What are your thoughts on Repeal the GRA?

[EasternStandard]

I haven’t given it a huge amount of thought but a pp on another thread raised it, which I found interesting

How do you feel about it? Is it something that should be considered

Are there any other laws that lie about human biology?

Are there any other laws that allow people to conceal their identity and previous convictions? Even convicted sex offenders?

I agree.

Yes, it should be repealed and should never have been implemented.

Basically, it's bollocks. It's totally incoherent - there's no definition of "gender" given, and the word is used in at least two contradictory ways (sometimes as a synonym for "sex", but other times to mean some undefined thing that is different to sex), and nobody's ever proven an innate thing called "gender" to even exist, so what's it doing in law? It's nonsensical in that it lets changing "gender" alter your legal sex (why, if they're not the same? And if they are the same, well, sex can't change, so...), and in that it supposedly changes this "for all purposes" but then comes with various (mostly misogynistic) exceptions, such as those for hereditary peerages - so clearly even the authors didn't really believe people could change sex in any genuine way.

It doesn't explain why having a medical condition (gender dysphoria) that obviously doesn't change your sex should then have the effect of allowing you to change your legal sex, nor why we shouldn't just address the medical condition instead? And nor does it deal with the question about how having a GRC can be totally private (not allowed to ask whether someone has one, nor disclose that they have if this was learned in any official capacity) and yet be meant to give a different status somehow compared to someone without one.

Finally, SO many of the issues we've had in recent years were foreseen, and brought up, during the debates on the GRA - but were ignored or hand-waved away by the likes of David Lammy; the Hansard records of the debates are quite shocking but also illuminating on this (there are some very good threads on Twitter/X by Vulvamort about this). MPs were warned of exactly what it would lead to, but didn't care and pushed it through anyway. Impacts on women and girls weren't taken into account in the slightest.

We don't need special recognition and a special status for a made-up characteristic. People can dress, act and name themselves as they wish and hold any beliefs they wish - but it doesn't change the facts: a man is still a man and a woman still a woman, and sometimes that matters very much.

Yes Repeal the GRA and abolish the GRC. It has caused nothing but harm. If the law was passed on a single case , then it should be repealed on the basis of many many cases of criminality, fraud and what has happened to women who object. Deed poll changes should also be made harder to get at the same time. I have no faith that any political party will do anything about it , although they now know damn well it is an important issue for women.

Excellent post.

Honestly, if only people had made some kind of effort to consistently differentiate between sex and gender - as the TRAs supposedly wanted ? - I believe we wouldn't be in this mess.

Repeal it and replace with an optional field on passport and driving licence application forms for pronouns. 🙃

It should never have been passed into law in the first place. Yes, repeal, A.S.A. bloody P.

Honestly, if only people had made some kind of effort to consistently differentiate between sex and gender - as the TRAs supposedly wanted ? - I believe we wouldn't be in this mess.

I don’t think they want this. They want to blur the lines so sex and gender are interchangeable and both female and woman include men. Many TRAs now insist that TW are AHF. You get the odd one like Tatchell trying to say that sex and gender are different but he’s way out of date.

Why has it not been challenged in court due to its blatant inequality? IANAL but I assume that it's something about the Equality Act, but how can it be legal to have inequitable legislation like the GRA?

This is Goodwin who brought the legal case about privacy . I doubt anyone thought they were female regardless of documentation so it was nonsense right from the off.

https://twitter.com/mforstater/status/1688461766848643072?s=21&t=ydCkdri4Z1k319nxwbjXjw

Which also demonstrates the salami tactics of all this.

When with a political lobby without good faith, you have to think past the first step and what they say they want, and the marketing and spin, and think 'and what ninth and tenth step are beyond this'.

Plenty of evidence around if it's looked for. It's far too late to be falling for the 'we just want to pee' and 'sex and gender are different things' marketing at this point. Less good faith and a damn sight more safeguarding approaches needed. Such as 'ask the difficult questions, think the unthinkable, take nothing at face value, do not allow yourself to be distracted from your focus by emotive and needy adults at the forefront.'

