Government says it is too complex to make changes to the GRA to include non binary

[stumbledin]

As set out in the response to the Gender Recognition Act consultation, there are no plans to make changes to the 2004 Act.

Following a considerable amount of consultation with the public and representative organisations, the Government decided that the current provisions within the GRA allow for those that wish to legally change their sex to do so fairly.

The 2018 GRA consultation did not bring forward any proposals to extend the GRA to provide legal recognition to a third, or non-binary, gender. The Government noted that there were complex practical consequences for other areas of the law, service provision and public life if provision were to be made for non-binary gender recognition in the GRA.

In UK law individuals are considered to be the sex that is registered on their birth certificate – either male or female. The GRA provides a means for transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificate, but there is currently no provision for those who do not identify as male or female.

This Government wants everybody in the UK to feel safe and confident to be themselves.

We are committed to tackling all forms of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crime, and are working with the Home Office on the cross-Government Hate Crime Action Plan. The Government has asked the Law Commission to review the current hate crime legislation, which includes exploring whether homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crime should be considered an aggravated offence. We will also take an assessment of local support for hate crime victims and improve reporting and recording of LGBT hate crimes through supporting additional police training.

Following Parliamentary approval on 8th October 2020, voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity were included in the 2021 Census for England and Wales which took place on Sunday 21 March 2021. Final data on sexual orientation and gender identity from the 2021 Census for England and Wales will likely be available from 2023, with initial Census findings planned for publication in March 2022 (timelines subject to change as work progresses). This will help to provide more robust population size estimates for England and Wales than are currently available.

This Government is committed to supporting all LGBT people, tackling discrimination and improving the lives of all citizens.

Cabinet Office
------

This is in response to a petition that I will not link to for fear this thread will get banished to the wastelands of the petition section.

But there is a news story here. uk.news.yahoo.com/non-binary-legal-recognition-too-153914753.html

I don't interpret Blue's posts that way. She is arguing for the status quo. As am I. The law, (the GRA), has already been decided. It isn't changing to include non binary identities or extending to self id, as per the thread title, this is cause for celebration.

What already IS, remains. Legally. The social contract remains too (tenuously, for now).

I agree that women were not consulted when the GRA was brought in, but the Yougov polls do strongly suggest that women would vote for transitioned transexuals to share female spaces if it went to a direct vote. What you are talking about is re-negotiating the existing law and the existing social contract, which already includes transexuals.

I simply disagree with the notion that the second one person says no that becomes a no for everyone within that class.

So what do you think should happen to the women who do say no, if the yesses override their lack of consent? Should they just stay home and never leave the house?

@AdHominemNonSequitur

I don't interpret Blue's posts that way. She is arguing for the status quo. As am I. The law, (the GRA), has already been decided. It isn't changing to include non binary identities or extending to self id, as per the thread title, this is cause for celebration.

What already IS, remains. Legally. The social contract remains too (tenuously, for now).

I agree that women were not consulted when the GRA was brought in, but the Yougov polls do strongly suggest that women would vote for transitioned transexuals to share female spaces if it went to a direct vote. What you are talking about is re-negotiating the existing law and the existing social contract, which already includes transexuals.

Blue isn't arguing for the status quo. Blue says that penis-removal should be a requirement of a GRC and access to female-only spaces. Blue recognises that fetishistic cross-dressers, and many males who have not had genital surgery, have a GRC and Blue disagrees with that (as do many women who are fine with "post-op transsexuals" using female spaces).

@OldCrone

I simply disagree with the notion that the second one person says no that becomes a no for everyone within that class.

So what do you think should happen to the women who do say no, if the yesses override their lack of consent? Should they just stay home and never leave the house?

"We gave you these provisions in law because we recognised that you needed it. The people who don't need it think you shouldn't need it either, and so they want to take it away."

Chesterton's Fence principle should apply here.

I've never understood why religious people need churches and chapels and temples.

I think I'll repurpose them all for my own interests instead.

@OldCrone

Is it ok to say that a post op transsexual is the same as a cross dressing fetishist? All just men?

Is there an easy way to tell the difference between them? Just by looking at them?

and therein lies the problem and why we are in the mess we are currently in.

Post op transsexuals with a GRC have an understanding that this gives them the right to use female sex segregated spaces and do so, however, no-one is allowed to challenge them or ask for any kind of proof that they can, nor how they are distinguishable from a mere cross dressing fetishist it has to be taken on trust and look where that leads and has led. That is what makes the whole thing totally unworkable and makes it effectively self-id in all but name, the only way to prevent the mission creep that is happening and was always going to happen is to be absolute that single sex spaces are exactly that single SEX based on biology and nothing else.

