GRA REFORM OR REPEAL?

It's true that the GRA actually grants very little to trans people on top of what other existing legislation already gives them (always worth repeating: the GRA has nothing to do with access to spaces, that's covered by the EA2010). Basically it lets a trans person have their preferred sex recorded on a marriage certificate or a death certificate. And that's about it. Neither of those have any impact on anyone else except the trans person themselves. So calling for the GRA to be repealed seems a) unnecessary to achieve any reasonable aim gender critical people claim they want to achieve and b) particularly petty and cruel to want to deny trans people even this one tiny shred of recognition that has zero impact on anyone else but may mean the world to them.

Fairly simple questions:

Should it be a right in law for anyone who chooses to have preferred rather than actual information on legal documents?

Where might that go wrong?

If one characteristic can be chosen at will, then obviously this extends to all characteristics, because you can't gate keep this once you open it - what are the impacts for example of identifying as being four years old in legal documentation? Have we opened the door there for a legal fight to a primary school placement? How is that different to the fight for a legal right to be in a female only refuge?

Should someone without a characteristic be able to have this legal fiction of having one and be so entitled to the same resources set aside for those who do not have the power to legally fiction their way out of this disadvantage society is providing for?

What do we do with an able bodied person who wishes to have equal rights to a funded carer, a wet room with hoists and an accessible car for their wheelchair?

How does this affect the group who cannot whatever they do escape the reality of this disadvantage?

Is it a good idea to base law in feelings rather than objectively verifiable and replicateable fact? Where might that go wrong?

Bad law. Badly made. All the wrong reasons. Everything discussed as possible concerns in drawing it up have come to pass plus a whole lot more.

TQ+ needs can be met without this legal fiction, and the reality has to be accepted that sex does not change, and sex based rights are needed for equality. Inclusion requires addition of TQ+ available services and gender neutral provisions with clear lines that no, sex based provisions will not be dissolved, and other vulnerable groups excluded and disadvantaged because they have rights too. Tolerance on both sides will have to be a part of this, it cannot be all about TQ+ people.

100% repeal
Single sex spaces protected, no falsification of official documents, everyone allowed to present themselves however they like (within usual common law decency I suppose!)

As the push to separate trans identities from any medical diagnosis continues I don't understand how they will be legally able to claim sex can be changed legally while age cannot which is terrifying.

78. In this case, as in many others, the applicant's gender re-assignment was carried out by the national health service, which recognises the condition of gender dysphoria and provides, inter alia, re-assignment by surgery, with a view to achieving as one of its principal purposes as close an assimilation as possible to the gender in which the transsexual perceives that he or she properly belongs. The Court is struck by the fact that nonetheless the gender re-assignment which is lawfully provided is not met with full recognition in law, which might be regarded as the final and culminating step in the long and difficult process of transformation which the transsexual has undergone. The coherence of the administrative and legal practices within the domestic system must be regarded as an important factor in the assessment carried out under Article 8 of the Convention. Where a State has authorised the treatment and surgery alleviating the condition of a transsexual, financed or assisted in financing the operations and indeed permits the artificial insemination of a woman living with a female-to-male transsexual (as demonstrated in the case of X., Y. and Z. v. the United Kingdom, cited above), it appears illogical to refuse to recognise the legal implications of the result to which the treatment leads.

So according to the ECHR, the UK government, via the NHS, has authorised and funded the applicant's medical treatment, so it should also recognise the 'legal implications' which result from this treatment.

But since the law as it was eventually passed required no medical treatment at all for obtaining a GRC, why should there be any obligation for the government to officially recognise a 'new gender'?

The decision about Article 8 ends:
93. ... Since there are no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, it reaches the conclusion that the fair balance that is inherent in the Convention now tilts decisively in favour of the applicant. There has, accordingly, been a failure to respect her right to private life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

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

The GRA was a sticking plaster to make the world work for a very small number of people. The secrecy part is over the top and is covered by other legislation.

