MPs are being briefed that the GRA needs to be reformed to align with other European countries

In conclusion, it can be seen that the United Kingdom has fallen behind the rest of Europe in terms of having gender recognition laws that are fit for purpose in the 21st Century.

Hmm, do we want male soldiers posing as women, to get extra money, or male firefighters doing so, as they're not fit and strong enough to make the grade? Or women to be imprisoned for mistergendering, as in Germany? Are such laws fit for purpose?

I don't think so, I think they're repressive bullshit and I'm not really surprised that the group of trans zealots here are pushing such shitty propaganda.

My right to privacy and dignity shouldn't be dependent on what someone else believes about themselves.

This. It's as simple as that.

samarrange
Apart from anything else, even with qualified majority voting, any gender recognition proposals would not get the necessary votes because most countries in central and eastern Europe would be against them.

According to this EU voting calculator, central and eastern European countries could still be outvoted via a straightforward qualified majority vote (EU27);

Number of voting countries: 27, voting results: yes: 15 (55.56% of countries, 75.63% of population), no: 12, abstain: 0 Voting result approved

https://euvote.eu/

the EU does not have any mandate or position on family life and related social questions. Nor are there any proposals for it to do so

Banning the practice of conversion therapy is listed as an objective here;

https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners/hadja-lahbib_en

It would appear that the rest of Europe is behind the UK in affirming women's rights, and needs to catch up, rather than the other way round.
No-one objects to transpeople have human rights, like everyone else, but changing legal documents so that they are no longer accurate as to sex is historical vandalism, and opening women's spaces to men who think they are women is misogynistic. The rest of the continent needs to look at how it is writing women out of the public sphere.

Indeed they are. But they won't be influenced by that silly 'briefing' because they're already signed up and unlikely to change their position in the foreseeable future.

Absolutely. People who say, "inappropriate behaviour should be dealt with" (apart from the fact that it never is dealt with) fail to recognise that sometimes the person's presence IS inappropriate behaviour. But it's difficult to make this point when the inappropriate behaviour is perfectly legal/within the rules of the establishment.

Yep.

Amended DOBs in night clubs don't impact anyone else (unless the place gets shut down for underage drinking) but anyone using their ID to access services, spaces and sports for the opposite sex impacts everyone else in there in one or more ways. As I've learned from the brilliant posters on this board, for some people, that one way could simply be due to their presence, even if they haven't said or done anything when there e.g. women who have experienced sexual assault by men who expect a women's space to only have women in it.

It's also not relevant whether they genuinely believe they are the opposite sex or not. Either way, they're not, and they shouldn't be in spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

My right to privacy and dignity shouldn't be dependent on what someone else believes about themselves.

Utterly inexplicably, the Passport Authority and DVLA themselves are totally OK with someone declaring their own sex on this ID.

Organisations losing track of what they're supposed to be doing. ID documents exist for the benefit of other people as much as the holder.

An ID document that just says whatever the holder wants it to say is useless for anyone else, and so in turn becomes useless for the holder. Indeed, for all holders, not just the ones who wanted to put the fake info on.

you have to realise that you can't ever limit "ID choice" in any area where such legislation exists, so you can't think you're bringing it in for a limited group. It has to be blocked outright.

Spot on. Nobody's belief about themselves should ever become factual on ID.

It's mad that authorities can recognise that changing DOB on ID is wrong. Lots of institutions have really cracked down on it in recent times. Anyone remember fake UCAS cards years ago, where anyone could declare their own DOB and get a reasonably authentic looking card? I'm guessing most places wouldn't accept anything but driving licence or similar now. Obviously anyone getting fake ID for their age doesn't have "dysphoria". It's about finding a way to gain access to somewhere you shouldn't be or something you shouldn't have.

Utterly inexplicably, the Passport Authority and DVLA themselves are totally OK with someone declaring their own sex on this ID.

There's no way of knowing who truly believes that they are the opposite sex (or that they have a gendered soul that matches with the opposite sex), who just wishes they were and who just wants to gain access to somewhere they shouldn't be or something they shouldn't have.

But a judgment like that apparently is then used as a stepping stone to self ID. The argument being "if men can change their ID to male, but women can't, that's sex discrimination, which is illegal".

(That's basically the same argument ACLU etc are attempting in the US supreme court with respect to cross-sex hormones - saying testosterone is safe for males but not females is sex discrimination).

That's the basic problem with the sex discrimination (or other discrimination) laws - they start from a basis of "outlaw discrimination generally", then try to add in the sensible exceptions they can think of, like sport or whatever. But they didn't think of adding exceptions sufficient to cover idiocy.

And trans laws suffer the same problems - if you let someone change their ID because they've chopped their cock off, then it's unethical to require someone to get their cock chopped off to change their ID, so you have to offer it generally.

The one short-circuit I can think of is that in the case of ID like above - there shouldn't be any right to "change your ID". That framing is wrong. Rather it's that the authorities are required to make sure it's correct.

If they become aware you are female when the ID says male, they are required to correct it. You get no direct say in the matter. Most you can do is make them aware of an error. And if it was wrong, you'd have no choice about it being maintained as wrong - they'd correct it even if you didn't want it corrected. So the form of any legal case is specifically "my ID is factually incorrect", not "I don't like my ID".

(And obviously no male should be changing their ID, cock chop or not.)

