Should the GRA be repealed ...

[NotAssigned]

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

This is the point though.

Words have meaning. Should there be a legal right to be named as something because you really emotionally want this (and its no good talking about distress and dysphoria because it's been made very clear by the lobby involved that this must not be placed in mental health terms and dysphoria is not an automatic part of being transgendered) when objectively, in reality, you are not?

Particularly when allowing people to choose legal fiction and have it affirmed as reality (issues of forced belief, compelled speech) damages the identity and recognition in law of the class being appropriated?

No one has the faintest problem with someone identifying as a TW. Which is someone biologically male, who wishes to live as a TW. Fantastic. That's the gender part. There are many issues with implying that someone male has in fact changed sex, or that in fact they were the sex they wish to be all along and the class they wish to be part of must be twisted and pulled out of all recognisable identity to fulfil their wishes.

Other people have rights too.

Take this another step further - because the lobby certainly will - and think about trans age and trans abled.

Should a person of fifty who really believes and needs to have affirmed that they are in fact six - therefore be granted access to a primary class placement and their local brownie pack because otherwise it jars and damages the acceptance of their identity and authentic self? What about the rights of the actual children in those groups? What about the issues of losing a clear definition in law of childhood, or the ability to protect a group for societal resources or access to activities? It's lovely for the 50 year old, but it's not all about them.

What about someone who identifies as paralysed and wants equal rights in access to a carer to provide washing/lifting, a wet room in their house with a hoist, an electric wheelchair and converted car, and benefits as they can work only part time (where they are the celebrated and brave disabled employee at their work place who also sits on several boards for disabled groups as a disabled representative)? When these resources are scarce and expensive and badly needed by those who can't identify out of a reality that is extremely challenging, how do you draw the line between those with the objective, provable need, and those for whom this is a subjective need that requires external support and validation?

These groups both exist. Their case will be as valid as a male who is legally recognised as a sex they are in fact not. These things have to be thought of. And as we've seen with the damage to female people and their resources and ability to organise as a class or even talk to each other about the experience of being female, this isn't just a lovely, happy experience of progressiveness and non judgementalism for everyone.

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

But what does this mean? If you take out the sexism, what's left?

Another compelling reason that the GRA needs to be repealed, and soon, is that when Truss's measures go through and TRAs realise that the holy grail of self-ID has receded into the distance, there will be many trans-identifying people applying for a GRC. The terms aren't onerous in the slightest. There's more effort in applying for a mortgage frankly. Then in two years or less we will have tens or hundreds of thousands of people with GRCs, not just five thousand. Then it will be much more difficult to overturn. I don't want men in my spaces, either on the basis of self-ID or government-sanctioned ID.

The more I think about this, the more vital I think it is that we get on with it.

This is why I want to know the terms of the 'protect single sex spaces', and believe the GRA should be repealed.

Provide gender neutral and single sex spaces, provisions, facilities as compulsory in law, and base access to the single sex provisions on biological sex only. Everyone has a choice of 2 according to their personal preferences. Everyone's needs are covered. Organise so that anyone who wants can have identity in the name they like with legal recognition of the identity terms they prefer, whether that's TW, TM or one of the many others. Keep separate biological sex alongside this information as a fact, separating sex - unfortunate, but a fixed fact that is unchanging, and must be respected to protect the needs of the massive, massive majority of the population - and gender, fully respected as the identity the person wishes to be known by.

If we ever get to the point in society when all single sex provisions are cobwebbed and deserted because everyone uses the gender neutral option as a much better fit for everyones needs, then the single sex provisions can be phased out. Right now, they're wanted and needed.

Which is why it is demanded that they are stripped away, regardless of impact. To benefit less than 1% of the population, at cost to 51% of the population.

Other people have rights too.

Just a reminder that the ECHR judgement which ended in the passing of the GRA failed to consider the rights of women.

No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.
(paragraph 91, link posted at 11.46 yesterday)

The case concerned a post-op transsexual, hence the reference to 'great personal cost'. But the removal of rights from half the population is more than 'a certain inconvenience'.

I've just called the Law Commission office-the chap couldn't help so have emailed asking for help/advice on how one goes about repealing a law.

It would seem that giving adult males (with intact genitalia) legal status as females can not continue.

Lets put a stop to this madness

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

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

But what does this mean? If you take out the sexism, what's left?

Oh that's the whole point. They don't want to take out the sexism. It's crucial to the enjoyment of AGP men, and a balm for the wounded feelings of HSTS men.

Sexism is completely necessary.

In the previous govt after the GRA consultation Penny Mordaunt and Maria Miller both said that single-sex spaces will be protected, so this pledge is actually nothing new.
For the purposes of single-sex provision, their definition of the female sex included some male people. What definition is the current govt using?

Why are we having to ask the government to define woman? Because of the GRA. It has to go.

The case concerned a post-op transsexual, hence the reference to 'great personal cost'.

I've just been thinking about what I said earlier. If there is a 'great personal cost' to transition, why would someone do it?

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in talking about 'the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost' and then insisting that everyone else move over to accommodate their choice.

If it is just a choice, and there is a 'great personal cost' involved, why can't they just choose not to do it, or accept the negative consequences?

There must be better treatment paths for gender dysphoria, rather than treating the body Drs should treat the mind.

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.