Repeal. For all the reasons given above.

It enshrines a lie. Misogynistic. Badly written. Unintended consequences. All of it. No adjectives bad enough. It has to go.

The pp by @CriticalCondition on how institutions perceive the threat and the measures they’ll use to defend a lie is profound and needs to be so as this is a fundamental and profound threat to women and children

What we’re seeing now with indoctrination statements from Labour councillors, students told to leave a school or get training, banks producing documents, the state broadcaster cancelling Roisin Murphy are all happening due to the GRA and a legal lie

No other law is based on a lie about human biology, afaik

Someone on another thread said they felt scared at this point. I’d say that’s about right

If any law criminalises misgendering our posts too would be silenced

We’re pretty close to full on Orwell and Margaret Atwood combined. I know everyone says they’ll never repeal the GRA. We don’t stand much of a chance with it in place

On one hand, yes totally; on the other, if sex and gender are interchangeable then by their own definition, trans people cannot exist. The whole concept of "trans" (in its modern meaning) is wholly based on sex and gender being different.

This needs addressing. People handwave it away every time! Particularly when making the bloody legislation about it!

I would love to see a journalist/film maker- preferably one not associated with any particular view on the topic- make a factual documentary on this; sticking purely to the events.

Just objectively presenting the cases, groups involved (eg Press for Change), and process in recent history that led to the GRA; including the hansard, the cultural context/coverage or lack of, Stonewall shift etc and also tracking how things have developed since then.

I think most people are unaware of all this, plus things have moved so fast and far since then. People tend to have short memories, and are lost in the present confusion.

History is instructive, and I think many people, given the facts without any sense of bias, and seeing how much has happened so quickly (especially in relation to aspects that were predicted early on), might draw their own conclusions.

A comparison with other civil rights issues would be good too!

Just checking my email and I got the latest update from Helen Joyce, which outlines her and Maya's issues with the People's History Museum in Manchester earlier in the summer when they booked a room there to hold a Sex Matters meeting. Sorry I know it's not directly related to the GRA, but I'm so angry about this fucking shit.

I checked and there was a thread on here at the time, but if anyone wants to read up about the full batshittery, here's a link (hope it works).

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-60/?ref=helen-joyce-newsletter

Another institution cowed in to submission by nonsense protestors.

Here's an excerpt:

Very depressingly, the museum then took a series of steps to signal its ongoing capitulation to those complaining about us exercising our legal rights. It came off social media. It took down the bookings page from its website. And, most extraordinarily, it rewrote its entire mission statement, in the process removing any claim it had to be a fit home for the most important archive on the Suffragettes.

Here’s the “before”, from its website in June.

People's History Museum is the home of ideas worth fighting for - where our radical past can inspire and motivate people to take action - to shape a future where democracy, equality, justice and co-operation are thriving.
What do we believe?
We believe in a thriving society; one where people are engaged and actively playing their part. As the 'go to' place for democratic engagement we want to help shape the future. We want to make the world a better place!

And here’s after, in August (I can’t find the page at all now):

People's History Museum is about creating a fairer world for everyone and we represent those working to achieve this.
The Museum is a welcoming organisation, committed to standing in solidarity with people who face persecution and discrimination. Examples of this include but are not limited to dismantling racism, championing trans inclusion, standing with sanctuary seekers and embedding the social model of disability.
The collection and stories are curated to show a wide range of authentic narratives. Content is bold, brave and challenging, but shared with care, compassion and hope for a better future.

What an admirable woman she is. And as for that prick Bragg...

"the importance of the GRA is in creating de facto self-ID through mechanisms such as driving licence and passport sex marker changes"

This statement is completely the wrong way around.

De facto self-ID via changing driving licences and passport sex markers does NOT require a GRC.

