Should the GRA be repealed?

[Apollo440]

The original purpose of the GRA was to allow someone transitioning to get married (effectively same sex) at a time when it wasn't possible to do so. Thankfully times have changed and this is no longer an issue. Is the GRA still required? Discuus

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

I look forward to materially supporting the campaign launched yesterday to repeal the GRA. In a civilised country citizens should be able to lobby for law changes, and good heavens *@MNHQ*, they should be allowed to discuss it shouldn't they?

We can discuss it. MNHQ deleted it because it was posted solely for the reason of promotion. I'm assuming that the link is being flagged but that later in the day when a human gets to have a look we can post the link again. Obviously the thread was reported.

Malalhaha in that case it might be better to pick up the discussion in an earlier thread on the exact same topic that has been resurrected.

Yes, we should move there.

Agree, Diane. But I think discussion of the GRA should include whether it is useful or harmful in itself as a law.

're deletion - a 2nd thread posted to discuss the group/movement, not to promote it, was also deleted. As was a third, about the previous 2 threads. Then the whole site went down.

Some people seem very very keen to stop women discussing it at all.

@ArabellaScott

're deletion - a 2nd thread posted to discuss the group/movement, not to promote it, was also deleted. As was a third, about the previous 2 threads. Then the whole site went down.

Some people seem very very keen to stop women discussing it at all.

So all this happened last night. Hmmmm. Something sinister is definitely afoot. All the more reason to do what this thread title suggests.

However, the forbidden website is still standing. I just logged into it.

So was there a DDos attack last night then?

Yes it should be repealed, I never agreed with it in the first place, even before the massive pressure over the past few years.

Interesting that every time we try to discuss it, the thread gets pulled. Never see that happening when people discuss any other law

It's very odd that we're not allowed to post a link to a campaigning website. Links are posted on here all the time, and before last night I'd only seen them removed if they were for crowdfunders or petitions or if they looked like advertising. I think MN may also remove links to rival discussion sites. That website doesn't fit in any of those categories.

@JellySlice

The GRA should be repealed because it is a bad law which mandates belief. Under the GRA, people are required to affirm and act according to a specific belief, even when they do not hold that belief. Non-believers are forbidden to express their experiences of material reality. The GRA denies people their human rights to freedom of belief and expression. The GRA legitimises a godless theocracy. It must go.

That is a good point, and it actively prevents people being able to change their minds in the future (which obviously would be fairly tricky if they’ve gone for the full surgery but it isn’t a requirement and so many don’t).

People do change their minds about things over a lifetime and it seems crazy that this law allows people to make this change in one direction only. Keira is now caught in a situation where she has no way of reversing her decision.

Of course, if you were to update the law to allow for a change back it would demonstrate that it is not innate as claimed and raise questions to why creating a legal fiction is being allowed in the first place.

In trying to give freedom of expression it actually removes future freedom of expression.

@ArabellaScott

're deletion - a 2nd thread posted to discuss the group/movement, not to promote it, was also deleted. As was a third, about the previous 2 threads. Then the whole site went down.

Some people seem very very keen to stop women discussing it at all.

The thread was screenshot and posted on Twitter by our biggest fan which presumably prompted a large volume of reporting.

I was quite concerned when the website went down - a bit of a coincidence, apparently that hasn’t happened since 2018.

What does TAAT mean when referring to a thread?

So was there a DDos attack last night then?

The Mumsnet notification said it was nothing sinister, but it was an error 522 which can be caused by DDos attacks.

There was a celebratory tweet when the website went down saying ‘oops’ 🥂

I was quite concerned when the website went down - a bit of a coincidence, apparently that hasn’t happened since 2018.

The actual website that shall not be named went down? If it did it was rteporary as it's back up again in full glory.

The Twitter profile is still standing but the FB page, which I followed yesterday, seems to have been taken down

It's quite easy to find links to the website on twitter just by earthing the hashtag.

Whoops. Searching not earthing!

MN went down last night around 11pm and was still down when I went to bed over an hour or so later.

The TRAs will never shut women up talking about this. Getting Posie banned on social media platforms meant she had to take billboard ads out instead and the conversation spilled over in to the real world. It’s a dick move and entirely counterproductive, but they don’t seem able to help themselves.

Yes of course it should be repealed. It is a bad law which should never have made it onto the statute books in the first place.

The TRAs will never shut women up talking about this. Getting Posie banned on social media platforms meant she had to take billboard ads out instead and the conversation spilled over in to the real world. It’s a dick move and entirely counterproductive, but they don’t seem able to help themselves.

It's useful and instructive.

I do find it a bit odd that people try to shut us up by attacking conversations/threads/sites where women dare to discuss UK law, while simultaneously screenshotting and broadcasting the discussion all over Twitter.

Reminds me of the bloke in the camo fatigues wearing a high vis vest.

Make up your minds, lads.

@Malahaha

I was quite concerned when the website went down - a bit of a coincidence, apparently that hasn’t happened since 2018.

The actual website that shall not be named went down? If it did it was rteporary as it's back up again in full glory.

Sorry I meant mumsnet went down

Yes, I wondered why Mumsnet had gone down when I was trying to complete the House of Lords consultation on free speech! Mumsnet is an excellent resource for women, and supporters of women’s rights. Not surprising it is unpopular in certain quarters.

I’m still wondering what people want from the GRA. It obviously is not currently providing much as indicated by the low number of GRCs.

As we’ve discussed, sex markers can be changed on most identification documents without a GRC (is that right?) apart from the birth certificate which imo is an historical document that should never be changed (except in very rare circumstances).

It would be unwise (and also shouldn’t be allowed for safety purposes) to change the sex marker on NHS records and I am amazed that people are allowed to obtain a new NI number - doesn’t that mess with their NI contributions for pension purposes? Does that require the updated birth certificate?

The point I am making is that it is (or should) be impossible and unwise to erase all evidence of a previous existence and rewrite the past so other than the privilege to change a birth certificate which no one else has, what does the GRC do for anyone?

Good point thinking perhaps it's worth a separate email to the HoL or DCMS about free speech being attacked, quite literally, in the dead of night...

I am amazed that people are allowed to obtain a new NI number - doesn’t that mess with their NI contributions for pension purposes? Does that require the updated birth certificate?

Changing NI number was the second reason for the GRA (the main one being a way to allow transsexuals to marry someone of the same sex without legislating for same sex marriage).

In the ECHR case (Goodwin v UK 2002), one of the claims was that they could be 'outed' to their employer via their NI number. I think this was because the record would show that their retirement age was 65 (the male retirement age at the time), rather than 60. Since we now have an equal retirement age, there is no longer a need for this.

one of the claims was that they could be 'outed' to their employer via their NI number. I think this was because the record would show that their retirement age was 65 (the male retirement age at the time), rather than 60.

Surely more likely they simply wanted to retire at 60? Although complaining about being outed would obviously garner more sympathy.