Helen Joyce has talked about how you can't let "0=1" anywhere in maths cos the damage spreads everywhere. Any allowance of choice of ID in any circumstance is the equivalent of that - and then it spreads via the medium of discrimination legislation. I don't think the place to fix it is to necessarily try to throttle the discrimination legislation - it's that you have to realise that you can't ever limit "ID choice" in any area where such legislation exists, so you can't think you're bringing it in for a limited group. It has to be blocked outright.

Relating to a name change for freedom of movement only? (just to check I've understood what you're saying)

I don't have all the details, but reading between the lines it seems that this person wanted a new birth certificate, perhaps as part of an ID card application. And you need an ID card or passport to take up your FoM rights.

I remember a case at the European Court of Human Rights about 30 years where France lost because people were unable to change their sex on their birth certificate for any reason. You got your sex/gender "assigned at birth", as the trans rights people say, and that was it for ever. The twist is that this case was brought, not by a trans person, but by someone (I don't remember if it was a man or a woman) who had simply had the wrong sex put down on their birth certificate because their genitalia were wonky at birth (this apparently happens sometimes due to hormones). This problem had sorted itself out and the person was now an adult with fully functioning genitalia that they were perfectly happy with, but they were unable to marry because their birth certificate said M (or F) when they were F (or M), and they wanted to marry "another" M or F, which was illegal at the time.

Apparently this happened quite a lot. I had a French friend who had done his military service in the arrivals office and he told me that they regularly had very obviously female conscripts reporting for duty after getting their call-up papers (every male in France got them round about their 18th birthday until about 2001). They would show their ID card and yep, it said male, which was why they had been called up. They were immediately failed on medical grounds, but these women could never marry because it was literally impossible to change your sex on your birth certificate.

Anyway, France got its arse kicked at the court in that case and had to change its laws to allow you to change your sex on an official document, although I doubt if they included self-ID as one of the allowable criteria at that point. One thing I remember vividly was the person's lawyer noting that Turkey (hardly a bastion of soggy woke liberal values) allowed people (including trans people, with some degree of medical justification) to change their sex on their ID card, unlike France.

It's helpful to see it unpicked like that. Thank you for sharing.

if instead of a GRC it had been a same-sex marriage certificate I think the verdict would have been exactly the same

Relating to a name change for freedom of movement only? (just to check I've understood what you're saying)

Yeah, sorry. I did mean Czechia.

I assume you mean Czechia rather than Chechnya (which is a Muslim-majority region of Russia), but anyway: Yes, there is a split between (roughly) "old"/"Western" Europe and "new"/"Eastern" Europe on gender recognition, self-ID, etc. See https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/documents-formalities/legal-gender-recognition/index_en.htm and click on whatever country interests you.

There is an interesting comment on that case here: https://eapil.org/2024/10/15/cjeu-rules-member-states-must-recognise-a-unions-citizen-change-of-first-name-and-gender-identity/

Basically, the CJEU's judgement only went as far as saying that the Romanian authorities have to accept the appellant's current gender identity only insofar as it applies to their exercise of EU rights, notably freedom of movement. So for example they can't refuse an ID card or passport on the basis of the change of reported gender (and, probably just as important, name).

It reaffirms, however, that a person's gender (gender identity, etc) is a matter for the member states for all other purposes. That is stated explicitly near the end: "the recognition of a Union citizen’s name and gender identity change for other purposes – such as marriage, parenthood establishment, social security rights, health care, and participation in sports – appears to remain within the competence of individual Member States."

The CJEU got involved partly because of the Brexit issue (i.e., did this person's GRC still count after Brexit), but also because as a result of the GRC, they wanted a new birth certificate. Had they never left Romania, there would have been no GRC, and so the question would not arise.

EU law, and in particular the relationship between EU law and national law, is a very tricky area, and it's very easy to read more into a CJEU judgement than is there. The CJEU is not what most people would call an "activist" court, in terms of pushing social boundaries; it's generally the European Parliament that leads on social questions. However, the CJEU does very often come down on the side of the individual against the state in borderline cases. We might not like the fact that the court told Romania to recognise this person's GRC, but if instead of a GRC it had been a same-sex marriage certificate I think the verdict would have been exactly the same (Romania does not recognise same-sex marriage either).

So are we significantly out of step with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Chechnya, Rumania, Bulgaria et al?

But she did say the quiet bit out loud in the Supreme Court. It's on the public record.

Yes, that part was excellent, and the frothing on Blue Sky was something to behold.

Labour REALLY want Farage as the next PM don't they?

Idiots.

I think appointing Wes Streeting as health secretary was a biggie. They're not arguing with Cass. And I think he has made some comments recently which suggest a softening of his stance on women's rights, which, if not an apology to Rosie Duffield, come quite close to saying what she was criticised for saying. I'd have to try and find some links though.

But some of those ideologues are on the front benches...let alone the usual shouty ones from the backbenches.

Fair enough.

Yes, Ruth Crawford wasn't saying anything new in law (as @Ereshkigalangcleg has also said above) so perhaps my choice of words was poor.

But she did say the quiet bit out loud in the Supreme Court. It's on the public record.

The scrutiny on being able to change driving licences and passports is also increasing.

I do think there will be an uptick in GRC applications as a result of all of this "sunlight" on the facts. Reliance on ignorance of the existing law (once sex is clarified.... hopefully 🤞) is presumably a big reason why so few people bother with a GRC.