consultation, to create a draft Bill setting out any necessary replacement measures to the GRA provisions. (Can’t think of any right now but the consultation may bring some up).
All that would need to be preceded by a Commons select committee inquiry into the working of the GRA which is actually impartial and also takes evidence from anyone who wants to submit. And publishes that evidence including anonymously on request..

The phrase used in the blog is a witty expansion of a well known acronym and one that I like and use elsewhere at times -
Tired of Explaining Rreality to Fuckwits

This is the issue, not how politely we state our boundaries.

Quite.

When you think about it, it suggests that if female people would just ask male people, very nicely, "Please tell us the way you would like and feel polite enough to accept our 'no' and that we need spaces of our own?" it might work.

For a start: why is this something females have to beg males for, that is in the male gift if female people please them sufficiently? Isn't that seeing the whole thing in ridiculously sexist terms?

And secondly, it will fast come down to it: it has nothing to do with women not asking 'right', or being 'nice' enough or 'polite' enough, or looking unpleasantly (to males) unfeminine in their using unladylike language and terms and being more aggressive than is nice to see in a female person, and male people sadly waiting like disappointed daddies until little girls learn to do better.

It has to do with there is no way to achieve this agenda without removing all consent, say or rights from females. It's just a lot of timewasting sexism to avoid confronting the real subject and issues, largely because to do so makes male people look bad.

Hence phrases becoming important that make clear: in deciding what female language and boundaries are, it is ridiculous to be pleading nicely with males for a seat at the table to be allowed to participate with their betters making such decisions. Female people are the table.

Although not recording the sex of tourists would hide the fact that males make up a disproportionately high number of vistors to Thailand. If we don't know it's a 65%/35% split it would be harder to talk about possible reasons why men are more attracted to holiday in Thailand than women.

Yes, I was using it ironically. I should have enclosed it in irony-quotes

Certainly "fuckwit" seems to be very popular in Guardian comments sections to define someone with an opposing point of view. How the hell those people can read through 274 comments all agreeing with the party-line is beyond me.

I'm taking it that Molesnakes was using it ironically. It really doesn't seem like a good use on the website itself, and will tend to put the issue into disrepute.

I saw this thread mentioned on Twitter - "Its a hateful attack on human rights"
Loads of anime 'kink' avators and that creepy no-mark comedian think MN should be shut down.

This place is full of anti-abortionists too apparently.

I don't think it's the language you are bothered about.

Yes, to prevent identity fraud for a start.

Genuine question - is there a compelling reason why sex needs to be stated on passports?

They'll say that no matter how delicately speech is couched. It's not the delivery that's the issue it's women saying no. As soon as the first woman said no it was game on from that point onwards.

This is so so true, and we must keep it front of mind at all times. This is the issue, not how politely we state our boundaries.

I’m just a bit sick of “Mumsnet” ie. FWR, being portrayed as a bunch of raving, violent, bovver-girls and hell’s grannies, rampaging through the streets beating up delicate, fragile transwomen and trolling them online. It’s so far from the truth.

They'll say that no matter how delicately speech is couched. It's not the delivery that's the issue it's women saying no. As soon as the first woman said no it was game on from that point onwards.

You are quite right.

This is not how debates on the internet are supposed to go!