Should the GRA be repealed ...

‘Sex is the one aspect of a person's identity that can never change, no matter how it is disguised.‘

I completely agree with you, I don’t think someone should be permitted to hide their sex at all. I would only agree to one piece of id not having sex on it, solely for the purpose of abiding by the Goodwin ruling.

Currently males are falsifying their documents, so when a male enters a female space and a woman complains to security, the man can produce falsified documents that say he is female (even though it is obvious to everyone he is male). While allowing people to remove their sex from a variety of documents may seem harmless, and could be in some circumstances, i.e. if it was only those who considered themselves trans that chose to remove it. The problem is that it will inevitably lead to the call for sex to be removed from everyone’s documents sooner or later, which would eventually lead to a similar situation we are in now, i.e. where we all know the person is male, but there are no documents proving it readily available. In other words I think it is a slippery slope. Trans lobby groups have already been pushing for sex to be removed from official documents.

Recently they have tried to get passports issued as ‘gender neutral’, but they didn’t succeed:

“During the hearing, Kate Gallafent QC, for Elan-Cane, argued that HM Passport Office policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European convention on human rights (ECHR).”

“Sir James Eadie QC, on behalf of the home secretary, submitted that the policy did not interfere with rights under the ECHR.
He argued that if the policy constituted an interference with article 8 – the right to respect for private life – it was justified by the need to “maintain an administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender”, to maintain security and to combat identity theft and fraud, and “to ensure security at national borders”.

“Mr Justice Jeremy Baker upheld Home Office policy after the court was told it would affect other legislation, cost too much to change computer records and increase the need for consular support abroad for gender-neutral British citizens.”
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/high-court-backs-uk-refusal-to-issue-gender-neutral-passports

The appeal also failed:
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gender-neutral-passport-court-appeal-home-office-a9230641.html%3famp

I don’t see why similar arguments that won that case couldn’t be used to argue for the removal of the GRA itself e.g. if repealing the GRA interferes with article 8 – the right to respect for private life – it can be justified, because retaining it causes too much conflict with other legislation, the ideology behind it harms children, weakens safeguarding etc.

Blind and partially sighted people for example and people with certain other disabilities?

The driving licence is one example of official identification which does not need to have a sex/gender/gender identity marker.

There should be other options of official id likewise where sex/ gender / gender identity is irrelevent and which are available to those unable to obtain a driving licence.

Latest estimates show that 75 per cent of all adults aged 17 and over in England (an estimated 33.6 million people) held a full car driving licence in 2018
RAC
www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility.

In 2016 while in the UK, 76 percent of people in England and Wales have [a passport]
Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/11/the-share-of-americans-holding-a-passport-has-increased-dramatically-in-recent-years-infographic/#1dbf2ae63c16

R0 - I don't think the driving license as ID solution works because not everyone can have a driving license. Blind and partially sighted people for example and people with certain other disabilities?

Not everyone has a passport and many cannot afford one.

LovelyLion I actually agree with removing sex from every day ID documents like drivers lic and equivalent.

If a persons sex needs to be identified for public purposes, such as if they are a suspect in a crime etc, then ether the persons perceived sex would be used (usually same as natal sex) and other documents can Be Referred to as needed to clarify if the person is trans (easier to find someone if they are identified as accurately as possible As eg a trans woman / trans id male rather than having to pick Just “woman” or “man).

I agree Lion. Driving has no relationship to sex (or presentation). You could argue that the DVLA don't need to store or process it for GDPR purposes.
I don't really understand how Debbie's set up would work practically.

Here is my idea: don't touch the GRA. But clarify who is entitled to access EA single sex services so that service providers cab offer female-only services.

I agree clarifying the EA is the more immediate and achievable priority (it doesn't require any new law, just clearer, better guidance).

I still think it's worth also thinking through how to tackle the GRA and do something in line with Art 8 .

R0 - I don't think the driving license as ID solution works because not everyone can have a driving license. Blind and partially sighted people for example and people with certain other disabilities?

I think the thing to do is seperate out :

1. data collected ( eg on register, passport application)
2. data displayed (on birth certificate, passport etc...)
3. data required (for CRB check, bank AML, immigration etc...)

Goodwin was about 2) . I think it may be a reasonable accommodation to say sex can be omitted (but not falsified) from the data displayed on any general purpose official ID document while also being clear on 3) - sometimes you need to know people's sex.

Not having your sex on your ID doesn't say anything about your special status - just that you checked the box on the application form to have sex not displayed.

