#RepealTheGRA apparently 'hails from the right

[TheShadowyFeminist]

Tweet by Ruth Serwotka

Does this have any basis in fact? I know plenty who think the GRA should be repealed. None have been right wing, ring leaning, aligned with the right or even come close to what Ruth states here.

This tweet is a flavour of what I've seen. And I think the sentiment is fairly accurate IMO.

What do others think? Do you think the GRA should be repealed? Are you or have you ever been, right wing, right leaning, right adjacent or meet the description Ruth has for women who have said the GRA should be repealed?

@DisgustedofManchester

There's a difference between political left and right and being socially liberal or conservative. A number of traditional left wing voters also are transphobic, racist, misgynist, islamophobic or anti-semitic and similarly many on the political right are very socially liberal. Brexit is a socially conservative ideology and many working class people, traditional labour voters, wanted it.

From my perspective, I think the campaign for self ID highlighted just how deeply misogynist the left is.

It always has been - don't get me wrong - but this has been a fabulous opportunity for MRAs to fuel the fire of their hatred for women.

Yoko Ono was right

We get called that because you're a bunch of white people who think it's funny to co-opt racial oppression, by invoking the name of a notorious white supremacist website.

Educate yourself and do better. Make some donations to charities that focus on the needs of black women to atone for this.

Quite.

The left (you know - the good guys) are currently engaged in a hateful campaign of lies and violence which aims to subjugte 51% of the population, so their bodies and their children can be used as a recource, like wood or gas, by the powerful in society.

For the record, I was brought up by very committed Marxists, and have been on the hard left my whole life.

After decades I now realise it was not a coincedence that they were also abusive peodophiles.

The left have betrayed women.

I no longer believe in Left or Right. There is only what is toxic for society and the people in it and what is healthy. And telling the difference involves actual thought and consideration, its not about picking a colour.

and many don't seem to understand the GRA at all

What are we failing to understand?

www.blackmothersmatter.org/

We have a vision that one day black mothers are no longer disproportionately in danger during pregnancy and the first year after birth

Its extremely debatable as to whether a right to be legally treated as something you in fact are not, and access the resources set aside for those actually and materially in that group with no way to opt out, should ever have been created in the first place.

It's been demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that women cannot rely on natal male people as a whole group managing to handle that privilege in a way that does not stamp all over women. So scolding 'privilege' sounds an awful lot like 'you deserve to be badly treated', as justification for really bloody awful behaviour. Women had single sex provision set up in the first place because in mixed sex provisions natal male people dominate and will not respect women's rights, boundaries, consent and bodily privacy/safety unless legally compelled to do so. We've destruction tested the idea that 'some' natal male people can do this without harm to natal female people.

There have been many 'rights' rolled back in history when they were found to be incompatible with the rights of others. The right to smoke in enclosed public places, to drink and drive just as examples.

@SecretTransTwitterEngineer

It's fun that you're all talking about getting rid of our rights (and many don't seem to understand the GRA at all) whilst being worried about being called 'right wing'. What utter privilege. This is why you get called Prosecco Stormfront. Thankfully, given that other countries are expanding trans people rights (and already 600-700 million live in countries with self-ID), it would seem unlikely that your social conservatism (whilst can be left or right) will come to much.

Its not fun that you're all talking about getting rid of our rights (and many here understand the GRA and its effect on women and children perfectly) whilst being worried about, well nothing really, now that really is privilege. We will call you what ever gaslighting names we want and get away with it, but dont you dare answer back or the cops will be round. Thankfully, given that the abuse this movement advocates for is begining to become apparent to everyone your social facism will have a long term future.

I think it should be replaced with legislation that protects gender non-conformity without resorting to the legal fiction that a human can change sex.

It's notable that the least damaging potential consequence of that fiction (that a transman could inherit his father's title) was the one area that was exempted.

This legislation did not consider women as full human beings, deserving of equal rights, consideration and dignity in our society.

Any views on Lachlan Stuart's point that, if we were left with the Equality Act on its own, it could effectively mean self ID?

Sorry it won't let me screenshot but it's here:

twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1412453385819901956

Maybe it’s part of my left wing values that I believe strongly that the GRA should be repealed? It embodies hyper-individualistic, hugely sexist values and is legally unnecessary (since the EQA already offers everyone the same protections). GRA was a poorly and naively thought-through legislative bodge designed seemingly mainly to assist late transitioning men. Hence it did not consider basic female issues like pregnancy.

And most importantly it seemed to have been drawn up so as not to challenge anyone who objected to same-sex marriage. Denying same-sex marriage is a denial of human rights. The law has rightly changed towards same-sex marriage, so there is now no need to keep the GRA apart from for individual personal identity validation purposes.

It should be nobody’s right to legally demand identity validation from anyone else, nor to enforce it on anyone else. I’ve never voted Conservative in my life.

