Repeal the GRA

[seXX]

Saw this mentioned on another thread but couldn't see it linked here.

Repeal the GRA:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628382

[QuinnLovesEris]

I'm wondering if this petition will manage to get the 10,000 votes so that it at least attracts the attention of MPs. Grassroots feminists have been talking about how the GRA is the root of the problem for a while now, yet many others seem reluctant to engage with their arguments.

[SlagathaChristie]

Signed, thanks op

[ApocalypseNowt]

Signed

[HopRockers]

excellent- signed

[XXRepealtheGRA]

@QuinnLovesEris

I'm wondering if this petition will manage to get the 10,000 votes so that it at least attracts the attention of MPs. Grassroots feminists have been talking about how the GRA is the root of the problem for a while now, yet many others seem reluctant to engage with their arguments.

Good question I think people who have gone along with "true trans" need to decide if anyone could be "born in the wrong body" who needs a falsified birth certificate. If they can let go of this fallacy then it's reasonable to repeal legislation that reinforces sex stereotypes and creates a legal lie and to improve the Equality Act instead. Remove 'gender reassignment' PC as everyone is protected against discrimination by their sex and belief.

[Round2dingding]

The GRA doesn't even have a definition for the magical 'gender'. It's a lie to build a lie. No definition of gender ensures that it always comes back to sex. Here is a link to the act if people want to check direct. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Here is the Interpretation part:of GRA 2014

25Interpretation
[F1(1)]In this Act—
“the acquired gender” is to be construed in accordance with section 1(2)

Below you can see s1(2)
1Applications
(1)A person of either gender who is aged at least 18 may make an application for a gender recognition certificate on the basis of—
(a)living in the other gender, or
(b)having changed gender under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(2)In this Act “the acquired gender”, in relation to a person by whom an application under subsection (1) is or has been made, means—
(a)in the case of an application under paragraph (a) of that subsection, the gender in which the person is living, or
(b)in the case of an application under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the gender to which the person has changed under the law of the country or territory concerned.

[Scientistranswidow]

Replying to XXRepealtheGRA:
Yes, emphatically YES. The GRA is a "flat Earth" law: it legitimizes an impossibility. It does this by conflating the words "gender" and sex slipping from one to the other without explanation or apology!
This is like passing a law in physics to "permit" a proton and an electron to repel each other, rather than attract each other? In astronomy do we pass a law to require the Sun to orbit the Earth - "E pur si muove"!?? The GRA is repellent on every imaginable level.

[Scientistranswidow]

The arrogance of the woman (it is reputed to be "Stephen" Whittle who wrote the GRA) who confected this nonsense is more than breathtaking: the arrogance is of course insane.

[Princessglittery]

This is a difficult one for me, whilst I firmly believe the GRA needs reform, including clear definitions and safe spaces for natal women and girls, I don’t want to get rid of it entirely. I also think the petition “Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex”petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243 is the better approach to ensure single sex spaces are for biological females.

I think there is a place for a law that recognises gender reassignment, which may include non-binary and gender fluid, which has boundaries, clear legal definitions, a detransition process, protects children from being given drugs (and surgery), protects people from having surgery without proper counselling, requires proportionality when considering alternative arrangements, requires DBS to set up processes to ensure all previous names/genders are known and searched against as part of the process, requires all public bodies (NHS, CS, LA etc.) to keep accurate records of biological sex, gender reassignment (if you have one), medical treatment etc.

I wish you well with your petition.

[ErrolTheDragon]

I'm not sure whether the GRA should be repealed or reformed, however it certainly is overdue for a proper debate in Parliament. So I'll sign the petition.

[Leafstamp]

I've signed. We need to get rid of the fiction that men can be women.

[Babdoc]

Signed. Laws based on falsehoods are bad laws. And the havoc this particular one has wreaked on women’s rights is a scandal.

[waterwitch]

So 2000 signatures already, hope it gets to 10,000 (soon!)

[ClaphamSouth]

Signed. Thanks for the link!

[PomegranateOfPersephone]

@Scientistranswidow

Replying to XXRepealtheGRA:
Yes, emphatically YES. The GRA is a "flat Earth" law: it legitimizes an impossibility. It does this by conflating the words "gender" and sex slipping from one to the other without explanation or apology!
This is like passing a law in physics to "permit" a proton and an electron to repel each other, rather than attract each other? In astronomy do we pass a law to require the Sun to orbit the Earth - "E pur si muove"!?? The GRA is repellent on every imaginable level.

This

Signed. Will share.

[Spottybluepyjamas]

Signed - thank you

[purpleboy]

Signed

[Mrskettleson]

Signed.

