Should the GRA be repealed ...

[NotAssigned]

... and if so how would that be achieved?

I can see why the GRA being repealed would be attractive as a point of principle, but every time I try and figure out what difference to a transperson's life a GRC has, I come up empty. The fact that fewer than 5K people in the UK hold one is evidence of that, really.

I think it is used as a wedge Quim. So step 1 was a heavily gate kept process to 'legally change your sex'.

step 2 was removing the gatekeeping, allowing people to 'legally change their sex' willy nilly.

The brilliant women here, amongst others managed to put a stop to step 2 recently. But I doubt it's the last we've heard of it, and in the interests of the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls, step 1 absolutely needs to be reversed.

In addition, step 1 has deliberately been used to confuse and mislead organisations into eroding women's rights, on the understanding in step 2 was coming in the near future and we may as well get ahead of the law by accepting that people are what ever sex they say they are.

Again, reversing step 1 would prevent this from continuing.

GRA should be repealed. It’s full of stuff that undermines other laws — eg against sex discrimination, false identification of offenders and falsifying legal documents such as birth certificate. It reverses social progress by reviving and reinforcing regressive sex stereotypes. It weakens child safeguarding. It has been very easily used to undermine the Equality Act’s provisions for women.

step 2 was removing the gatekeeping, allowing people to 'legally change their sex' willy nilly.

The ultimate aim seems to be to do away with 'sex' as a legal category, since if everyone is free to change their legally recognised sex, it becomes a meaningless category. 'Sex' and 'gender reassignment' can then be replaced in the EA with a single category of 'gender identity', which is just whatever anyone chooses, so might as well be removed altogether. Stonewall have said they want to remove the category of 'sex' from the EA.

I'm not sure who this benefits. Predatory men, obviously, but it's not beneficial to women, children, genuine transsexuals or even to decent men.

I think the vast majority of the public assume most trans people have one and that the GRC is where the safeguarding comes in. This is quite an issue

It’s been used as a shield or a foot in the door for campaigners yet if only 5k people have one it doesn’t seem that improtant in practice.

A website has been launched with the aim of repealing the GRA, although linking to it does seem to result in posts being deleted. It can be found through google although not high up the search rankings yet...

It can be found very easily by using the Twitter hashtag.

I don’t know if it has got anything to do with anyone on Mumsnet but I hope not.

Why on earth would you hope they're not on Mumsnet?

Mumsnet isn't reserved for people who express themselves in a genteel way, and only on topics that have received the prior approval of those who seek to lead us.

Would Mumsnet be sullied if any of them lurked among us?

A key question should also be, should it be a legal right to be recognised as something under law that you subjectively wish to be, as opposed to something you objectively are?

Should it be a legal right for that recognition to mean you can have equal access to the resources provided to meet the needs and inequalities of those who objectively are part of that group, and are not part of it by choice and do not possess the power to identify out of their needs?

Should it be a legal right for that access to be enforced and equal even when it is to the detriment of those who are objectively part of that group and need those resources for their equality and access? Even when it will exclude some of them? Even when it means that those who opt in will be able to choose from all the resources while those who cannot opt out will be left without any resources?

Is this something, objectively and justly, that should be a right that anyone has?

And anyone with half a brain has to then say, what precedent does this set? Because if you are going to insist that all the above is correct and ok for sex, even at the expense, exclusion and harm to female people - which is beyond sexist, and ridiculously unequal, unjust and unacceptable -

.... you have to accept it for race. And ability. And age. Because the precedent is there, it's no different, and how many times do you need to hear 'that will never happen' as a sop to distract you while it's put into place? Women have that t shirt.

Are you ok with tax payer funding for someone who identifies as disabled having an adapted house, benefits and full time carers?

Are you ok with the 50 year old in a nappy at nursery with your toddler?

I wish I was kidding. It has to be acknowledged that there are easily located groups of adults who would very much like the above to be a reality. And the precedent will be there that feelings create reality, not facts; and that some people matter more in law than others.

