What do Labour mean by 'Modernise the Outdated Gender Recognition Act'?

[ChristinaXYZ]

This is is after suggesting that they arre rowing back on self-id. Is 'Modernise the GRA' going to be a new phrase that basically means self-id but we don't want anyone to notice?

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1641689281617088512

The bile they continue to allow against Rosie Duffield (see the responses to the tweet demanding she be kicked out of the party for having an opinion) makes a mockery of any claim they have to be interested in protecting women and girls.

That link is archived - I don't trust the beggars not to delete it.

https://archive.is/HPJeF

nothing good is my instinct

Yeah it's just window dressing..

More weasel words.

Which other pieces of 19 year-old legislation are so horribly out of date that they must be "modernised"...?

The GRA has to be repealed-there is absolutely no reason to give any male legal recognition as a woman. It's a falsehood with terrible consequences for safeguarding women & children.

I'm sure Kellie-Jay Keen will be asking Starmer to clarify and I can't wait

I'd start with the principle of "hate crime" even being a thing. Equality under the law for all, no groups elevated above others.

Labour are going in the wrong direction...

Yup. That’s the only kind of ‘modernisation’ it needs.

I almost wonder if Starmer is actually in control of that Twitter feed!

Buy as things stand today, I have went to voting for Labour to spoiling my paper.

If they explain it properly then that may change again.

But you cannot throw women under the bus.

Yes, it will be self ID, plus embedding 'gender' as a term in law, and destroying single sex exceptions and any lingering protections for female sports, spaces, right to health care yada yada.

Ah yes, but that's not "modernising" though. GRA and hate legislation both need repealing because they are terrible, badly written laws which are impossible to enforce fairly.

They say "modernise" so that people short on time unquestioningly accept the law is old-fashioned and out of date. Which the GRA is in terms of sex role stereotyping and sexism required to up hold it. But that's not what they mean. They mean "maintaining any kind of boundaries is old hat and we'll tear those boundaries down because Momentum wants us to".

Weasel words.

Why they mean whatever you want them to mean* 🤗

*not binding in any way

What they mean is that they are going to push ahead with self-ID, they are just not going to call it self-ID until after the election.

I read "modernising" as a way of saying "we don't want to say we're introducing self-ID, because it will be controversial, but we don't want the TRAs to think we've forgotten them, so we're going to use the word 'modernising' which could mean anything and we can decide what it actually means when we come to power."

As for the other stuff, introducing tougher penalties for LGBT hate crime in particular is idiotic and clearly fraught with problems, while as for banning conversion therapy, they can't have read the Hannah Barnes book or seen the way the wind is blowing.

Regarding the process of getting a GRC being lengthy, drawn out, invasive and humiliating I reckon they may have a point.

I don’t know if anyone else here has tried to get a certified diagnosis, for themselves or their kids, for any condition on the NHS, but it is exactly the same feeling. The sense of being powerless, feeling judged, fearing stigma, the long wait, having to open up about private and intimate things in front of strangers, the anxiety something won’t be picked up on, or something else might be fixated upon, and the whole thing could come to nothing, it’s not a bloody walking in the park.

It is ridiculous to me that having a diagnosis should amount to anything more than DLA, a blue badge, mobility aids and referrals to relevant services, if required.

How utterly bizarre that a diagnosis of a medical condition could lead to a person being awarded additional legal powers - to change their identity documents and have greater privacy than other people.

That kind of prize would totally up the stress of getting a diagnosis.

It’s madness.

It should be scrapped.

Regarding the process of getting a GRC being lengthy, drawn out, invasive and humiliating I reckon they may have a point.

Except there's no evidence it's any of those. A couple of years back Maya Forstater dug up some survey that had been done by the relevant authorities asking people who'd gone through the process for their thoughts on it - something quite free-form - and she remarked about the total absence of any of those activist "tropes" from the responses.

Anyone know what I'm talking about and got it bookmarked?

(That survey was a fair few years old, so largely predated current activism about GRA reform - I imagine the same survey carried out today would contain those tropes. They're things people would now know they're supposed to say as part of the activism.)

I’d like to see it.

I wonder if the complaints about getting a GRC being ‘lengthy, drawn out, invasive and humiliating’, are being made by the blokes who get rejected.

Pretty sure they mean add a non binary option (as well as god knows what else).

https://inews.co.uk/news/non-binary-american-uk-stuck-legal-limbo-gender-2242643

What a bloody whiner. ‘Not specified’ means exact the same thing as ‘non-binary’ doesn’t it? Twat.

Labour have been asked many times and by both sides.

They don't explain what they mean.

I don’t think the GRC panel rejects anyone really, as long as the paperwork is all in order. It’s literally a form filled in by a GP re: physical treatments undertaken (none is an acceptable answer) and an envelope of evidence, ID, utility bills bank statements etc to prove they’ve been using their new name consistently for two years.

The bit the activists must be objecting to as ‘humiliating and invasive’ is probably the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, which has to be made by a handful of recognised psychiatrists/clinical psychologist, who are on a list published by the government (most of whom work at the GICs and moonlight privately).

The diagnosis is supposed to weed out the fetishists, not the GRC panel. Maybe it did back in 2004…

Now you can get a GD diagnosis for about £350 and some doctors on the list are known to be more laid back/less detailed than others.

Modernise is usually spin for "do something unpopular with a large group of people". E.g. if the government says 'we will modernise the fire service' you can guarantee that it will mean firemen protesting 6 months down the line over pay cuts/pension changes etc. If South Western Rail talk about modernising their train service you might think "great they are buying new trains". Nope - its getting rid of the guards and more strikes. etc etc.
Not saying change is always bad - even unpopular/controversial changes can be needed. But it shows a certain cowardice/lack of conviction.

Now you can get a GD diagnosis for about £350 and some doctors on the list are known to be more laid back/less detailed than others.

This must be all the whining about it being ‘so expensive’. It costs money to cue up all your bent documents.

But as the article states "faced with no other options" they had no choice but to opt for it. It makes it sound like a life or death situation in the face of pitiless beaurocracy.