Should the GRA be repealed ...

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.

But there’s no reason to suppose “Tired of fuckwits” has anything to do with MN anyway. I just made the connection from hearing about it here first.

I’m probably a bit grumpy as didn’t get enough sleep. I should go and walk the dog improve my frame of mind

How do you exempt a man with a female birth certificate?

This is a good point, Eowyn

Added to that: the US gatekeeping on support animals is having to be reviewed, not just because people's choice of animals became unexpectedly challenging and impractical in all situations, but because they discovered that inevitably, there will always be humans who see a personal advantage and will take the piss.

In this case, the US authorities are finding that many people are using the useful phrase 'it's my support animal' to take their pet wherever they like.

The side effect is inevitably that those who need support animals, fought to open these doors, did not push the system to breaking point and would have used it responsibly with properly trained animals, are now encountering services and provisions and a general public that has become wary, cynical and is closing doors again, throwing inclusion into reverse.

I originally thought it was to sort some legal issues ( such as marriage in the days before same sex marriage was legal) caused for a very tiny number with DSD and i thought that people experiencing dysmorphia did so as a result of a DSD. I wonder if that is a common misconception ?

There have been many instances of poorly drafted legislation that have caused unintended consequences. Because only lawyers really understand why words matter.
A classic example is the problems in the US where when drafting legislation to permit people to take their hearing or guide dogs with them soneone pointed out that some disabled people had trained small monkeys to help. So simple change ... change “dog” to assistance “animal”. Consequence was someone insisted on the right to take a pot bellied pig on a flight claiming it was for emotional support and someone else had a minature pony as a guide animal . Not in any way criticising the blind person for having the guide pony (I believe the person had lost a beloved guide dog and realised that horses lived longer) but the practicalities of catering for dogs and horses are very different both for the need of the animal and their human companion !

Just look at the above list, and think to yourself:

is this going to lead to somewhere full of happiness, equality, rainbows and sunshine?

Or is this going to lead to an absolute powder keg of resentment, anger, division, increasing need for authoritarian and punitive policing to try and repress it a bit longer, and other things that historically anyone with a brain could spot the patterns of?

I think the vast majority of the public assume most trans people have one

The majority of the public who even know about them, which will be a small proportion. I expect most people have no idea what they are. I think that it takes time and a developed understanding of the issues, terms and motivations to feel angry about it. Education is the first step.

A key question should also be, should it be a legal right to be recognised as something under law that you subjectively wish to be, as opposed to something you objectively are?

Should it be a legal right for that recognition to mean you can have equal access to the resources provided to meet the needs and inequalities of those who objectively are part of that group, and are not part of it by choice and do not possess the power to identify out of their needs?

Should it be a legal right for that access to be enforced and equal even when it is to the detriment of those who are objectively part of that group and need those resources for their equality and access? Even when it will exclude some of them? Even when it means that those who opt in will be able to choose from all the resources while those who cannot opt out will be left without any resources?

Is this something, objectively and justly, that should be a right that anyone has?

And anyone with half a brain has to then say, what precedent does this set? Because if you are going to insist that all the above is correct and ok for sex, even at the expense, exclusion and harm to female people - which is beyond sexist, and ridiculously unequal, unjust and unacceptable -

.... you have to accept it for race. And ability. And age. Because the precedent is there, it's no different, and how many times do you need to hear 'that will never happen' as a sop to distract you while it's put into place? Women have that t shirt.

Are you ok with tax payer funding for someone who identifies as disabled having an adapted house, benefits and full time carers?

Are you ok with the 50 year old in a nappy at nursery with your toddler?

I wish I was kidding. It has to be acknowledged that there are easily located groups of adults who would very much like the above to be a reality. And the precedent will be there that feelings create reality, not facts; and that some people matter more in law than others.

I don’t know if it has got anything to do with anyone on Mumsnet but I hope not.

Why on earth would you hope they're not on Mumsnet?

Mumsnet isn't reserved for people who express themselves in a genteel way, and only on topics that have received the prior approval of those who seek to lead us.

Would Mumsnet be sullied if any of them lurked among us?

A website has been launched with the aim of repealing the GRA, although linking to it does seem to result in posts being deleted. It can be found through google although not high up the search rankings yet...

It can be found very easily by using the Twitter hashtag.

I think the vast majority of the public assume most trans people have one and that the GRC is where the safeguarding comes in. This is quite an issue

It’s been used as a shield or a foot in the door for campaigners yet if only 5k people have one it doesn’t seem that improtant in practice.

step 2 was removing the gatekeeping, allowing people to 'legally change their sex' willy nilly.

The ultimate aim seems to be to do away with 'sex' as a legal category, since if everyone is free to change their legally recognised sex, it becomes a meaningless category. 'Sex' and 'gender reassignment' can then be replaced in the EA with a single category of 'gender identity', which is just whatever anyone chooses, so might as well be removed altogether. Stonewall have said they want to remove the category of 'sex' from the EA.

