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!

@Clymene

There is a massive issue with issuing new birth certificates to adults in that they are an excellent method of concealing past identities and past crimes. We know that men who have been convinced of heinous crimes against women and children have been successful in applying for GRCs. We also know that the DBS relies on applicants' honesty when asked about previous names.

It's a system which a 5 year old could drive a coach and horses through.

This is EXACTLY my objection to changing birth certificates. It's a magnet for those who want to conceal their past. Want to jump off the sex offenders register? GRA is here for you. Want to hide previous convictions? No problem. GRA right there.

It's no surprise that the first country to enable changing your date of birth on your birth certificate as well as your sex, is gangsta-lead Mexico.

REPEAL.

‘The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, ‘ As I understand it, the claim that the person was unable to apply for work as her NI card declared their birth sex. But surely that can be covered by removing the requirement for sex in the NI?

@anadulthumanfemale

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.

That can be challenged because giving male people a female birth certificate and therefore access to women's spaces/services goes against the human rights of women as outlined by ECHR.

@Redlake

The GRA allows the issue of a new birth certificate. THAT was the original intention of the recognition campaign. The new birth certificate provides all that is needed. It leaves no question as to someones legal sex. Some nasty bigoted people would like to take that away from a tiny minority who really depend on it's security.

A birth certificate is a record of someone at their birth. Not 40 years down the line when they decide they think they’re now the opposite sex. As such, it should not be altered. I can’t alter my degree certificate to show a better result because I ‘feel’ cleverer than I did 30 years ago. I can’t alter my birth certificate to give a different name for my mother. I can’t alter my medical records to show I haven’t actually had 2 children I can’t alter my driving license to show I don’t really have 6 points for speeding And so on…

@anadulthumanfemale

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.

ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. life, his home and his correspondence. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

1. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 12
Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf

Right to privacy: …except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society…for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. We have growing evidence that trans ideology is harming both its adherents and others.

Right to marry: exists in UK law.

The same statutes that judges decided obligated the creation of the GRA, now obligate its repeal.

Re Article 12, was it written that way to specify that men and women have the right to marry each other? The other declarations talk about everyone having the right to xyz. Did the writers specifically exclude same-sex marriage? It seems likely, given that homosexuality was illegal at that time in most (all?) of the countries involved in the DoHR.

@AnnieBarbour

‘The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, ‘ As I understand it, the claim that the person was unable to apply for work as her NI card declared their birth sex. But surely that can be covered by removing the requirement for sex in the NI?

The government had already issued a new NI card to the applicant before the ECHR ruling. They made clear that the applicant's employers would have no way of discovering someone's previous identity from their NI number.

From the judgment:
66. As regards the specific difficulties claimed by the applicant, the Government submitted that an employer was unable to establish the sex of the applicant from the NI number itself since it did not contain any encoded reference to her sex. The applicant had been issued with a new NI card with her changed name and style of address. Furthermore, the DSS had a policy of confidentiality of the personal details of a NI number holder and, in particular, a policy and procedure for the special protection of transsexuals. As a result, an employer had no means of lawfully obtaining information from the DSS about the previous sexual identity of an employee. It was also in their view highly unlikely that the applicant's employer would discover her change of gender through her NI number in any other way. The refusal to issue a new NI number was justified, the uniqueness of the NI number being of critical importance in the administration of the national insurance system, and for the prevention of the fraudulent use of old NI numbers.

hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228957/95%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

The GRA was a sticking plaster to make the world work for a very small number of people. The secrecy part is over the top and is covered by other legislation.

Now changing gender and transitioning is so commonplace it makes no sense whatsoever. People I know from childhood have transitioned, a relative is transitioning and taking hormones, my children's friend from playgroup and school days is transitioning, my daughter did a degree and shared a house with someone who was transitioning. If I mention it to anyone, they also know someone. My friend's middle aged BIL is wearing net skirts

One of 5000 may have 'passed' because people weren't expecting someone to be dressed as if they were the opposite sex, but now, everyone is doing it, and everyone can tell.

@anadulthumanfemale

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 court's decision that Article 8 had been breached was based to some extent around the fact that the applicant in this case was a post-operative transsexual who had been treated by the NHS.

