MP's will debate changing the Gender Recognition Act

[Witheringtong]

On Monday 21 February, MP's will debate reforming the Gender Recognition Act.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/160946/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-to-be-debated-by-mps/

Where do you stand? Since there are only 2 voting options the vote can't reflect all the possible options so you might have to add a comment.
Personally, I dont see how safeguarding or sex based rights can be upheld as long as people can change their legal sex marker. I'm also opposed to convicted sex offenders or violent offenders being able to change their legal details, let alone be places in a women's prison.

AIBU - The GRA should be changed to make it easier for any person to change their legal sex markers, name and birth certificate.

YANBU - The GRA should not be changed.

@JustAnotherPoster00

Ah the balanced MN trans debate where FTM don't exist and any utterance from a TRA is taken as gospel that all MTF think exactly the same and that all women who don't ascribe to their GC views are nothing more than handmaidens with no freedom of thought and no agency of their own

This gets so boring.

As repeatedly stated on the thread this is not a TQ+ issue, because the issue here, for females, on a women's rights forum, is the issue of male people wanting unimpeded access to all female spaces regardless of impact on females, with a really staggering lack of care.

It is hardly just one, is it? Find me, please, any TRA with a divergent view on this? Because Stonewall, Mermaids, GIRES, Twitter, GLP..... I haven't seen a single one speaking out against this appalling anti-female agenda.

And women who prioritise care and consideration for males and their access to female spaces, and see females as acceptable collateral damage and talk about kindness and inclusion while excluding females from any facilities so males can have access to all the facilities and have their preferred choice? No. I don't use name calling, I'm not twelve, but I don't have a lot of respect for that position, nor a belief that someone who could dismiss female needs and not want solutions that work for all instead of just for males know enough about the issues, or have thought them through far enough. Because the only other possible reason is some fixed sex based belief that male people are intrinsically of higher value than female ones. Which is absolutely bloody tragic.

@JustAnotherPoster00

Ah the balanced MN trans debate where FTM don't exist and any utterance from a TRA is taken as gospel that all MTF think exactly the same and that all women who don't ascribe to their GC views are nothing more than handmaidens with no freedom of thought and no agency of their own

Who has said FTM don't exist? I specifically mentioned FTM earlier in the thread but said that this doesn't pose the same risk to males in single sex spaces.

Frankly if just one woman is uncomfortable with the removal of single sex provision that is enough women. No matter how many women with agency and thought of their own don't care about the erosion of rights, I have not given them the authority to remove my rights to be considered independent of males who identify as women or to have single sex spaces.

Women's rights as a whole are not theirs to give away to males with special identities.

JustAnotherPoster00 Thu 17-Feb-22 10:36:45

"SunniDelite

Woman encounters large man in ladies loos. Woman is scared. Woman phones security or police. They can't do anything because he self-id's as a woman and the woman is just being transphobic. Already happening around the world. YANBU."

Woman encounters large bearded man in ladies loos, Woman is scared, Woman phones security or police, They cant do anything because he is a FTM and the woman is just being transphobic.

Always about the toilets and always about MTF, who checks peoples underwear when they go in now? Never been asked what I have in my underwear to be granted access to any toilets hmm

@JustAnotherPoster00
So what? Woman should still feel able to report it... And toilets? because that's the only single sex space that some older and elderly women use. We don't want our young peoples' sports, clubs, meetings and changing rooms colonised with people with p3nis's either. We don't want people born male taking our scholarships, prizes, achievements, and places in boardrooms and shortlists. They exist for a reason- because we are disadvantaged by our sex in that we have babies, feed babies, care for children, need flexible working, earn less because we often work part-time, need time off to care for people, have periods, have menopause, etc, etc......

@JustAnotherPoster00

Ah the balanced MN trans debate where FTM don't exist and any utterance from a TRA is taken as gospel that all MTF think exactly the same and that all women who don't ascribe to their GC views are nothing more than handmaidens with no freedom of thought and no agency of their own

Ah, here we go again, same old same old. Transmen, the type of female that trans activists suddenly notice and drag in with the whatabouterry to bolster their argument. And just like any other female, they discard when they've finished with them.

Transmen don't post the same risks to women. Thats because they are biological females.