In what other context are people's beliefs or sense of their own identity formally recognised?

If someone converts to a religion, for example, this would represent a deeply held faith and become a fundamental part of their identity and sense of self. They might be given a certificate or some other physical representation of their new status. This object might also be hugely important to them.

But what relevance is it to anyone else?

It is dangerous to record people's beliefs on documents with important legal standing. I can think immediately of two states which indicated individuals' beliefs on their identification documents, and it never turned out well. Not for those individuals, and not for those states nor their neighbours.

The GRA is a lie people thought they would get away with, it wouldn't matter. "yes, it's a lie, but it's only a few people, noone will even notice, and how bad could it possibly get?"

Except the lie wasn't just about those few people, it was about everyone else, every person alive, and we've noticed, and it's really, really bad.

And it's never going to stop unless we stop it. It's not enough to just leave it frozen in place. If we do that, we are handing our daughters exactly the same hideous legacy we've been punished with. That they are not a sex, that the law thinks they are primarily a stereotype, a mind-type, that they can't say no to certain men, that men make the unfair rules and can punish the rule breakers.

Our generation has seen female rights rolled back. It happened on our watch. We can't hand our daughters this legacy and say, "We settled for resigned acceptance of a law that misdefined all of us. We're handing you a worse situation than our mothers gave us.
This is probably as good as it gets for you."

I don't want to do that.
Gender is the biggest lie of our generation. Because it's about each and every one of us. And it's now in our laws. We have to hurl gender off our backs and out of our laws. It isn't part of us, it never has been, and we can't stand for a law that shackles us to the burden of a lie and tells us it's the fundamental definer of our innate existence.

I can't bear the burden of my country and my world making me wear gender as if it was part of my humanity. As if it was the very fabric of my being. I can't bear it. It's everywhere, every form I fill, every hospital appointment, every school trip I approve, every job I apply for. Tell us about the innate sexism in your soul, applicant. How do you identify?

And it's all because of that law. The one that says, we ARE female souls, not female people. It's a law to recognise gender IN people? Gender recognised as if it were WHO people are, not WHAT is done to us in service of men's wishes?

That law started the reversal in our status as female humans. Our rights to be recognised for what we are have gone. We're being rewritten out of our own existence.

It's all been a huge wrong to women and girls. We can't let it stand.

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

Certainly transwomen wear trousers; what I don't understand is why they need legally distinguishing from men who only like to have their legs individually clad.

Personally I'd like to be legally recognised and protected as a full human being rather than a suitable recipient for a fuckton of negative and oppressive stereotypes. It would appear the only way I can do this is by denying my biological sex.

the Court considers that society women may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals men to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.

Fixed it for them.

Agree totally. Great post barracker

Barracker

Thank you Barracker. Erudite and eloquent as always.

I didn't think this thread would attract this level of debate and, more importantly, support, but I'm pleased it has. The question is how are we going to do it? A petition wouldn't attract enough support as very few people statistically understand the nuance of the issue and would be self defeating.

I can't help feeling the best route is via existing women's organisations, direct to sympathetic MPs or peers.

I have had a reply to the Law Commission (after googling how to repeal a law, found their details.) I asked for more info on HOW one does it, and if it could be done anonymously, how long it could take, below is there answer.

The normal way to contact the Commission is by e mail – which, for obvious reasons, is difficult to do anonymously. We do our best to respect requests for confidentiality from people who contact us, although we cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality in all circumstances.

The statute law repeals procedure is for the repeal of legislation that is no longer of practical utility: for more details see s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/03/background_notes.pdf . The Commission’s most recent report on statute law repeals was published in 2015 and has not yet been implemented. And I am afraid that statute law repeal work is paused at the moment and I am not sure when it will restart. So at the moment it is difficult to give a meaningful estimate of how long it might take to get a law repealed under this procedure. But it can often take several years, because of the need to consult on proposals and the time that is then taken to get a Bill through Parliament.

Where legislation still has practical effect it is still possible to repeal it: I think it is almost certainly the case that the majority of repeals are made outside the statute law repeals procedure. The Law Commission can propose repeal on policy grounds as part of a law reform project (details of current projects are on our website), and government departments and backbench MPs and peers often propose the repeal of legislation on policy grounds.

So @happydappy2 we need to lobby for a public consultation on repealing it? Just trying to understand.

I can ask that question....any further questions?

I can't bear it. It's everywhere, every form I fill, every hospital appointment, every school trip I approve, every job I apply for. Tell us about the innate sexism in your soul, applicant. How do you identify?

This is it. We are constantly asked whether we accept the hierarchy, or not. And it's irrelevant to being at the bottom of it.

Part of the issue that I see, all the time, is that so many people do not understand that women are disadvantaged by gender stereotypes.

Many people don't think women are disadvantaged at all. Or if they are, that it's not pervasive and systematic, and upheld by just about everyone.

So yes even the concept of a 'gender recognition' as something internal immediately disempowers women.

This is it. We are constantly asked whether we accept the hierarchy, or not. And it's irrelevant to being at the bottom of it.

It is constantly assumed that we accept the hierarchy.

Ah, sorry, misread it! Yes, we are constantly asked.

When I was a child forms asked for your Christian Name. We were constantly asked, whether we accepted Christ or not. And it was irrelevant to being non-Christian.