Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Should the Gender Recognition Act be repealed?

192 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 22/05/2026 13:56

Basically, it's a lie and the government should not be in the business of falsifying official documents.

But on top of that:

  • It reduces trust
  • it perverts stats and analysis
  • it reduces protections based upon sex
  • People start to think sex really is changeable, or worse, just a piece of paper, when it's not, it's binary and immutable
  • All sorts of issues in the NHS with sex based healthcare

The EHRC guidance ties itself in knots trying to deal with the fact we don't reliably record sex, the most basic of information.

A humane society can treat people with courtesy without falsifying reality. Trans people should not be treated differently to others, they should have every right to an existence free from abuse. But these legal fictions are no good for anyone.

You cannot become female at the stroke of a pen.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 20:59

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 20:07

Quite literally yes

It is not the role of the state to issue falsified documents in order to placate a tiny minority of the country and put the rights safety and dignity of women and girls at risk

There should be no gender recognition act

There should be no way to change a person’s documentation into something which is verifiably false

Live your life how you want call yourself what you want do whatever you want, but do not affect others

Now that the EA had been clarified, how does the GRA affect anyone? I doesn’t give access to single sex spaces, so why does it need to be repealed?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 20:08

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 08/06/2026 19:49

I think maybe starting a thread putting forward a view and expecting disagreement in order to generate screen-shots probably is, though. In the old, fishing sense of "troll": to drag a baited line through the water.

Feels like the dictionary definition of trolling in fact

Debate, please I love creating more things for people to point out to show how insane this ideology is

OP posts:
SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 20:07

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 19:42

“Look what you made me do”

Is letting us change our documents to reflect how we’re living and to have a little dignity that much of an issue?

Quite literally yes

It is not the role of the state to issue falsified documents in order to placate a tiny minority of the country and put the rights safety and dignity of women and girls at risk

There should be no gender recognition act

There should be no way to change a person’s documentation into something which is verifiably false

Live your life how you want call yourself what you want do whatever you want, but do not affect others

OP posts:
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 08/06/2026 19:49

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 19:42

Disagreeing with you is not the same as trolling.

I think maybe starting a thread putting forward a view and expecting disagreement in order to generate screen-shots probably is, though. In the old, fishing sense of "troll": to drag a baited line through the water.

KilkennyCats · 08/06/2026 19:44

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 19:42

“Look what you made me do”

Is letting us change our documents to reflect how we’re living and to have a little dignity that much of an issue?

Yes, it is. Expecting the world to deny reality to make you feel better is too bloody much to ask.

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 19:42

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 19:37

I think we can tell with a username like this that they are a passing troll.

Disagreeing with you is not the same as trolling.

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 19:42

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 19:37

I reject entirely that it’s a human right for the government to issue fraudulent documentation that encourages people to ignore the evidence in front of their eyes.

it’s over reach like this that will lead to the UK leaving the ECHR And amending the equality act and revoking the GRA because of frakking stupid over reach like this.

we will all suffer because of a tiny number of greedy bullying men.

“Look what you made me do”

Is letting us change our documents to reflect how we’re living and to have a little dignity that much of an issue?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 19:37

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 08/06/2026 18:30

I think we can tell with a username like this that they are a passing troll.

OP posts:
SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 19:37

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 17:23

As a general rule, I’d say it’s not good to ignore human rights obligations. I think deciding to ignore inconvenient judgements is a slippery slope.

I reject entirely that it’s a human right for the government to issue fraudulent documentation that encourages people to ignore the evidence in front of their eyes.

it’s over reach like this that will lead to the UK leaving the ECHR And amending the equality act and revoking the GRA because of frakking stupid over reach like this.

we will all suffer because of a tiny number of greedy bullying men.

OP posts:
BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 08/06/2026 18:30

toyl9876 has started a parallel conversation (sort of) here

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5540109-should-gender-reassignment-remain-a-protected-characteristic

KilkennyCats · 08/06/2026 18:26

Nobody has a human right to change sex. It’s an impossibility.
People choosing to mutilate themselves shouldn’t be a trigger to falsify official documents.

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 17:23

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 16:38

Who says we have to?

As a general rule, I’d say it’s not good to ignore human rights obligations. I think deciding to ignore inconvenient judgements is a slippery slope.

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 17:19

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 16:44

It’s hard to see how those rights wouldn’t be violated again if the GRA was repealed.

It could (and should) be replaced or amended by Legislation that does not allow people to falsify their sex on official documents.

