GRA2004: the government were aware of all the issues with it but passed it anyway!

[SapphoJones]

Just stumbled across an unbelievable thread of excerpts from Hansard from the debates around the GRA2004 before it was passed.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

All the issues we’re currently fighting against are mentioned — males in female prisons, males in female sports, conflating sex and gender, enshrining a falsehood into law and all the problems that entails, etc. etc.

There’s also a lot of very illuminating discussion around the fact that allowing legal sex change is one way to avoid the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

They were warned. They were aware. But they ploughed on regardless and all the warnings have now become reality.

Yes, I've read those Hansard entries before. Much as I disliked his general politics, Norman Tebbit in particular was completely on the money on this issue. Very shrewd. Saw pretty much ever problem coming a mile off.

Yes, it makes for rather depressing reading now doesn’t it!

Every. Single. One.

All fobbed off with 'it'll never happen'.......

HairyLeggdHarpy did a grand job of highlighting it all.

“ A basic human right for individuals to be free to believe fact rather than fiction”

The key to understanding the GRA is it was rushed through very quickly in response to the UK government losing a human rights appeal in Strasbourg. It violated human rights to not allow a transwoman to marry a man. The main purpose of the GRA was to create a legal fiction to enable trans people to marry. Note, however, this whole thing could have been solved just by legalising same sex marriage. But instead, they decided to introduce this nonsense instead (which didn't even make any sense. As some of the Lords astutely noticed it may be 'different gender' marriage but they are still 'same sex'.)

The Act itself may have been rushed, but those lobbying for it and preparing for it were far from rushed and had a lobbying group up and running with MPs by 1994.

I do wonder what those involved in the original discussions think about the current situation (depends how much of it they're aware of I guess?), and whether any of those who flagged up concerns then would be willing to speak up about them now?

@WeeBisom

The key to understanding the GRA is it was rushed through very quickly in response to the UK government losing a human rights appeal in Strasbourg. It violated human rights to not allow a transwoman to marry a man. The main purpose of the GRA was to create a legal fiction to enable trans people to marry. Note, however, this whole thing could have been solved just by legalising same sex marriage. But instead, they decided to introduce this nonsense instead (which didn't even make any sense. As some of the Lords astutely noticed it may be 'different gender' marriage but they are still 'same sex'.)

I didn’t know any of this, very interesting. What a ridiculously convoluted “solution” to a problem same-sex marriage could have solved.

I didn’t know any of this, very interesting. What a ridiculously convoluted “solution” to a problem same-sex marriage could have solved.

The 'solution' was already lobbied for and prepared. Just like the update to it has been for the last 10 years or so.

@WeeBisom

The key to understanding the GRA is it was rushed through very quickly in response to the UK government losing a human rights appeal in Strasbourg. It violated human rights to not allow a transwoman to marry a man. The main purpose of the GRA was to create a legal fiction to enable trans people to marry. Note, however, this whole thing could have been solved just by legalising same sex marriage. But instead, they decided to introduce this nonsense instead (which didn't even make any sense. As some of the Lords astutely noticed it may be 'different gender' marriage but they are still 'same sex'.)

Don't forget this all happened under Labour, the supposedly 'progressive' party, which had a huge majority.

I wonder how much of it was influenced by Tony Blair's Roman catholicism. He went on to convert the minute he was out of office.

I do wonder what those involved in the original discussions think about the current situation (depends how much of it they're aware of I guess?), and whether any of those who flagged up concerns then would be willing to speak up about them now?

I wonder too. Now the Tories seemed to have decided to kick self ID into the long grass, I do have hope that some of the more insightful politicos who were around in 2004 have been talking about this behind the scenes..

GRA so poorly and naively drafted, and so narrow in thought in its serving of late transitioning people’s needs but not others. It clearly didn’t imagine transmen would be giving birth and having kids after getting their GRC, for instance. And it doesn’t even have a revocation mechanism- you have to commit to changing legal sex via GRC for your whole life.. so you can’t change your mind and get rid of your GRC if you acted in good faith when you applied for it. That is completely bizarre.
GRA is no longer fit for purpose. GRA should be reviewed with a view to scrapping it. I am glad self-ID seems to be off the table for now but maintaining the current GRA indefinitely is not sensible or fair.

@WeeBisom

The key to understanding the GRA is it was rushed through very quickly in response to the UK government losing a human rights appeal in Strasbourg. It violated human rights to not allow a transwoman to marry a man. The main purpose of the GRA was to create a legal fiction to enable trans people to marry. Note, however, this whole thing could have been solved just by legalising same sex marriage. But instead, they decided to introduce this nonsense instead (which didn't even make any sense. As some of the Lords astutely noticed it may be 'different gender' marriage but they are still 'same sex'.)

THIS - GRA is rooted in homophobia