Should the GRA be repealed ...

If sex is relevant then need to show a piece of ID that shows it where it isn't you don't

For example if someone uses their passport to provide proof of age at the supermarket, they don't necessarily need people to see what their sex is.

If you are filling in forms for safeguarding you should need to give a form of ID which shows your sex.

Any official documents which shows sex should show it accurately.

Then organisations decide where they need to know, make clear why they need to know and what they are going to do with the information

apologies my comment above should read,
I don't understand the rationale for providing duplicate versions of documents with sex redacted which may be used where sex is relevent, for example Safeguarding purposes.

I think all official documents should contain accurate information.

But i think it may also be reasonable to allow people to have copies of official documents which don't contain that information at all.

There should be some form of official identification available which does not include sex and so can be used in circumstances when sex is irrelevent however I don't understand the rationale for providing documents which may be used where sex is relevent, for example Safeguarding purposes.

Should the NHS be able to know the sex of its HCPs who may be required to carry out intimate examinations?
Should airport border officials know the sex of people entering/leaving who may require body searches?
Should prison authorities know the sex of people convicted prior to allocating to the male or female prison estate?
Should DBS certificates indicate accurately the sex of a person who will be working with children or Vulnerable Adults?

Yes

I know this isn't a popular view these days but everything about this process was rushed, poorly thought out and presents huge ramifications for real women and society at large.

I vehemently disagree with the changing of historical documents and the potential brought by this and feel strongly that essentially reversing biology is just totally wrong.

My concerns as to the mental health of people entering this process is also deepened upon reading just how easy this appears to be.

The insanity of children being encouraged to do this and pumped full of dangerous medication makes me very uneasy too.

Just let people be who they were born as- if they're uncomfortable there ought to be therapy to ascertain quite why - not the costly option of changing their whole being at a whim .....

I think all official documents should contain accurate information.

But i think it may also be reasonable to allow people to have copies of official documents which don't contain that information at all.

They wouldn't then be able to use that ID to validate that bit of information when needed (like if you have a student ID card which doesn't have your age on it it is no use for proving your age).

With digital IDs a lot of information can be held securely and only released when it is needed.

Then orgs need to be clearer about which situations sex matters, and which are mixed sex, and how to reasonably accommodate people who don't want to declare their sex publicly, without making others deny reality.

Some forms of identification should be possible to not include sex (where irrelevent) however others, such as a passport issued by government should include accurate sex and DOB.

This is what i think might work:

The govt needs to stay within the European Court of Human Rights ruling (Goodwin v UK [2002]). which found was a breach of a post-operative transsexual’s Article 8 rights (concerning privacy) to have to show a birth certificate revealing information about sex when applying for insurance, mortgages and pensions and thus facing potentially intrusive questions.

This problem can be solved simply by allowing anyone to obtain a short form copy of their birth certificate, for a minimal fee, with the sex field removed or left blank.

Sex would remain recorded at birth and kept in the register and individuals could also have a long-form or short-form birth certificate showing their sex.

This would meet the demands for a low cost, accessible and demedicalised process which advocates of ‘self ID’ have called for. It would also accommodate people who identify as non-binary. This would make the issuing of GRCs redundant and so this system should be ended.

This approach of allowing “prefer not to say” on documents and records should be considered for all official purposes. Anybody may call themselves Ms, Mr or Mx, wear what they like, change their name and adopt masculine or feminine styles and this can be reflected on ID, which may not need to carry their sex at all. However shared single sex services would remain reserved for those who are willing to accurately declare their sex and share with others of the same sex (with unisex provision wherever possible for those for whom sex based rules are problematic).

People should be free to express their gender identity any way they chose. But the government should not be in the business of assessing the authenticity of anyone’s self defined feeling of gender identity.

hiyamaya.net/2020/06/20/not-self-id-but-removing-red-tape-for-gender-recognition-what-are-could-that-mean/

They're not 'living quiet lives as women'. They're living as men, because they're men, upholding whatever stereotypes of women they hold dear, but doing so with the protection of the law, safe in the knowledge that women can be sacked for referencing their true sex, prevented from accessing their own female spaces because such men have already claimed their 'right' to them...

This, 100%. This is exactly it. I'm glad if 'quiet' TWs aren't getting us fired and threatening our lives. But they are still disrupting my life and undermining my human rights.