With legalisation permitting same-sex marriage and pension equality most of the remaining official value of a GRC relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Equalities Act 2010. That interpretation has now been corrected by the Supreme Court Ruling in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, rendering that value of a GRC null and void.

What "rights" are you thinking of that could not be covered by the Equalities Act Protected Characteristics of Disability and/or Philosophical Belief?

Even though same-sex marriage is legalised and the pension age is equal, it still doesn’t negate the need for the GRA. In the Goodwin judgement the court said: “ 77. It must also be recognised that serious interference with private life can arise where the state of domestic law conflicts with an important aspect of personal identity (see, mutatis mutandis , Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 41). The stress and alienation arising from a discordance between the position in society assumed by a post-operative transsexual and the status imposed by law which refuses to recognise the change of gender cannot, in the Court's view, be regarded as a minor inconvenience arising from a formality. A conflict between social reality and law arises which places the transsexual in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety.”

That doesn’t disappear even though same sex marriage legal and pension age is equalised. How does repealing the GRA and reverting documents comply with this specific requirement to prevent 'vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety'?

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 16:44

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 16:05

Goodwin was found against the government because there was no legal gender recognition and that meant rights under the convention were violated. The government decided to implement the GRA to resolved the situation even though the Goodwin judgement didn’t explicitly require a change. It’s hard to see how those rights wouldn’t be violated again if the GRA was repealed.

It’s hard to see how those rights wouldn’t be violated again if the GRA was repealed.

It could (and should) be replaced or amended by Legislation that does not allow people to falsify their sex on official documents.

With legalisation permitting same-sex marriage and pension equality most of the remaining official value of a GRC relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Equalities Act 2010. That interpretation has now been corrected by the Supreme Court Ruling in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, rendering that value of a GRC null and void.

What "rights" are you thinking of that could not be covered by the Equalities Act Protected Characteristics of Disability and/or Philosophical Belief?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 08/06/2026 16:38

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 15:48

I don’t know, it sees pretty complicated. How would repealing the GRA and reverting documents comply with the Goodwin judgment?

Who says we have to?

OP posts:
toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 16:05

Goodwin was found against the government because there was no legal gender recognition and that meant rights under the convention were violated. The government decided to implement the GRA to resolved the situation even though the Goodwin judgement didn’t explicitly require a change. It’s hard to see how those rights wouldn’t be violated again if the GRA was repealed.

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 15:54

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 15:48

I don’t know, it sees pretty complicated. How would repealing the GRA and reverting documents comply with the Goodwin judgment?

The Goodwin judgement does not require the UK to issue GRCs. See earlier post in this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5533120-5533120-should-the-gender-recognition-act-be-repealed?reply=152490976

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 15:48

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 15:40

Looks pretty straightforward to me. All that would be lacking is political will.

I don’t know, it sees pretty complicated. How would repealing the GRA and reverting documents comply with the Goodwin judgment?

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 15:40

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 15:23

That sounds like a right faf so it will probably never happen

Looks pretty straightforward to me. All that would be lacking is political will.

toyl9876 · 08/06/2026 15:23

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 15:16

I asked for help from Perplexity AI with this question - IANAL and welcome comments on this suggestion.

Note: Perplexity's answer does not deal with the issue that some official documents currently used as "identity documents", such as Passports and Driving Licences, can be issued with a falsified sex marker without the need for a GRC.

Query to Perplexity:

There have been suggestions that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 should be repealed.

However, several thousand people have already been issued with Gender Recognition Certificates. Their names have been entered into the Gender Recognition Register, the Register of Births has been annotated and they have been issued with new Birth Certificates with an opposite-sex marker.

Some people have detransitioned and wish to have their GRCs revoked with the original Birth Register record being recognised and reissue of their original Birth Certificate.

  1. Suggest appropriate legislative changes to enable: the revocation of GRCs; relevant changes to the Birth Register; re-issuing of original Birth Certificates; revocation and reissuing of any identity documents based on GRC "Certificated Sex".
  2. Consider whether any additional legislation would be required to deal with cases where an individual continued to use a revoked GRC, Birth Certificate or identity documents based on "Certificated Sex".

