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.

Oh seriously FFS they're bringing up the 'intersex is as common as ginger hair' bollocks.
I find this genuinely insulting. I have someone close to me who they are counting as 'intersex' when they quote these numbers, because of a chromosome disorder. They are saying he's not fully male. He is.

Brava, Miriam Cates. Well said!

My DH has just been on the receiving end of my utter fucking rage at Mhairi Black, who, after a long spiel by others about having a respectful and meaningful debate, decided to use her privilege at being able to contribute to today's debate with "is she telling me that she does not believe in ginger people?"

This proves beyond doubt to me that the whole thing is just a joke to her. That she thinks this is a good point to make in a Commons debate, that it will reach the aim of finding ground and making progress.

She later goes on to say " Well, I am a woman and I do not feel threatened".

I'm so angry at the gall of this.

My DH has just been on the receiving end of my utter fucking rage at Mhairi Black
mine too.
Leila Moran was reliably idiotic but Miriam Cates (whom I'd never heard of) was great, as was the MP in front of her - was it Jackie Doyle.

Thank you everyone for the historical background. What a complete legal mess we have been given. I had assumed that once the need for any law had gone, its purpose for remaining as law has gone. You’d think especially if it is outdated law, and creating practical problems as well.

GRA works very badly with the Equality Act, the EA being an essential piece of law defining equal protections and the need to promote good relations between ‘protected characteristics’- many of which we all have from birth, and some protected characteristics that only some of us have.

I had assumed there would be a duty on Parliament to repeal laws that aren’t needed now (because live your life, you can call yourself whatever you want, marry who you like but we all know that nobody can change sex). And especially this removal should happen if the presence of the outdated law is causing trouble in the modern day.

GRA isn't like those antiquated laws that once a month all firstborns are forbidden to drive a flock of geese over the village bridge on a Sunday. Those type of quaint old laws can be safely ignored now. New laws (like the Equality Act) would protect us from those old laws if breaking them ever came before a judge, which wouldn’t ever happen.

GRA only dates back to 2004, and was so poorly and sexistly made then that it can’t ever have been fit for purpose. MPs have a responsibility to the electorate to not ignore problems, if they want to remain elected as MPs, that is. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Act_2004

A few things that have occurred to me whilst reading through...
I know of 4 trans people - for the 3 men who say they are women it is a sexual fetish. I don’t think as many people realise this as they should.
Also we are not just fighting this for ourselves, we are fighting for our children and the women who come after us. If any man can declare themselves a woman then in the future there will be nothing for women. All women’s spaces and positions will be run by men in their own interests and with no understanding or care of what it’s actually like to be a woman. They will decide what healthcare is needed for women, what fashions and make-up we wear.
Women are the new Wild West - new exciting sexy spaces for men to colonise, conquer and remake as they see fit.
Please, please don’t let this happen.

@bishophaha

My DH has just been on the receiving end of my utter fucking rage at Mhairi Black, who, after a long spiel by others about having a respectful and meaningful debate, decided to use her privilege at being able to contribute to today's debate with "is she telling me that she does not believe in ginger people?"

This proves beyond doubt to me that the whole thing is just a joke to her. That she thinks this is a good point to make in a Commons debate, that it will reach the aim of finding ground and making progress.

She later goes on to say " Well, I am a woman and I do not feel threatened".

I'm so angry at the gall of this.

Unbelievable. She is a disgrace. And I had such high hopes for her when she was elected.

I read the whole thing and thank you for the link.
Thank you to all the MPs who made such sensible points about protecting women’s rights and the homophobia of this politics. My sympathies to all those MPs female and male who said they’d been harassed and threatened for doing so previously. And particularly Joanna Cherry who is absolutely great and incredibly well informed legally on this issue and has received rape and death threats. Including, horrendously, she said from someone in her own party- WTF? I really hope serious action is being taken on whoever who did that.

Main things concluded in the debate seem to be that the spousal veto is going- via separate legislation going through on Parliament- so if that’s something you object to, you need to write to your MP to object immediately.

Also they said they are removing references to ‘disorder’ in GRA. Interestingly which MPs in the debate had to be corrected on twice, because they happily asserted repeatedly that it was ‘gender dysphoria’ references going to be removed which there is no government plan to do.

I also learnt from this debate of the involvement of Mike Freer who is the Conservative MP for Finchley and Golders Green in London since 2010. He currently holds the Government posts of Minister for Exports and Minister for Equalities since September 2021, hence responding for the government in this debate.

Mike Freer said he is actively working with a team on the GRA issues at the moment and also said he will look further at the GRA requirement to live in your acquired gender for two years, after calls from MPs in the debate to reduce the time.

So I’d suggest writing to him as soon as possible with your points to raise about GRA. Also that every time you write to your own MP on this issue, that you copy Mike Freer MP in. As the relevant Minister he really needs to know, and to hear repeatedly, how important these issues are to women and how they will affect women and girls. Shame it’s not seen as a full time job for him being an Equalities Minister with such an important legal area to cover, but clearly that’s how important this area is actually seen to be.

Even if they dont give a stuff about women and children, how can they legally remove the spousal exit clause? How are they going to justify one party being able to rewrite a contract? Will that apply to all contracts or just the marriage contract? How will they justify making it difficult for women to divorce and start over, when the marriage paperwork names a person that no longer exists?

I don’t know how it has been justified but in debate Mike Freer, the Minister said:

‘Numerous Members commented on spousal veto. We will address many of the issues raised today in the formal response to the Women and Equalities Committee report. That response will be published shortly. I understand, however, that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which is to come into effect imminently, will remove what is known as spousal veto. I am sure that, if I have got that wrong, officials will quickly give me a kicking.’

So they’ve already put that through, but it’s still worth writing to our MPs to object to it, copying in Mike Freer, because they need to know it’s objected to and also because if there was any public discussion or announcement of this, it’s been extremely low key.

Most of us were concentrating on just hanging on during Covid in 2020 especially women as the government well knows. Totally unacceptable not to have a proper public discussion regarding such an important issue for women.

So would you also be against people self identifying as gay, sexual orientation also being a protected characteristic?

It's not "self-identifying" as gay that is seen as a potential place for discrimination it's being seen to in fact have same sex relationships/encounters.

The business about identity is in many ways a more recent addition to how people think about protected characteristics. It's not one that works well in any instance when it's abstracted from some real instantiation, or at least percieved instantiation.

Just a note on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, I quoted the Equalities Minister Mike Freer claiming removal of GRA’s spousal veto using this new law. He’s not mentioned that the new Act only applies in England and Wales.