I think the vast majority of the public assume most trans people have one

The majority of the public who even know about them, which will be a small proportion. I expect most people have no idea what they are. I think that it takes time and a developed understanding of the issues, terms and motivations to feel angry about it. Education is the first step.

Just look at the above list, and think to yourself:

is this going to lead to somewhere full of happiness, equality, rainbows and sunshine?

Or is this going to lead to an absolute powder keg of resentment, anger, division, increasing need for authoritarian and punitive policing to try and repress it a bit longer, and other things that historically anyone with a brain could spot the patterns of?

I originally thought it was to sort some legal issues ( such as marriage in the days before same sex marriage was legal) caused for a very tiny number with DSD and i thought that people experiencing dysmorphia did so as a result of a DSD. I wonder if that is a common misconception ?

There have been many instances of poorly drafted legislation that have caused unintended consequences. Because only lawyers really understand why words matter.
A classic example is the problems in the US where when drafting legislation to permit people to take their hearing or guide dogs with them soneone pointed out that some disabled people had trained small monkeys to help. So simple change ... change “dog” to assistance “animal”. Consequence was someone insisted on the right to take a pot bellied pig on a flight claiming it was for emotional support and someone else had a minature pony as a guide animal . Not in any way criticising the blind person for having the guide pony (I believe the person had lost a beloved guide dog and realised that horses lived longer) but the practicalities of catering for dogs and horses are very different both for the need of the animal and their human companion !

This is a good point, Eowyn

Added to that: the US gatekeeping on support animals is having to be reviewed, not just because people's choice of animals became unexpectedly challenging and impractical in all situations, but because they discovered that inevitably, there will always be humans who see a personal advantage and will take the piss.

In this case, the US authorities are finding that many people are using the useful phrase 'it's my support animal' to take their pet wherever they like.

The side effect is inevitably that those who need support animals, fought to open these doors, did not push the system to breaking point and would have used it responsibly with properly trained animals, are now encountering services and provisions and a general public that has become wary, cynical and is closing doors again, throwing inclusion into reverse.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

GRA should be repealed. It’s full of stuff that undermines other laws — eg against sex discrimination, false identification of offenders and falsifying legal documents such as birth certificate. It reverses social progress by reviving and reinforcing regressive sex stereotypes. It weakens child safeguarding. It has been very easily used to undermine the Equality Act’s provisions for women.

And it makes a mockery of the equality act exemptions.

How do you exempt a man with a female birth certificate?

@Stopthisnow

‘Sex is the one aspect of a person's identity that can never change, no matter how it is disguised.‘

I completely agree with you, I don’t think someone should be permitted to hide their sex at all. I would only agree to one piece of id not having sex on it, solely for the purpose of abiding by the Goodwin ruling.

Currently males are falsifying their documents, so when a male enters a female space and a woman complains to security, the man can produce falsified documents that say he is female (even though it is obvious to everyone he is male). While allowing people to remove their sex from a variety of documents may seem harmless, and could be in some circumstances, i.e. if it was only those who considered themselves trans that chose to remove it. The problem is that it will inevitably lead to the call for sex to be removed from everyone’s documents sooner or later, which would eventually lead to a similar situation we are in now, i.e. where we all know the person is male, but there are no documents proving it readily available. In other words I think it is a slippery slope. Trans lobby groups have already been pushing for sex to be removed from official documents.

Recently they have tried to get passports issued as ‘gender neutral’, but they didn’t succeed:

“During the hearing, Kate Gallafent QC, for Elan-Cane, argued that HM Passport Office policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European convention on human rights (ECHR).”

“Sir James Eadie QC, on behalf of the home secretary, submitted that the policy did not interfere with rights under the ECHR.
He argued that if the policy constituted an interference with article 8 – the right to respect for private life – it was justified by the need to “maintain an administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender”, to maintain security and to combat identity theft and fraud, and “to ensure security at national borders”.

