I doubt very much I agree with the attorney general on much else, but I do agree with her on this issue, I thought her speech was great. I think if the GRA and ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA is going to be legally interpreted as the attorney general says in speech, then it seems to me to make both the GRA and ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA null and void. Therefore, it would seem logical that the GRA be repealed, and ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA removed, as if males who have a GRC or are proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’ are going to treated as the males they objectively are for legal purposes, then what is the point of the GRA, a GRC or ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA?
If on the other hand it is determined that GRA and ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA cannot be interpreted as the attorney general says in her speech, then I think the GRA, and ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA (and any other laws that imply someone can legally change sex) should be repealed, as it has now become crystal clear that allowing someone to legally change sex erodes female’s and homosexual’s rights, has led to the harming of children and young people, and has restricted everyone’s free speech.
I think rights can be protected in law without having laws based on an anti-science idea that people can change sex. For example, gender ideology can be covered under ‘belief’ in the Equality Act, so people cannot be discriminated against at work etc., for their belief in gender ideology, but would also mean they cannot force their ideological beliefs on others, who may not only consider gender ideology anti-science but also consider it a sexist and homophobic ideology. Similarly, gender dysphoria, or other mental health issues that cause someone to reject their sexed body or to interpret their self differently to objective reality, could be covered under disability (mental health issues) in the EA. This could allow such a person to get the mental health support they need, without forcing others to participate in someone’s mental health issues, of course that would require mental health practitioners to actually treat the cause of the person’s issues, rather than affirming the person’s subjective ideas they have about themselves, which are not based on objective reality. Likewise, dressing in clothing associated with the opposite sex could be covered under anti-sex discrimination in the EA. For example, it can be made clear that a female should not be discriminated against for wearing ‘masculine’ clothing to work etc., and a male should not be discriminated against for wearing ‘feminine’ clothing to work etc (as long as the clothing is not indecent and is safe for the work environment). Moreover, if someone, say a male has undergone plastic surgeries to his genitals and now have complications due those surgeries, causing him a disability in comparison to other males, then he could be covered under disability under the EA, and could use disabled facilities, such as disabled toilets or changing rooms. So there are many ways people can have their rights protected under existing EA protections, without having to have a law based on the anti-science idea people can change sex, or should be treated as if they have changed sex.
Furthermore, there could also be anti-discrimination protections enacted for people who have undergone body modifications. For example, it could be made unlawful to treat a male who has undergone any type of plastic surgery differently to a male who has not undergone plastic surgery (it could even also include treating people who have lots of piercings or tattoos differently from people who have none etc). This way plastic surgery and taking hormones would be seen as a body modification (which objectively it is) rather than a sign that someone has changed sex (which is not physically possible), people would then be protected from being treated unfavourably in comparison to other members of their own sex, or have not undergone these body modifications, but would not be treated as if they have actually changed sex which is not physically possible.
I think people can have their basic rights protected in these ways, without the GRA , ‘gender reassignment’ in the EA, or any other law that implies people can change sex. I don’t think anyone should have the ‘right’ to legally change their sex when it is not physically possible, we have seen that the idea people can change sex being written into law and policy has led to erosion of female’s and homosexual’s rights, harm to children and young people, and has led everyone having their free speech eroded, resulting in some even having their jobs threatened, and having to go to court. I do think a lot of good things have come from the ECHR, but as a previous poster has highlighted it has ‘led to the GRA under Tony Blair in 2004’. I think the government needs to make the case for repealing the GRA and removing gender reassignment from the EA, and any other laws on the books that imply people can change sex, as in my view we shouldn’t have laws on the books that are based on a anti-science ideology that someone can change sex, that gives people massive privacy privileges and harms others in society, particularly the rights of females and homosexuals. I think if the ECHR objects to the repealing of anti-science laws that imply people can change sex, like the GRA and gender reassignment in the EA, then there is a good case that can be made for leaving the ECHR in my opinion.