#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 I know plenty who think the GRA should be repealed.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 Do you think the GRA should be repealed?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right wing, right leaning, right adjacent or meet the description Ruth has for women who have said the GRA should be repealed?

Repeal that bullshit.

Yours,

A democratic Marxist.

I got that jelly.

I'm just up in the air. Genuinely. I know the arguments :) thinking about those with sex dysphoria rather than gender obv.

Gender dysphoria is totally ???

If you hate your sexed body that's one thing.

If you feel you are the wrong gender- but it's not to do with the fundamental whole of your sexed body. Then what is left? Fashion? Hair? Breasts are a big deal for, to me, obvious reasons related to male gaze. Behaviour? How others behave to you? Interests..... Stereotypes. All socialised from birth and enforced to s greater or lesser degree.

The answer there is to erode reduce and stop the oppression of everyone with these stereotypes.

But. That's not what's wanted.

It's regressive in the extreme.

Excellent twitter thread about the GRA.

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1412439798401351684

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1412439798401351684.html

We do not have an Act to recognise racism - for it would indeed be racism - to 'identify' as a race we are not, based upon racist stereotypes we treasure of race 'psyche' or race aesthetics.

We would understand it is demeaning to people of genuine ethnicities were we to ratify false, stereotypical, racial characteristics into law about them, as a means to facilitating entry of an imposter into their group.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

MN thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4290138-GRA

I'm not really too sure it matters where it comes from. Having followed GC discourse for some time, I'm feeling slightly confident that I would be forgiven for thinking that the ultimate goal is to remove the protected characteristic 'gender re-assignment' from the EA as oppose to stopping something that deals with birth certificates and privacy.

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem. I don't really know, but I'm guessing repealing either is going to require substantial evidence of the general (not the odd one off case) harm they have caused?

There is no valid reason whatsoever that anyone who says they are a woman is one. That woman is no more than an 'identity' that can be opted into. Sometimes part time fgs.

It's mysogyny of the most extreme.

@Redapplewreath

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.

Love this post. I agree with everything you've said here @Redapplewreath

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem.

Women are being sexually abused by male inmates in prison, that's a substantial problem.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem.

Women are being sexually abused by male inmates in prison, that's a substantial problem.

The amount of evidence of harm required for some people will always be n+1.

The amount of evidence of harm required for some people will always be n+1.

And this is specifically relevant when the harm is directed towards women who, as we know, are secondary in significance to sex offenders who wish to be housed in the female estate.

The reason we know this is because of a piece of legislation designed to help a homophobic establishment side-step equal marriage.

No. I will not support retaining legislation that started as a way to avoid changing the law so I could marry my girlfriend, and has led directly to rapists being incarcerated with women as a right.

Whine all you like. This is bad law, and we are not collateral damage for your identity confirmation.

I'm right wing on some issues, and so fucking what?

my opinion still counts as much as anyone else's

and for what it's worth I think the GRA must be repealed

I suppose it's just the deeply held societal ideas about sex offences and women, at the max.

In general sex offences go:
Trivial
Trivial
Trivial
Trivial
OMG that's totally rare and unexpected. He's a monster

And the reaction is
Don't make a fuss
Laugh it off
He didn't mean it
Well it's not assault is it if he doesn't touch you
Are you sure? You might have misinterpreted
What were you wearing? He was probably getting signals
You know what men are like
It's up to you to look after yourselves
Why were you there?

It's the same as this isn't it.

@statsgeek1

I'm not really too sure it matters where it comes from. Having followed GC discourse for some time, I'm feeling slightly confident that I would be forgiven for thinking that the ultimate goal is to remove the protected characteristic 'gender re-assignment' from the EA as oppose to stopping something that deals with birth certificates and privacy.

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem. I don't really know, but I'm guessing repealing either is going to require substantial evidence of the general (not the odd one off case) harm they have caused?

Why should anyone be allowed to falsify their birth record? What aspect of privacy requires this falsification of official documents?

In the recent judicial review it was reported that there were at least 7 sexual assaults on female prisoners carried out by males who identified as transgender but didn't have a GRC, and an unknown number by males with a GRC (this is at least one, since the female prisoner who brought the JR was assaulted by a male with a GRC).

How many completely avoidable sexual assaults is enough to count as 'not the odd one-off case' and a 'substantial problem'? I think that even one case is too many for something which is completely avoidable.

