Sarah Brown Why are UK trans people upset?

He really is an unusual case, isn't he? His complaints are in no way representative of the vast majority of transw; no, they're incensed that things have been laid out, showing that they are not and never have been entitled to shoehorn themselves into women's spaces.

His sad, weepy whine has nothing to do with the facts, which are: bullies have been thwarted. OK, their corpse is still twitching and will for a while, but court cases will continue, until they and their oddball enablers will no longer be able to pretend that letting them bully, harass and abuse women has a jot of an iota of legitimacy.

Sorry, lads, you've had your fun, but the ladies have finally taken their ball home, so yous will have to get a grip, man up and learn to deal with it.

It allows you to have the opposite sex marker on your birth, marriage and death certificates. I'm not aware of anything else following FWS.

Which makes the stark insanity of the Irish government introducing Gender Self-Id after we'd voted in favour of equal marriage even starker and even more insane, as it was completely destructive of all sex-based rights.

It would seem so.

I just jumped on this thread thinking Gordon Brown's wife had waded in to support women's rights. Rolls eyes and wanders off emoji.

Ah right, thanks, I'd forgotten about that. But that's all obsolete now, so the answer right now would be nothing.

Incorrect. It used to allow you to marry if you were gay before we brought in same sex marriage

So the answer to the question, what can/could I do with a GRC that I was not entitled to do without one, is nothing? And, in fact, always was nothing, is that right?

I would find it easier to be sympathetic if she was able to explain what was "humiliating, degrading and cruel" about the way she was treated.
From the examples given it seems to be:
a) having to demonstrate that expensive, complicated and irreversible surgery was necessary and b) being subject to the same laws and procedures for civil partnership and marriage as the rest of the population.

Hear hear!

I think there must be something inherently upsetting in believing that nature made a mistake in forming your body, that there's a male 'spirit' and and female 'spirit' [or similar concept] and your body has the wrong one attached to it, that it is possible to change your sex, and that the law and medicine can sort it out for you, and everybody will see you as just another woman/man and you will live happily ever after.

There was a brief flowering of all-conquering TWAW/TWAM, which must have felt exciting and validating, but now the tide is turning and it must be upsetting to realise that many? - most? people think you are either sad, deluded, cheated or all three.

And of course there's a whole TRA 'industry' to keep you in a heightened sense of victimhood and being in constant danger of violence and literal genocide.

Definitely upsetting.

Read the article, it is completely inaccurate. She should actually read the SC judgement FFS.

April of 2025 the state turned round and told me that I had been mistaken. That it never regarded me as female. That I was male the whole time. That the marriage it annulled because it was a same sex marriage was never a same sex marriage (but it stays annulled). That the civil partnership in 2009 never really happened because “opposite sex” civil partnerships were not allowed in 2009.

It doesn't. It ruled that for the purposes of the Equality Act "sex" means biological sex. The concept of "legal sex" still applies for i.e. marriage certificates.

Sadly this is what can happen when individuals and batshit institutions collude in the delusion that anyone can change sex.

It was always going to end in tears when reality sets in.

Nothing like a good weepy for entertainment value.

I remember that! Sooo ladylike. Well, one of his constituents had irritated him, so he had to post an obscene insult online. As we laydeez always do.

🎻

Schedule 22 provides an exemption from liability for illegal discrimination if the complained of act was required by another law (whether passed before or after EA2010). The Workplace Regulations would be an example, perhaps.

My point was about the scope of the SC judgement.

I don’t understand how it’s possible to argue that the EA is a discreet thing that doesn’t affect other legislation, because I would have thought that any lawful discrimination must comply with the exceptions in the EA.

To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with you!

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, probably because IANAL, but the Workplace Regs are not unlawful discrimination because they say why the sexes must be segregated and provide for equal provision for both - is my guess.
But also as far as the EA goes, compliance with a law/legal duty requiring segregated facilities is always a legitimate aim.

I’m not sure I understand your original post, @IwantToRetire - it seems to suggest the article will tell us why trans identifying people without a GRC might be upset, when Sarah Brown has a GRC?

I’m not qualified to get into the woods of the scope of the SC but I’m trying to understand a situation where it would be legal to discriminate on the basis of sex (so ‘treat somebody as a woman’) that would be covered by other legislation but not covered by the EA?

I would have thought that e.g. the Workplace regs would be unlawful discrimination without the exemptions in the EA?

No, JanesLittleGirl is right - the test that the judges applied is essentially does sex matter in this legislation? and if so, the GRA doesn't apply. That applies to any legislation, not just the Equality Act.