GRA Reform, Legal Self Declaration, has no effect on access to spaces

[ool0n]

I'm wondering given the recent convincing defeat of gender critical ideology in the high court vs EHRC - if the Mumsnet gender critical people finally accept the fact that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces?

People on the other side of the debate like myself have been explaining to GC people on Twitter for years that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces so their objection to GRA reform is/was unfounded. I/we based this on -

1. English government legal analysis that stated having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces
2. Scottish government legal analysis ... ditto ...
3. The EA 2010 and GA 2004 text
4. The practical impossibility that a BC (Not an ID document) could be of any use in deciding access

now we have

1. Gender critical crowdfunded challenge to EHRC guidance that says having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces. Comprehensively lost, not even passed the very low bar to even be considered for a Judicial Review.

Given this is the case will gender critical people be reevaluating their assertion "Self ID", as in GRA Reform, must be opposed as it effects access to spaces? Trans people have always been able to "Self ID", in the colloquial sense, into men's and women's spaces. So making it easier for trans people to change their birth certificates only helps them, has no effect on GC feminists, and/or cisgender women and spaces.

(I also wonder if there'll be any introspection as to why an obviously incorrect interpretation of the law was able to become so prevalent in gender critical circles. Maybe listen to groups outside of GC circles a bit more?)

As a slight aside, what is the point of a GRC if it makes no material difference to the way a person lives their life?

Great. So let's repeal the GRA.

Good point titchy. Repeal the GRA. Excellent idea

@LazyHorizon

As a slight aside, what is the point of a GRC if it makes no material difference to the way a person lives their life?

A GRC provides a number of protections in respect of data and other matters. All explained in 'A Practical Guide to Transgender Law' due out in less than two weeks now.

Agree with above to repeal the GRA, don't agree with OP.

Also, are you seriously asking if women will please stop objection to any and all males demanding access to womens spaces? Are you really expecting us to say 'of course any male bodied person is now welcome in womens spaces and sports as long as they declare or we think they will declare their pronouns are she/her?

@LazyHorizon

As a slight aside, what is the point of a GRC if it makes no material difference to the way a person lives their life?

Trans people said at the time GRA Reform is the lowest priority thing they wanted. It would have little to no effect on most of their lives. Important sometimes for marriage, death and that's about it. Which is partly why it was so bizarre that the backlash was so vicious.

A GRC provides a number of protections in respect of data and other matters. All explained in 'A Practical Guide to Transgender Law' due out in less than two weeks now

OP doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps Robin you and OP can argue it out between you then. Let us know once you all have a common understanding.

@sanluca

Agree with above to repeal the GRA, don't agree with OP.

Also, are you seriously asking if women will please stop objection to any and all males demanding access to womens spaces? Are you really expecting us to say 'of course any male bodied person is now welcome in womens spaces and sports as long as they declare or we think they will declare their pronouns are she/her?

The point is the GRA has no effect on access to spaces, so the whole campaign around that was based on a falsehood... If you want to restrict access by however you define "sex", then you need new legislation.

@titchy - I imagine we agree, I'm emphasising how minor the importance is compared to reform of healthcare for instance. I'm not saying there are no benefits - we definitely agree that it has no effect on access to spaces I would think. Which is the point of the thread.

I’m all for new legislation to protect women. Thanks for the idea.

@Igmum

Good point titchy. Repeal the GRA. Excellent idea

How would that help your aims? It would hurt trans people as they want their documentation to line up with their identity. I'm assuming that isn't the aim of the gender critical movement, it's presented as "protecting (cis) women's spaces". Hurting trans people by repealing a bit of legislation that has no effect on access to spaces doesn't further your aims at all, right?

"Women, you need to rid yourselves of this ridiculous notion that you are entitled to spaces free from men. Males will enter your spaces whether you like it or not. You probably should listen to more informed people like me who can say "I told you so". That way you an be at peace with men in your domestic abuse shelters".

I am so new here, and was really on the fence about all this stuff - but things like this post really rile me up. Women say no.

If you want to restrict access by however you define "sex", then you need new legislation.

So in your opinion any male person can demand access to womens sports, refugees, prisons and so on. Which is exactly what women are protesting. So thank you for once again confirming what transpeople demand is privileges to use facilities meant for the opposite sex. Privilige men and women don't have.

Makes all the 'we don't ignore womens boundaries and safety and there is no impact on single sex spaces' a big fat lie on your side.

@Procrastinator85 given the text that seems to have riled you up is in quotes and appears to be something you wrote, maybe you'd be better off not inventing things that make you angry?

If you want to restrict access to spaces then the GRA is irrelevant, right? That's the point of the post, hth.

Don't worry OP, I understood your post perfectly.

@sanluca

If you want to restrict access by however you define "sex", then you need new legislation.

So in your opinion any male person can demand access to womens sports, refugees, prisons and so on. Which is exactly what women are protesting. So thank you for once again confirming what transpeople demand is privileges to use facilities meant for the opposite sex. Privilige men and women don't have.

Makes all the 'we don't ignore womens boundaries and safety and there is no impact on single sex spaces' a big fat lie on your side.

"demand is privileges to use facilities meant for the opposite sex"

Sorry, but as the High Court has asserted - you are the one demanding special privileges. To assert single sex spaces can't include people you deem to be the "wrong sex".

Pretending your view is how this works already is why Ann Sinnott lost her case so convincingly. It doesn't and it never has.

I don't think the issue with the GRA is that people don't want Trans people to have rights, but that no peace of paper can ever change someone's sex, but that is effectively what this does, in the eyes of the law.

@UppityPuppity-- "demonstrate utter disregard about the loss of sex-based rights"

No rights were lost, the Gender Critical view that these "hard won rights" exist in law has been proven to be false. Not even close to being valid as the Judge threw the case out after 20mins of deliberation. You've never had the right to demand people you think are the "wrong sex" are not allowed in some spaces. That was a Gender Critical fabrication and it seems many here can't accept that fact.

Trans people have always been able to "Self ID", in the colloquial sense, into men's and women's spaces. So making it easier for trans people to change their birth certificates only helps them, has no effect on GC feminists, and/or cisgender women and spaces.
(I also wonder if there'll be any introspection as to why an obviously incorrect interpretation of the law was able to become so prevalent in gender critical circles. Maybe listen to groups outside of GC circles a bit more?)

Why are you so invested in wanting people of the male sex to be able to freely come and go into female single sex places? Because that’s what self ID does. Personally, I can’t fathom why someone who looks like a man, sounds like a man, but most importantly has the genetic make up of a man should be welcome into single sex female spaces.

@Procrastinator85

"Women, you need to rid yourselves of this ridiculous notion that you are entitled to spaces free from men. Males will enter your spaces whether you like it or not. You probably should listen to more informed people like me who can say "I told you so". That way you an be at peace with men in your domestic abuse shelters".

I am so new here, and was really on the fence about all this stuff - but things like this post really rile me up. Women say no.

Well said Procasinator.

Failing to respect women's boundaries and right to say no to sharing changing, showering, sleeping with unknown born males is a concern. Insisting that vulnerable women in prisons, hospital wards must share spaces with male born sex offenders is a concern.
Advocating for sportswomen to lose their Olympic places to a trans woman who was once a mediocre male competitor is a concern.

All of the above is handwaved away but this is the grim reality for too many women.

Self ID allows any male to access women in all the above circumstances and until trans groups acknowledge that and start working to tackle the issue, women will never stop speaking up - ever.

There is no "English Government"