Should the Gender Recognition Act be repealed?

Thanks. It's helpful to know what the legal situation is. But it's such an odd one, because treating sex as a big secret doesn't protect trans people as a category, it only (potentially) protects a small elite of "passers".

The rest of us, including most trans people, even if they have a GRC, are stuck with people knowing our sex whether we like it or not, and no matter what we have on our documents.

It's all a bit silly.

Ok. An opinion you're perfectly entitled to. I was answering the question you asked earlier, is your proposal legally workable. As the law is currently, no it is not, for several reasons.

As you say, trans people are a minority. Trans people who are not recognisable as such and might be "outed" by a document are a very much tinier minority. Yet because of those very few people, official documents can now be compelled to lie.
So yes, the law needs to change.

None of what you've said here answers any of the legal problems I raised. If you're just sharing what you wish the law was, ok fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but the question you asked, which I answered, was whether your proposal is legally workable. The answer remains, no it isn't, because it's not compliant with Goodwin, or with GDPR law, and to be honest you haven't convinced me it wouldn't be seen as discriminatory, even if voluntary, to require trans people to carry different ID to everyone else.

What is important is that there should be no more of this situation where ID that purports to show natal sex actually shows somebody's chosen gender instead.

Ok, but again our current legislation around allowing trans people to update their ID is founded in their right to privacy - if people are forced to carry ID where the sex marker plainly doesn't match their physical appearance, you are forcing them to out themselves as trans, and this isn't compliant with Goodwin. Again, you can wish as hard as you please, but if the law is going to be changed, this fact can't just be ignored.

And secondly, a whole data set is rendered meaningless when a particular field in the records contains different kinds of data. A database recording some (most) people's sex but other people's gender is just a mess. You can no longer get accurate statistics from it. (Eg your organisation's pay gap between men and women. Rates and types of crime, by sex. And so on.)

It doesn't render it meaningless necessarily, all statistical calculations have a margin for error, and the usual argument here is that since trans people at best guess make up less than 1% of the population the margin of error they create is very small indeed, and becomes negligible if the dataset is large enough. Data collection also isn't grounds for legislation necessary; there's lots of data about people we could collect but don't, either because it's not the primary purpose of that particular organisation (the primary purpose of a driving license, for example, is to identify who can legally drive; that we also sometimes use it for ID in other situations is secondary) or because of concerns about privacy, data protection laws, protection from harassment/discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics etc, all of which apply to trans status as much as they do any other characteristic.

I wasn't proposing that anyone should be forced to have a gender field on their ID. As you say, some people won't want one. Simply that anyone who feels their gender ID is important may have one, but in addition to their sex, not instead of it, if sex is a field in that type of ID.
Some kinds of ID won't need either sex or gender and can be used in situations where they don't matter.

What is important is that there should be no more of this situation where ID that purports to show natal sex actually shows somebody's chosen gender instead.
Because it means that if somebody's sex does need to be verified, you are being told a lie. Birth certificates should be non-amendable (verifiable DSD-related errors being the exception).

There needs to be at least one type of UK ID that reliably shows sex, which can be used in situations where it is needed. Sex is a protected characteristic and there are sex-based rights.

And secondly, a whole data set is rendered meaningless when a particular field in the records contains different kinds of data. A database recording some (most) people's sex but other people's gender is just a mess. You can no longer get accurate statistics from it. (Eg your organisation's pay gap between men and women. Rates and types of crime, by sex. And so on.)

Indeed, though some are far more insidious. Personally, I find it instructive to look at how these men interact with women who don't agree with them if I want to find out what they really think of women. Unfortunately I think too many men get involved in the GC movement because it gives them a perceived acceptable target for their misogyny, or out of paternalism - which is of course misogynistic in itself. Women don't need telling "but how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones", it's a question we have to ask ourselves basically every time we interact with someone of the opposite sex.

Exactly. I think the ones calling women , transphobes and bigots and advocating rape do kind of tell on themselves though….

I'm not clear on your point here. As it stands, there is no legislation that governs what people can wear. Are you proposing that we legislate to enforce gendered clothing?

It's irrelevant.

It's like legislating that anorexia must be affirmed. People who are deeply distressed by the fact of their sex would be better served by access to good mental health support .