Transwomen however post the same high risk to women that males do. Thats because they are biological males.

Let's not pretend this is anything other than what it is.

A men's rights movement.

@AfraidToRun

On the prison issue, what do we do with female prisoners who sexually assault women? Or men who sexually assault men? Do we put homosexual sex offenders in different prisons because there is a threat?

I completely understand the instinct that the idea of transwomen entering female spaces feels like a threat. I haven't really resolved how I feel about it. I wonder if I'm biased and I need to explore further about what I really feel, educate myself and then reconsider.

There is not a threat from homosexual people being in prisons for their own sex. Sexual assault and rape are violent crimes and completely separate from attraction, straight men still rape men because male offending patterns, violence, power and control. Female sex offenders are rare. There was a Swedish study that concluded that male offending patterns do not change at all with transition, trans women carry no less risk to a woman than any other male, 58% of males identifying as women in the male prison estate have one or more convictions for a rape or sexual assault vs 18% of the rest of the men. Please do not bring lesbians and gay men into this.

It should be repealed. The state shouldn't help people to disguise and lie about their sex. It puts women and children at risk and perpetuates the fantasy that it's possible to change sex.

"AfraidToRun

On the prison issue, what do we do with female prisoners who sexually assault women? Or men who sexually assault men? Do we put homosexual sex offenders in different prisons because there is a threat?"

What has this to do with putting male prisoners in female prisons? The 0.8% of sex offenders who are female can be accommodated in female prisons and the 99.2% who are male can be dealt with in special units within the male prison estate.

On the prison issue, what do we do with female prisoners who sexually assault women? Or men who sexually assault men? Do we put homosexual sex offenders in different prisons because there is a threat?

Prisoners who are a particular risk to other prisoners, or are at particular risk from other prisoners, are segregated from those other prisoners within the same estate. Male prisoners who are considered at risk or a risk are segregated within a male prison. A male prisoner who presents a risk to other male prisoners is not placed in a female prison to keep the other male prisoners safe! A male prisoner who is at risk of assault from other male prisoners is not placed in a female prison to keep him safe!

It is so good to see this being openly discussed outside of the Sex and Gender pages. The more voices in the discussion the more likely we are to identify both possible threats and solutions.

@PseudoplasticFluid I agree we have to recognise that changing from a man to a woman is very different, and seemingly also less commonplace.

@ohhooh

I think it's tough but YANBU. I don't think anyone should just be able to "self identify" as something that is a protected characteristic (if that's the right phrase?).

This. Exactly this.

I’d be interested in talking to more FtM. They are the majority of trans.

The ones I have met have all either been teenagers who are experimenting with the latest fad, bluntly for little more reason than it is the latest fad. Alternatively I’ve met some who are badly scarred by experiences with men, and have a lot in common with others fighting for womens rights against male violence.

We are not helping such people by surrendering what rights we have and forgetting the awareness of male violence that has been achieved.

Ah the balanced MN trans debate where FTM don't exist

Funny, isn't it, how TRAs and MRAs are entirely oblivious to the fact that we meanie TERFs include a whole swathe of trans-identifying people in feminism. Couldn't possibly because transmen are female, could it?

Transwomen are invaders attempting to colonise womanhood. For whatever reason and however 'genuine' they are in their beliefs.

Women, children, the elderly and all other vulnerable populations are the casualties of this invasion.

Transmen are collateral damage.

TRAs and MRAs do not give a monkey's about the well-being of girls trying to escape toxic patriarchalism.

Girls sucked into the trans ideology are physically and emotionally harmed by it. Far more harm comes to them than to boys.

We know transmen exist and we have huge concern for their well-being.

It’s hard AF being trans, why make it harder ?

Why on earth should we be denying biological realities to make people's lives 'easier'?

The GRA was brought in to ensure that those people who has transitioned (and I suppose the implication is a full transition by means of operations and hormones) were able to marry.

Now we have equal marriage rights the GRA should be repealed. It's not needed.

The protected characteristics are all legally definable in law.

Those people who now identify as trans can changes their name, passports, driving licenses, dress how the please, love who they want and remain protected by the PCs of sex and gender reassignment (and any others that might be relevant).

There is really any need for a GRC anymore.