78. In this case, as in many others, the applicant's gender re-assignment was carried out by the national health service, which recognises the condition of gender dysphoria and provides, inter alia, re-assignment by surgery, with a view to achieving as one of its principal purposes as close an assimilation as possible to the gender in which the transsexual perceives that he or she properly belongs. The Court is struck by the fact that nonetheless the gender re-assignment which is lawfully provided is not met with full recognition in law, which might be regarded as the final and culminating step in the long and difficult process of transformation which the transsexual has undergone. The coherence of the administrative and legal practices within the domestic system must be regarded as an important factor in the assessment carried out under Article 8 of the Convention. Where a State has authorised the treatment and surgery alleviating the condition of a transsexual, financed or assisted in financing the operations and indeed permits the artificial insemination of a woman living with a female-to-male transsexual (as demonstrated in the case of X., Y. and Z. v. the United Kingdom, cited above), it appears illogical to refuse to recognise the legal implications of the result to which the treatment leads.

So according to the ECHR, the UK government, via the NHS, has authorised and funded the applicant's medical treatment, so it should also recognise the 'legal implications' which result from this treatment.

But since the law as it was eventually passed required no medical treatment at all for obtaining a GRC, why should there be any obligation for the government to officially recognise a 'new gender'?

The decision about Article 8 ends:
93. ... Since there are no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, it reaches the conclusion that the fair balance that is inherent in the Convention now tilts decisively in favour of the applicant. There has, accordingly, been a failure to respect her right to private life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

"No significant factors of public interest". No consideration at all for women.

100% repeal
Single sex spaces protected, no falsification of official documents, everyone allowed to present themselves however they like (within usual common law decency I suppose!)

As the push to separate trans identities from any medical diagnosis continues I don't understand how they will be legally able to claim sex can be changed legally while age cannot which is terrifying.

Fairly simple questions:

Should it be a right in law for anyone who chooses to have preferred rather than actual information on legal documents?

Where might that go wrong?

If one characteristic can be chosen at will, then obviously this extends to all characteristics, because you can't gate keep this once you open it - what are the impacts for example of identifying as being four years old in legal documentation? Have we opened the door there for a legal fight to a primary school placement? How is that different to the fight for a legal right to be in a female only refuge?

Should someone without a characteristic be able to have this legal fiction of having one and be so entitled to the same resources set aside for those who do not have the power to legally fiction their way out of this disadvantage society is providing for?

What do we do with an able bodied person who wishes to have equal rights to a funded carer, a wet room with hoists and an accessible car for their wheelchair?

How does this affect the group who cannot whatever they do escape the reality of this disadvantage?

Is it a good idea to base law in feelings rather than objectively verifiable and replicateable fact? Where might that go wrong?

Bad law. Badly made. All the wrong reasons. Everything discussed as possible concerns in drawing it up have come to pass plus a whole lot more.

TQ+ needs can be met without this legal fiction, and the reality has to be accepted that sex does not change, and sex based rights are needed for equality. Inclusion requires addition of TQ+ available services and gender neutral provisions with clear lines that no, sex based provisions will not be dissolved, and other vulnerable groups excluded and disadvantaged because they have rights too. Tolerance on both sides will have to be a part of this, it cannot be all about TQ+ people.

@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!

You acknowledge the main practical function of the GRA is that having GRC allows trans people to have their legal sex recorded on their marriage certificate. You then go onto say this has caused conflict in equality legislation, but it's really not clear how. Can you explain how the sex recorded on a trans person's marriage certificate impacts anyone else at all?

It's true that the GRA actually grants very little to trans people on top of what other existing legislation already gives them (always worth repeating: the GRA has nothing to do with access to spaces, that's covered by the EA2010). Basically it lets a trans person have their preferred sex recorded on a marriage certificate or a death certificate. And that's about it. Neither of those have any impact on anyone else except the trans person themselves. So calling for the GRA to be repealed seems a) unnecessary to achieve any reasonable aim gender critical people claim they want to achieve and b) particularly petty and cruel to want to deny trans people even this one tiny shred of recognition that has zero impact on anyone else but may mean the world to them.

recognition that has zero impact on anyone else

Would you like to go and tell the female humans who have been sexually assaulted and raped in prisons that their attacker's ability to access a women's prison has had zero impact on them?

What about the women who can no longer go to refuges?

What about the women now excluded from changing rooms, toilets, gyms, swimming pools -

this is a straight forward lie. It is because of the real, now, happening evidence impact on females that females wish this law repealed!

Alternate realities and alternate facts just won't cut it. First it was 'there will be zero impact' and now with females excluded and harmed - the gaslighting goes on!

Argue enough and you move to the next line of defence which is 'so they got hurt, it doesn't matter'.

No. This law has to go. Other people have rights too.

As for 'mean the world to them' -

I'm fairly sure it would mean the world to some females to not be arrested for pointing out biological reality, to be able to access rape crisis services, to not be raped in prison and to be able to escape a life threatening marriage to get into a refuge.

