Government says it is too complex to make changes to the GRA to include non binary

Hasn't the process been tweaked to allow more people to get a certificate?

Not at all. Price was never a barrier as for those on low income it was waived so many never paid a penny.

The criteria never changed.

From the EHRC in 2018 (my bolding):

At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

So no. It is not the EA which gives access to single-sex spaces, services and sports to members of the opposite (legal) sex.

However, wasn't the point of lowering the price meant to make it more accessible. Hasn't the process been tweaked to allow more people to get a certificate?

Out of interest, what effect do you think this will make?

The personal choice view of single sex means that those whose personal choice is single sex get NO CHOICE.

Duplicate automatically!

There's lots of interpretation of the single sex exemptions but it's not automatically overidden by reassignment automatically.

That's what women are pushing back on.

It makes a nonsense of sex exemptions to say they are a personal choice.

For example by definition a transsexual will almost certainly be dysmorphic therefore the idea of them exposing themselves to women is negligible.

A quintessentially masculine perspective!

They still have the male socialisation that encourages them to prioritise their desires and dismiss women's needs or feelings as irrelevant (if they are even noticed). They still have the physiology that results from male puberty, being taller, stronger and faster than almost all women.

The EA doesn't give those with the PC of GR access to the provisions of the opposite sex.

It most certainly does!

The fact is that the chipping away at single sex provisions is all coming from the starting point that all males can choose based on their personal identity and that legislation must acheive that at all and any cost.

The chipping away started with the GRA with the idea that a man can somehow become a woman for all intents and purposes, it is reductive. Once that was put into law no matter what the purported gatekeeping it ruled that woman as a biologically defined legal concept was available to men. It should never have happened.

For example by definition a transsexual will almost certainly be dysmorphic therefore the idea of them exposing themselves to women is negligible.

Why did you go to indecent exposure? I was talking about safeguarding in general not one specific crime.

Also, I would be interested how you came to the conclusion of 'negligible'. Given that grc is protected, it's very difficult (maybe impossible) to know the number of people with a grc who have committed indecent exposure.

Either his mother was doing a poor job of supervising him (which may or may not be her fault), or he is an entitled (albeit young) male forcing his way unconsented into female space.

The EA doesn't give those with the PC of GR access to the provisions of the opposite sex.

The fact is that the chipping away at single sex provisions is all coming from the starting point that all males can choose based on their personal identity and that legislation must acheive that at all and any cost.

The recent thread here about a word change from dysphoria to incongruence in NI is illustrative of the strategy.

What are women supposed to do? It's been made absolutely clear the contempt women are held in. Christine Burns MBE called women pig ignorant last week for expecting single sex to mean single sex. This is someone who has been involved in trans rights for decades. Thinks women are pig ignorant.

We are now clinging onto women's sports by our finger tips from transexuals and transgender alike with sports organisations listening to academics tell them women must try harder. Are we just not trying hard enough as well as pig ignorant?

Getting angry with women when we are reacting to this in the only rational way is the default response. We are pig ignorant.

Well I'm all out of respect for anyone calling me pig ignorant as a response to my expectation that female means female and not any identity.

Sort out the leadership who want pig ignorant women to do as they are told. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Or maybe the GRC and it's legal fictions was the start of the gender nonsense

It was and the EQA made it worse. A few sensible voices did raise the alarm and predicted what would happen but they were shouted down or ignored. Messing with the definitions of male and female and producing a legal fiction that had to be kept secret as if it was a matter of national security was always going to end badly it was a bad law at the time and a complete over reaction to solving a problem.

I would agree that in the here and now women need completely separate legislation and our rights to our language, single sex spaces, sports and facilities, to be absolutely and unequivocally enshrined in law.

No, it was the GRA. The Equality Act doesn't change people's legal sex.

So the issue us the GRA which changes legal sex of 5000 people and not the EA which allows 600,000+ to self identify?

It's not the GRA that gives access its the EA.

You are fully aware that the gatekeeping is for the protection of the patient, not the women and children who may come into contact with those with a grc.

I believe it does both.

For example by definition a transsexual will almost certainly be dysmorphic therefore the idea of them exposing themselves to women is negligible.

The EA is an intersectional mess.

I entirely agree. The EA is contradictory and awful legislation driven by Stonewalls influence on EHRC. Thankfully EHRC have seen the light.

Gender Reassignment is not Gender Identity.

As to GRA its still a hugely gatekept process and I don't see it as being the big issue. 5,000 GRC holders in 15 years versus 600,000 transgender at lowest estimate so that's much less than 1%.

The process of a GRC is very much gatekept. An application must be supported by a specific NHS approved medical expert.

You are fully aware that the gatekeeping is for the protection of the patient, not the women and children who may come into contact with those with a grc.

The idea that a man can get female recorded on their birth certificate and that change has to remain confidential has compromised women and childrens safeguarding and the ability of informed consent.

The EA is an intersectional mess.

Both need revisiting. Women probably need our own legislation away from other rights.

Press for Change managed to get the GRA through without anyone really noticing what was happening.

Why is the GRA seen as the issue? PFC drive the EA changes not GRA.
Even before the GRA we had the Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment).

Transsexual law has existed for decades. It was the EA that introduced self id into law.

I fear this is true, but hope that it isn't. It was working ok, until all the gender nonsense started. Or maybe the GRC and it's legal fictions was the start of the gender nonsense. Either way I hope we can navigate a way through that protects Blue and other transexuals. I think a GRC might be a way to do that, since it exists already. As we are so often reminded by TRA's, there is nothing but convention stopping anyone from going anywhere. Gender ideology seeks to change the conventions and the erode the law. The GRC remains unchanged. Regardless of the logic and the complications of 'policing' single sex spaces, people with a GRC remain legally entitled to use the opposite sex toilets.