It was never acceptable for women's spaces and facilities to be given away in the manner they were with zero thought and consideration for women, women weren't asked, our consent was not sought, we were presented with a fait accompli. Men as ever deciding that women's consent is an irrelevance.

I don't interpret Blue's posts that way. She is arguing for the status quo. As am I. The law, (the GRA), has already been decided.

And some people think that law should change, on both sides.

@BlueLipstickRocks

It's ALL MALES. Whether they are trans or not is irrelevant

Its very relevant.

Why should I as a long time post op transsexual with a GRC working within a female dominated industry start using the mens toilets because of a pushback against the transgender umbrella?

I see a lot of "women need...". The reality is women are just as diverse as trans. Some women support self ID and anyone identifying into a female space; others support those who are post op and some are exclude post op. Which group gets to win? There is no united voice for women. You dont get to say "this is what I want....I am a woman therefore this is what all woman want".

I know for a fact that those I work with for example are perfectly happy for me to use a womans space as post op. Some are happy simply by virtue of my being trans and would accept anyone with original equipment (though I disagree). Others accept me for being post op but would reject those who arent. I know of one person who is accepting due to a GRC.

What I have been told by more than a few people is that all this mess comes down to a right to say no on individual cases. Same as with pronouns. Its about not having enforced rules that define all trans as equal and to support one is to support all.

What does you “working in a female dominated industry” have to do with anything? I’m guessing you mean you know a lot of women and none of them have complained to you, I have a female friend working with a MTF transsexual - she does not want to share the toilet facilities with them but is too scared to speak out. She limits her fluid intake to avoid using the toilets at work. To her, this person is a male - and she does not feel safe or comfortable sharing toilet facilities with a male. Just because no one has told you to your face that they are uncomfortable, don’t assume they are not. Even if you’ve asked them - women learn very early on not to disagree with men.

I have female friends working in male dominated industries who had no access to toilets, e.g. on construction sites, earlier in their careers and had to push for suitable provision.

If you don’t have a suitable provision for your specific toileting needs - campaign for them. I will happily support you. Don’t steal them from others.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

I don't interpret Blue's posts that way. She is arguing for the status quo. As am I. The law, (the GRA), has already been decided. It isn't changing to include non binary identities or extending to self id, as per the thread title, this is cause for celebration.

What already IS, remains. Legally. The social contract remains too (tenuously, for now).

I agree that women were not consulted when the GRA was brought in, but the Yougov polls do strongly suggest that women would vote for transitioned transexuals to share female spaces if it went to a direct vote. What you are talking about is re-negotiating the existing law and the existing social contract, which already includes transexuals.

How can we go back to the status quo? It requires a basis of trust and that has been irrecoverably broken and having been broken eyes have been opened as to how women were so completely dismissed and disregarded when the GRA was brought in.

women were so completely dismissed and disregarded when the GRA was brought in.

It wasn't the GRA that did that it was the Equality Act 2010.

Blue recognises that fetishistic cross-dressers, and many males who have not had genital surgery, have a GRC

I recognise no such thing.

The process of a GRC is very much gatekept. An application must be supported by a specific NHS approved medical expert.

I do think GRC should be post op only that much is true.

How can we go back to the status quo? It requires a basis of trust and that has been irrecoverably broken and having been broken eyes have been opened as to how women were so completely dismissed and disregarded when the GRA was brought in.

That's the thing. We're not just talking about Stonewall's recent work. We're going right back to 2004 and before, when Stonewall was still a gay rights organisation and Press for Change managed to get the GRA through without anyone really noticing what was happening.

I fear this is true, but hope that it isn't. It was working ok, until all the gender nonsense started. Or maybe the GRC and it's legal fictions was the start of the gender nonsense. Either way I hope we can navigate a way through that protects Blue and other transexuals. I think a GRC might be a way to do that, since it exists already. As we are so often reminded by TRA's, there is nothing but convention stopping anyone from going anywhere. Gender ideology seeks to change the conventions and the erode the law. The GRC remains unchanged. Regardless of the logic and the complications of 'policing' single sex spaces, people with a GRC remain legally entitled to use the opposite sex toilets.

Press for Change managed to get the GRA through without anyone really noticing what was happening.

Why is the GRA seen as the issue? PFC drive the EA changes not GRA.
Even before the GRA we had the Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment).

Transsexual law has existed for decades. It was the EA that introduced self id into law.