I'm not sure who this benefits. Predatory men, obviously, but it's not beneficial to women, children, genuine transsexuals or even to decent men.

GRA should be repealed. It’s full of stuff that undermines other laws — eg against sex discrimination, false identification of offenders and falsifying legal documents such as birth certificate. It reverses social progress by reviving and reinforcing regressive sex stereotypes. It weakens child safeguarding. It has been very easily used to undermine the Equality Act’s provisions for women.

I think it is used as a wedge Quim. So step 1 was a heavily gate kept process to 'legally change your sex'.

step 2 was removing the gatekeeping, allowing people to 'legally change their sex' willy nilly.

The brilliant women here, amongst others managed to put a stop to step 2 recently. But I doubt it's the last we've heard of it, and in the interests of the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls, step 1 absolutely needs to be reversed.

In addition, step 1 has deliberately been used to confuse and mislead organisations into eroding women's rights, on the understanding in step 2 was coming in the near future and we may as well get ahead of the law by accepting that people are what ever sex they say they are.

Again, reversing step 1 would prevent this from continuing.

I can see why the GRA being repealed would be attractive as a point of principle, but every time I try and figure out what difference to a transperson's life a GRC has, I come up empty. The fact that fewer than 5K people in the UK hold one is evidence of that, really.

The interesting point in the OP is 'how might this be achieved', as I think most posters on this thread (and indeed most feminists) would support the repeal of such a sexist law.

Some one has noted (possibly on another thread, I too am losing track) that interest groups lobby for changes in the law all the time. A recent example is the law society consultation on surrogacy which is clearly driven by the interests of commissioning parents and surrogate agencies.

So I think the answer is campaigning. and to do that the people who support this view need to organise.

A website has been launched with the aim of repealing the GRA, although linking to it does seem to result in posts being deleted. It can be found through google although not high up the search rankings yet...

Goodness, everytime I click on this thread, it's a different one. Although, for clarity, I am talking about this thread now, not another one.

Am I here at all....

Laws can and are repealed. Public consultations, such as the Surrogacy Reform one, lead in the current law being outdated and old fashioned, not fit for purpose, etc. It's how we are lead to believe that it needs changing. It is largely lead by lobby groups who want it to be easier and for parental rights to be with the commissioning parents from birth.

For me there's no reason to believe that another campaign groups couldn't lobby in the same way, the difference being this is lead by women so let's see...

For a relatively quiet launch to even discuss Repeal, just a website link posted here or there, resulting in multiple thread deletions in response to mass reporting is astonishing. Then the website is down for several hours in the middle of the night? Could have been a server update or something but it's a funny coincidence.

I hope it's that and that it really isn't an attack on free speech to discuss existing law. Imagine how that would have gone with Repeal the 8th!

regarding the 'tired of explaining reality' blog post - granted it's not how I would express myself, but it does very neatly express the absolute exasperation many women feel that this nonsense has been taken seriously and allowed to take hold.

it's one woman's voice. There are a multitude, and they won't all put their arguments in the same way you would.

the solution is to put your own arguments out there. The more voices, the better

this is bad law for a number of key reasons

• it mandates belief, attempting to force people into colluding with the pretence that the holder of a GRC has changed sex

• it has it's basis in homophobia - in 2004 our lawmakers preferred to pass a law allowing people to pretend to change sex rather than introduce same sex marriage

• it is inherently sexist, codifying as it does the sexist concept of 'gender identity' into law

• it is clearly confusing, having led many, many organisation to breach the equality act, thinking they were complying with the GRA

It effectively brings back punishment for heresy. Enforced belief, homophobia and sexism has no place in our laws.

It absolutely should be repealed, and citizens who want to discuss that should be able to do so without being censored.

Gender is a sexist concept - the idea that ‘woman’ and ‘man’ are defined by social constructs and stereotypes can’t be anything else but sexist. And the GRA was an expression of homophobia because it was introduced to avoid bringing in same-sex marriage. Yes, it should go.

I’ve just done an internet search for “Repeal the GRA” and found a new campaign site. I don’t know if it has got anything to do with anyone on Mumsnet but I hope not.

Some fuckwit has gone to a lot of trouble to buy a great domain name and set up a campaign anonymously with an immediate self-destruct mechanism: by titling the first blog post, “Tired of Explaining Reality to Fuckwits”.

Aren’t we all - but that’s like the letter, email or text you write to vent your frustration. Then you delete it and start again, this time with an eye to achieving the desired result.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am not aware of any successful campaign for legislative change that has been championed by the slogan, “Tired of Explaining Reality to Fuckwits”.

It is a slogan that could apply to many campaigns but not if they hope to have any chance of success. Self-sabotage doesn’t get much better than this.

My last name has an Umlaut and it was the reason my application for settled status was rejected (now sorted). It's why the children have their father's last name, mine is not a name for a world dominated by English language keyboards, also nobody can pronounce it.