What harm could it do to have one piece of identification without sex on it? In the UK, the only things a driving licence is used for is for ID, age verification or proof of ability to drive. I can’t think of an instance where sex would be relevant to either age verification or ability to drive. As a form of ID for safeguarding purposes/employment rights - a driving licence is never acceptable on its own. The only way I can see it having an impact is that DBS applicants would need a passport / birth certificate in addition to the driving licence, but as you need passport / birth certificate anyway to prove right to work in the UK I really can’t see the harm.

I’m not saying I necessarily object to having sex recorded on a driving licence, I just think that if the aim is repeal of the GRA I’d personally like to acknowledge that for some people “revealing” their sex when buying wine would make them uncomfortable, so I’d like to offer an alternative. Unless there’s a risk to women’s rights.

All that said, I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong - I’ve certainly learned a lot on FWR under various usernames and I’m always grateful for responses to my questions.

As a trans widow, my main concern in this respect is that the Spousal Exit Clause is not bargained away by anybody who is having an attack of female socialisation regarding us (ie feminists) having won the argument.

Single sex means single sex. All this blag about when it does not mean single sex is just that, blagging your way in without the actual single sex refered to.

We need the act repealed and a refresh of what is culturally acceptable. Painting women who wish to protect single sex spaces has worked well for TRAs - so far.

A hand on the knee or an “accidental” breast touch used to be seen by some as men just being men. Sexual harassment was part and parcel of being a woman at work, and while it still happens, it is no longer seen as acceptable by most people.

We need the same NO WAY to men in women’s spaces once more. But this time it’s the allies that are making it harder.

And, again, generally speaking sex is not successfully disguised, regardless of how much plastic surgery you throw at it.

Sex is relevant in many aspects of Safeguarding children and Vulnerable Adults.
The same is true for age. Despite many people wishing (for various reasons) to disguise or hide their age, identification documents do not enable this.

Why? Sex is the one aspect of a person's identity that can never change, no matter how it is disguised.

And, again, generally speaking sex is not successfully disguised, regardless of how much plastic surgery you throw at it. The cases where it is are so rare as to be barely worth taking into consideration when drafting laws or guidelines.

I agree with pp there should be a piece of ID that does not have sex on it,

Why? Sex is the one aspect of a person's identity that can never change, no matter how it is disguised.

The point of ID is to prove the bearer's identity to a third party, not to themselves. It's frikkin pronouns all over again!

If a person insists on having their belief system logged in their identity document, then allow them to add it, not to delete reality.

And as for the issue of 'outing' them as trans - what's the big deal? Is being trans something to be ashamed of? Why is it any different to being a single mother or being born out of wedlock? We are not Victorians.

Being the nasty suspicious sort that I am, when people suggest ways to resolve this situation that clearly won't work I tend to wonder if that's because they don't actually want a solution that works, at least not for women. Most people are fundamentally selfish, though some are very good at persuading others that they're not.

(Dons asbestos suit)

Here is my idea: don't touch the GRA

January 2013 Guardian
'Voices from the trans community: 'There will always be prejudice'
It's more than 50 years since the UK's first trans person was outed in the press. So how do members of the community think life has changed for them since?'
(extract)
"Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says [Christine] Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press" In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Threadreader by Vulvamort@ HairyLeggdHarpy
(extract)
"Tweets from 2003: The Gender Recognition Bill

I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.(continues)

One of the obvious flaws in the entire process was the deliberate confuscation of sex and gender. The govt admitted that the two concepts were NOT THE SAME

And then note the utter balderdash that follows. In this order:

1. Gender is not sex.
2. Govt will legally recognise gender
3. Gender should be legal sex
4. Acquired gender = legal sex
5. Something unexplained about man, woman and male and female
6. Sex = Gender

Threadreader by Vulvamort@ HairyLeggdHarpy
"Time for another thread of quotes from the GRA debates of 2003/04, I think.

This one about how critical it is to define SEX and GENDER in law and never to conflate the two.

And how the Government repeatedly refused to allow that distinction, despite being asked to.

#GRA2004
Tebbit was relentless, tabling amendments to force the distinction:
"... apart from anything else, my concern is to smoke out in some way the Government's view of the distinction between those words or to ascertain whether they believe that there is a distinction between them." (continues)

The opposition denied and dodged the clear distinction. The GRA falls apart, of course, unless the 2 concepts are both different when needed, and same when needed. That's the basis of all bait and switch games, and this law is one such example.

The KEY CORNERSTONE of the GRA, and of all transgender ideology, is the dodgy idea that the most compelling thing about a female or a male is their 'psyche'.
That's what the law was about. Redefining biology into psychology.

We all are told we have a male, or a female psyche.
Filkin was clinging hard to the opinion of Lord Justice Thorpe who had opined that the apparent female psyche of a man trumped the real biology of every woman. Gender superseding sex. It should be said that other judges disagreed." (continues)

Here is the letter. It was written by EIGHT medical professionals at the Portman Gender Clinic.