The idea that a man can get female recorded on their birth certificate and that change has to remain confidential has compromised women and childrens safeguarding and the ability of informed consent.

The EA is an intersectional mess.

Both need revisiting. Women probably need our own legislation away from other rights.

The process of a GRC is very much gatekept. An application must be supported by a specific NHS approved medical expert.

You are fully aware that the gatekeeping is for the protection of the patient, not the women and children who may come into contact with those with a grc.

The EA is an intersectional mess.

I entirely agree. The EA is contradictory and awful legislation driven by Stonewalls influence on EHRC. Thankfully EHRC have seen the light.

Gender Reassignment is not Gender Identity.

As to GRA its still a hugely gatekept process and I don't see it as being the big issue. 5,000 GRC holders in 15 years versus 600,000 transgender at lowest estimate so that's much less than 1%.

@BlueLipstickRocks

women were so completely dismissed and disregarded when the GRA was brought in.

It wasn't the GRA that did that it was the Equality Act 2010.

No, it was the GRA. The Equality Act doesn't change people's legal sex.

You are fully aware that the gatekeeping is for the protection of the patient, not the women and children who may come into contact with those with a grc.

I believe it does both.

For example by definition a transsexual will almost certainly be dysmorphic therefore the idea of them exposing themselves to women is negligible.

No, it was the GRA. The Equality Act doesn't change people's legal sex.

So the issue us the GRA which changes legal sex of 5000 people and not the EA which allows 600,000+ to self identify?

It's not the GRA that gives access its the EA.

Or maybe the GRC and it's legal fictions was the start of the gender nonsense

It was and the EQA made it worse. A few sensible voices did raise the alarm and predicted what would happen but they were shouted down or ignored. Messing with the definitions of male and female and producing a legal fiction that had to be kept secret as if it was a matter of national security was always going to end badly it was a bad law at the time and a complete over reaction to solving a problem.

I would agree that in the here and now women need completely separate legislation and our rights to our language, single sex spaces, sports and facilities, to be absolutely and unequivocally enshrined in law.

@BlueLipstickRocks

You are fully aware that the gatekeeping is for the protection of the patient, not the women and children who may come into contact with those with a grc.

I believe it does both.

For example by definition a transsexual will almost certainly be dysmorphic therefore the idea of them exposing themselves to women is negligible.

Then why do some heterosexual males, with no dysmorphia around their genitals, who cross-dress for years often escalate in middle age to hormones and surgery?

The fact is that the chipping away at single sex provisions is all coming from the starting point that all males can choose based on their personal identity and that legislation must acheive that at all and any cost.

The recent thread here about a word change from dysphoria to incongruence in NI is illustrative of the strategy.

What are women supposed to do? It's been made absolutely clear the contempt women are held in. Christine Burns MBE called women pig ignorant last week for expecting single sex to mean single sex. This is someone who has been involved in trans rights for decades. Thinks women are pig ignorant.

We are now clinging onto women's sports by our finger tips from transexuals and transgender alike with sports organisations listening to academics tell them women must try harder. Are we just not trying hard enough as well as pig ignorant?

Getting angry with women when we are reacting to this in the only rational way is the default response. We are pig ignorant.

Well I'm all out of respect for anyone calling me pig ignorant as a response to my expectation that female means female and not any identity.

Sort out the leadership who want pig ignorant women to do as they are told. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

@BlueLipstickRocks

No, it was the GRA. The Equality Act doesn't change people's legal sex.

So the issue us the GRA which changes legal sex of 5000 people and not the EA which allows 600,000+ to self identify?

It's not the GRA that gives access its the EA.

The Equality Act only allows people to "self-ID" as trans, or more specifically to self-ID into the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment. As far as female-only spaces go, having that PC is not relevant to male access.

The EA doesn't give those with the PC of GR access to the provisions of the opposite sex.

@EdgeOfACoin

There are factors other than safety at play too. Personally, I think 6 is the oldest a boy should use women's toilets. Plenty of women disagree with me.

Not so very long ago there was a boy of about 8 in the ladies loos, giggling and trying to peek at women through the gap in the doors. Highly inappropriate. I felt perfectly safe, but I wasn't comfortable with him there.

It isn't just about safety.

I would have thought that there is only one reason for a boy to be in a women's toilet - because he is too young to go into a public toilet alone. Which means he needs to be ACCOMPANIED and SUPERVISED, and because he is with his mother and not his father it the the women's toilet that he goes in WITH HIS MOTHER.

Either his mother was doing a poor job of supervising him (which may or may not be her fault), or he is an entitled (albeit young) male forcing his way unconsented into female space.