has anyone completed the GRA consultation from the perspective of thinking it should be repealed altogether?

[RiverTam]

I'm going to complete the consultation this week. I'm glad that I've left it this late because over the months since it appeared I have changed my mind from leaving the GRA as it stands to repealing it altogether. I now no longer believe trans is a thing.

So, how to complete the form without feeling like I'm letting myself down - because I understand that it's couched in either reform it (ie self ID)or leave it.

Has anyone managed to do this?

You can answer the questions from the perspective that a GRC should only be issued after a person has met stringent requirements, eg-

1. All other alternatives to 'transitioning' have been exhausted, including eliminating all other causes for dysphoria, such as other mental health problems, conditions such as autism, cluster b personality disorders, sexual motivations and fetishes, trauma and child abuse, shame about sexual orientation,etc. There must be evidence that all the possibilities have both been explored and eliminated as causes for dysphoria and wanting 'sex reassignment', with supporting evidence.

1. After a thorough risk assessment with supporting evidence that confirming the person has no criminal record, hostility towards the opposite sex and presents no danger to them.

3 Proof of having no alter desire for advantages which woild be abusing/exploiting a GRC or stereotypes about the opposite sex having an 'easier life' or wanting a total identity change for any other reason. There must be proof there is no alterior motive for seeking a GRC.

All this engagement with caseworkers and psychologists to gather the necessary evidence would take longer than the curent 2 year period. It would be more akin to the 7 year period for citizenship.

If the stringent requirements mean that the number of GRCs issued is 0, that is acceptable because the GRA was rushed through without due consideration of the other impacted parties.

'Scuse the typos.

but I don't actually believe a GRC should be issued at all. You can't change sex and I now believe that should be recognised in law. That's why I'm not sure of the best way to complete the consultation.

Or do i just hold my nose and go for the best-case scenario even though I believe its still perpetuating a damaging lie?

I did - I replied to each and every question that I thought the GRA should be repealed as it created a legal fiction and was no longer required as we now have same sex marriage.

And people can't change sex.

Bookmark, I list all
My responses to the consultation and have to start again. This is useful. Thank you 😊

Penny good to hear! I know that each question has a question that you have to answer yes or no to, what did you do for those ones where 'neither' was your true answer? I suppose I'm concerned that whilst I can write my spiel in the bit underneath each question, it's the other bit that'll actually be looked at.

I'm overthinking this, aren't it?

Perhaps there is a way of doing that in the consultation.

Doing it the way i've outlined, allows you to put your reasons for opposing them into their leading questions.

You could say something along the lines of

If the stringent requirements mean that the number of GRCs issued is 0, that is acceptable because the GRA is a legal fiction that humans can change sex which is rooted in stereotypes and deceit and was rushed through without due consideration of the other impacted parties and should be repealed at the first opportunity.

The 'stringency' argument is a way to argue against the GRA. Basically if your argue that all alternatives were explored and eliminated - there is no reason or justification for a GRC in its own right, apart from 'because I want one' - which is a pretty weak justificationfor falsifying your legal documents.

Apologies if i've duplicated others' points. Shite phone takes ages to type.

You could also do the stringency argument, but open each answer with Pennies answer. Followed up by calls for such tight stringency which would effectively make the act redundant.

I have. You can do both.

I made it clear self-id would be a disaster, but that the act itself (and the way it clashes with other equality legislation) is the real problem.

You could tell them why you think they should keep the need for a diagnosis/waiting period etc. as a minimum in the GRA, then tell them your opinion on the the GRA giving an individual access to spaces and rights usually reserved for the opposite sex.

The 'any other comments' question is very useful for this, but I did it with most questions.

They're asking for our views (although they're making it as hard as possible).

Without saying it should be repealed as such, I am saying in the final question that it is obsolete and explaining why, and that the only remaining things it is good for are nefarious purposes.

I am saying that the current proposals are not reform but repurposing and that I believe the new purpose is to eradicate sex as a legal category altogether (not just in the EA).

So I'm strongly hinting.

thanks for all this. I suppose what I'm concerned about is that they're not going to bother drilling down to the 'any other comments' bit.

I was going to start this exact same thread today! Thanks OP.

I haven't submitted my response yet, but I think I will add this. Because I agree with you.

My understanding was that the gender recognition act was originally needed to allow people to marry. Anyone can marry now, so it's obsolete.

The GRC allows a person to change gender not sex. So we could push for more clarification on the laws around sex segregated areas - hospitals, prisons, sports, aws, etc. We need a legal definition of the words 'woman' and 'female' too so we could campaign for that.

Yes, at the end I said I thought the GRA was not fit for purpose and was causing harm as it stands, and that new legislation should made for the protection of gender nonconforming people, but should not entertain the idea that anyone can change sex.

but gender isn't a thing. It does allow people to change sex from a legal perspective. So someone with a GRC is legally treated as a woman.

Why bother with endless bureaucratic fiddling around and 'well, someone with a GRC can access this, but not this?' They're not women, they never can be, and that should be enough. Agree that woman and female need to be defined in law.

Not this exactly but I filled it in saying I was non binary (because what woman isn’t? Just because we don’t advertise such a silly label doesn’t mean we identify with being oppressed). And I said I don’t need my identity legislated nor do I face discrimination because of this (as my identity is in my head of course so no one sees it to treat me any such way) but that I do face discrimination and violence because of my sex. I also put that high rates of de trans coming out of the wood work means the current system doesn’t work well enough to ensure it’s right for those transitioning so needs to be ‘harder’ or longer or something (I can’t recall what I wrote but I considered it carefully at the time).

The GRC allows a person to change gender not sex.

The GRA allows people to change their legal sex. They mix up the terms gender and sex in the wording of the GRA and in the consultation (despite defining them at the beginning). This mixing up of gender and sex is part of the problem, but the legislation makes it clear that it legal sex which is changed when someone gets a GRC.

right to marry --> equal marriage
pension rights --> equalised pension age this year
discrimination at work/in housing/goods & services --> equality act
disclosure of information --> GDPR

Exactly. There is not a single right at issue here because the only 'right' that they want is the right to force other people to accept their delusion as real. Not going to do it.

As I understand it obtaining a GRC gives you a new birth certificate with the sex changed. It changes an individual's legal sex, not their gender (I did point this out on the consultation).

Sorry that maybe doesn’t sound right, I mean we don’t identify our way into oppression, it’s not a choice it’s based on biology.

I have mentioned that transgender people already have all the rights that other people have, so there is less need of the GRA now than there was in 2004. It's hidden in my fairly long reply to the last question - I might go back and state it a few more times as a response to any other question where it might fit.

I think the right to change sex on birth certificate should be repealed.