GRA REFORM OR REPEAL?

www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

“Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:

Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:

demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or

been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity“

The omission of sex as a category given the inclusion of ‘Transgender identity’ is quite extraordinary and beggars belief.

Repeal. If a system is needed it should be more like adoption or deed-polling, and it must be separate from sex.

The fact of the matter is that it harms women if men are allowed to say they're women politically and practically, and it harms trans people in the most serious of situations (eg. medical) if their sex is hidden.

Yes. I see so many trans people saying they were just quietly getting on with their lives until the legal fallacy appeared. Now there is a focus on them they never wanted.

You're forgetting that it was trans people who pushed for the original GRA. Christine Burns, Stephen Whittle and the rest of the Beaumont society (whose members were transsexuals and transvestites). And of course Christine Goodwin who wanted to marry a man and went to the European Court, which eventually resulted in the GRA.

I’m with repeal as well.

If people wish to change their appearance to look more like the opposite sex, then they should be allowed to do so.

It needs to become more acceptable that some people prefer to live their lives that way, and less remarkable to discover that, in rare cases, someone is not the sex they appear to be.

The logical campaign pushing people to accept this has been abandoned for a much less logical campaign to accept that these people must be treated as the opposite sex.

That illogical premise has become so widespread that even those who influence human rights laws have been influenced. How can it possibly be a human right to be seen as something you’re not? It can’t, and yet that’s where we are.

Until this illogical premise is removed, and replaced with something rational, we will be unable to move forward on this issue. Indeed, as has been observed in other spheres, this is resulting in various other rights being eroded or removed. Tolerance is decreasing. Until this issue is correctly reframed, we will continue to go backwards.

Transgenderism for the most part is no different to any other faith position. Faith and lack of faith are protected in law, and what must be sufficient for those who believe in an immortal soul must also be sufficient for those who believe in a gendered soul.

Imposing gender ideology upon the general population is no different to theocracy.

Excellent post Jellysaurus

Repeal, repeal, REPEAL

"No significant factors of public interest". No consideration at all for women.

None whatsoever. As if we didn’t even exist. Invisible women as usual.

Basically it lets a trans person have their preferred sex recorded on a marriage certificate or a death certificate.

And that basically is why the whole thing was arrant nonsense from the start, no-one has or should be entitled to claim a preferred sex, mandating it is a lie a legal one but still a lie it should never have been enacted into law.

Repeal. It has been dangerous and if Labour/Lib Dem/Greens get anywhere near power, the GRA will be strengthened to take away ALL women's rights. There will no longer be equality, the word will be meaningless

OP the whole area of protection for trans people has been completely hijacked by a very small (but very rich) aggressive group of biologically-male activists who, for psychological reasons of their own, want all men to have unfettered access to all women’s safe spaces.

It was okay when just a few men wanted unfettered access to all women's(and girls) spaces? The problem is the number of men?

The idea that I'd be happy if only a select few men get to undress with my daughter, but not when it becomes too many?

How many men should be allowed to hide their sex on legal documents?

I’d much rather have a passport stating that I’m female and therefore entitled to be searched by female police in female facilities than have my treatment me up to whatever the (almost always male) duty guard decides.

Exactly.

Biology matters. Sex matters. Language matters.

Gender should be removed from all aspects of law and replaced with the word sex. Of which there are 2. Male and female.

They should also, stop allowing people to live a lie by issuing GRC. These were once a kindness that the trans lobby have wholeheartedly abused. You can change your sex and that is that.

This was not an accident. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

When those who brought this situation about behaved like this, and have been utterly uncaring of the harms to women and safeguarding as a result, they can hardly be surprised that it's not supported.

And we're back to Schroedinger's GRA...

simultaneously crucially important for all sorts of things that could not happen without it, while simultaneously just a minor, irrelevant beaurocratic detail making no difference and covered by other laws anyway.

There's less goal posts than goal yoyos. No.

Repeal.
The effects of the GRA on safeguarding and the rights of other groups was not considered at the time.
Laws that enable convicted offenders to hide their identity or access victims are bad laws.

OP the whole area of protection for trans people has been completely hijacked by a very small (but very rich) aggressive group of biologically-male activists who, for psychological reasons of their own, want all men to have unfettered access to all women’s safe spaces. It’s become a movement that is purely about destroying the very concept of women’s rights. Most transpeople don’t actually agree with this, but the activists launch hate campaigns attacking the careers of anyone who disagrees with them or even asks questions like “but what did Joanne Rowling actually say that you disagree with?”

You are right that the GRA has become redundant and could safely be repealed. You are right that conflating sex with gender is helpful to no one. There has been a huge missed opportunity to get rid of all gender stereotypes and acknowledge that it is fine, fun even, for men to wear make up and dresses etc. Instead, men who wish to do so are told by the trans movement that they aren’t really men.

As to passports / driving licenses… I am unsure. We live in an international community. In the middle east and much of asia there are different buildings and queues for men and women re. visas and renewing driving licences etc. If my driving licence did not state my sex, I am not sure how I would have accessed the female building to obtain my local licence but perhaps clothing would have been acceptable I don’t know 🤷‍♀️ Similarly if I had a legal issue overseas, I’d much rather have a passport stating that I’m female and therefore entitled to be searched by female police in female facilities than have my treatment me up to whatever the (almost always male) duty guard decides. Having a legal document stating that I am female is protective overseas, and I wouldn’t want that protection removed. Women held by police in mixedsex facilities get raped, that is the reality. People who live in Western thought-bubbles cannot imagine the real life consequences of removing the protections they object to for philosophical reasons…

Should a male prisoner with a GRC rape a female prisoner, this will count as rape committed by a female perpetrator.

Not only will a male with a GRC be automatically sent to a women's prison, no matter what their crimes, no matter whether they've 'transitioned' or not, but they will be only and always counted as female. They will not appear in statistics, and should they (hypothetically speaking) assault a woman in prison, this will show as 'female on female' violence.

always worth repeating: the GRA has nothing to do with access to spaces, that's covered by the EA2010

Well that's a lie. Have you seen this document?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender

Which means male prisoners with a GRC will go straight to a women's prison, while males who identify as transgender but don't have a GRC go to a male prison.

Basically it lets a trans person have their preferred sex recorded on a marriage certificate or a death certificate. And that's about it.

In that case it's completely pointless.

Sex isn't recorded on a marriage certificate and what is put on a document after someone dies (as a correct record of their death) seems an odd thing to obsess about while they are alive.

You acknowledge the main practical function of the GRA is that having GRC allows trans people to have their legal sex recorded on their marriage certificate.

Is sex recorded on a marriage certificate?

As for 'mean the world to them' -

I'm fairly sure it would mean the world to some females to not be arrested for pointing out biological reality, to be able to access rape crisis services, to not be raped in prison and to be able to escape a life threatening marriage to get into a refuge.

We all have sad stories, we all have feelings. TQ+ feelings are not more important than female equality of rights.

recognition that has zero impact on anyone else

Would you like to go and tell the female humans who have been sexually assaulted and raped in prisons that their attacker's ability to access a women's prison has had zero impact on them?

What about the women who can no longer go to refuges?

What about the women now excluded from changing rooms, toilets, gyms, swimming pools -

this is a straight forward lie. It is because of the real, now, happening evidence impact on females that females wish this law repealed!

Alternate realities and alternate facts just won't cut it. First it was 'there will be zero impact' and now with females excluded and harmed - the gaslighting goes on!

Argue enough and you move to the next line of defence which is 'so they got hurt, it doesn't matter'.

No. This law has to go. Other people have rights too.