Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

604 replies

TERFisTHEnewTREND · 01/01/2024 22:28

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:13

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:10

Making it meaningless falls foul of the same issues.

But glad you’re at least recognising the issues with full repeal.

You're not being very clear, Janette.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the democratically elected UK government has the power to mandate single sex spaces for women and girls which exclude all members of the opposite sex, even those with a gender recognition certificate?

If you do think the UK government has this power, what would then be the point of having a gender recognition certificate?

EasternStandard · 03/01/2024 09:15

It depends what making it meaningless entails

As in pp below getting single sex by biological sex spaces back, no compelled speech, TRA ideology out of schools, and plain English factual language may be enough to take the pressure off

However I’m also with @Ereshkigalangcleg that it’s a very bad law and on principle I object to the legal falsity

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:17

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:13

You're not being very clear, Janette.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the democratically elected UK government has the power to mandate single sex spaces for women and girls which exclude all members of the opposite sex, even those with a gender recognition certificate?

If you do think the UK government has this power, what would then be the point of having a gender recognition certificate?

Yes. I have been very very clear and repeatedly said that I don’t see any ECHR prohibitions on the Government doing what you suggest on single sex spaces.

But this thread is about the Gender Recognition Act.

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:19

EasternStandard · 03/01/2024 09:15

It depends what making it meaningless entails

As in pp below getting single sex by biological sex spaces back, no compelled speech, TRA ideology out of schools, and plain English factual language may be enough to take the pressure off

However I’m also with @Ereshkigalangcleg that it’s a very bad law and on principle I object to the legal falsity

None of the things in your second paragraph flow from the Gender Recognition Act.

EasternStandard · 03/01/2024 09:20

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:19

None of the things in your second paragraph flow from the Gender Recognition Act.

Yes I know which is why I said they could let the pressure off.

My view is split between thinking that would likely be enough and objecting to a bad law

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2024 09:25

None of the things in your second paragraph flow from the Gender Recognition Act.

They flow from enshrining a lie into our legal frameworks, the result of which was the GRA and the idea of telling men that if they were "transitioning" they had a right to use women's spaces, the formal existence of which is now governed by the Equality Act. And that they had a legal right to pretend that they were the opposite sex.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2024 09:25

Sorry meant to quote.

Henrietta70 · 03/01/2024 09:28

May I just add, as my Union is captured at work by Gender Ideology, I have joined The Free Speech Union. I work in Social Services.
They provide great advice and legal support if you get into trouble with HR and managers. Costs £4.99 a month.
Sex Matters also offer good information.
For School related issues: Safe Schools Alliance.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:28

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:17

Yes. I have been very very clear and repeatedly said that I don’t see any ECHR prohibitions on the Government doing what you suggest on single sex spaces.

But this thread is about the Gender Recognition Act.

OK, so we are clear then.

The UK government can prohibit trans people from using single sex spaces for members of the opposite sex, regardless of whether they have a GRC or not, without either repealing the GRA or falling foul of the ECHR, and thus the Good Friday Agreement is saved.

Hurrah!

What a lot of fuss you made about absolutely nothing, Janette.

Don't you feel a bit embarrassed now?

Here's your arse. <proffers plate>

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2024 09:29

This is a great thread though, well done to @MargotBamborough, @EasternStandard, @PencilsInSpace and others for their work in engaging with the ridiculous idea that women are responsible for all unintended consequences of changing the law, and the other witty wims of FWR for making me laugh several times.

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:39

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:28

OK, so we are clear then.

The UK government can prohibit trans people from using single sex spaces for members of the opposite sex, regardless of whether they have a GRC or not, without either repealing the GRA or falling foul of the ECHR, and thus the Good Friday Agreement is saved.

Hurrah!

What a lot of fuss you made about absolutely nothing, Janette.

Don't you feel a bit embarrassed now?

Here's your arse. <proffers plate>

It takes a particular cognitive dissonance to think that you agreeing with the position I’ve set out from the start is handing me my arse on a plate. But whatever it takes to make you finally recognise that I was right and the GRA cannot be repealed within the ECHR.

Now perhaps you can share your epiphany with those on the thread advocating GRA repeal.

Froodwithatowel · 03/01/2024 09:48

But returning to the point of the thread, yes, I absolutely do think the GRA should be repealed. For the reasons multiply discussed through the thread.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:50

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 08:54

No that would not be lawful.

