What do you think should happen to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)?

[TERFisTHEnewTREND]

Personally, I can't believe this act was ever passed! I know 2004 was a different time, but still!

I believe that the only way of moving past the gender madness in law is to revoke the GRA. "Gender" is about as useful as someone's favorite type of music, so it has no place on a legal document.

As for what should happen to those who already have a GRA... well, I think some of them are owed an apology by those who told them that this piece of paper would change their sex (which it doesn't).

What do others think?

It is actually quite simple.

We actually read the ECHR as it stands, and point out to the Stonewalled judges that it doesn't actually say anywhere within it that men with gender identities are entitled to falsify their legal documents no matter what detriment this causes to the female sex, that they are massively fucking overreaching, and they need to go back to doing their actual fucking jobs, which is ensuring that the actual treaty that the member states actually signed is respected, not the Stonewall interpretation of it.

Then there will be no conflict between penis people with their silly pieces of paper and women's rights, no conflict between the UK's ability to remain in the ECHR and also protect women's rights, and no threat to the Good Friday Agreement.

Simples.

Do you?

I mean, women in NI have only relatively recently been given access to basic reproductive health care and abortion rights.

I don't remember the IRA or DUP fighting for women's rights any more than I remember the Magdalen Laundry nuns marching with Pride flags flying. Do you?

Let’s compare and contrast - how many women have been killed because 8000 trans people have changed their birth certificates?

How many have been injured or disabled?

How many have been widowed? How many have lost kids? How many have been burned out of homes or had to cover their back gardens with netting to stop bricks and bottles landing on them?

Why is that a relevant comparator?

The number of men who have been killed because they heard the word "no" or weren't allowed to fake their identity is zero.

Falsifying your legal documents isn't a human right.

Forcing the rest of society to pretend that you are something you are not isn't a human right either.

The ECtHR judges' job is to apply what it actually says in the treaty, not take Stonewall's advice about what they think it should have said and try to enforce completely non existent obligations on member states which never agreed to them.

If the UK wants to tighten up its equality legislation to ensure that women and girls' rights are respected and that they have access to single sex spaces which even men with pieces of paper saying they are legally pink gender cannot access, there is absolutely fuck all the ECtHR can do about that because the UK never agreed not to do that.

Let’s add independence of the judiciary to the long list of things you are determined to be ignorant of.

But I hope whoever led Stonewall got an award - it’s really quite something that a charity in one country managed to capture 47 judges from right across Europe over the course of 20+ years. Or it might just be a ridiculous conspiracy theory that the 47 judges of the ECHR give a crap about Stonewall.

The judiciary is not in the least bit independent if it can be convinced by shady lobby groups to just make up the bloody law!

It’s a relevant comparator because the impacts of women of undoing the peace process is far far worse than the impact of a trans woman’s birth certificate listing her as female.

You know, approx 30000 women were inmates in the Magdalen laundries/ magdalen asylums in the 19th and 20th centuries. The last inmates were released or died in 1996.

Thirty thousand women, often for the crime of being raped, or having to feed yourself by selling your body. Thirty thousand women.

Yet they're still less important than 8000 men who like frills.

women of undoing the peace process

🤡🤡

Nobody except you (for some bizarre reason) is talking about undoing the peace process, because it's got absolutely fuck all to do with the matter under discussion.

Obviously, if an international court goes power crazy and just starts trying to enforce completely non existent legal obligations on the democratically elected governments of countries that never agreed to those obligations, it is no longer competent to have a role in ensuring that peace process and an alternative solution will need to be found.

Just stop with your fake threats against women.

The Troubles will begin again if women say no to men, or if our democratically elected government makes a move to protect women's rights, I mean, Jesus Christ can you even hear yourself.

Desperate. Truly desperate. Some of the worst barrel scraping I've ever seen.

Go home Janette, you're drunk.

Undoing the peace process?

Oh god, the hand wringing, the hand wringing......were undoing the peace process......

We're GOING TO HELL, I presume?