I agree 100%. Yet here we are on a parenting forum discussing safeguarding children & we must tie ourselves in knots for fear of breaking the rules & heaven forbid, correctly sexing people.

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity particularly where neccessary for Safeguarding, be described as a man?

Yes. See Gibbons' post about TW fighter Fallon Fox boasting on Twitter about breaking a female opponent's skull and enjoying it. Not just beating up women legally, not just enjoying it, but boasting about this on a public platform in full confidence of getting away with it.

We could help to achieve it by refusing to vote for anyone, ever, who has not promised to repeal laws harming women, starting with the GRA. If women withdrew their (often unpaid) work from any organisation supporting male supremacism, the whole structure might crumble.

Yes it should. Other posters have explained eloquently how women's rights and their safety and dignity have been undermined by this ridiculous male centred legislation, but that aside the reason for this law no longer exists as same-sex marriage is now legally possible.

In daily life many trans men want to be recognised as men. Many trans women want to be recognised as women.

Unless you intend to remove everyone's sense of sight, hearing, smell, and possibly touch as a last resort too, people are always going to recognize others as the sex they actually are no matter how many laws are passed forbidding them from doing so. This is the fundamental problem that genderists absolutely refuse to come to terms with.

A law or social science department at a university will have to apply for a research grant to examine the area with the appropriate impact case study.

Having asked the law commission the question of how one would actually start the process of repealing a law-this is the response.

There’s no absolute answer to this; it depends very much on what the law is!

If it’s related to an existing law reform project it would be best to get in touch with the project team. If it’s a candidate for statute law repeal because it’s something that is no longer of practical utility I’m probably the best person to contact (but at the moment I can’t hold out any hope of rapid progress, I’m afraid, because as I mentioned earlier statute law repeal work is paused at the moment). And if it’s not in either of those categories your best bet is probably either to contact the government department responsible for the law, or to wait until the Law Commission next launches a consultation on a programme of law reform and take part in our consultation on what should be included in it (this page may give you an idea of how contact us then. For details about our programmes of law reform see: www.lawcom.gov.uk/our-work/programmes-of-law-reform/ .

Yes! The GRA should be repealed.

Ah, sorry, misread it! Yes, we are constantly asked.

When I was a child forms asked for your Christian Name. We were constantly asked, whether we accepted Christ or not. And it was irrelevant to being non-Christian.

This is it. We are constantly asked whether we accept the hierarchy, or not. And it's irrelevant to being at the bottom of it.

It is constantly assumed that we accept the hierarchy.

I can't bear it. It's everywhere, every form I fill, every hospital appointment, every school trip I approve, every job I apply for. Tell us about the innate sexism in your soul, applicant. How do you identify?

This is it. We are constantly asked whether we accept the hierarchy, or not. And it's irrelevant to being at the bottom of it.

Part of the issue that I see, all the time, is that so many people do not understand that women are disadvantaged by gender stereotypes.

Many people don't think women are disadvantaged at all. Or if they are, that it's not pervasive and systematic, and upheld by just about everyone.

So yes even the concept of a 'gender recognition' as something internal immediately disempowers women.

I can ask that question....any further questions?

So @happydappy2 we need to lobby for a public consultation on repealing it? Just trying to understand.

I have had a reply to the Law Commission (after googling how to repeal a law, found their details.) I asked for more info on HOW one does it, and if it could be done anonymously, how long it could take, below is there answer.

The normal way to contact the Commission is by e mail – which, for obvious reasons, is difficult to do anonymously. We do our best to respect requests for confidentiality from people who contact us, although we cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality in all circumstances.

The statute law repeals procedure is for the repeal of legislation that is no longer of practical utility: for more details see s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/03/background_notes.pdf . The Commission’s most recent report on statute law repeals was published in 2015 and has not yet been implemented. And I am afraid that statute law repeal work is paused at the moment and I am not sure when it will restart. So at the moment it is difficult to give a meaningful estimate of how long it might take to get a law repealed under this procedure. But it can often take several years, because of the need to consult on proposals and the time that is then taken to get a Bill through Parliament.

Where legislation still has practical effect it is still possible to repeal it: I think it is almost certainly the case that the majority of repeals are made outside the statute law repeals procedure. The Law Commission can propose repeal on policy grounds as part of a law reform project (details of current projects are on our website), and government departments and backbench MPs and peers often propose the repeal of legislation on policy grounds.

Barracker

Agree totally. Great post barracker