GRA REFORM OR REPEAL?

[AnnieBarbour]

I have a question, and I would love to know what you think.

I want those who experience gender dysphoria and those who identify as transgender to live lives free of harassment, stigma and prejudice. I have a transgender grandchild, so I know how difficult it can be to identify as trans. I think as a society we can do better, indeed we must do better. Some of that ‘doing better’ is about societal acceptance and education out of prejudice, while some of it is about legislation, and it’s on legislation where I’d like your input.

It has seemed to me for some time that some of the mess we are in now is down to mistakes that were made with the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in 2004. Some of the impetus for that Act came from the need to protect the rights of transgender people in marriage – a need that no longer exists since we have had same sex marriage. Some of it came from a need to protect transgender people from harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Sadly, the good intentions behind the Act did not have entirely the best outcomes. It led to an understanding that it is possible to actually change sex, something we all know (although not everyone admits) is impossible. And that understanding has led to considerable conflict with other group who are have protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

So, I want to make a bold suggestion. I suggest we do reform the GRA, but not by just simplifying the process of gaining a Gender Recognition Certificate. I suggest we completely reform it, making it more fit for purpose. I suggest we may find we can repeal it because we don’t need it after all.

To do so, I suggest we ask:

1. Where does recording someone’s sex actually matter? My suggestion is it is no longer necessary on passports, driving licences its; especially now we have iris recognition etc, but that it IS necessary for data collection.
2. Are there any areas where the harassment, stigmatisation, and discrimination of transgender people is not already covered by existing legislation?
3. Is the current trend of conflating sex with gender really helpful to transgender people?

Looking forward to hearing your views!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The GRA allows the issue of a new birth certificate.

Yes, and some people feel that it should never have been possible to falsify a historical document in this way.

Yes indeed, and I’m absolutely one of those people.

Legally mandated falsehoods are in a general sense a route to and a feature of totalitarianism (not just, as in this case, the annihilation of women’s sex-based rights) and as such are to be avoided at all costs.

The "nasty bigoted people" are the ones who want to take away the hard fought for sex based rights of women and girls and centre the wishes of men who demand we call them women.

Repeal the GRA.

We would never allow someone to conceal their age on State records or identification documents, no matter what age they looked, or believed themselves to be. The idea is absurd.

Doing it with sex is orders of magnitude more absurd.

The GRA should never have allowed a fictitious sex to be recorded on documents. We should never have allowed men to pretend to be women (and vice versa), and the fact it was done to let some homophobes sleep easier with allowing other people to get married is a great shame on us.

It's Repeal for me.

I agree Domesticated but laws need to interact without conflict and without pretence (legal fiction).

Under the GRA someone with a GRC is able to be 'treated as' their 'Acquired gender' but the EA states that 'gender reassignment' is the protected characteristic upon which someone cannot be discriminated against, and this is defined as "undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo".

Nothing about sex - unless you look at the single sex exemptions in the EA and the PC of sex.

The GRA undermines the more recent law of the EA, which protects trans people anyway. The GRA needs to go in my view.

The Hansard transcripts on it are most revealing...

If 'gender' is too hard to define we can define sex. Just so long as its clear the two terms have completely different meanings and aren't confused or conflated.

Sex does have a definition in common law. It is not perfect though - something to do with congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitalia. I'll have to look it up, but it is discussed in the case law that led to the GRA.

I'm in the repeal camp now too.

I celebrated a friend getting their GRC after the law was passed, at the time I naively believed it was progressive. I look back at my 2004 self and shake my head at her.

We should never base law on a lie and we should never have permitted revised historical records to be issued. We have no principled defence against demands for other official records to be changed and that is quite dangerous.

Repeal. No amount of reform will solvethe basic problem: theGRA can’t work because it’s based on fantasy, not on facts.

Repeal.
It’s an ill conceived law rooted in sexism and homophobia. And it’s not helpful to the mental health of people with dysphoria to pretend they can change sex.