[quote Floisme]Any views on Lachlan Stuart's point that, if we were left with the Equality Act on its own, it could effectively mean self ID?

Sorry it won't let me screenshot but it's here:

twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1412453385819901956[/quote]
I made a post the other day that was deleted for reasons I can't fathom that suggested we need to carve out women's rights from the EqA and return to a standalone Sex Discrimination Act. One that focuses entirely on women and girls and pulls together all the strands of the various issues and barriers facing females today.

It increasingly seems that the EqA is not holding up for us in the way that was originally intended.

[quote Floisme]Any views on Lachlan Stuart's point that, if we were left with the Equality Act on its own, it could effectively mean self ID?

Sorry it won't let me screenshot but it's here:

twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1412453385819901956[/quote]
I think my response is, in what way does that differ from the current situation? All someone has to do to come under gender reassignment protected category is be proposing to have their gender reassigned. Currently that is being treated as de facto self ID.

The existence of the GRA means that, as the law courts just underlined, gender reassignment will be a trump protected charactistic when put up against women's rights.

Remove the GRA, and sex, maternity, sexual orientation all should once again have parity with gender reassignment in a clash of rights situation, as should be the case, because the EA2010 was not meant to be a hierarchy, it was meant to acknowledge the issues of competing rights in the modern age.

By all means, draft legislation about no discrimination on the grounds of clothing, gender presentation, name changes, either in work, or tenancy agreements, or even on the streets.

Frankly, as a woman who has endured both catcalls when I was younger and nasty homophobia from people I can only guess are jealous of my sharp suit style now, I'm very happy to underline that people can present as they wish, whether they are male or female, and face no discrimination or violence because of it.

As far as I can see, everything classed as 'transphobia' that is complained about would be covered by either sex, sexual orientation or, in the case of some of the more outlandish beliefs about gender identity, religion.

The GRA is both superfluous, and damaging to women.

Lefty, atheist, remainer, who Corbyn shifted centre left (last 2 elections spoilt ballots). Left and right has now become meaningless because the centre is being ignored which is by far the biggest group and is reasonable in its views.

I think the GRA could be amended to be issued only to transsexuals (remember those) or (even though the panel making the decisions seems to be pretty careful) strengthen the criteria for granting a GRA. Better though that the GRA is repealed and the EA amended

What always surprised me is how much was known about the affects the GRA would have and yet these were ignored. I wonder if that's what makes us all so angry. It was bloody obvious to Governments that there was a conflict.

I hope all of this resolves itself but so many institutions are captured that if Labour ever do get back into government self i-d will be on the table in the blink of an eye. Starmer is not stealthily GC

I think what I think is.

I would not agree to doing anything retrospective. Most people who got a GRC did so before all this. There aren't that many compared to the population. Any change should be going forward.

No way to no gate keeping self ID that's a disaster.

People can change their names by deed poll. Not the same I know but a name is a pretty basic piece of info.

I would like to know from those with GRC what it has meant/ changed in their lives. What would have been an issue if they didn't have one.

It may be that it's kept but.

Thorough gatekeeping. For those with severe dysphoria only.
Review of the exemptions. Proper consideration to what is needed with a view to the protection of those who have a GRC and women. EG not women's prisons with the general population. End of story. Not men's general population for obvious reasons, though I do wonder how much risk there is compared to other people men see as different/ vulnerable/ let's get violent. There are plenty. Maybe the solution is a separate ring wing where men identified as at relatively high risk of violence can be housed. Those with various disabilities, very young, known to be gay, that sort of thing. Their crimes would need to be taken into account. I don't have all the answers obviously but there must be a way of keeping women's prisons single sex and also protecting those at risk in male estate.

Ditto hospital wards, refuges, rape crisis centres for women, that sort of thing. There are so few with GRC it's not like this means that are cut out of a big range of jobs. Women's single sex things need to be just that.
That sort of thing.

Hate crime law as is, I know lots of people have an issue with it. If it stays it covers GNC people ( perceived to be trans) as well as trans people. Misogyny needs to be included.

The current protected characteristics cover discrimination when it comes to jobs, goods and services etc.

The Equality Act to be reiterated and those breaking it- any number of orgs eg girl guides to be given x months to change their policies. Reminder that you can use exemption in a blanket way for an org it's not individual by individual.

For things like swimming etc a separate session can be considered/ must be introduced as women have asked for.

Where there are mixed sex options eg the spa in the news, Hampstead ponds then the appropriate one for sex or the mixed one should be used.

Reminding that it's a GRC which means you are treated as a woman in most circs. Not self ID.

Trans people could and should be fighting for their own spaces. That's what women did, and also disability rights campaigners. With the big political parties onside and well funded charities and loads of celebrity support things would happen quicker than for the other groups I mentioned. The fact this is not being done at all, and the idea is generally met with a flat refusal. Says to a lot of women that it's not really about privacy or safety. That's really troubling for obvious reasons.