We all have sad stories, we all have feelings. TQ+ feelings are not more important than female equality of rights.

You acknowledge the main practical function of the GRA is that having GRC allows trans people to have their legal sex recorded on their marriage certificate.

Is sex recorded on a marriage certificate?

Basically it lets a trans person have their preferred sex recorded on a marriage certificate or a death certificate. And that's about it.

In that case it's completely pointless.

Sex isn't recorded on a marriage certificate and what is put on a document after someone dies (as a correct record of their death) seems an odd thing to obsess about while they are alive.

always worth repeating: the GRA has nothing to do with access to spaces, that's covered by the EA2010

Well that's a lie. Have you seen this document?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender

Which means male prisoners with a GRC will go straight to a women's prison, while males who identify as transgender but don't have a GRC go to a male prison.

Not only will a male with a GRC be automatically sent to a women's prison, no matter what their crimes, no matter whether they've 'transitioned' or not, but they will be only and always counted as female. They will not appear in statistics, and should they (hypothetically speaking) assault a woman in prison, this will show as 'female on female' violence.

Should a male prisoner with a GRC rape a female prisoner, this will count as rape committed by a female perpetrator.

OP the whole area of protection for trans people has been completely hijacked by a very small (but very rich) aggressive group of biologically-male activists who, for psychological reasons of their own, want all men to have unfettered access to all women’s safe spaces. It’s become a movement that is purely about destroying the very concept of women’s rights. Most transpeople don’t actually agree with this, but the activists launch hate campaigns attacking the careers of anyone who disagrees with them or even asks questions like “but what did Joanne Rowling actually say that you disagree with?”

You are right that the GRA has become redundant and could safely be repealed. You are right that conflating sex with gender is helpful to no one. There has been a huge missed opportunity to get rid of all gender stereotypes and acknowledge that it is fine, fun even, for men to wear make up and dresses etc. Instead, men who wish to do so are told by the trans movement that they aren’t really men.

As to passports / driving licenses… I am unsure. We live in an international community. In the middle east and much of asia there are different buildings and queues for men and women re. visas and renewing driving licences etc. If my driving licence did not state my sex, I am not sure how I would have accessed the female building to obtain my local licence but perhaps clothing would have been acceptable I don’t know 🤷‍♀️ Similarly if I had a legal issue overseas, I’d much rather have a passport stating that I’m female and therefore entitled to be searched by female police in female facilities than have my treatment me up to whatever the (almost always male) duty guard decides. Having a legal document stating that I am female is protective overseas, and I wouldn’t want that protection removed. Women held by police in mixedsex facilities get raped, that is the reality. People who live in Western thought-bubbles cannot imagine the real life consequences of removing the protections they object to for philosophical reasons…

Repeal.
The effects of the GRA on safeguarding and the rights of other groups was not considered at the time.
Laws that enable convicted offenders to hide their identity or access victims are bad laws.

And we're back to Schroedinger's GRA...

simultaneously crucially important for all sorts of things that could not happen without it, while simultaneously just a minor, irrelevant beaurocratic detail making no difference and covered by other laws anyway.

There's less goal posts than goal yoyos. No.

@Thelnebriati

Repeal. The effects of the GRA on safeguarding and the rights of other groups was not considered at the time. Laws that enable convicted offenders to hide their identity or access victims are bad laws.

Was actively helped into place by groups discouraging, minimising and tactically avoiding permitting public knowledge or involvement of those who would represent other groups.

This was not an accident. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

When those who brought this situation about behaved like this, and have been utterly uncaring of the harms to women and safeguarding as a result, they can hardly be surprised that it's not supported.

@ThatsWhenTheCannibalismStarted

Repeal. Bad law, badly written. The purpose originally was to allow same sex marriage for a sub group of gay people, and for "privacy" of the GRC holder. That is, allow biological sex to be kept secret.

I find the former purpose quite upsetting, really. Why should same sex marriage be allowed only when one person purports to be the opposite sex? Why not all gay people and lesbians? Pure homophobia. Homophobia enshrined in law. It took 10 more years for other gay people gain the right to marry.

As for "privacy"... I can't help but laugh at the notion that it's possible to conceal biological sex in anything but the most vanishingly rare cases.

Yeah. Repeal. Repeal now.

This.

Gender should be removed from all aspects of law and replaced with the word sex. Of which there are 2. Male and female.

They should also, stop allowing people to live a lie by issuing GRC. These were once a kindness that the trans lobby have wholeheartedly abused. You can change your sex and that is that.