[babyjellyfish]

@Princessglittery

This is a difficult one for me, whilst I firmly believe the GRA needs reform, including clear definitions and safe spaces for natal women and girls, I don’t want to get rid of it entirely. I also think the petition “Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex”petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243 is the better approach to ensure single sex spaces are for biological females.

I think there is a place for a law that recognises gender reassignment, which may include non-binary and gender fluid, which has boundaries, clear legal definitions, a detransition process, protects children from being given drugs (and surgery), protects people from having surgery without proper counselling, requires proportionality when considering alternative arrangements, requires DBS to set up processes to ensure all previous names/genders are known and searched against as part of the process, requires all public bodies (NHS, CS, LA etc.) to keep accurate records of biological sex, gender reassignment (if you have one), medical treatment etc.

I wish you well with your petition.

Recognising it to what end?

What rights do trans and non binary people not have, which everyone else has?

[Princessglittery]

@babyjellyfish

Recognising it to what end?

What rights do trans and non binary people not have, which everyone else has?

This thread is about repealing current laws i.e. removing legal rights.

I am suggesting reforms rather than repeal by adding protections e.g. a process for ensuring all changes of name are recorded e.g. against NINO, allowing a thorough DBS check - something that doesn’t currently exist. Are you really happy with sex offenders changing their name to get a clean DBS?

Proper data collection allowing for accurate analysis of biological sex, impact of treatment e.g. hormones, surgery, detransition etc. NHS required to keep accurate records so biological males are called for prostate screening etc.

Legal definitions so we all have the same understanding e.g. woman = adult human female, gender = ???, non-binary = ????. One of the key aspects of the current definitions is they are so fluid.

[babyjellyfish]

@Princessglittery

This thread is about repealing current laws i.e. removing legal rights.

I am suggesting reforms rather than repeal by adding protections e.g. a process for ensuring all changes of name are recorded e.g. against NINO, allowing a thorough DBS check - something that doesn’t currently exist. Are you really happy with sex offenders changing their name to get a clean DBS?

Proper data collection allowing for accurate analysis of biological sex, impact of treatment e.g. hormones, surgery, detransition etc. NHS required to keep accurate records so biological males are called for prostate screening etc.

Legal definitions so we all have the same understanding e.g. woman = adult human female, gender = ???, non-binary = ????. One of the key aspects of the current definitions is they are so fluid.

This thread is about repealing the right to have a piece of paper with a legal fiction printed on it.

OK.

So what?

At the time the GRA was passed we didn't yet have same sex marriage. People with gender recognition certificates actually got the right to marry someone of the same biological sex to themselves before gay people did. Now everyone has the right to marry someone of the same biological sex as themselves.

So what does this piece of paper actually achieve? In practice, we do not have bouncers on toilet doors asking trans people for their gender recognition certificates before they are allowed in. 99% of the time these things are already organised on a self ID basis anyway - which is a whole other can of worms - and in the few situations where there is a clearer need for being strict about who can access certain spaces and who can't, even people with a gender recognition certificate can still be excluded.

I share your concerns about the unintended consequences of people being allowed to change their legal gender, including the impact on keeping track of people's criminal records, and in a medical context. As far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason not to allow people to do this in the first place.

As for definitions, I totally agree that the terms we are using should be clearly defined, particularly where there are legal consequences. That means we should have separate words for sex and gender. If people use the word "woman" to refer to a male person, we no longer have a word for "female person". And that's before you even get on to the fact that some male people are now calling themselves female, as if the word "female" means something completely subjective, and not what it objectively means as a biological concept. This is hugely problematic.

So yes to clearer definitions. But then what do you use them for?

Say we had a statutory definition of "non-binary".

OK.

What is the purpose of recognising this concept in law? People who identify as non binary are either male or female, like everyone else. They have all the same rights as everyone else. What exactly needs protecting here?

[Princessglittery]

@babyjellyfish Acts of Parliament typically have definitions so everyone is clear what they mean and are intended to mean.

For example the EA2010: “woman” means a female of any age. The Act also uses the terms mother, breastfeeding and she.

As was pointed out at a recent judicial review, a Transman with a GRC is legally a man (whether you agree or not, that is the current legal position). If they chose to become pregnant and have a child technically they not entitled to the legal protections of pregnancy and maternity, to maternity leave, SMP etc. because they are not a “woman”. I certainly would want employer’s to continue to be pragmatic and give them Mat leave, SMP etc.

A legal definition of transman could help underpin their rights as a biological female. Yes, repeal of the GRA could achieve the same but pragmatically I cannot see any government doing the latter but they may do the former.

