Should the GRA be repealed ...

[NotAssigned]

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

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

I agree. And I don't see what repealing it would gain.

I think we need to at least have a honest assessment of the gra and how it has impacted on women, women's services and general safeguarding procedures.

If it's working well, why not prove it? Was the system designed to allow men to have both female and male id indefinitely? Is the gra making it easier for males to be placed in women's prisons and refuges or be able to hide their sex when working with vulnerable women and girls?

This I agree with .

who just hate having a gender on their documents

but it isn't their gender it's their sex

it's like indulging people who don't want to have been born in 1975 but would rather be 10 years younger by stating their their year of birth in documents as 1985

it's bonkers

"Also, people suggesting that sex dysphoria should be treated as an illness/disability: TRAs don't want this and have successfully lobbied the WHO to this end. It's surely a non-starter.

But if it's not an illness or disability, why does it need medical treatment?"

Well quite. But that is the situation we're in.

In this day and age it ought to be quite possible to have that information stored in 'back end' data, but not actually printed on a physical card or passport. I know that doesn't get to the root of the problem, but it would solve the immediate issue for those described above, who just hate having a gender on their documents that they don't feel comfortable with.

There is no need for 'gender' on documents, sex can be. Key documents are used in many situations for identification with Safeguarding implications where electronic data would not/could not ever be read.
There is evidence that it was deliberate strategy by Press For Change to conflate gender and sex.

*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.*

I read "Island" by Aldous Huxley relaxing after finishing my A levels.
It taught me that even in a perfect society human nature is such that some selfish bastard will soon turn up to exploit it, usually for their own financial gain, and ruin the previously perfect set up.
Age hasn't given me any reason to change my opinion, though maybe the book is due another reread.

It taught me that even in a perfect society human nature is such that some selfish bastard will soon turn up to exploit it

I find myself thinking about the phrase 'good fences make good neighbours' a lot lately.

Boundaries. It's all about boundaries, the fear of policing firm boundaries and the inability to deal with someone who does not respect other people's boundaries and uses angry, upset and uncontrolled behaviour to try and get their way at someone else's expense.

Boundaries. It's all about boundaries, the fear of policing firm boundaries and the inability to deal with someone who does not respect other people's boundaries and uses angry, upset and uncontrolled behaviour to try and get their way at someone else's expense.

This is why, in my opinion, one so often hears the words, particularly on here, where are the grown-ups?

So many people are using this site who are completely mired in that part of raising a family which requires boundaries and a firm No.

Anyone listening to toddlers just losing it, or the never-ending creative ways teens can come up with to get what they want, knows that enforcing boundaries and saying no becomes a daily occurrence. Which often requires a degree of mental strength that appears lacking in a lot of places where one might otherwise expect it.

I also support repealing the GRA, it enables lots of harm and no good.

Yes it should be repealed.

Of course it should be repealed. Not least because of how terrified people have been, and organisations and institutions still are, of suggesting it.

If something is that brutally policed something nasty is going on.

Yes the GRA should be repealed.

It is an insult to women and makes it ever harder represent and meet the needs of women and analyse/demonstrate data which highlight those needs. It relies on sexist stereotypes and encourages the entrenchment and ossification of those stereotypes making life harder for anyone who does not conform to them.

It is an assault on the principles of objective truth and reality.

It requires authoritarian means to compel speech and force statements of belief.

It requires authoritarian means to compel speech and force statements of belief.

And it's especially ironic that in the rare occasions when a proponent of legally changing sex tries to explain what "living as a woman (or man) " means, the most specific point they tend to mention is "asking" (the term I've heard them use, but they're actually trying to compel, at risk of legal consequences, or loss of work) others to use their "preferred" (I would say "demanded") pronouns.

How strange they get away with saying they are using whichever pronouns for themselves, when actually they are insisting everyone else does, and making this a part of what makes them supposedly literally the opposite sex...
The GRA needs to go, I think it would be fine if documents included sex and an optional gender. And serious legal protection against discrimination for any type of gender non-conformity, (regardless of whether a person identifies as anything), why on earth should one have to identify as trans to benefit from this?

Yes, I think it should be repealed.

Female-only spaces need to be based on sex and, to state the obvious, you can't change sex. Gender-identity or presentation should be irrelevent in this case.

I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender dysphoria, but this was a badly thought-out law with obvious long-term consequences to many other groups. It's not our fault the inevitable happened.

The GRA needs to go, I think it would be fine if documents included sex and an optional gender. And serious legal protection against discrimination for any type of gender non-conformity, (regardless of whether a person identifies as anything), why on earth should one have to identify as trans to benefit from this?

A perfectly sensible solution. It's extraordinary that this wasn't the original solution.

And serious legal protection against discrimination for any type of gender non-conformity

Gender reassignment is already a protected characteristic. 'Reassignment' doesn't mean surgery, so it must include gender non conformity.

the Gender Reassignment pc in the EA 2010 gives people undergoing transition protection against discrimination. It would be interesting to find out more detail about the workings of that as it seems that only one case has been brought in the last four years for bullying in the workplace (but that seems low so maybe I've missed some, there have been many many Sex discrimination cases brought in the meantime).