Perplexity replied:

A workable reform would be to create a statutory revocation and reversion scheme inside the Gender Recognition Act 2004, coupled with consequential amendments to the Births and Deaths Registration legislation and the main identity-document statutes. The core idea should be that revocation restores the legal position prospectively, while preserving the evidential integrity of historic records by marking, not deleting, the earlier GRC-based entries
https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration]

GRC revocation scheme

The GRA should be amended to insert a new power allowing a person to apply for revocation of a full GRC, and allowing revocation on objective grounds where the certificate is no longer wanted or was issued in error. The statute should specify who may apply, what evidence is needed, whether the applicant must make a formal declaration, and whether there should be a cooling-off period or inquiry period before revocation takes effect.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9]

A useful model would be to define revocation as ending the legal effect of section 9 prospectively, rather than “undoing” all consequences retrospectively. That avoids destabilising past acts done while the certificate was valid, while still allowing the person’s legal sex to revert for future purposes. The legislation should also provide for the Gender Recognition Panel or Registrar General to notify the General Register Office and relevant identity-document authorities automatically once revocation is final.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate]

Birth register changes

The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the associated registration rules should be amended to allow the original birth entry to be re-annotated to reflect the revocation of the GRC and to restore the original sex entry on the register for future certified copies. The current law already contemplates margin notes and corrected particulars in some circumstances, and new amendments could expressly authorise a “reversion note” that records both the existence and later revocation of the GRC.
https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration]

There are two policy choices here. One is to keep the existing amended entry as the historical record and add a margin note showing that the certificate was revoked and the original entry reactivated. The other is to require a formal reversion re-registration, with the original birth particulars reinstated and the GRC-based version archived. I would prefer the first, because it preserves auditability and avoids implying that the GRC-based entry never existed.
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate]

Reissued birth certificates

The legislation should expressly empower the Registrar General to issue a replacement full birth certificate showing the original registered sex, on production of a revocation certificate. That replacement certificate should be treated as the operative certificate for civil purposes, but it should not erase the fact that a GRC had previously been issued and later revoked.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate]

To reduce confusion, the statute should distinguish between:

  • the register itself;
  • historical certified copies issued while the GRC was in force; and
  • replacement certificates issued after revocation.

A short-form administrative rule should also require the GRO to retain the prior indexed entry and cross-reference it, so that future searches disclose the existence of the revocation trail without exposing unnecessary personal data.
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate]

Identity documents

The main identity-document regimes should be amended so that a revoked GRC can no longer be used as evidence for a renewed passport, driving licence, NHS record marker, pensions record, or other official document based on “certificated sex.” For passports, the Passport Office would need express authority to cancel or withdraw a passport issued on the basis of a GRC and to require a fresh application supported by the updated birth certificate or other current evidence.
https://www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender]

For driving licences, DVLA rules would need parallel provisions allowing correction of the sex marker and, where necessary, replacement of a licence if it was issued on the basis of a now-revoked certificate. Similar amendment powers would be needed across the identity-document framework so that each issuing authority has a clear legal basis to revoke and reissue documents without relying on ad hoc policy.
https://www.gov.uk/reapply-licence-revoked]

Use after revocation

Yes, additional legislation would be needed to deal with continued use of a revoked GRC, a reissued birth certificate, or identity documents issued on the basis of certificated sex. The cleanest approach would be to create a specific offence of knowingly or recklessly using, presenting, or relying on a revoked certificate or a document superseded by revocation for a legal advantage, official transaction, or to induce another person to act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9]

That offence should be narrowly drafted to avoid criminalising innocent possession or accidental reliance by third parties. It should also include a civil/administrative invalidity rule stating that a revoked GRC, and any document superseded by it, is not valid evidence of legal sex from the effective date of revocation, except for acts done before revocation took effect.
https://www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender]

Drafting approach

A coherent bill would probably need:

  • a new GRA Part on revocation and reversion.
  • amendments to registration law for re-annotation and replacement certificates.
  • consequential amendments to passport, driving licence, NHS and pensions legislation.
  • information-sharing provisions between the GRO and document issuers.
  • offences for fraudulent or knowing use of revoked documents.
  • transitional provisions preserving past legal acts and third-party reliance. https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration]

One important drafting point is that the law should speak in terms of legal status and evidential documents, not “erasing” historical records. That gives you administrable rules, protects registry integrity, and reduces knock-on litigation over what was lawful before revocation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9]

Edited

That sounds like a right faf so it will probably never happen

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 08/06/2026 15:16

toyl9876 · 07/06/2026 18:00

How would repealing the GRA work for people that already have a new birth certificate?

I asked for help from Perplexity AI with this question - IANAL and welcome comments on this suggestion.

Note: Perplexity's answer does not deal with the issue that some official documents currently used as "identity documents", such as Passports and Driving Licences, can be issued with a falsified sex marker without the need for a GRC.