There is an ET which implies non-binary is covered by the Gender Reassignment PC. Without a definition that can lead to a very broad interpretation. I think those who take the approach of today I’m Steve and tomorrow I’m Jemima present a huge risk to employers and the concept of having 2 staff passes sign ins etc. that some advocate would be a nightmare.

People who are gender critical do not agree on everything. Some would want to see the same sex marriage legislation repealed, some do not. Some want the abortion act repealed some do not. Some accept gender is a different concept to sex, others do not. Some think unisex toilets are ok others do not.

I genuinely can’t see the clock being turned back very far. I can also see why non-binary/gender fluid etc. is attractive to younger people with so much misogyny and VAWAG. I am being pragmatic about what I believe is achievable and what is going to protect children and vulnerable people.

[babyjellyfish]

@Princessglittery

Acts of Parliament typically have definitions so everyone is clear what they mean and are intended to mean.

Yes, I know. The GRA doesn't define any of the relevant terms.

Personally I think this is deliberate. As soon as you start trying to define any of the terms used by proponents of gender ideology, it becomes immediately obvious that it is all nonsense and represents a genuine threat to other groups.

For example the EA2010: “woman” means a female of any age.

Yes, and in 2010 we all understood what the word "female" meant. Thanks to gender ideology even the meaning of "female" is now unclear, which is why there is currently a discussion around whether the Equality Act now needs to be updated to make is clear that the words "male" and "female" relate to biological sex, not "legal sex" or "gender" or "gender identity".

As was pointed out at a recent judicial review, a Transman with a GRC is legally a man (whether you agree or not, that is the current legal position). If they chose to become pregnant and have a child technically they not entitled to the legal protections of pregnancy and maternity, to maternity leave, SMP etc. because they are not a “woman”. I certainly would want employer’s to continue to be pragmatic and give them Mat leave, SMP etc.

I have to say this scenario exasperates me. In order to get a GRC you are supposed to commit to "living in your acquired gender" for the rest of your life. I think that should confer some actual obligations on the person in question, and consequences for not respecting them. My own view is that anyone with a GRC who behaves in a way which is completely inconsistent with "living in their acquired gender" should have their GRC revoked. Trans women who use their penises to rape people should have their GRCs revoked, and so should trans men who deliberately use their uteruses to grow babies in. Yes to mat leave and SMP, no to being legally considered a man.

There is an ET which implies non-binary is covered by the Gender Reassignment PC. Without a definition that can lead to a very broad interpretation. I think those who take the approach of today I’m Steve and tomorrow I’m Jemima present a huge risk to employers and the concept of having 2 staff passes sign ins etc. that some advocate would be a nightmare.

Again, what legal protection do "non binary" people need?

Most people who identify as non binary are not calling themselves Steve one day and Jemima the next. They mostly just want to use gender neutral pronouns and believe that not fitting neatly into the Barbie or GI Joe box makes them different for some reason. The only reason I can see that a non binary person might need legal protection is if they want to actually do something about people forgetting or refusing to use their preferred pronouns, or rolling their eyes too hard, and I'm not sure that's something the law should be getting involved in to be honest.

Totally agree with your point about staff passes and other implications for the rest of society in terms of respecting all these non standard identities. But I kind of think that defining non binary in legislation, particularly if you aren't going to actually tie that to any rights or protections that people need, is asking for trouble. It's legitimising what is in reality a pretty silly idea, and opening the floodgates to any and all other non standard identities needing their own recognition too.

People who are gender critical do not agree on everything. Some would want to see the same sex marriage legislation repealed, some do not. Some want the abortion act repealed some do not. Some accept gender is a different concept to sex, others do not. Some think unisex toilets are ok others do not.

Careful not to confuse gender critical with conservative here. Gender critical just means you don't believe in gender ideology. Many gender critical feminists are same sex attracted, and I haven't come across a single one who wants to restrict abortion rights.

I genuinely can’t see the clock being turned back very far. I can also see why non-binary/gender fluid etc. is attractive to younger people with so much misogyny and VAWAG. I am being pragmatic about what I believe is achievable and what is going to protect children and vulnerable people.

It's easy to see why young people, particularly girls and young women, want to opt out of womanhood. But the concept of gender identity is fatally flawed and only serves to reinforce those regressive attitudes.

[Princessglittery]

@babyjellyfish we certainly agree on something’s but disagree on others. Which was my point about people who are gender critical.

My starting point was focus on clarifying the EA2010 as c200,000 to 500,000 are covered by gender reassignment PC rather than repeal of GRA which applies to c5,000 people. It’s about targeting resource at changing the legislation that has the biggest impact.