Anonymous Article in the Guardian on the GRA.

[LorettasBox]

So, there's another tedious article in the Guardian about the GRA, and something stood out to me.

I have to pay £140 to hear whether people I’ll never meet decide if I’m a woman.

Followed by a paragraph explaining what an injustice it is to have to demonstrate that you have Gender Dysphoria to be awarded a GRC.

And it occurs to me that the GRC has already changed beyond all recognition from the accomodation in law for the very few people with Gender Dysphoria.

This person actually thinks, and we know this is not hyperbole because people come here all the time arguing exactly the same thing, that the panel in a GRC decision are deciding if the applicant is a woman or not.

But that's not what's happening and never has been. The panel is deciding if the person's condition and commitment to their beliefs about themselves are such that they can be granted a certificate which would allow them certain limited privileges to ease their discomfort.

They are not making an adjudication on the ontological status of the applicant.

The more I read these campaigners in their own words, the more I realize a lot of them don't even understand the processes they currently could have access to, never mind understanding issues that are consequences of their demands.

Well said Lorettas.

The panel is deciding if the person's condition and commitment to their beliefs about themselves are such that they can be granted a certificate which would allow them certain limited privileges to ease their discomfort.

The original act was to enable transsexuals to have the same human rights, such as the right to marry, as everyone else. With same sex marriage they have that without need of the GRA, which implies that the GRA is no longer necessary.

But as you say, it was never about whether the applicant passed some sort of test about whether they were a woman or not, just whether they should be granted some legal privileges (like being able to marry someone of the same biological sex).

I was horrified to find there are U.K. doctors (private clinics) who literally sell the concept that you can change sex. The drip feed of “born in the wrong body” stories also adds to this. And I believe some of the people are involved are genuinely unable to rationalise. If you feel you are the opposite sex, and all those you listen to confirm your beliefs, it must seem very unfair.

Very well put.
The gender recognition panel is not determining whether they are women. They are not women. There is no way a man can be a woman.
Where did this idea come from?

Where did this idea come from?

Transactivists want people to think that they don't have the right to define their own identity.

In fact they are perfectly free to define their own identity, but they are not free to be legally recognised as the opposite sex by self-identification alone.

Men want the right to be legally recognised as women simply by declaring themselves to be so. What could possibly go wrong?

Yes, very well said. It's all such a farce anyway. Humans can't change sex. Grown adults should be able to agree on that.

The panel also acts as a check on the people diagnosing GD.

Andy Lewis aka @lecanardnoir123 has published an extract of his GRA submission that feels relevant:

twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1054315958582607874

The original act was to enable transsexuals to have the same human rights, such as the right to marry, as everyone else. With same sex marriage they have that without need of the GRA, which implies that the GRA is no longer necessary.

I’ve seen this said repeatedly but don’t quite undetstand it. So if it was to allow TSs to marry - was it assumed that TSs would only want to marry men? What about transwomen who wanted to stay married to women or were attracted to women rather than men?

There's a very interesting and important thread here collating the key points from the 2004 GRA debate by @ HairyLeggdHarpy:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

Its really worth reading carefully.