I think that's it. May be more. Dunno.

If the EA was absolutely clear that the comparator for a trans person is a person of the same biological sex, while also recognising trans as a belief, then self-ID would not be relevant. People with a trans identity would be protected from harassment on the basis of their identity. Women's sex-based rights would be protected. People's rights not to validate trans isentities would be protected.

What would not be legally protected would be males' physical access to public female spaces, such as toilets, as there is currently no law explicitly banning them. However it would once again be clearly legal to call males out on it and to refuse them entry to female spaces.

I made a post the other day that was deleted for reasons I can't fathom that suggested we need to carve out women's rights from the EqA and return to a standalone Sex Discrimination Act. One that focuses entirely on women and girls and pulls together all the strands of the various issues and barriers facing females today.

This.

The disability and culture/faith also need to come out and be handled separately, as there are increasing conflicts of interest and attempts to make these characteristics into a hierarchy. It's been discussed on MN before that we're at the point where the equalities MP and committee should not be holding the T and the women's brief, and debatably also the LGB brief as one because of the increasing clash of interests and that a lot more funding and lobbying is pouring in from one, and garnering far more support and interest than the others get. There comes a point where to have fair representation requires a minister and dept focused solely on representing the interests of that one group in law. The hoovering it up into one bunch and dept is another bodged bit of law that's never really worked.

Reminding that it's a GRC which means you are treated as a woman in most circs. Not self ID.

Isn't part of the fantasy world that a GRC creates the fiction of actually being the claimed sex? If I understand correctly, a trans person with a GRC cannot be required to prove their (fictitious) sex as that would 'out' them, which would be discriminatory if you did not require a non-trans person to prove their sex.

I'm beyond caring about being called names. TERF, transphobe, right wing, member of prosecco stormfront.

Women's rights are under attack.

#repealthegra

Prosecco Stormfront. Sounds like a character from teen fiction, out of Skulduggery Pleasant or Hunger Games.

Name calling instead of engaging with the arguments. Appeal to emotion.

We see you.

@JellySlice

Reminding that it's a GRC which means you are treated as a woman in most circs. Not self ID.

Isn't part of the fantasy world that a GRC creates the fiction of actually being the claimed sex? If I understand correctly, a trans person with a GRC cannot be required to prove their (fictitious) sex as that would 'out' them, which would be discriminatory if you did not require a non-trans person to prove their sex.

Yes that's the case.

I'm not sure that my opinion is get rid of it, or make it available only to those with severe dysphoria and etc etc.

I would not want it to be retrospectively taken from those who have one. The numbers are small.

And until this recent activism started ok it wasn't known really but. The numbers are small. And this movement is fucking things up for them already.

I have no idea how in practice to roll back the societal change. Now that the strongly enforced social norm of single sex things being single sex has been eroded (women's things - how many women are using men only stuff and would the men be polite about it?!) then it's really hard to go back.

Oh and no of course it doesn't 'hail from the right'. It hails from women from across the political spectrum.

The number of women who are totally ok with any male using or going to anything female only at any time. Is not very many. I mean honestly. Little girls? Elderly women? Women's support groups, communal changing? Etc etc. No of course they bloody don't.

Also this right wing thing as an insult is pathetic.

In the UK the mainstream right is much more moderate than the USA where this 'insult' comes from.

And if we're all right wing. Why would calling us right wing shut us up? It doesn't even make sense. It'd be yes I vote Tory so what. I still don't want penis owners self ID'ing into the communal changing at my little girl's swimming club.

Obviously.

And one thing this has taught me as a lifelong nicey lefty type.

Is that the left don't give a fuck about us either.

It's made me read more of s variety of things and opinions. I can disagree, agree. It's useful to know what the mainstream right is thinking and why. That way you don't get caught out.

Plus. I know loads of Tory voters. They come in many sorts and for many reasons. They aren't all evil. This polarised goody/ baddy thing about massive groups of people is childish quite frankly. (I'm talking mainstream not the NF or similar obv!). But even then. Why are they so angry? So ready to commit violence? What happened to make them like that? What can be done about it?

I'm not sure that my opinion is get rid of it, or make it available only to those with severe dysphoria and etc etc.

The treatment for any dysphoria cannot be to require others to join in with it and pretend that the situation which distresses the dysphoric person does not exist. It also creates a distasteful hierarchy of male entitlement to women's name and spaces.

What does it mean to be a woman if a woman is defined as "females + males with gender dysphoria - females with gender dysphoria"? What do these groups have in common?

How do we ensure everyone is given equal opportunities when we have to deny sex in certain situations? Who decides when sex is important and when it's not?

It seems people just think of prisons, hospitals wards and contact sports, but what about work and education opportunities, healthcare and political representation?