“Mr Justice Jeremy Baker upheld Home Office policy after the court was told it would affect other legislation, cost too much to change computer records and increase the need for consular support abroad for gender-neutral British citizens.”
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/high-court-backs-uk-refusal-to-issue-gender-neutral-passports

The appeal also failed:
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gender-neutral-passport-court-appeal-home-office-a9230641.html%3famp

I don’t see why similar arguments that won that case couldn’t be used to argue for the removal of the GRA itself e.g. if repealing the GRA interferes with article 8 – the right to respect for private life – it can be justified, because retaining it causes too much conflict with other legislation, the ideology behind it harms children, weakens safeguarding etc.

There are attempts to make passports 'gender neutral' still going through Parliament via a Private Members Bill: 22/01/21 'Non-gender-specific Passports Bill: Second Reading - Christine Jardine'

@TinselAngel

I don’t know if it has got anything to do with anyone on Mumsnet but I hope not.

Why on earth would you hope they're not on Mumsnet?

Mumsnet isn't reserved for people who express themselves in a genteel way, and only on topics that have received the prior approval of those who seek to lead us.

Would Mumsnet be sullied if any of them lurked among us?

You are quite right.

I’m just a bit sick of “Mumsnet” ie. FWR, being portrayed as a bunch of raving, violent, bovver-girls and hell’s grannies, rampaging through the streets beating up delicate, fragile transwomen and trolling them online. It’s so far from the truth.

But there’s no reason to suppose “Tired of fuckwits” has anything to do with MN anyway. I just made the connection from hearing about it here first.

I’m probably a bit grumpy as didn’t get enough sleep. I should go and walk the dog improve my frame of mind

You are quite right.

This is not how debates on the internet are supposed to go!

I’m just a bit sick of “Mumsnet” ie. FWR, being portrayed as a bunch of raving, violent, bovver-girls and hell’s grannies, rampaging through the streets beating up delicate, fragile transwomen and trolling them online. It’s so far from the truth.

They'll say that no matter how delicately speech is couched. It's not the delivery that's the issue it's women saying no. As soon as the first woman said no it was game on from that point onwards.

They'll say that no matter how delicately speech is couched. It's not the delivery that's the issue it's women saying no. As soon as the first woman said no it was game on from that point onwards.

This is so so true, and we must keep it front of mind at all times. This is the issue, not how politely we state our boundaries.

Genuine question - is there a compelling reason why sex needs to be stated on passports?

Yes, to prevent identity fraud for a start.

@MoleSmokes

I’ve just done an internet search for “Repeal the GRA” and found a new campaign site. I don’t know if it has got anything to do with anyone on Mumsnet but I hope not.

Some fuckwit has gone to a lot of trouble to buy a great domain name and set up a campaign anonymously with an immediate self-destruct mechanism: by titling the first blog post, “Tired of Explaining Reality to Fuckwits”.

Aren’t we all - but that’s like the letter, email or text you write to vent your frustration. Then you delete it and start again, this time with an eye to achieving the desired result.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am not aware of any successful campaign for legislative change that has been championed by the slogan, “Tired of Explaining Reality to Fuckwits”.

It is a slogan that could apply to many campaigns but not if they hope to have any chance of success. Self-sabotage doesn’t get much better than this.

You call someone a "fuckwit" for using the word "fuckwit"?

I don't think it's the language you are bothered about.

I saw this thread mentioned on Twitter - "Its a hateful attack on human rights"
Loads of anime 'kink' avators and that creepy no-mark comedian think MN should be shut down.

This place is full of anti-abortionists too apparently.

Certainly "fuckwit" seems to be very popular in Guardian comments sections to define someone with an opposing point of view. How the hell those people can read through 274 comments all agreeing with the party-line is beyond me.

I'm taking it that Molesnakes was using it ironically. It really doesn't seem like a good use on the website itself, and will tend to put the issue into disrepute.

Yes, I was using it ironically. I should have enclosed it in irony-quotes