No need for any changes to the GRA! Profs Rosa & Rosemary make the case

[Oldstyle]

I know that we are all getting tired of putting forward entirely reasonable and rational arguments only to find that those opposing debate still have their fingers in their ears and are yelling la la la and bog off you bigot in all directions. Nonetheless, rational argument is our only hope. So here's a clear and concise addition to our stock from Reading Uni (and UN) law professors Rosa Freedman and Rosemary Auchmuty. Thanks both.
www.feministcurrent.com/2018/09/14/never-mind-reforming-gender-recognition-act-theres-no-need-gender-recognition-certificates/

What a great, well balanced article.

Today, the reality is that the purposes for which the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004 no longer exist — no one needs to self-identify as the other sex in order to access any of the human rights available to UK citizens, such as the right to marry

I might use that if I get to see my MP

I'm intending to do the same. And I'll leave it with him as part of a useful pack! Helpful soul that I am.

Ooh, liking the idea of a pack to leave behind. At the very least some bullet points on a single side, so he can't claim to be too busy to read it!

Repeal the GRA

but rather to create societies where men can do or be anything they like without needing to be viewed a “woman” in order to do so.

That's assuming the men you're dealing with are normal. Those who choose to dominate, harm and humiliate women by coercion know no such bounds and display a complete lack of rationale, morals, and ethics, no matter how they present themselves.

Yes, let's repeal the GRA.

To be Chesterton's Fence about it - why was it necessary?

If, as the article argues, those needs no longer exist, why shouldn't it be repealed as an anachronism?

The goal should not be to lower that bar, by allowing anyone at any time to self-declare that their gender identity does not match their biological sex, but rather to create societies where men can do or be anything they like without needing to be viewed a “woman” in order to do so

yes, this

doubling down on the GRA just means further acceptance of gender stereotypes into our legislature.

Even the people who are pushing self ID mouth their belief that gender stereotypes are regressive and wrong (whilst absolutely building their lives around them, which must produce a fair amount of cognitive dissonance). we all understand that stereotyping is toxic.

bin the gra, let men behave and dress as they wish.

Stop messing with the bandwidth or meaning of what it means to be a woman - man - because it's not sex, it's gender.

But, it's so much easier to withdraw what should be understood to be inalienable rights from one sex rather than deal with the toxic masculinity that impairs the rights of some to express themselves within its confines.

Brilliant article.
Brilliant women.

Eloquently put arranfan

It’s a great piece. Thank you, Rosa and Rosemary. Brilliant work, as always.

Can someone clear up a question for me?

From the article: Since gender identity no longer has any impact on the ways in which individuals are treated in law, the Act no longer serves any useful legal purpose. It does, however, provide a mechanism for trans-identified people to navigate social hurdles, for example in having their passports and driving licences match their preferred gender identity.

But it's possible to change your driving license sex marker without a GRC (as one of the Man Friday chaps showed). And I think it's possible to change your passport sex marker without a GRC (hasn't PL or someone done this and therefore claims no interest in getting a GRC?).

So is that last sentence even true? Does the GRA really provide a mechanism for changing driving licenses and passports if all that can be done without needing a GR Certificate?

Good point uniquehornsonly
I spotted that, and wondered too.
You are absolutely right that a GRC is not required to change passport and driving license.

Either the authors are unaware, or they are actually saying that, having changed those documents first it's useful to be able to change your birth certificate to match, and a GRC is the only way to do that.

I'd disagree, if that was what they were saying. Changing a birth certificate to state X was born female, not male, on y date has always been a very disturbing legally documented falsehood. More so even than driving licences and passports, because it co-opts your mother into a lie. A woman gives birth to a male or female child. To alter the truth of that fact years after the event makes a lie out of an event of which she was the architect. It rewrites her experience too, without her consent.

Changing a birth certificate to state X was born female, not male, on y date has always been a very disturbing legally documented falsehood.

Not to mention medically dangerous. I'm waiting for the first doctor to be sued for treating a patient who insists they are a woman with female protocols, when actually their biology is male and they're harmed by the treatment, or a genetic disorder is missed. We put doctors in an impossible position when we ask them to lie.

I saw a transwoman interviewed who said it was 'nice' (or something like that) to get a letter calling them for a smear - triggered by them being listed as a female patient at their GP. What a ridiculous waste of NHS funds was my first thought.

I also don't like the legal fiction of a new birth certificate. In my very humble opinion there should be a document to state 'born male/ female on X date , legally recognized/accepted as female/male on Y date' or some such wording.

Changing a birth certificate to state X was born female, not male, on y date has always been a very disturbing legally documented falsehood. More so even than driving licences and passports, because it co-opts your mother into a lie. A woman gives birth to a male or female child. To alter the truth of that fact years after the event makes a lie out of an event of which she was the architect. It rewrites her experience too, without her consent.

This. You have absolutely nailed it.

I am fully in favour of repealing the GRA and abandoning the GRC entirely. Pension ages are equal now so the GRC is no longer needed to claim your pension in the sex of your choice. The only 'right' it does not confer is a transperson's ability to marry in the sex of their choice. That's it. Everything else, all other documents, they can change. And I would call that equality. Equality does not mean treating everyone one the same, but treating people fairly. It is fair. There is no barrier to transpeople marrying the person of their choice. They just can't pretend they are are different sex when they do it. Because they're not.

I find this interesting: original estimate of trans population in 2004 was 5,000. The govt always expected there to be low uptake for the GRC given this. They've issued around 4,900 GRCs. I'm curious as to why they've now decided that it's not fit for purpose and not enough people can access it when the uptake was the predicted amount. Can't help but wonder who was pushing for this reform because I doubt the govt decided on the need for it of their own accord...

Good point about co-opting the mother when reissuing a birth certificate, Barracker. I hadn't considered it in that way before.

There is ALWAYS somebody on the other side of the equation.

You can't claim X = Y without it impacting both X AND Y.

Can't include male into female without redefining all females.
Can't make a male birth into a female birth without affecting child AND mother
Can't make gender supercede sex without affecting an entire sex

There is always somebody on the other side of the equation.

Interesting point there, Barack. Hadn't looked at it like that before

I'd love to know when it was decided that it would be possible to change sex markers on official ID without a GRC. I wonder if anyone reasonably senior signed it off, or if it became practice without it ever being properly discussed and agreed.

And why did I have to produce my wedding certificate to change my name on these documents? Changing someone from Miss X to Mrs Y is far less of an amendment than changing Miss X to Mr X