Query to Perplexity:

There have been suggestions that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 should be repealed.

However, several thousand people have already been issued with Gender Recognition Certificates. Their names have been entered into the Gender Recognition Register, the Register of Births has been annotated and they have been issued with new Birth Certificates with an opposite-sex marker.

Some people have detransitioned and wish to have their GRCs revoked with the original Birth Register record being recognised and reissue of their original Birth Certificate.

  1. Suggest appropriate legislative changes to enable: the revocation of GRCs; relevant changes to the Birth Register; re-issuing of original Birth Certificates; revocation and reissuing of any identity documents based on GRC "Certificated Sex".
  2. Consider whether any additional legislation would be required to deal with cases where an individual continued to use a revoked GRC, Birth Certificate or identity documents based on "Certificated Sex".

Perplexity replied:

A workable reform would be to create a statutory revocation and reversion scheme inside the Gender Recognition Act 2004, coupled with consequential amendments to the Births and Deaths Registration legislation and the main identity-document statutes. The core idea should be that revocation restores the legal position prospectively, while preserving the evidential integrity of historic records by marking, not deleting, the earlier GRC-based entries
https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration]

GRC revocation scheme

The GRA should be amended to insert a new power allowing a person to apply for revocation of a full GRC, and allowing revocation on objective grounds where the certificate is no longer wanted or was issued in error. The statute should specify who may apply, what evidence is needed, whether the applicant must make a formal declaration, and whether there should be a cooling-off period or inquiry period before revocation takes effect.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9]

A useful model would be to define revocation as ending the legal effect of section 9 prospectively, rather than “undoing” all consequences retrospectively. That avoids destabilising past acts done while the certificate was valid, while still allowing the person’s legal sex to revert for future purposes. The legislation should also provide for the Gender Recognition Panel or Registrar General to notify the General Register Office and relevant identity-document authorities automatically once revocation is final.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate]

Birth register changes

The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the associated registration rules should be amended to allow the original birth entry to be re-annotated to reflect the revocation of the GRC and to restore the original sex entry on the register for future certified copies. The current law already contemplates margin notes and corrected particulars in some circumstances, and new amendments could expressly authorise a “reversion note” that records both the existence and later revocation of the GRC.
https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration]

There are two policy choices here. One is to keep the existing amended entry as the historical record and add a margin note showing that the certificate was revoked and the original entry reactivated. The other is to require a formal reversion re-registration, with the original birth particulars reinstated and the GRC-based version archived. I would prefer the first, because it preserves auditability and avoids implying that the GRC-based entry never existed.
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate]

Reissued birth certificates

The legislation should expressly empower the Registrar General to issue a replacement full birth certificate showing the original registered sex, on production of a revocation certificate. That replacement certificate should be treated as the operative certificate for civil purposes, but it should not erase the fact that a GRC had previously been issued and later revoked.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate]

To reduce confusion, the statute should distinguish between:

  • the register itself;
  • historical certified copies issued while the GRC was in force; and
  • replacement certificates issued after revocation.

A short-form administrative rule should also require the GRO to retain the prior indexed entry and cross-reference it, so that future searches disclose the existence of the revocation trail without exposing unnecessary personal data.
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate]

Identity documents

The main identity-document regimes should be amended so that a revoked GRC can no longer be used as evidence for a renewed passport, driving licence, NHS record marker, pensions record, or other official document based on “certificated sex.” For passports, the Passport Office would need express authority to cancel or withdraw a passport issued on the basis of a GRC and to require a fresh application supported by the updated birth certificate or other current evidence.
https://www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender]

For driving licences, DVLA rules would need parallel provisions allowing correction of the sex marker and, where necessary, replacement of a licence if it was issued on the basis of a now-revoked certificate. Similar amendment powers would be needed across the identity-document framework so that each issuing authority has a clear legal basis to revoke and reissue documents without relying on ad hoc policy.
https://www.gov.uk/reapply-licence-revoked]

Use after revocation

Yes, additional legislation would be needed to deal with continued use of a revoked GRC, a reissued birth certificate, or identity documents issued on the basis of certificated sex. The cleanest approach would be to create a specific offence of knowingly or recklessly using, presenting, or relying on a revoked certificate or a document superseded by revocation for a legal advantage, official transaction, or to induce another person to act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9]