Now changing gender and transitioning is so commonplace it makes no sense whatsoever. People I know from childhood have transitioned, a relative is transitioning and taking hormones, my children's friend from playgroup and school days is transitioning, my daughter did a degree and shared a house with someone who was transitioning. If I mention it to anyone, they also know someone. My friend's middle aged BIL is wearing net skirts

One of 5000 may have 'passed' because people weren't expecting someone to be dressed as if they were the opposite sex, but now, everyone is doing it, and everyone can tell.

From the judgment:
66. As regards the specific difficulties claimed by the applicant, the Government submitted that an employer was unable to establish the sex of the applicant from the NI number itself since it did not contain any encoded reference to her sex. The applicant had been issued with a new NI card with her changed name and style of address. Furthermore, the DSS had a policy of confidentiality of the personal details of a NI number holder and, in particular, a policy and procedure for the special protection of transsexuals. As a result, an employer had no means of lawfully obtaining information from the DSS about the previous sexual identity of an employee. It was also in their view highly unlikely that the applicant's employer would discover her change of gender through her NI number in any other way. The refusal to issue a new NI number was justified, the uniqueness of the NI number being of critical importance in the administration of the national insurance system, and for the prevention of the fraudulent use of old NI numbers.

hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228957/95%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

Re Article 12, was it written that way to specify that men and women have the right to marry each other? The other declarations talk about everyone having the right to xyz. Did the writers specifically exclude same-sex marriage? It seems likely, given that homosexuality was illegal at that time in most (all?) of the countries involved in the DoHR.

1. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 12
Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf

Right to privacy: …except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society…for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. We have growing evidence that trans ideology is harming both its adherents and others.

Right to marry: exists in UK law.

The same statutes that judges decided obligated the creation of the GRA, now obligate its repeal.

REPEAL.

It's no surprise that the first country to enable changing your date of birth on your birth certificate as well as your sex, is gangsta-lead Mexico.

We now know that male prisoners convicted of sexual offences against women, are applying for a GRC from prison and being granted one-then they can apply for transfer to the female prison estate. We can absolutely repeal this insane law.

I'd like to know what would be most practical and straightforward in terms of change. I think it's clear the GRA creates conflict within the EA. How is this going to be fixed?

In my mind, the PC of sex should be enough to protect people who identify as trans.

You could quite easily add something to the sex based legislation around not discriminating on the basis of diversion from sex-based expectations of behaviour or appearance. And reinforce what we know to be true that anyone of either sex can behave and present in any way and they will remain the sex they are and should be treated as such eg in sports, prisons, healthcare etc etc.

Repeal. It is too defective to be reformed.

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.

As for those for whom transvestism is an expression of a dysphoria, they need to be treated with the same compassion as any other person suffering a dysphoria. And, in just the same way, not have the world manipulated around them to affirm their dysphoria.

I'm amazed this thread has stayed overnight - are we now able to discuss the GRA (reform and repeal)? This hasn't happened before has it? All other threads are deleted.

Yes, Hansard is quite sobering. The impact on women is mentioned and dismissed.

@Monitaurus have a look at Hansard, they absolutely did foresee the problems. They pushed on regardless because the problems will 'probably never happen' and if they do it's such a 'tiny number of people it won't be a big deal'. I recommend reading the original debate by Vulvamort gives a great overview here:

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of their rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter who made that rule. It’s the same as the GRA itself — claiming that a fantasy is reality.

Unfortunately for all those who wish to repeal the GRA it is not likely due to the reason it was introduced in the first place.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of their rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this judgement, the UK Government had to introduce new legislation to comply.

Repeal the GRA , get rid of the GRC. Let’s not continue to lie about reality. Call yourself whatever you want, dress as stereotypes if you choose, but obscuring the true identity is a barrier to safeguarding. The deed poll change also does that, to be fair. But the GRC was introduced to be kind and no one envisaged the problems that would ensue.

Clymene this.