Should the GRA be repealed ...

[NotAssigned]

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

What's the relevance of it being a permanent arrangement?

The fact that a non-conforming man may be at risk from prejudiced men will not in any way be changed by a piece of paper.

And why should a permanent self-presentation be protected over a changing one? Why should he only be protected form abuse on non-conforming days?

And how would a fetishistic non-conformity be differentiated from dysphoric non-conformity?

Ironically, one could argue that the growing social acceptance of trans-identified people has weakened the case for the GRA. There are far more trans people now who are 'out', so the need for privacy is less acute than it was fifteen years ago.

Of course I do not mean to say that discrimination or violence against trans people does not exist. But I think the fact that there are now so many trans and/or gendernonconforming celebrities is important.

But given that we live in a society where a man dressing as a woman, calling themselves a female name etc will be the target of abuse, a certificate saying that this is a permanant arrangement, person has had a meaningful transition etc, is a way of formally recognising their status whilst retaining the reality of their sex.

I'm unsure what 'dressing as a woman' means & also what constitutes 'meaningful transition.

It isn't possible to transition from one sex to another. I am a woman who has got dressed today in jeans & a navy t shirt. No doubt many men, women, boys & girls are wearing the same clothes.

My position on this has hardened and I do think it should be repealed. If the government go ahead with Truss's plan and it is passed without modification (so, quite a long way to go yet) won't many trans people simply apply for a GRC? It isn't particularly hard to get one.

That is indeed true, Mujeres. In good time, however, this would bring matters to a head as people who are obviously male as well as male-presenting will be recognised as female. At least we'll have better statistics ...

But given that we live in a society where a man dressing as a woman, calling themselves a female name etc will be the target of abuse, a certificate saying that this is a permanant arrangement, person has had a meaningful transition etc, is a way of formally recognising their status whilst retaining the reality of their sex.

I understand what you're saying. But you need to unpack it.

Firstly, how would you ever police what clothes constituted the required status?

Secondly, it would mean that no one else could wear those clothes without begging the question are they trans? Thereby cementing all the gender boxes again.

Thirdly, many men use dressing in what they consider to be female clothing, as a sexual fetish. Why should they be given 'a status'?

Within the bounds of what is considered appropriate, no one should be discriminated against, based on what they wear. It's clothing.

And lastly. The clothing is irrelevant. It's to signify that they want to be treated as the opposite sex, or excluded from the treatment that they consider normal for their sex.

The notion that we treat men and women completely differently, all the time, is based on sexism.

Let's address the reasons why people think they get treated differently if they present as the opposite sex. Rather than saying of course you must pretend to be the opposite sex, if you want to be treated a certain way.

Another thing I meant to bring up is that there is currently no way to 'divorce' the GRC, no back-out for detransitioners. Keira Bell has highlighted some of the difficulties this posed to her.

It's to signify that they want to be treated as the opposite sex,

Yet many, when treated as the women they claim to be, by being talked over, for example, are utterly furious and consider it transphobia, rather than the normal misogyny imposed upon women.

So is "to be treated as the opposite sex" really what they want? Or is what they actually want to fetishise a stereotype?

Again, how can we differentiate between them?

How can we legislate for something we cannot define?

It's to signify that they want to be treated as the opposite sex,

My major problem with this - with people being able to acquire the legal right to 'be treated as the opposite sex' - is that it's legally enshrining a requirement to be sexist.

I don't want to treat people differently based on what sex they are or think they are; why on earth are the government giving out bits of paper that legally require us to be sexist in our dealings with others?

The end goal has always been complete decertification of sex for everyone and a removal of sex exemptions.

The fact that there are only 5000 certificates after 16 years underlines how they don't really give a toss about them, as it really isn't as hard to get one as it is presented as.

The objective has always been to remove any sex segregation exemptions completely which is why there is such a massive tantrum going on now as illustrated by Belcher on woman's hour.

No legal sex marker means women have to prove detriment in every single case, and in practice the exemptions have been lied about so much we are more or less there now.

So in reality the work we still must do is on exemptions.

I should have also said the self declaration was a softening up to remove the medical view of autogynephillia etc. In advance of the actual end goal of decertification. That law reform research project is already underway.