When applying for a GRC the applicant is asked to submit documents to prove they have been "living in their gender". These include a driving licence or passport that has already had the gender marker changed.

IDENTITY DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING APPLICATION FOR A GRC

Evidence of living in your gender for the last 2 years

You’ll need copies of evidence to show that you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for the last 2 years.

Each piece of evidence should contain at least one of the following that matches up with your affirmed gender:

• a name
• a title, like ‘Mr’ or ‘Miss’
• a gender marker, like ‘male’ or ‘female’

There are no other specific requirements for this evidence, but try to find:

• evidence from different points over the 2 years, with roughly 1 piece of evidence for every 3 months
• at least one piece of evidence from the last 2 or 3 months
• evidence from a variety of different sources

The evidence can come from before you were diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Examples of what you can send in include good quality photocopies or photographs of:

• your driving licence
• your passport
• identity cards, like workplace IDs, student IDs, railcards, health insurance cards, library cards or supermarket loyalty cards
• letters from solicitors, accountants, doctors, dentists or employers
• bank statements
• payslips, P60s and P45s
• benefit letters
• tax letters and documents, including council tax
• credit reports
• confirmation letters that you’re on the electoral register
• student loan statements
• utility bills, such as internet bills
• rental agreements
• academic certificates and documents

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need

IDENTITY DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF GENDER ON DRIVING LICENCE

If you’ve changed your gender identity, you need to provide at least one of the following:

• a deed poll
• a statutory declaration
• a gender recognition certificate

You must also provide the identity document or driving licence that shows your previous name or gender identity.

Get a statutory declaration

You can get an official statement confirming that you’ve changed name or gender (called ‘a statutory declaration’) from:

• a solicitor
• a magistrate
• a commissioner of oaths

https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence

(See the same page for information on how to obtain a FIRST driving licence that has a different "gender code" to sex registered at birth. Don't forget that with the boom in "ROGD", and about 40% are males, that there will be more people applying for their first driving licence "in the opposite sex". )

IDENTITY DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF GENDER ON PASSPORT

Guidance for His Majesty’s Passport Office staff examining passport applications from customers who ask for a change of gender on their passport.

Before we can issue a passport in the changed gender, we need evidence confirming the gender change is likely to be permanent (unless the customer identifies as a crossdresser). This evidence may be a:

• Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)
• interim GRC
• letter or written statement from a medical professional (if the customer does not have GRC)
• new birth certificate issued in the new gender
• statement from the customer and a countersigned application for crossdressers
• consent from everyone who has parental responsibility or legal guardianship for anyone under the age of 18 years (or a specific issues court order)

Customers who apply to change the gender on their passport, who haven’t got a GRC, must submit a letter or written statement with their application, from a medical professional that confirms they use their specified name and specified gender for all purposes. You must also ask for evidence they are using this identity (gender and name) for all purposes (for example, bank statements, utility bills or payslips).

For renewal applications, you may need to ask for a digital referee or countersigned form and photos unless you can identify the customer from their photo on the Main Index record. All other requirements for first and renewal applications remain the same.

Crossdressers
We can only issue a passport if it’s established the customer is using their new identity for all purposes. You, the examiner, must not issue a passport in a name a customer uses for some but not all purposes.

If the customer cannot provide medical evidence, they must make a statement confirming they permanently use the preferred identity. They must also have a countersignatory or digital referee confirm their new identity and send us evidence if they have changed their name (see Names - evidence to change a name)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition/gender-recognition-accessible

-----

The issue of "de-facto Self-ID on official documents" predates both the GRA2004 and the EA2010 will remain even if the GRA is repealed and it needs to be addressed separately.

-----

The GRA is a heap of shite and all the objections and problems raised in this thread, and the many other similar threads on Mumsnet over the years, were raised in Parliament during the passage of the Bill.

Every helpful, sensible amendment was bulldozed aside by the Labour Government of the day.

