Brainstorm your ideal outcome

[BarrackerBarmer]

This is what I think a fair society would look like.

1. Repeal the GRA. Noone changes sex, and society shouldn't force people to pretend they can.

1. Create a SEX Recognition Act in its place. Sex is a protected characteristic, we can define and describe it, and we have an obligation to do this in law. We must give it watertight legal protection. Make it unassailable. Outline the same sex rights that are protected.

1. Legally separate terminology -ALL terminology that relates to sex Vs gender.

All legal institutions already recognise the fundamental difference between the two, but currently they rely on deliberate ambiguity and conflation of terms to make two opposing concepts opaque and interchangeable to suit an agenda. This ends. There are legal terms which relate to sex (male/female/man/woman) , and terms which relate to gender (masculine/feminine) and these concepts are not synonymous in law. No crossover of terms. Sex has a legal lexicon, and gender does too. They are not interchangeable. .

1. New legal protections for 'gender expression' such that no discrimination is allowed on the basis of how someone presents themselves. Not protections for 'trans' which should not exist as a legal concept. Protections for male people who present themselves as whatever they perceive their gender to be -feminine, etc. And vice versa.

A person's sex status is immutable. Their gender status - and this is NOT a compulsory characteristic, JUST LIKE RELIGION, is subject to change if wished.

1. 'Grandfathering' of the 5000 already granted a GRC. They have passed through a period of history that endorsed a legal fiction, and they benefitted from it and will continue to do so. But that door is now closed and none will follow. Those people will be the last to be legally recognised as the sex they are not.

That is my desired outcome. What would yours be?

Don't start with the compromise you think society will give you.
Start with how you think things SHOULD be. Uncompromising.

As above. Plus;
Protect existing sex segregated spaces and services.
If there is a demand and where feasible, create a third unisex space for people who are happy to use it; but not at the expense of existing groups or services.

But not before facilities for disabled people have been created, and not at their expense. Disabled women are the group at the highest risk of sexual assault.

''Women with a long-term illness or disability were more likely to be victims of sexual assault in the last 12 months than those without a long-term illness or disability (5.3% compared with 2.7%). There was no significant difference among men (1.0% compared with 0.8%).''
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017

Creation of third spaces (probably safe single cubicle) in all public provisions required by law, and law protecting so that disabled spaces must be kept for disabled people and additional provision must be created. Grants and timelines proportional to size of provision to be set at local authority level.

Major and very well funded national campaign to address and reduce male violence, calling it out for exactly what it is, with no pussy footing about.

X post Upstart* who said it better

I’d like to see either civil partnership be opened to all and/or civil marriage to be seperated from the religious form - those that want a religious ceremony can have it as an optional extra.

This will help do away with some of the current discrepancies around sexuality/gender law and marriage and the repeal of the GRA would do the rest.

I’d also like to see the laws about hereditary titles etc change to first born regardless of sex - again, an area where the GRC currently confuses law. The repeal of the GRA will undoubtedly the confusion but the change to age rather than sex will make it fair for all.

The Royal Family have done it re: succession, now it’s time for everyone else to do the same.

4. New legal protections for 'gender expression' such that no discrimination is allowed on the basis of how someone presents themselves. Not protections for 'trans' which should not exist as a legal concept. Protections for male people who present themselves as whatever they perceive their gender to be -feminine, etc. And vice versa.
A person's sex status is immutable. Their gender status - and this is NOT a compulsory characteristic, JUST LIKE RELIGION, is subject to change if wished

This ^^ will go most of the way to solving the whole damn mess

Have you thought about just rounding them up and shipping off to labour camps?

Have you thought about just rounding them up and shipping off to labour camps?

Have you thought how offensive you are being, trying to draw an equivalence between the principle of legally honouring GRCs already issued

and THE HOLOCAUST?

zhora are you struggling to understand what was meant by grandfathering?

It means honouring a prior arrangement.

"Grandfather clause:
A grandfather clause is a provision in which an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations while a new rule will apply to all future cases. Those exempt from the new rule are said to have grandfather rights or acquired rights, or to have been grandfathered in."

For Zhora and friends.

www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/psychological-projection-dealing-with-undesirable-emotions/

Grandfathering is a term used in law when the law changes. There is a broad legal principle against retrospectivity.

It wouldn't be legal (or fair) retrospectively to remove a GRC from someone when it was granted under the law which existed at the time, so if the GRA were repealed then a grandfather clause to maintain the legal sex of those who already have a GRC would be a legal necessity.

I hope the OP looks at that link. The fact that she is attacking other people for being offensive is troubling.

I wonder if having no sense of irony is something that comes baked in to genderism or if it wastes away over time?

I suspect it’s an atrophy type thing.

Like what happens to the muscles of athletes if all they do is sit on the sofa drinking beer.

My ideal outcome would be that those who wish to self identify be allowed to without having to jump through hoops for those who do not or wish not understand the whole issue.
I would like to see the hate shown to trans men and women stopped.

@LauraMipsum A GRC isn’t a document that changes someone’s sex legally. It changes a birth certificate. The Equality Act is what assigns sex under UK and it says that anyone undergoing gender reassignment is legally their reassigned sex. This has been confirmed at least twice by the equalities minister.
The grandfathering clause would have to cover everyone who has can claim to have begun gender reassignment, not just those with a GRC and a changed birth certificate.

The Equality Act is what assigns sex under UK

Errrr.. no. No it doesn't - the equalities act makes sex a protected characteristic (like gender re-assignment or religion) - it doesn't 'assign sex' at all.

A GRC does indeed create the legal fiction that someone is of the opposite sex, an affect of which is changing a birth certificate. But the GRC is what creates that legal fiction.

Nope, because those people (the ones that have begun gender reassignment but not been legally registered as the opposite to their birth sex) would be protected under the new category of gender expression.

That's wrong, sorry.

s.9(1) GRA:

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

The GRC is the vehicle by which sex is legally changed.

The EA doesn't "assign sex"

And it certainly doesn't say anyone undergoing g.r. is legally their reassigned sex; that's nonsense. It says that anyone proposing, undergoing, or having completed g.r. has the protected characteristic of g.r.

A person only becomes legally the opposite sex on acquisition of a GRC.

Is this like how a doctor supposedly assigns sex, but with an act that takes no corporeal form and thus is not capable of being present in the room at the time?

"attacking"
I'm afraid words don't mean what you think they do.

The Holocaust reference was obscene.and disgraceful.
That the poster who wrote it, and you, with your 'zoo' reference are able to imagine anyone will take you seriously after that suggests your grip on reality has loosened.

(That was to Cath, btw)

Point of order - "loosened" suggests that there was a nice firm grip at some point in the past.