What is the realistic difference now for someone who holds a GRC and someone who doesn't? What does it do beyond formally, legally recognise the transition?

Setting aside the burning need to protect female interests and female spaces from being the baby hurled out with the bathwater, not having a GRC currently doesn't prevent someone male from being able to request a transfer out of a male prison, to request different placement of hospital ward, to have all the needed rights for employment to present and have the name and recognition of transition, protection from harassment on basis of gender identity, to request a women's refuge placement - no one is even allowed to ask if the person holds a certificate, this is considered inappropriate and invasive.

Honestly, what is the difference? If it is just legal recognition then only 5000 people have applied for one, but many many more have changed their driving licences, bill names and all the rest of it. The GRC can't be that crucial? Certainly no one seems in the TWAW argument to be saying 'but only the ones with GRCs'.

Why can't there be another formal, legal means of registering a transition, identity and status as a TM, or TW, or NB? Which is not a legal fiction, and which doesn't in any way impinge on anyone else's reality or class or identity?

Snap Michelle

They did try in 2016 to change reassignment to gender identity, Maria Miller put forward a private members bill.

That was in anticipation of there being no sex marker on birth certificates and no exemptions, only legal protection for gender identity. We dodged that bullet.

The exemptions are the target. That's the holy grail.

Ah, crosspost with Ora who explains it very well.

Thank you, that joins a few dots for me.

The legal reform project looking at decertification of gender has been discussed here at length and in fact the researchers were very unhappy with mumsnet engagement with their research survey, mainly because we told them about the problems it would cause.

They obviously started this law reform project about the time of Miller's bill for gender identity replacing gender reassignment and it was clearly acting on the baseline assumptions that both that and simpler GRAs were a slam dunk, assuming the public would be on board with the general direction of travel.

This is all in tatters now.

Another example of bubble based group think coming smack up against public opinion that they know absolutely nothing about.

To answer the original question: yes, it should be repealed entirely. It's a piece of untruthful nonsense that was passed on the sly with no public debate.

But given that we live in a society where a man dressing as a woman, calling themselves a female name etc will be the target of abuse, a certificate saying that this is a permanant arrangement, person has had a meaningful transition etc, is a way of formally recognising their status whilst retaining the reality of their sex.

I'd rather tackle the bullying and repeal the gra.

It has actually fallen into disuse. Not because it's difficult to get but because of the erosion of the exemptions through deceptive training courses and out and out misinformation.

Once we have tougher exemptions guidelines in place they might suddenly find that it's not so difficult to get one after all, but the point was never to make it easier, it was to whitewash the sexual motivation.

The objective has always been to remove any sex segregation exemptions completely which is why there is such a massive tantrum going on now as illustrated by Belcher on woman's hour.

Agree. And there have been various efforts to do this.

Quite.

I wonder, would those wanting self ID be happy with sex and gendcer on certain documents?

I mean, ;gender' is a meaningless word in reality but plenty of people claim its a huge part of their identity and they need it recognised.

Eg. Passport (newer ones obviously..or able to be updated now but not everyone forced to do it right away) Sex: X Gender: X

I don't think that would suit TRAs though, as they wat gender to actually mean sex, even though they say they know there is a difference

Even a kind of identity card..mentioning gender.

To me asking for gender for anything is pretty pointless. But many seem to think its not. So while I think ID card with gender on would be a bit silly...the idea wouldn't be for me anyway (I have no gender..anyway)

Sometimes I think it would be much better if gender was legally separate from sex.

Was quote I was replying to there

Why do we need a legal distinction between men who want to wear skirts and men who want to wear trousers?

This is bizarre. Do you not think trans women wear trousers?

they wat gender to actually mean sex, even though they say they know there is a difference

Many are dysphoric about their physical sex characteristics.

In daily life many trans men want to be recognised as men. Many trans women want to be recognised as women. Calling it sex or gender doesn’t change any of that.

In daily life many trans men want to be recognised as men. Many trans women want to be recognised as women.

What is the benefit to these people of recognising them as something they are not?

What is the benefit to the rest of society of recognising some people as something they are not?