@PPlanetJanette

Here is the actual British Irish Treaty:

*The British and Irish Governments:

Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10 April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter ‘the Multi-Party Agreement’);

Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;

Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;

Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;

Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and to the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;

Have agreed as follows:
Article 1

The two Governments:

(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

(iv) affirm that, if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.
Article 2

The two Governments affirm their solemn commitment to support, and where appropriate implement, the provisions of the Multi-Party Agreement. In particular there shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the Multi-Party Agreement immediately on the entry into force of this Agreement, the following institutions:

(i) a North / South Ministerial Council;

(ii) the implementation bodies referred to in paragraph 9 (ii) of the section entitled ‘Strand Two’ of the Multi-Party Agreement;

(iii) a British-Irish Council;

(iv) a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
Article 3

(1) This Agreement shall replace the Agreement between the British and Irish Governments done at Hillsborough on 15th November 1985 which shall cease to have effect on entry into force of this Agreement.

(2) The Intergovernmental Conference established by Article 2 of the aforementioned Agreement done on 15th November 1985 shall cease to exist on entry into force of this Agreement.
Article 4

(1) It shall be a requirement for entry into force of this Agreement that:

(a) British legislation shall have been enacted for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Annex A to the section entitled ‘Constitutional Issues’ of the Multi-Party Agreement;

(b) the amendments to the Constitution of Ireland set out in Annex B to the section entitled ‘Constitutional Issues’ of the Multi-Party Agreement shall have been approved by Referendum;

(c) such legislation shall have been enacted as may be required to establish the institutions referred to in Article 2 of this Agreement.

(2) Each Government shall notify the other in writing of the completion, so far as it is concerned, of the requirements for entry into force of this Agreement. This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of the receipt of the later of the two notifications.

(3) Immediately on entry into force of this Agreement, the Irish Government shall ensure that the amendments to the Constitution of Ireland set out in Annex B to the section entitled ‘Constitutional Issues’ of the Multi-Party Agreement take effect.

In witness thereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by the respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

Done in two originals at Belfast on the 10th day of April 1998.

for the Government of the United Kingdom of  Great Britain and Northern Ireland
for the Government of Ireland

Annex 1

The Agreement Reached in the Multi-Party Talks
Annex 2

Declaration on the Provisions of Paragraph (vi) of Article 1 In Relationship to Citizenship

The British and Irish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term ‘the people of Northern Ireland’ in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.*

This is the actual Treaty. It references the Multi Party Talks as an annex but doesn't include them as part of the treaty.

The only obligation on the part of UK is to implement the provisions of Annex A to the section entitled ‘Constitutional Issues’ of the Multi-Party Agreement.

How will leaving the Council of Europe nullify this treaty?

@MargotBamborough Fucking hell i know who i would pm if I was in legal trouble

Does the UK have to leave the ECHR or should the UK show that the right to private life does not mean falsifying your sex marker when you have made little to no effort to change your body to resemble that of the opposite sex and everybody knows you are a man?
And that living as the opposite sex is meaningless as it cannot be done as these men aren't female?
And that the current interpretation of article 8 for transwomen conflicts with article 14?

The UK government can change this within the framework. Most European countries aren't implementing article 8 as far as self id and chances of this happening now 'no debate' is failing is increasingly less likely to happen

Beyond the ad homs, still not a single substantive rebuttal of the relevance I’ve set out.

As I said, wishing facts away doesn’t make them disappear.

The fact remains that the settled case law of the ECHR requires the GRA (or something equivalent) to remain in place.

The fact remains that membership of the ECHR is a core requirement of the Good Friday Agreement.

The fact remains that contrary to your ill informed assertions, peace in Northern Ireland was not simple, and removing a core element of the Agreement is not some minor, simple fix.

You can keep attacking or you can begin to get your head around these facts, which exist whether you dismiss them or not.

You’re misreading it.

The requirement to implement the constitutional provisions was a requirement for ‘entry into force’ (ie the agreement was not in force until section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the Irish constitutional amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution were passed).

But once the Agreement is in force, the broader requirement to support and implement the whole multiparty agreement is set out clearly - the UK and Ireland are committed to ‘support, and where appropriate implement, the provisions of the Multi-Party Agreement’.

That includes ECHR membership.

But focusing on the international treaty element of the GFA is missing the point anyway. Yes, withdrawing from the ECHR would be a breach of a treaty with Ireland. But treaties can be repudiated. The bigger issue is that whether it is a breach of international law or not, it is a clear undoing of the multiparty element of the GFA, which was the basis for ending the Troubles.

“relevance”

That is horrific. So many women.

This should almost be in Classics.

No, Janette.

