What do Labour mean by 'Modernise the Outdated Gender Recognition Act'?

Marriage certs have been re done recently.

I don’t think they have sex on them anyway?

(they’ve stopped using ‘spinster’ and ‘bachelor’ for sure)

Of course it does (I know this was a rhetorical question). Look at the comments under the original tweet. They hate women.

It means whatever they think you want it to mean. Hopping it will appeal to both TRAs, MRAs and Womens’s Rights advocates.

This

I feel that if the issue is really just marriage and death certificates (clue: it's not, it's about self id and misogyny), then it would be much easier to just revise marriage and death certificates.

Ive casually looked into this before from a Scottish perspective as I have a Scottish marriage certificate and have been through the process of getting married in Scotland - there is no sex or gender on the certificate and you can use your legal name which may not be your birth name. There are also no mandatory words in the ceremony so no-one is getting called a bride when they're a groom or vice versa.

I don't know about death certificates having never seen one. Grave stones definitely use your legal name (not necessarily your birth name yadda yadda).

I don't know what the case is in England and Wales but it shouldn't be too hard to allow people to get married and die* using whatever name they are using in other legal circs at the time.

*Death certs are used for health stats so I would be against de-sexing these but an additional gender box could be added if wanted.

The wonderful JKR on Twitter said the whole transgender issue with regard to the mutilation of children will be the next big scandal, NHS will be sued for £millions

I expect it is not what I would term modernising- perhaps reducing the two years after a medical diagnosis, or allowing someone to be recorded as having transgendered on their death certificate if their will provides for this.

Modernise = self id and remove the spousal clause

Why apply for a GRC (which changes your birth certificate) if you don’t HAVE a UK birth certificate to change?

I believe this story has similar motivations to the Freddy McConnell case, it’s an attempt to force a law change through the courts, by passing parliament.

Foreign born residents whose birth countries don’t have a legal sex change process probably do get some sort of benefit from
a GRC despite not being able to use it for a birth certificate change (possibly legal comparator change for EQ10) but this person comes from a US state that does recognise the change requested, so I can’t see that there is any real-world benefit to the individual? The legal comparator change is void because which sex would you be compared to if you hadn’t changed level sex from M to F? Surely courts would have to default to your birth sex? Nonbinary ISN’T A SEX!

It must surely be a QT politically motivated court case?

"Tougher penalities for LGBT+ hate crimes"...I wonder if that includes against those TRAs who vilify lesbians for not wanting their penises...

But as the article states "faced with no other options" they had no choice but to opt for it. It makes it sound like a life or death situation in the face of pitiless beaurocracy.

Now you can get a GD diagnosis for about £350 and some doctors on the list are known to be more laid back/less detailed than others.

This must be all the whining about it being ‘so expensive’. It costs money to cue up all your bent documents.

Modernise is usually spin for "do something unpopular with a large group of people". E.g. if the government says 'we will modernise the fire service' you can guarantee that it will mean firemen protesting 6 months down the line over pay cuts/pension changes etc. If South Western Rail talk about modernising their train service you might think "great they are buying new trains". Nope - its getting rid of the guards and more strikes. etc etc.
Not saying change is always bad - even unpopular/controversial changes can be needed. But it shows a certain cowardice/lack of conviction.

I don’t think the GRC panel rejects anyone really, as long as the paperwork is all in order. It’s literally a form filled in by a GP re: physical treatments undertaken (none is an acceptable answer) and an envelope of evidence, ID, utility bills bank statements etc to prove they’ve been using their new name consistently for two years.

The bit the activists must be objecting to as ‘humiliating and invasive’ is probably the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, which has to be made by a handful of recognised psychiatrists/clinical psychologist, who are on a list published by the government (most of whom work at the GICs and moonlight privately).

The diagnosis is supposed to weed out the fetishists, not the GRC panel. Maybe it did back in 2004…

Now you can get a GD diagnosis for about £350 and some doctors on the list are known to be more laid back/less detailed than others.

Labour have been asked many times and by both sides.

They don't explain what they mean.

What a bloody whiner. ‘Not specified’ means exact the same thing as ‘non-binary’ doesn’t it? Twat.

Pretty sure they mean add a non binary option (as well as god knows what else).

https://inews.co.uk/news/non-binary-american-uk-stuck-legal-limbo-gender-2242643

I’d like to see it.

I wonder if the complaints about getting a GRC being ‘lengthy, drawn out, invasive and humiliating’, are being made by the blokes who get rejected.

(That survey was a fair few years old, so largely predated current activism about GRA reform - I imagine the same survey carried out today would contain those tropes. They're things people would now know they're supposed to say as part of the activism.)

Regarding the process of getting a GRC being lengthy, drawn out, invasive and humiliating I reckon they may have a point.

Except there's no evidence it's any of those. A couple of years back Maya Forstater dug up some survey that had been done by the relevant authorities asking people who'd gone through the process for their thoughts on it - something quite free-form - and she remarked about the total absence of any of those activist "tropes" from the responses.

Anyone know what I'm talking about and got it bookmarked?

Regarding the process of getting a GRC being lengthy, drawn out, invasive and humiliating I reckon they may have a point.

I don’t know if anyone else here has tried to get a certified diagnosis, for themselves or their kids, for any condition on the NHS, but it is exactly the same feeling. The sense of being powerless, feeling judged, fearing stigma, the long wait, having to open up about private and intimate things in front of strangers, the anxiety something won’t be picked up on, or something else might be fixated upon, and the whole thing could come to nothing, it’s not a bloody walking in the park.

It is ridiculous to me that having a diagnosis should amount to anything more than DLA, a blue badge, mobility aids and referrals to relevant services, if required.

How utterly bizarre that a diagnosis of a medical condition could lead to a person being awarded additional legal powers - to change their identity documents and have greater privacy than other people.

That kind of prize would totally up the stress of getting a diagnosis.

It’s madness.

It should be scrapped.

I read "modernising" as a way of saying "we don't want to say we're introducing self-ID, because it will be controversial, but we don't want the TRAs to think we've forgotten them, so we're going to use the word 'modernising' which could mean anything and we can decide what it actually means when we come to power."

As for the other stuff, introducing tougher penalties for LGBT hate crime in particular is idiotic and clearly fraught with problems, while as for banning conversion therapy, they can't have read the Hannah Barnes book or seen the way the wind is blowing.

What they mean is that they are going to push ahead with self-ID, they are just not going to call it self-ID until after the election.

Why they mean whatever you want them to mean* 🤗

*not binding in any way

Ah yes, but that's not "modernising" though. GRA and hate legislation both need repealing because they are terrible, badly written laws which are impossible to enforce fairly.

They say "modernise" so that people short on time unquestioningly accept the law is old-fashioned and out of date. Which the GRA is in terms of sex role stereotyping and sexism required to up hold it. But that's not what they mean. They mean "maintaining any kind of boundaries is old hat and we'll tear those boundaries down because Momentum wants us to".

Weasel words.