As a 'statsgeek' you presumably have an idea of what number of assaults you consider to be significant and worth paying attention to. Tell us how many women have to be sacrificed for this cause.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

I'm right wing on some issues, and so fucking what?

my opinion still counts as much as anyone else's

and for what it's worth I think the GRA must be repealed

Agree. I posted on a thread recently that I lean right of centre and the lovely @yeahbutnaw called me a right wing extremist.

Some people simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Considering a lot of these arses think that locking up rapists at all is right wing, I'm guessing the radar is fucked up from the start.

That idea- anti carceral- is another one taken from another activism area with impunity. This one is from the USA and dumped here with no consideration of what it means or why it's argued.

Anti carceral over there is about the racism in arrests, prosecutions. And the massive sentences given to usually black people while white people get s slap on the wrist.

Young men locked up for 30 years for s bit of weed type thing.

The running it as a massive business. The working for free which produces a surprising amount of their economy. That fact that essentially slavery stopped but look if they're in prison we can make them work for free...

It is much more nuanced etc than just get rid of all the prisons.and it's very specific to the USA system.

Over here the equivalent would be those who say that women shouldn't be locked up for various valid reasons unless they are a danger to the public/ have committed a serious crime etc.

@statsgeek1

I'm not really too sure it matters where it comes from. Having followed GC discourse for some time, I'm feeling slightly confident that I would be forgiven for thinking that the ultimate goal is to remove the protected characteristic 'gender re-assignment' from the EA as oppose to stopping something that deals with birth certificates and privacy.

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem. I don't really know, but I'm guessing repealing either is going to require substantial evidence of the general (not the odd one off case) harm they have caused?

Guess away.

Women are saying no.

Stats geek you of all people should know.

That those with a GRC are recorded in female stats for everything.

So. There's no way to know of any harm. At all.

In short.

Given your name I find your post. ???. Why are you looking at stats that are impossible to tell what you are claiming?

[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’m not sure why he thinks repeal would mean self id. I think it certainly needs people with legal expertise to look at how the EA would function without it.

My own view, like others on this thread, is that women’s and girl’s rights need a separate Sex Discrimination Act, not least to make single sex spaces obligatory rather than optional as they are within the EA.

If we could have repeal of the GRA before breaking the EA up into separate acts, I do wonder what would happen with regard to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if a GRC was no longer a thing.

The judges in Ann Sinnott’s case seemed to claim that if a single sex space for women allows in male sex people with a GRC, they must also allow in male sex people with the PC of GR but without a GRC. But if a GRC no longer exists, or if those who already have one are allowed to keep it, but it no longer means they should be given access to women’s single sex spaces under any circumstances, why would the PC of GR give any male sex person access to any women’s spaces? If self-id does not give that right, what does it do?

Maybe Lachlan is thinking that repeal wouldn’t change access to women’s spaces, shortlists, jobs etc for those who self-id, as the right of access would still exist for those few who already have a GRC. But it would surely not be too difficult to put an end to that “right” at the same time as repealing the damn thing. Not least because encroaching on women’s rights was not what parliament thought they were voting for, when the GRA passed.

It's the only logical conclusion, otherwise we legally have males in our changing rooms. And these self appointed feminist leaders say this is ok.

It is not ok. I dont know who gave them the impression they have the right to consent or speak on our behalf.

It was a crappy law then and it's a crappy law now.

No.

Reposting this brilliant thread
mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1412439798401351684

Thanks everyone for your posts.
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.
Yes, I see your point.

Maybe Lachlan is thinking that repeal wouldn’t change access to women’s spaces, shortlists, jobs etc for those who self-id,
That's my guess too and, I won't lie, it's troubling me. Because pragmatically (and I'm a pragmatic person) I don't think there's anything that can be done that will take us back to 2004.
I believe attitudes will swing around again with time and as young people grow up but in the meantime genies and bottles spring to mind. And if that's the case then I'm wondering if the best (albeit imperfect) approach, at least for now, is to strengthen the gatekeeping. And as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) the only piece of legislation that allows potential for any gatekeeping is the GRA.
So when I hear people talking about tearing it up I do start hyperventilating a bit.

But still thinking it through and I know it doesn't square with Floral's point above.

And as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) the only piece of legislation that allows potential for any gatekeeping is the GRA.

The gatekeeping is only focused on the individual who requests a GRC - to make sure it's the correct decision for them. Not for the general population.

There aren't any laws about most changing rooms though.

The gatekeeping is only focused on the individual who requests a GRC - to make sure it's the correct decision for them. Not for the general population.
Point taken. But it's function is partly gatekeeping? If I recall correctly it's detested in some quarters for this very reason. Is that correct and does any other gatekeeping type legislation exist?