Should the GRA be repealed?

There is a good summary here:

"Evidence from Sex Matters to the Women and Equality Committee Inquiry on Reform of the Gender Recognition Act, 2020"

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18062/pdf/

I thought it was to address the issue of the old case of Corbett which left some people in a legal limbo worth a re read to see what the law was

Human beings cant change sex. Men who 'identify' as women should only be allowed in some wome'sn spaces if they have had bottom surgery & cannot sexually assault women. And even then NO sex offender should be allowed in any women's space ever, even if they have fully transitioned.

Well yeah, The very reason for its existence is moot now. And this 'legal sex change' thing is just adding more issues.

Grandfather in those who have one. But then just stop..

This one?

Recommend on you tube... it explains so much...
‘Dysphoric’
is a four-part documentary series on the rise of Gender Identity Ideology, its effects on women and girls - especially in developing countries.

Synopsis:
In this dystopian world where misogyny is rampant, and womanhood is commodified, being female comes at a cost. Corporates capitalise on women's bodies blurring the lines of biological sex, and profiting from the emperically untested pseudo-science of queer theory. This gaslighting is aided by the complicity of media, academia, legal and the political world. It is no surprise that young girls are fleeing womanhood like a house on fire.
The past decade has seen a steep rise in the number of young girls seeking to transition by undergoing life threatening, irreversible procedures. ‘Dysphoric’ is a four-part documentary series on the rise of Gender Identity Ideology, its effects on women and girls - especially in developing countries.
The film explores gender transition, the permanent medical side-effects of hormones and surgeries, the propaganda by 'woke' corporations that glorifies thousands of stereotypical gender presentations coalesced as fashion, a surge in pronoun policing; language hijacking that calls women ‘menstruators’, and the many hurdles women face while trying to question this modern-day misogyny. The film amplifies the voices of detransitioners, clinicians, psychiatrists, sociologists, feminists, academics and concerned citizens.

Yes it needs to be repealed now.

There’s another current thread on this topic here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3941154-should-the-gra-be-repealed?pg=7

Violence dammit.

My recollection is that mentioning offences committed under another name (used that to be called an alias?) is Utterly Unacceptable And Unfair as well as Deadnaming and Literal Vuolence.

Well that would seem fair wouldn't it AskingQuestions but I'd imagine that it's okay for the pension providers and the DWP to know that there is one person with two different NI numbers.

Someone was looking into CRB checks too a while back weren't they?

Seems to me that if you become a new person when you change your gender, and any reference to your previous persona is forbidden, any reference to a previous NI number should also be forbidden.

This would mean that your NI contributions should be counted from the date at which your current NI number starts to be in use.

Repeal the GRA gets my support.

16. In 1996, the applicant started work with a new employer and was required to provide her National Insurance (“NI”) number. She was concerned that the new employer would be in a position to trace her details as once in the possession of the number it would have been possible to find out about her previous employers and obtain information from them. Although she requested the allocation of a new NI number from the Department of Social Security (“DSS”), this was rejected and she eventually gave the new employer her NI number. The applicant claims that the new employer has now traced back her identity as she began experiencing problems at work. Colleagues stopped speaking to her and she was told that everyone was talking about her behind her back.

17. The DSS Contributions Agency informed the applicant that she would be ineligible for a State pension at the age of 60, the age of entitlement for women in the United Kingdom. In April 1997, the DSS informed the applicant that her pension contributions would have to be continued until the date at which she reached the age of 65, being the age of entitlement for men, namely April 2002. On 23 April 1997, she therefore entered into an undertaking with the DSS to pay direct the NI contributions which would otherwise be deducted by her employer as for all male employees.

So they did make a claim of entitlement to a pension at 60, which is obviously no longer an issue in the UK.

Para 16 seems to be why there is a clause in the GRA which prevents anyone from disclosing that a person holds a GRC if they have obtained this knowledge in a professional capacity. But if the employer can't disclose this information, and it seems reasonable that in many cases an employer might need to know the sex of their employees, there is no need for a change of NI number.

In the ECHR case (Goodwin v UK 2002), one of the claims was that they could be 'outed' to their employer via their NI number.

Because of course none of their colleagues, managers or subordinates would have any idea of their trans status without sight of their NI number.

As I said, the GRA mandates deception.

I think you answered your own question, Lone.

one of the claims was that they could be 'outed' to their employer via their NI number. I think this was because the record would show that their retirement age was 65 (the male retirement age at the time), rather than 60.

Surely more likely they simply wanted to retire at 60? Although complaining about being outed would obviously garner more sympathy.

I am amazed that people are allowed to obtain a new NI number - doesn’t that mess with their NI contributions for pension purposes? Does that require the updated birth certificate?

Changing NI number was the second reason for the GRA (the main one being a way to allow transsexuals to marry someone of the same sex without legislating for same sex marriage).

In the ECHR case (Goodwin v UK 2002), one of the claims was that they could be 'outed' to their employer via their NI number. I think this was because the record would show that their retirement age was 65 (the male retirement age at the time), rather than 60. Since we now have an equal retirement age, there is no longer a need for this.

Good point thinking perhaps it's worth a separate email to the HoL or DCMS about free speech being attacked, quite literally, in the dead of night...

I’m still wondering what people want from the GRA. It obviously is not currently providing much as indicated by the low number of GRCs.

As we’ve discussed, sex markers can be changed on most identification documents without a GRC (is that right?) apart from the birth certificate which imo is an historical document that should never be changed (except in very rare circumstances).

It would be unwise (and also shouldn’t be allowed for safety purposes) to change the sex marker on NHS records and I am amazed that people are allowed to obtain a new NI number - doesn’t that mess with their NI contributions for pension purposes? Does that require the updated birth certificate?

The point I am making is that it is (or should) be impossible and unwise to erase all evidence of a previous existence and rewrite the past so other than the privilege to change a birth certificate which no one else has, what does the GRC do for anyone?

Yes, I wondered why Mumsnet had gone down when I was trying to complete the House of Lords consultation on free speech! Mumsnet is an excellent resource for women, and supporters of women’s rights. Not surprising it is unpopular in certain quarters.

The TRAs will never shut women up talking about this. Getting Posie banned on social media platforms meant she had to take billboard ads out instead and the conversation spilled over in to the real world. It’s a dick move and entirely counterproductive, but they don’t seem able to help themselves.

It's useful and instructive.

I do find it a bit odd that people try to shut us up by attacking conversations/threads/sites where women dare to discuss UK law, while simultaneously screenshotting and broadcasting the discussion all over Twitter.

Reminds me of the bloke in the camo fatigues wearing a high vis vest.

Make up your minds, lads.

Yes of course it should be repealed. It is a bad law which should never have made it onto the statute books in the first place.