Supposing the GRC was simply abolished

[angelwithalariat]

Supposing they just completely got rid of it, instead of reforming it and bringing in self id and so on, what would the impact be on actual transsexual people getting on with their lives?

Would they have to use their male name on all official documents etc then or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Most trans people don't currently have a GRC because they don't need one to gain the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
I don't think it would have any negative effect on trans people under the current law, it would continue to have a negative effect on women who have lost women only spaces and services because of the mantra 'trans women are women' and the constant threats of litigation and violence.

What many women want is for women only spaces, services and legal protection to be ring fenced, and for trans people to have their own protection and services.

What most trans activists seem to want is to be treated, legally and socially, as women, on their say so.

No compromise between those is is possible. There isn't one that will both ensure safeguarding for women and girls and appease trans activists.

Safeguarding should trump feelings, but this is the real world.

I had a chat with a transwoman recently - this person transitioned about a decade ago, and has successfully lived life without a GRC, sees no reason to get one at all. Only once has an issue been raised with the old name cropping up on official paperwork, and a quick explanation was all that was needed. This was a devestating experience, obviously...

In my suspicious, tin-hat moments, I wonder if the GRA was designed to undermine safeguarding in the long run. Transexual people have become cannon fodder - the TRAs don't give a stuff about them.

Would they have to use their male name on all official documents etc then or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Deed poll still would exist.

'What many women want is for women only spaces, services and legal protection to be ring fenced, and for trans people to have their own protection and services.'

I agree with this - but how would transpeople be defined in that case? I feel that basically we should have a hard legal definition of woman = biological woman, so would 'transpeople' just become self id or would it need to be defined?

I really believe that women should be legally recognised as women, and have access to women only spaces/services. Transwomen need to be legally recognised as transwomen and have access to gender neutral spaces, or campaign for a 3rd space. We can't just squeeze the 2 groups together-we have different health needs etc. The GRC should be abolished-a legal fiction will always collapse.

I agree with this - but how would transpeople be defined in that case? I feel that basically we should have a hard legal definition of woman = biological woman

Transgender people already have legal protection/status as outlined in The Equality Act; without a GRC. Several famous trans people including Jane Fae have openly stated they don't have one.

Sex is a separate protected characteristic, but people ignore this, which has created a hierarchy or rights with transgender being placed above sex.
And that negates safeguarding.

My view is that trans people should campaign for their own spaces and services; the case of Karen White proves that the system is incapable of discriminating between abusive men and genuine trans people.
Safeguarding is more important than feelings.

Both gender reassignment and sex are protected characteristics. Where there is a conflict of interest, safeguarding should be the priority. And that means placing sex first.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

The GRA 2004 came into existence primarily to deal with the issue of same-sex marriage [which was not legal in 2004] and pension issues [which are now obviated by the equalisation of pension ages]. It was a law intended to accommodate circa 5000 individuals.

The Hansard Reports from the debates in the House of Lords make this clear:

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/feb/03/gender-recognition-bill-hl

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

So should we be campaigning to abolish GRCs?

The GRC is important if you want to claim rights under the 'sex' protected characteristic of the Equality Act. (You are covered by the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic during the process.) It entitles you to access women-only spaces, sports, services, jobs and facilities - except in circumstances that (the government expects to be) rare and extrordinary, on a case-by-case basis.

Unfortunately, I think that the government will (unless challenged robustly) reduce the waiting times and place the decisions in the hands of 'sexual health' practitioners rather than mental health practitioners. These small steps will see an upsurge in applications for validation without the stigma.

It mustn't be allowed to happen.

A GRC is relevant to the very small number of transwomen who want to stand for election as an MP on an All Women Shortlist

I'm not sure about how things would work retrospectively regarding marriages (remember, one driver for the GRA was to allow marriages between, say, a transman and a woman at a time when gay marriage didn't exist). I'd guess that their marriages would still be deemed legal even if the GRA were repealed altogether