That offence should be narrowly drafted to avoid criminalising innocent possession or accidental reliance by third parties. It should also include a civil/administrative invalidity rule stating that a revoked GRC, and any document superseded by it, is not valid evidence of legal sex from the effective date of revocation, except for acts done before revocation took effect.
https://www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender]

Drafting approach

A coherent bill would probably need:

  • a new GRA Part on revocation and reversion.
  • amendments to registration law for re-annotation and replacement certificates.
  • consequential amendments to passport, driving licence, NHS and pensions legislation.
  • information-sharing provisions between the GRO and document issuers.
  • offences for fraudulent or knowing use of revoked documents.
  • transitional provisions preserving past legal acts and third-party reliance. https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration]

One important drafting point is that the law should speak in terms of legal status and evidential documents, not “erasing” historical records. That gives you administrable rules, protects registry integrity, and reduces knock-on litigation over what was lawful before revocation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9]

Order a birth, death, marriage or civil partnership certificate

Order an official birth, adoption, death, marriage or civil partnership certificate from the General Register Office (GRO) if you need a copy or want to research your family tree.

https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate

toyl9876 · 07/06/2026 18:00

How would repealing the GRA work for people that already have a new birth certificate?

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 07/06/2026 17:27

So rather than suggest it is those who are pointing out how the anti woman TRAs are still discriminating against women, you should tell them to stop presuming they dont have to obey the law, stop harassing and intimidating women and OBEY THE LAW.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean nor what it has to do with the article and my post.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 07/06/2026 17:24

MarieDeGournay · 07/06/2026 11:14

I don't disagree with you, but the words 'A campaign to repeal the GRA/remove the PC of GR' conjure up images of smashed windows, smoke bombs, arson attacks, accusations of toxicity and 'literal genocide', punched TERFs, threats of rape with added details, and even death threats.

In the current climate where the tiny % of transpeople can rely on a large number of parliamentarians to prioritise their rights privileges over the rights of women, it's going to take a lot of courage to campaign to repeal the GRA, with so much stacked against us.

And I can already imagine the celebs queuing up to denounce any such campaign as cruel, fascist and hate-fuelled, and how they stand with their trans etc etc brothers and sisters...

'Courage calls to courage' and all that, but I confess that I would not have the courage to take on such a widely supported movement that has shown it is not beyond using aggression and even violence against anyone who resists it.

I hope there are braver women/people than me out there who have the courage and the resources to take it on.

I don't disagree with you, but the words 'A campaign to repeal the GRA/remove the PC of GR' conjure up images of smashed windows, smoke bombs, arson attacks, accusations of toxicity and 'literal genocide', punched TERFs, threats of rape with added details, and even death threats.

Sure, so if folk don't have the courage to do it themselves (and I don't blame them), then why are they criticising SM for not doing it?

IwantToRetire · 07/06/2026 16:42

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 07/06/2026 10:20

I understand the arguments on both sides. I just don't know why those who want to repeal the GRA/ remove the PC of GR don't get on with organising to do that, instead of criticising the organisations that are taking a different approach. I'm guessing they don't have the skills, or the numbers (meant respectfully).

I think the issue has always been that because of the wording of the EA and false training by Stonewall etc., this lead to the incorrect application of the law that those with a GRC ie a "legal woman" had the same status in relation to the protected characteristic of sex as a biological woman ie an actual female.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling this has been clarified for those who chose not to recognise that a "legal woman" was never and should never have had the status of a biological woman.

But now of course, all those who think they are right even though the law has said they are wrong are trying to say the law shouldn't be implemented.

As always it is quite likely that those who are "legal women" and even those who "identify" as one, are not the same as the crazed, aggressive over the top campaigners, the TRAs, who have given trns rights the justifiable tag of being anti woman.

Best to remember that part of the Supreme Court ruling was that due to how some chose to interpret the law meant was that Sex was the only protected characteristic being discriminated against by another one. So on that basis alone the Court was saying the Stonewall "law" was and still is wrong.

Effectively, and even the Judge admitted it, that the clarification that sex is biological has meant that a GRC has very little value.

So rather than suggest it is those who are pointing out how the anti woman TRAs are still discriminating against women, you should tell them to stop presuming they dont have to obey the law, stop harassing and intimidating women and OBEY THE LAW.

I think most women wouldn't have any problem if there are men who want to cross dress or be feminine.

It is the relentless need of these men to try and enforce women to accept their purely personal life styles as somehow "real" and in doing so undermine women's sex based rights that is the problem.

As usual the problem is male aggression and entitlement and the never ending demand that women obey what they as men demand them to do.