The entire point of the case law is that having official documents that necessarily put a trans person is a breach of their Article 8 rights.

Having distinct sex and gender identity markers exacerbate rather than solve that breach.

Article 8 rights are qualified rights. Essentially, they are rights which end where other people's rights begin.

Also, I hate to state the fucking obvious but going out in public is usually sufficient to "out" trans people, because we can see what sex people are with our eyes.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:51

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:39

It takes a particular cognitive dissonance to think that you agreeing with the position I’ve set out from the start is handing me my arse on a plate. But whatever it takes to make you finally recognise that I was right and the GRA cannot be repealed within the ECHR.

Now perhaps you can share your epiphany with those on the thread advocating GRA repeal.

Me, on page 1 of this thread:

I wouldn't repeal it but I would make it worthless.

I'd change the terminology, removing references to male and female as "genders," and calling them "masculine" and "feminine". The definitions would make it clear that it is essentially about stereotypes.

I'd include a provision for ID documents to retain a biological sex marker and have an optional field for gender identity.

And I'd make it clear that a GRC doesn't grant access to any single sex spaces for the opposite sex.

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:53

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:51

Me, on page 1 of this thread:

I wouldn't repeal it but I would make it worthless.

I'd change the terminology, removing references to male and female as "genders," and calling them "masculine" and "feminine". The definitions would make it clear that it is essentially about stereotypes.

I'd include a provision for ID documents to retain a biological sex marker and have an optional field for gender identity.

And I'd make it clear that a GRC doesn't grant access to any single sex spaces for the opposite sex.

Still unlawful.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:54

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:53

Still unlawful.

Which part of it do you believe is unlawful?

Please show your working.

lordloveadog · 03/01/2024 09:55

Very few people actually apply for GRCs. Despite the self-IDers' insistence that this is because it's difficult and/or expensive, it really isn't.

So why aren't people applying? Presumably because it doesn't do very much for individuals.

The main point of it was to allow same sex marriage. And that's now legal.

The self-ID loopholes for passports and driving licenses allow people to get wrong-sex ID without a GRC (and need to be closed).

And quite possibly a lot of people claiming to friends and family that they have a gender identity at some level actually realize that this is likely to change and don't want to make a legal commitment to it.

So I agree with the self-IDers that this is outdated legislation which doesn't reflect current understandings of gender. But since those are constantly in flux, so much so that legislation is hopelessly outdated after just 20 years, we need to return to a stable understanding of sex and let gender do what it likes.

Sex needs to be recognized in law, but gender is not sufficiently well-defined and no definition is sufficiently widely accepted for it to be the basis for any legal documents.

We need to make a merit of the fact that this is gender recognition and separate that back from sex, which can't be changed.

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:57

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:50

Article 8 rights are qualified rights. Essentially, they are rights which end where other people's rights begin.

Also, I hate to state the fucking obvious but going out in public is usually sufficient to "out" trans people, because we can see what sex people are with our eyes.

I’ve no particular interest in litigating the reasoning of the court. The nature of law is that case law does not fall away because some random on the Internet explains that they think it’s really really unfair.

What you are proposing - a total hollowing out of the GRA - would be unlawful and both ministers and civil servants would be prohibited from doing it under the ministerial and civil service codes.

As stated a number of times, if what you were proposing was tightening single sex spaces under the Equality Act that is doable under the ECHR. Repealing - or hollowing out - the GRA is not.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:59

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 09:57

I’ve no particular interest in litigating the reasoning of the court. The nature of law is that case law does not fall away because some random on the Internet explains that they think it’s really really unfair.

What you are proposing - a total hollowing out of the GRA - would be unlawful and both ministers and civil servants would be prohibited from doing it under the ministerial and civil service codes.

As stated a number of times, if what you were proposing was tightening single sex spaces under the Equality Act that is doable under the ECHR. Repealing - or hollowing out - the GRA is not.

Which specific legal obligation which is binding on the UK government do you believe it contravenes?

sanluca · 03/01/2024 10:06

The entire point of the case law is that having official documents that necessarily put a trans person is a breach of their Article 8 rights.

Actually that is not true, @PlanetJanette. The whole point guidance is about the right to private life and that not having your documents say female when you are male, would be outing. It also stopped transwomen for example of marrying a man or receiving pensions at womens age.