The current use of the GRC has moved some distance from the original intention provided for in the GRA and, along with the ability to change documents including obtaining a changed birth certificate and new NI number (is this unique to trans people as well?) is now being utilised not just to help prevent discrimination based on a pc defined in the EA 2010 (like all the other protected characteristics) but to eradicate any possibility of discrimination by totally concealing the basis for this perceived discrimination. The Hate Crime legislation potentially covers any gaps creating by a person not 'passing' and that are missed by the ban on disclosure and discussion of a trans status in the GRA.

This seems to be a total 'belt and braces' approach to the issue which gives a unique double level of protection. I would be interested to see some stats about how serious and extensive the discrimination against trans people is and how it compares to people covered by any other protected characteristic. I think the hate crime stats places trans related hate crime quite low when compared to race or religion.

There is a fundamental difference here where the priority for many trans people is to conceal the fact that they are in the group with the protected characteristic at all costs whereas I don't think any other pc group attempts or even wants that. The additional measures and contortions needed to achieve this total concealment while receiving full protection seem to be a growing list.

Interesting point gardenbird48

Totally agree Fallingirl something that prevents any discussion of those negatively impacted is questionable at best.

It should be repealed

On the other thread with an almost identical name, there was mention of the recent Mumsnet site outage and suggestions that it might be linked to attempts to silence discussion of this issue, eg. by a DOS or DDOS attack.

For info, I have posted a Question in “Site Stuff”.

Please do not discuss that thread here or it might be maliciously reported as a TAAT (Thread About A Thread)

However, you might want to check Site Stuff for any updates from Mumsnet:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff

I haven't read the full thread but it seems to me that the overwhelming response has been for Repeal, so it's surprising in a way that only one group has formed to tackle this particular area of contention around women's sex-based rights in a single-issue way.

I'm guessing it takes a while to gather those who agree on the campaign aims and launch a website and I know Sarah Phillimore's GRARG group was sort of there in the background but no one else came forward before or since, until now.

Is it the subject matter or the nature of 'debate'? Is the timing not right? Why wait I say, the landscape of #NoDebate has shifted completely so we know we can talk about it. It is existing law and other laws have been repealed.

Daisies do you mind if I take the principles of this It relies on sexist stereotypes and encourages the entrenchment and ossification of those stereotypes making life harder for anyone who does not conform to them. It is an assault on the principles of objective truth and reality. It requires authoritarian means to compel speech and force statements of belief. To use in my submission for the Freedom of Expression enquiry. Have already done the freedom of speech on-line submission but am looking for a good hook for the other one.

Thanks for that Molesmokes I didn’t realise the Site Stuff area was there so that I can check in to see if there is a more informative response from mn at some point.

Now I know what TAAT means I will be sure not to mention it here as we don’t want this thread zapped :-)

Hey garden

TAAT is a Thread About A Thread

I think it's meant to reduce the number of threads created and maybe also a way to keep the discussion in one place. I think.

I think repeal is needed. However I am not quite clear on what I should advocate to replace it, in Parliamentary terms.

I’d say that feminists or anyone taking a repeal stance will need to be clear on what we would say about any replacement or consequent legal requirements, and all the while pointing to the urgent need for democratic debate/public consultation to surface ideas for that.

We do need to advocate for what should be the legislative actions connected to repeal, for fear of something worse being put in instead if we only advocated for repeal without making any comment on what should follow.

Also ‘what should follow’ needs to be clearly outlined even if the main statutory principle point is ‘we believe that existing protections under Equality Act 2010 will suffice’. (I don’t know if that’s my settled view or not yet)

Without that clarity on consequential legal needs, I fear there’d be no repeal by a parliament. A view MPs could easily take: that without clear consensus on what should replace GRA, then better the devil they know, because many Parliamentarians will want to take the path of least resistance on this issue.

The answer to that self-interested apathy from MPs (who will naturally always have an eye on their own ballot box on any controversial conscience issue), isn’t going to be just strong advocacy for GRA repeal. it’s having a clearly defined ask that MPs can get behind as well.

I haven’t seen the new repeal website yet maybe the repeal group has a section on this?

But I would suggest the what next list, maybe includes:

Voting on GRA issues should be conscience (or not whipped along party lines anyway, if there’s a difference) so MPs are free to go with their own views.

taking out references to ‘gender’ where clearly ‘sex’ is meant in statute and regulation to avoid the conflation being perpetuated in law, and a new requirement that you have to use ‘gender’ in statute if you don’t mean ‘biological sex’.

Active anti-sexist reporting requirements from public bodies including schools and workplaces and new investment to support anti-sexist change (devil would be in detail here obviously)

Investment in CAMHS to support young people in emotional distress including around gender and sexism (which is a completely understandable response tbh- especially from young girls/women)

Some kind of social media company response required to grooming of children and vulnerable adults around gender identity

Taking a position on the prospective hate crime of misogyny (see law commission consultation- I’ve not looked into it but I’m inclined to think we should have that one too- unless hate crimes are going to coming off the table altogether)

A legal process for detransitioned GRC holders to revoke their own GRC without having to say they applied fraudulently

A legal process (if any needed) to protect existing GRC holders in their current status if its repealed and removed for future applicants

That’s all I can think of for now

taking out references to ‘gender’ where clearly ‘sex’ is meant in statute and regulation to avoid the conflation being perpetuated in law, and a new requirement that you have to use ‘gender’ in statute if you don’t mean ‘biological sex’

this would be brilliant. it would totally expose things like the single gender / mixed sex hospital wards wheeze that the NHS came up with a few years ago.