"from an intolerable psychological reality...to a more comfortable fantasy"
"the recent legal victory risks...a false belief that it is possible to actually change a person's gender"

"A victory of fantasy over reality"

Medics from the Portman clinic, 2002, regarding legal recognition of transexuals as the opposite sex."
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1052160108489334785.html

Here is my idea: don't touch the GRA. But clarify who is entitled to access EA single sex services so that service providers cab offer female-only services. Transwomen politely told to try somewhere else. That could work if registered service providers were allowed to make an application to check an individual's details against the Gender Recognition Panel's register.

This is unworkable.

Organisations and services do not have to be designated/registered as 'female only' to have sex-based Safeguarding policies in place.

Health and Social Care need to be able to exclude men (males of any age as per Equality Act and current government useage) from areas such as single sex accomodation (wards & showers) or roles which involve intimate care or examination of female patients/ residents / service users without female chaperone.

Schools & children's residential services need to implement sex-based Safeguarding with regards male employees contact with female children etc

Gyms, swimming pools and shops need to be able to protect female single sex changing rooms.

Youth hostels need to be able to ensure female dormitories are single sex.

Hampstead ponds needs to be able to exclude males from the women-only area etc.

The Goodwin v UK [2002] case shows the ECHR thought it was a males human right to deceive others about their sex, and either did not care, or did not anticipate, how enabling that deception would negatively impact the rights of women and girls, and safeguarding.

They didn't consider women at all. The judgement was all about the great 'personal cost' to the claimant and how the rest of society should accommodate them in their new identity.

No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.

1. No, we are not going to collectively fight for a system that requires every single case where a male attempts to access a women's service to result in an official check against the register.

1. Yes, it's very very obvious why you would be suggesting that.

Maya's suggestion makes sense but it still probably falls short of Article 8: a transsexual person could be outed by reference to the public record held by the register office.

TBH I don't see any government repealing the GRA because they would then need to draft new legislation to satisfy Article 8. Which government is going to want to do that?

Here is my idea: don't touch the GRA. But clarify who is entitled to access EA single sex services so that service providers cab offer female-only services. Transwomen politely told to try somewhere else. That could work if registered service providers were allowed to make an application to check an individual's details against the Gender Recognition Panel's register. That way Art 8 is satisfied because there is no general right to check it. The only way a transwoman would be outed is by attempting to access a service they were not entitled to.

The GRA should be repealed.

I agree with pp there should be a piece of ID that does not have sex on it, but is should be universal, not versions of official documents with sex missing.

Plus allowing a male to disguise his sex should not be considered a human right, it is lying by omission if a male is permitted to keep his sex a secret, it would only lead to males omitting sex in order to deceive people and lead them to wrongly believe he is a female. I could also see it leading to TRA’s claiming that sex should be removed from everyone’s official documents and back to square one we will be.

The Goodwin v UK [2002] case shows the ECHR thought it was a males human right to deceive others about their sex, and either did not care, or did not anticipate, how enabling that deception would negatively impact the rights of women and girls, and safeguarding.

To be honest I think the AGP motivation should be brought up much more in public debates relating to the GRA. When that is explained it makes it very difficult for people to defend allowing males to legally change their sex and be permitted into female spaces and groups. There is plenty of evidence of males dressing in ‘women’s clothing’ for sexual reasons, and committing sexual offences while doing so. It isn’t as if there is a lack of evidence that such fetishes exist, and men who have them clearly do commit sexual crimes sometimes, again there is a lot of evidence of this. I would say that most people would understand why heterosexual males need to be stopped from obtaining a GRC, when they understand AGP. From there it is fairly easy to argue why the GRA should be repealed and the judgment in the Goodwin about privacy was naive at best.

I’m sure there are lots of jobs were sex is irrelevant - I didn’t think of it immediately because my jobs have all needed DBS checks.

Employers have responsibilities toward staff which are sex specific such as provision of toilets, changing areas, sex-discrimination cases etc

Would having it the other way round (passport with no sex identifier and driving licence with male/female) be a problem?

Yes because sex is relevant for security as well as Safeguarding issues when travelling.

Its an international standard to have sex recorded on passports.

The primary purpose of a passport is to enable international travel.

The only issue with the driving licence / passport split is that I think you have to show a passport or birth certificate as evidence of right to work in the uk if you are a citizen. Would having it the other way round (passport with no sex identifier and driving licence with male/female) be a problem?

I’m sure there are lots of jobs were sex is irrelevant - I didn’t think of it immediately because my jobs have all needed DBS checks.