Same sex marriage is now legal, sex has no bearing on pension age and self id means there is often no effort at passing, so no outing anymore if your marker would still say male. Plus it conflicts with article 14.

So it can be argued that splitting the markers has no bearing on guidance for article 8 and strengthens article 14.

If people object, they need to bring a case to the court against the UK government and the European Court needs to defend why article 8 just for transwomen is more important than article 14. That will bring everything out in te open and erode trust in the framework as a whole as most people think that that is really unfair towards women. And there are more women than men wanting to be women.
I think that that eroding is dangerous and unnecessary. So it raises the question why transactivists deem their demands more important that the populations trust in the European Court for Human Rights.

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 10:09

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 09:54

Which part of it do you believe is unlawful?

Please show your working.

This bit, in particular:

I'd include a provision for ID documents to retain a biological sex marker and have an optional field for gender identity.

The case law is clear that there must be a process for sex markers to be changed.

Governments have significant discretion as to what that process is (hence self-ID isn’t an ECHR requirement) and as to the implications of that (hence they have discretion around the rules on single sex spaces). But there is no discretion to not allow trans people a process to change their sex markers.

And before you start, I’m not really interested in all of the reasons you disagree with the case law. The point is that that is the law as it stands.

So your suggestion would be unlawful.

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 10:13

sanluca · 03/01/2024 10:06

The entire point of the case law is that having official documents that necessarily put a trans person is a breach of their Article 8 rights.

Actually that is not true, @PlanetJanette. The whole point guidance is about the right to private life and that not having your documents say female when you are male, would be outing. It also stopped transwomen for example of marrying a man or receiving pensions at womens age.

Same sex marriage is now legal, sex has no bearing on pension age and self id means there is often no effort at passing, so no outing anymore if your marker would still say male. Plus it conflicts with article 14.

So it can be argued that splitting the markers has no bearing on guidance for article 8 and strengthens article 14.

If people object, they need to bring a case to the court against the UK government and the European Court needs to defend why article 8 just for transwomen is more important than article 14. That will bring everything out in te open and erode trust in the framework as a whole as most people think that that is really unfair towards women. And there are more women than men wanting to be women.
I think that that eroding is dangerous and unnecessary. So it raises the question why transactivists deem their demands more important that the populations trust in the European Court for Human Rights.

I’m afraid you’re just wrong about marriage and pensions - they were never the sole reason for the legal justification for the case law. They were examples at points in time but never the only issues.

The fundamental point has consistently been that where people show their official ID they should not have to essentially declare that they are trans. Any option that requires that they do (such as an unchangeable sex marker alongside a gender marker) would be plainly unlawful.

I understand you and others think that is unfair but it is extremely clear that that is the law as it stands. And acting contrary to it would be unlawful.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 03/01/2024 10:18

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 06:35

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.

You have made a case, repeatedly, that there is a tricky constitutional issue that would need to be resolved in order to repeal the GRA. We get that. But this thread is broader than the option to repeal the GRA with nothing in its place. We here on Mumsnet are not the UK Government, nor are we the ECtHR, nor are we the collective governments of all the signatories to the ECHR. Please would you permit us to discuss the desirability of repeal or reform of the GRA without constantly sidetracking onto the GFA.

The difficult political manoeuvring comes after the discussion of what is desirable, and good law, concerning the balance of rights between women and men, and between those with an incongruent “gender identity” and the vast majority of society who have different priorities. The GRA is an unhelpful piece of legislation in balancing rights, as it only considers the needs or desires of a small subsection of society, totally ignoring the impact on other people. The EA2010 attempted to improve the balance, but it is still partially based on ill-defined concepts, and the attempts in recent years to unilaterally redefine language have added layers of confusion which case law has not yet resolved.

ResisterRex · 03/01/2024 10:33

Please would you permit us to discuss the desirability of repeal or reform of the GRA without constantly sidetracking onto the GFA.

We don't need permission. There's been no proof offered at all beyond stating "case law" ad infinitum.

Froodwithatowel · 03/01/2024 10:34

Please would you permit us to discuss the desirability of repeal or reform of the GRA without constantly sidetracking onto the GFA.

Yes. Please.

The repeatedly made point of 'I say it's unlawful so please stop talking about things I say you don't understand and don't wish you to talk about' is taken. But women are allowed to talk nevertheless.