Repeal.
At the same time, define in law what the word sex means, and create a new legal definition around a term such as gender identity. Do not allow the two to be muddled.
Create new terms for the 'feminine' and 'masculine' gender identities so the words man and woman are clear and unambiguously used to refer to sex only.
Then collect data and organise ID etc etc using these two separate categories.
Well I can dream .....

Repeal. There is no value in making lies the truth.

Thank you! I was unaware of this site.

This one, I mean: www.repealthegra.org/

Redlake, you say: ‘The new birth certificate provides all that is needed. It leaves no question as to someones legal sex.’ Therein lies the problem, in that it wrongly suggests sex can be changed legally. It can’t. Sex is not a costume you can put on, nor is it something that can be altered by medical intervention. The GRA is based ona legal fallacy. It’s bad law.

You also say ‘Some nasty bigoted people would like to take that away from a tiny minority who really depend on it's security’ I suggest it’s real easy to brand anyone who questions these issues as nasty and bigoted. I can’t speak for others, but I am not. I genuinely want the best for trans people and I don’t think it matters whether they are a tiny or a huge minority. - everyone matters, everyone’s security matters. I feel that the GRA made transgender people’s lives worse, rather than better. The absurdity of saying and believing that it is possible to change sex has unleashed bigotry, rather than preventing it.

Clymene this.

Repeal the GRA , get rid of the GRC. Let’s not continue to lie about reality. Call yourself whatever you want, dress as stereotypes if you choose, but obscuring the true identity is a barrier to safeguarding. The deed poll change also does that, to be fair. But the GRC was introduced to be kind and no one envisaged the problems that would ensue.

Unfortunately for all those who wish to repeal the GRA it is not likely due to the reason it was introduced in the first place.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of their rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this judgement, the UK Government had to introduce new legislation to comply.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of their rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter who made that rule. It’s the same as the GRA itself — claiming that a fantasy is reality.

@Monitaurus have a look at Hansard, they absolutely did foresee the problems. They pushed on regardless because the problems will 'probably never happen' and if they do it's such a 'tiny number of people it won't be a big deal'. I recommend reading the original debate by Vulvamort gives a great overview here:

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

@PaleBlueMoonlight

If 'gender' is too hard to define we can define sex. Just so long as its clear the two terms have completely different meanings and aren't confused or conflated.

Sex does have a definition in common law. It is not perfect though - something to do with congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitalia. I'll have to look it up, but it is discussed in the case law that led to the GRA.

Oh, interesting, thanks. So we need people to make clear legislation that disambiguates between sex and gender. There is current legislation (at least in Scotland) that uses the terms interchangeably.

Yes, Hansard is quite sobering. The impact on women is mentioned and dismissed.

I'm amazed this thread has stayed overnight - are we now able to discuss the GRA (reform and repeal)? This hasn't happened before has it? All other threads are deleted.

Repeal. It is too defective to be reformed.

Transgenderism for the most part is no different to any other faith position. Faith and lack of faith are protected in law, and what must be sufficient for those who believe in an immortal soul must also be sufficient for those who believe in a gendered soul.

Imposing gender ideology upon the general population is no different to theocracy.

As for those for whom transvestism is an expression of a dysphoria, they need to be treated with the same compassion as any other person suffering a dysphoria. And, in just the same way, not have the world manipulated around them to affirm their dysphoria.

In my mind, the PC of sex should be enough to protect people who identify as trans.

You could quite easily add something to the sex based legislation around not discriminating on the basis of diversion from sex-based expectations of behaviour or appearance. And reinforce what we know to be true that anyone of either sex can behave and present in any way and they will remain the sex they are and should be treated as such eg in sports, prisons, healthcare etc etc.

I'd like to know what would be most practical and straightforward in terms of change. I think it's clear the GRA creates conflict within the EA. How is this going to be fixed?

We now know that male prisoners convicted of sexual offences against women, are applying for a GRC from prison and being granted one-then they can apply for transfer to the female prison estate. We can absolutely repeal this insane law.