The FACT is that the ECHR actually provides that all humans have equal human rights, not just a small number of humans with special gender identities.

And the FACT is that if the democratically elected UK government wants to strengthen its equality laws to protect its female population, including guaranteeing the provision of female only spaces which no males, not even ones with magical pieces of paper saying they are women, can access, it is allowed to do so.

And the FACT is that if the effect of doing that would be to render the magical piece of paper stating that a man is legally a woman essentially meaningless, that's just too bad because the UK government is still allowed to do that.

And the FACT is that if the UK government did that and the ECtHR started throwing its toys out of the pram and saying that this conflicted with the fundamental human right of a few men to have a magical piece of paper saying they are a woman and giving them an all access pass to women's spaces, PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD WOULD START TO POINT OUT THAT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY ANYWHERE IN THE CONVENTION THAT MEN SHOULD HAVE THIS RIGHT.

And the FACT is that the UK would say, "Look, we are the democratically elected government of a sovereign country and we have extensive freedom to make and unmake our own laws. Yes, we signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights which means we cannot do things which fundamentally conflict with it such as bringing back the death penalty, torturing people or locking people up without a fair trial. But we can legislate to provide single sex spaces for women and girls BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY NOTHING IN THE TREATY THAT WE SIGNED UP TO WHICH SAYS WE CAN'T DO THIS. And there is also NOTHING IN THE TREATY SAYING THAT MEN ARE ENTITLED TO MAGICAL PIECES OF PAPER SAYING THEY ARE WOMEN AND ALLOWED IN WOMEN'S SPACES. You, a bunch of judges who are not democratically elected, actually made that part up. And you've got away with making that part up until now. But you're not going to get away with stopping the democratically elected government of a sovereign country from making and unmaking its own laws because you believe they conflict with the parts you made up, rather than the provisions of the treaty they actually signed up to. So GET THE FUCK BACK IN YOUR BOX."

And the FACT is that this conversation would take place very much in the public arena, attracting an enormous amount of negative attention and scrutiny from people all over the world who would start to agree that the ECtHR has gone too far and is overstepping its own powers.

The idea that the ECtHR is going to say, "No, UK, you cannot protect your female population because that would make gender recognition certificates useless, and if you insist on doing this you will have to withdraw from the convention which means breaking the Good Friday Agreement which means the Troubles will start again and it will all be your fault" is absolutely LUDICROUS, Janette.

Do you not think that the rest of the world might start saying, "Well, hang on a moment, isn't that a bit of an overreaction to a country wanting to protect its female population? And where does it actually say in the ECHR that men should be entitled to magical pieces of paper which allow them access to all women's spaces anyway? Hmm. It doesn't."

The FACT is that none of this would happen because if it did, it would be P45 time for those judges and they know it.

The most likely outcome if the UK does this is that some unelected twats clutch their pearls about transphobia and everyone else ignores them because it's getting really fucking tedious and the vast majority of people don't support this nonsense.

The fact remains that the settled case law of the ECHR requires the GRA (or something equivalent) to remain in place.

Fact remains the UK government does not have to keep the GRA as it currently stands because of the expanding group of people who demand to be treated as the opposite sex. The original idea was someone who 'passed'. Current cohort do not 'pass' so therefore there is no 'outing' and no breach into someone's private life.

Then there is the conflict with article 14 that demand governments put into place a framework to protect women from harm and discrimination based on sex (and yes, the word sex is used).
The UK government can use article 14 to put into place a framework that keeps the sex marker as original on the birth certificate and put into place a gender marker to support gender identity (and yes, the words gender identity is used in the guidelines for article 8).

Women need to push the UK government, as women are also doing in other European countries, to make this split. It will be messy as transactivists don't want a compromise like this, but this is fair for everyone.

@MargotBamborough we can legislate to provide single sex spaces for women and girls BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY NOTHING IN THE TREATY THAT WE SIGNED UP TO WHICH SAYS WE CAN'T DO THIS.

Article 14 actually demands government put frameworks to protect women and girls. Single sex spaces can be part of that framework. What will the court say: frameworks like that are against human rights?

Not if it wants to retain any shred of credibility, on which its continued survival depends.

Just calling things facts don’t make them facts.

Almost none of what you claim to be facts are actually facts. In fact some of them are downright false.

Call it common sense then, Janette.

Something your posts are clearly lacking.