If anyone has not seen the Twitter threads by Vulvamort (Handle: HairyLeggdHarpy) about the passage of the GR Bill, please take a look:

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1177699186361458688

(Archived on Archive Today)

Now imagine that there had been a full, public consultation back in 2003/4? How many of us on this thread would actually have supported those objections and have taken the problems seriously when they were made by Tories such as Norman Tebbit, Anne Widdecombe, Baroness O'Cathain - even Colin Moynihan on sport?

There were women who were not Tories who saw the dangers but I will hold my hands up and confess that, had there been a public consultation back then, that I might well have been a good little socialist feminist and felt bound to disparage Tebbit et al just because of who they were.

It is still happening now on this thread, "Don't pay attention to anything Baroness O'Cathain said in 2004, she also opposed same-sex couples adopting children". Frankly, pathetic. That playground, "But she smells!" dismissal does not wash here.

We won't get out of this mess by putting political party tribalism and "purity politics" over women's interests.

ps. I hate how this new Mumsnet forum software screws up formatting!!

Bosky bloody excellent post, thank you.

Not sure why you're shouting at me @Bosky but that is my point, the legal mechanisms to change sex marker on ID docs before 'legal sex" is changed via a GRC does create de facto self ID.

To meet the requirement of a GRC the applicant has to self ID as the opposite sex first and mechanisms are in place to enable that.

I am not shouting at you 😂

I just used formatting to try to break up a wall of text, make it more readable and emphasise key points.

Thank you for you explanation.

However, this does read as the exact opposite of what you meant it to say, so my apologies that I misunderstood you:

"the importance of the GRA is in creating de facto self-ID through mechanisms such as driving licence and passport sex marker changes"

I would disagree that that is "the importance of the GRA".

As far as the GRA is concerned, the status of documents such as Passports and Driving Licences, which are in effect Self-ID, is secondary to the current need for a medical diagnosis of "Gender Dysphoria" to obtain a GRC.

If medical diagnosis were removed as a requirement in order to obtain a GRC then they would certainly acquire a more important status, if they were actually still required as evidence of "Living in their gender" or "Living in their affirmed gender" (the wording varies).

Repeal. It is a ridiculous, unscientific, unreasonable, unnecessary piece of legislation that has been captured and manipulated by people whose agenda is nothing to do with making life better for people with the mental illness that is body dysmorphia and everything to do with subjugating women.

Bolding and capitalising when directly replying to another poster reads as shouting.

If you look at the entirety of my original post, I was making my point in the context of the small number of GRC holders. Which is peanuts compared to the probably much larger group using those mechanisms to change their sex marker on legal documents.

My point, I guess, is that the impact of the GRA goes way beyond GRCs, it enables and legitimises sex marker changes on ID documents (self ID by stealth), alongside, of course, fostering an idea that changing sex is at all possible.

The GRA is dangerous law and the danger goes beyond its function to issue GRCs.

"Bolding and capitalising when directly replying to another poster reads as shouting."

I do not believe that most people read it as "shouting" in such circumstances as no one has ever objected before.

Thank you for letting me know how you read it but, since you seem to be an "outrider", it is not going to stop me using formatting to break up a wall of text and use bold, caps, underlining, etc. to emphasise key points as necessary.

I hope you are familiar with the Mumsnet convention of using bold when copying and pasting quotes from a post? 🤔

"it (the GRA) enables and legitimises sex marker changes on ID documents"

I am sorry but you are now explicitly in error.

As I have pointed out, at great length with supporting material, the GRA is not responsible for enabling "sex marker changes on ID documents", ie. as far as the documents you specified: Passport and Driving Licences.

It was possible to change sex markers on those documents before the GRA2004, it is currently possible to change them without a GRC and, unless other changes are made, it will still be possible to change those sex markers even if the GRA is repealed.

However, I would agree wholeheartedly that the existence of the GRA gives sex marker changes on those documents a spurious legitimacy.