Great posts JellySaurus and Nemorth and I would add that women who have detransitioned from identifying as transgender or NB are also a group with very little tailored support available to them. On top of that they say they get aggro or ostracism or just airbrushed out and omitted as if they don’t exist from the prevailing narrative.

If detransitioners are properly acknowledged, their experiences would really pick a hole in the whole political rhetoric around this.

It shows how not actually person centred and caring and supportive or ‘kind’ or ‘inclusive’ this movement is.
It’s all just politics. Anyone who changes their mind about being trans or NB and/or who wants to talk about living with extremely difficult side effects from the physical ‘treatments’ they have been given for their gender dysphoria, seems like just an inconvenience to ignore until they stop talking and go away.
It’s really cynical, and it’s upsetting to know how conditional this whole movement is. That’s how you can tell that it’s all about male sexual rights at it’s heart. It’s clearly a political campaign, with goals that take precedence over (particularly female) individuals’ needs and experiences.

And to link that back to GRA- there is no way once you have a GRC that you can give it back. It’s a one way ticket. What sort of consent is it, to change legal sex, if you can never change it back? That’s not what consent is. ‘You’ve made your bed, now lie in it’, is not consent.

Goes to show how poorly thought through and hugely discriminatory (to detransitioned women) and unfit for purpose the GRC is. GRA should be repealed after a legal route has been provided for anyone with a GRC who wants to reverse it to be able to do that and legally return to their birth sex.

I agreed with what Liz Truss said, digitise the process, make it cheaper and more transparent.

Although as someone highlighted on Ovarit the other day, the potential end result is weird stuff like it being much more expensive to change your name on a passport than to change your name+sex.

This was in Australia - apparently name changes are free with a sex change, but cost $400 without a sex change.

So a cunning life hack would be to change your name+sex twice to save money. Although it wasn't clear whether there was an proper process to change your sex to your real sex - similar to some confusion here...

It's not terribly clear why changing your legal sex should be cheaper than any other similar piece of government bureaucracy. (As well as permitted in the first place).

It's not terribly clear why changing your legal sex should be cheaper than any other similar piece of government bureaucracy. (As well as permitted in the first place).

Or faster. Or less beaurocratic. For example parents waiting for EHCPs, people applying for PIP and benefits, severely ill children waiting weeks for even an initial contact from CAMHS.... it's not a race to the bottom, obviously, but why should one group be treated more favourably than any other?

@Slothtoes

From the official guidance:

3.6 Legally reverting to your birth gender
If a person in receipt of a full GRC wishes to revert to their birth gender they must make an application for a GRC and meet the requirements of the GRA in the same way they did when making their previous application.

Yes apparently there is a way out of a GRC if the holder says they’ve committed ‘fraud’ in the original application, meaning that they didn’t actually meet the GRA criteria all along. But not all detransitioning people, very understandably, would be comfortable with having to use that reason.
Presumably their previous feelings were very sincerely held, none of this is trivial.

And what that quotation says above, (including the nonsensical ‘birth gender’ idea) and giving the option of obtaining a second GRC, doesn’t solve the problem at all.

So a natal woman to legally be a natal woman, needs to live as the opposite sex for however long, and have a panel review her application, and have total administrative secrecy everywhere about her GRC status. That all seems like a complete minefield. Is the previous secrecy about the first GRC now not relevant any more? How can this possibly work in practice?

No one should have to hold a new GRC just to get rid of their first GRC.
Why can’t the GRC holder just say that they changed their mind, and want to revert to their birth sex? That gender identity is just an idea, and is an idea that they’ve changed their mind about. As we should all be free to do in our lives with any important decisions that we make. GRA treats detransitioned GRC holders shamefully. It should be repealed. It’s illogical and discriminatory.

I don’t think we should be issuing new birth certificates unless intersex is a factor, so I was purely correcting your point that there was no way back. Not advocating for how it’s done.

Sorry ENoeuf I wasn’t having a pop at you personally- just the whole shockingly misogynistic shitshow of it all.

Oh thanks. I just wanted to answer that point because it’s bad enough really. I feel quite out of touch but I just don’t understand the whole assigned at birth stuff and why sex is flexible rather than factual. But I don’t understand why we can’t just have blokes who like wearing make up and dresses and all that so I’m very much a dinosaur.