I read DH’s letter in full appreciation of the sentiment and intent, and I see the logic of many posters here. While I personally would not mind sharing space with DH based on my assessment of attitude, and what looks like consistent efforts to fit in with ordinary (as opposed to pornified, instagrammed) women and their lives, it is clear that the conflict is profound between the GRA (and the legal fiction it allows for, whether based on gatekeeping or not) and the honour system that has presumably been in place for longer than any of us can remember.
The question we might want to put to the transwomen who have been accommodated by the honour system (very clearly distinguished in my mind from current-day trans activists) is whether it’s worked ok for them (not taking any internal factors into account, e.g. severe dysphoria, which I don’t think it’s productive to ask others to remedy). DH and Kristina Harrison say that it has. There are more who suggest the same. But any formal query would of course be gamed by bad faith actors in the trans activist camp, who never intended to ‘fit in’ in the first instance. Their agenda is a ‘gender revolution’ and clearly seeks to overthrow what is in place.
I am increasingly leaning towards abolishing the GRA. One of the key reasons for its existence, i.e. the right to marry, is now afforded same-sex couples (however they present) by another legal vehicle. Why is it needed at all? The changing room issue cannot reasonably be ‘policed’ by way of asking for documents, and the imposition on women by men who threaten legal action on the basis of having a GRC is clearly profoundly offensive, so what purpose does it serve? In regard of women’s shelters and prisons, the EA allows for exceptions based on specific services and instances, so why have a GRC in the mix, if it is a case-by-case matter anyway?
A legal fiction - it’s in the name, really - will cause conflict with physical reality. Why do it? Why not allow people who struggle with severe dysphoria the medical and otherwise organisational support they need - in the capacity of their birth sex - but leave the GRC out of the picture? If its only purpose is to serve as a certificate of womanhood for no other reasons than validation of feelings, it is a preposterous legal instrument. It’s not needed to marry, it’s not needed to change your docs (apparently, though I don’t know if it’s the same for your passport - but how often do you show that it daily life?) and it’s no use in daily life to gain access to restrooms etc., why have it at all?
I would personally trust the honour system more than any legal framework. It’s MEN who cause the violence, not women. Police them instead. Women are used to recognising danger, and protecting others from it. It’s a key part of our community. I think we can trust it to remain in place - particularly if we are not under direct threat from an obviously aggressive activist movement.
So my proposition is to abolish the GRA, and continue to go by the age-old, informal honour system. The law is pretty rubbish at protecting women in our intimate spaces, anyway. It has no business inserting any more challenges into women’s lives until it’s improved its solutions to existing problems with sex-based violence.