On the face of it, I agree that a man should not be discriminated against at work because he chooses to wear clothing that is traditionally female-coded, but what about the man who chooses to wear female-coded clothes at work in order to enjoy his fetish around unconsenting women? How could you draft legislation which permitted one man to wear a skirt, but not a other man?

Women wear trousers. There are styles which are neutral-coded, like jeans, and there are styles which are definitely more feminine-coded, like palazzo pants. But, no, it has to be a skirt or dress. If it was about the comfort of undivided garments, we already have one that is available to both men and women without causing any offence to either. How come trans-identifying people never want to wear kilts?

You just can't - and in fairness female posters could also be any of the following: just trolling, simulating a position (either for or against) to get an extreme reaction from the 'other side', sponsored by a foreign power simply to cause division and strife in British society

A question that could also be asked about men who regularly post on mumsnet, to be honest.

Exactly!!! How on earth can anyone tell the difference between whose who have a mental health condition that causes them to not accept what their sex is, and the chancers, the AGPs and the utterly dishonest?

There's one very good reason we should care, which is the Good Friday agreement requires that we remain signatories to the ECHR, I am GC but to be honest think a resumption of the Troubles in Northern Ireland would be a far worse outcome than allowing some trans people to update their identification, and to be honest think anyone who argues otherwise is not retaining a sense of proportion about this issue.

The Gender Recognition Act doesn't offer any of those protections. It's the Equality Act that protects against discrimination

@KilkennyCats to protect people from discrimination. If you don’t know a true trans person then you won’t understand I suspect. Not talking about those jumping on the gender neutral bandwagon, I talking about those who have since early childhood struggled, those who don’t want to made to wear a uniform for the other gender etc. my nephew is trans and being made to wear school dresses was a major issue, you may not understand because unless you are in their head you can’t. This isn’t performative trans ideology, this is people quietly getting on with their lives and slipping into the disabled loo at the pub, wearing a rash vest and swim shorts at the pool and certainly not trying to compete in the wrong sex category or walk around naked at the gym in the opposite sex changing rooms. You need legislation to stop someone from being for instance not being discriminated against for work promotion because they are xy chromosome and wear a (normal length respectable) skirt or dress is what I’m saying, quite different to single sex spaces which I think do need protection

No, this would not work. Goodwin was very clear about trans people’s right to privacy, and the whole point of allowing trans people to update their IDs is so they don’t have to “out” themselves every time they have to produce it, even in situations where their trans status is irrelevant.

It would also have GDPR implications as it would involve collecting extra data, and issuing organisations would have to justify why they need to collect sex + gender – this would be unlikely to survive a legal challenge as there’s no reason why, for example, the DVLA needs to know someone’s sex + gender + whether they correlate in order to issue a driver’s license. To be honest it’s questionable whether they even need to know sex, we’re just so used to being asked for this it’s never really been robustly questioned, but plenty of countries omit sex/gender information from IDs altogether.

It’s also possible that mandating ID which lists both sex and gender would not survive legal challenge from gender critical folk who don’t believe they have a gender and so would object to their ID assigning them one. Unless your proposal is only trans people would have this extra field, but this would not only be in breach of Goodwin as above, it would potentially be discriminatory to require trans people to carry a different type of ID to everyone else, would have very unfortunate connotations any non-far right government would likely baulk at (forcing a particular minority group to carry special ID that identifies them as members of that group has historically never ended well), and would be a logistical nightmare to have a to produce a different ID template for some segments of the population but not others.

Before repealing it, maybe start abiding by it ?

Alternatively, just repeal all laws that aren't obeyed for consistency.

Exactly. Utter nonsense.

Do I need to recognise your gender?

No.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools - they always, always, without fail bring genitals into it, don't they? Their obsession with genitals, particularly their own, is off the charts.

You're talking to people whom aren't interested in evidence and facts though.
To them we are just "men in dresses"

That comment is indeed funny. Facts, evidence, knowledge and irony are certainly not their forte.

I was going to vote, "Yes, repeal it," but having read the discussion I think your suggestion is best.

it's a harsh reality that women on T can look very much like men at first glance-until you clock their height, size of hands, walk etc. The damage T does to their bodies is awful though-and the potential dating pool then becomes extremely limited.
Men who try to dress in womens clothes just don't pass. Hence the push for children to transition before going through puberty-which we now know is very harmful. There is nothing positive at all about pretending people can change sex. Surely there should be better treatment/healthcare for a man with gender dysphoria?
GRCs only bring problems for wider society Especially women....