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?

The guidance in article 8 says that a person has the right to establish details of their personal identity.

That is it. So what is the problem with a gender identity marker?

My use of ‘permit’ was ironic.

I think it’s clear from the posts the pp is a TRA and is coming at this from that angle, likely batting for their sex class too

They won’t be advocating women’s sex based rights and will be using whatever they can to interrupt

Fine we’re seeing the extent of the challenge and it’s been a good thread overall. It also shifts the Overton window to more readily accepting the lower option which is doing everything bar repeal - which I absolutely want and think many other women do too

Whether the ECHR manages with the political shift we’re seeing across the EU is another thing to watch for

It would make brilliant material for a 4th series of Derry Girls though, wouldn’t it? Have them all grown up and dealing with the Troubles 2024 because, in the words of Michelle, “Those mother fuckers from Terf Island fucked it for all of us, it’s your fault James!”

So, to recap the OP posted this:

What do you think should happen to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)? 448 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?

At no point does the owner of this thread ask posters to explain our thinking, just what we think about the GRA

A lot of us think it should be repealed as it's a crap Act and never should have happened in the first place.

Yet one poster has been insistent that if we think it should be repealed then we should also explain our reason for that, and it seems how we also solve world peace at the same time as that appears to be the only way to get cocks out of women's things.

Why the fuck should we? I didn't make the law, it's not my fault that various governments have managed to put us in a position where it seems that women have to accept men in their single sex spaces because if they don't other things are fucked.

Us women on here didn't put us in this fucking position why the hell should it be down to us to not only want something repealing but to also solve the issues to how that can happen without impacting on other things.

No one on here has to explain anything to anybody and people insinuating that if we can't give a full comprehensive response of how to achieve something we can't be allowed to legitimately have an opinion on a specific thing.

So with regards to: "But the fact remains that repealing the GRA is not consistent with the ECHR so those advocating for repeal need to explain how they would achieve that repeal."

NO! NO WE DON'T

I know @RapidOnsetGenderCritic but by this point..! And as @EasternStandard says:

I think it’s clear from the posts the pp is a TRA and is coming at this from that angle, likely batting for their sex class too

As the GRA exemplifies: give an inch and they'll take a fucking mile!

No, Janette. You are deliberately avoiding the question.

The UK is bound by the obligations it agreed to accept in the treaty it actually signed. There is nothing in the treaty requiring member states to allow individuals to change their "legal sex", or indeed prohibiting member states from having any administrative mechanism for recording someone's biological sex.

Whilst it is true that the court, in its own jurisprudence which postdates the treaty the UK actually signed up to by several decades, has recently interpreted the treaty to include a right for individuals to change their legal sex, that does not alter the fact that the UK never actually accepted a legal obligation to do any such thing, and neither did any other member state.

Yes, the treaty is considered a living document which involves in line with changing societal attitudes, which is why and how most member states have until now accepted this rather peculiar interpretation of it by the court.

But societal attitudes are continuing to change. In particular, there is a growing understanding across much of the western world, including many of the early adopters of the concept that people should be able to change their "legal sex", that this has consequences for the rest of the population. That allowing this small, self-selected group to do whatever the hell they want actually has a negative impact on the rights of other groups.

So if the UK wants to change its own equality laws to protect the rest of its population, including requiring that there be some way of checking someone's actual biological sex for the purposes of determining whether they are legally entitled to access a particular single sex space, the European Court of Justice actually has no power to stop it from doing so, and it would be spectacularly ill judged to try.

I almost hope they do try. Because I cannot think of anything more likely to make the whole concept of "gender recognition" go up in a puff of smoke than a large, powerful and well respected member of the European Convention on Human Rights saying, "No. This "right" is not actually contained anywhere in the Treaty. You cannot force us to do this. You cannot interfere with our democratic processes in this way. You are overstepping your powers. If you continue down this path we will have no choice but to withdraw from your jurisdiction entirely. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough."

The ECtHR judges might be ideologically wedded to all this gender identity bullshit when it suits them, but the moment it starts to pose an existential threat to the organisation that employs them and their nice cushy careers and pensions, I imagine they will remember pretty quickly that women have rights too, and that trans people's Article 8 rights need to be fairly balanced against everyone else's.

That means that if we want to safeguard women's right to, for example, single sex rape counselling, we need to have some way of being able to prove what sex someone actually is, other than just pointing at them and saying, "You're CLEARLY A BLOKE."

Presumably this means that women also have the right to have a word for themselves as a class of people defined according to their biological sex, if they feel that best represents their identity.

Exactly.

Let the people who made the mess come up with a solution.

The problem is that the consequences of any policy are an inherent part of discussing its desirability.

’We’ll worry about that later’ isn’t a credible answer to a significant implication of what is being suggested.

And yet, the Gender Recognition Act was passed.

Bravo! (Or should that be “Brava!”? I don’t speak Italian.)

Good point.

“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.”

Well, everyone has to comply with the law. The legal framework set out in the GR Act remains as the legal framework unless and until it is changed via new legislation. Ministers are not prevented from putting proposals for legislative changes to Parliament. It is for Parliament to then consider and either approve or reject those legislative changes.

Here’s what the Ministerial Code says.

1.3 The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life , set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct:

• a. The principle of collective responsibility applies to all Government Ministers;
• b. Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
• c. It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
• d. Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ;
• e. Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil Service Code ;
• f. Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
• g. Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation;
• h. Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as Minister and constituency Member;
• i. Ministers must not use government resources for party political purposes; and
• j. Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-code/ministerial-code

Here’s the intro to the civil service code

As a civil servant, you are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out your role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. In this code:

• ‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests
• ‘honesty’ is being truthful and open
• ‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence
• ‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions

Bad law happens.

It gets fixed.

It's no more immutable/sacred than any theory of a 'gender identity' is.

We all have a duty to safeguard the vulnerable. That means we need to quickly and accurately determine an individuals sex and age.

If large organisations conspire to allow individual to hide their age and sex, they have failed.

We need to be able to call out and stop these failing organisations allowing safeguarding risks to happen. If they contine to allow abusers routes to abuse the vulnerable we have to either change those in power or the institutions themselves.

The idea that organisations have the right to facilitate abuse and no citizens can stop it is clearly wrong.

"We'll worry about that later" is exactly why woman is now seemingly defined as a feeling in a man's head, why we're seeing blokes in dresses with hard ons in marks and Spencer changing rooms, males beating females in female sports competitions and intimidating them in changing rooms and kids being told they can change sex willy-nilly.

I question why it's apparently an important issue now (for the aforementioned 8000 men), when it wasn't an issue for 50+% of the world......

Yep and since men take further advantage year on year let’s worry about it now instead of waiting for it to get worse for women and children

When Planette points out that:
'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', they are of course highlighting the nature of the people who advocated for this law in the first place.
Who'd have thought that predators would be able to use this law to disguise their history and access children using the DBS system as a shield? But they can. Claim to be trans and the Stonewall captured DBS will give you a separate system that allows avoidance of the requirement that every other adult has - to be honest about every aspect of your previous life, including convictions in order to keep children safe.

We've discussed this before - on this linked thread there's a link to the excellent KPSS report on the loophole (and a very shouty TRA who's overkeen on women ignoring the loophole)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4793283-transgender-loopholes

I think we all understand that Janette thinks the sky would fall in if women managed to ensure women had equal rights to men in law.

Civil servants cannot develop, and ministers cannot propose, legislation that they know to be unlawful in terms of international law.

The Treaty includes an obligation to be bound by the findings of the Court.

1. There is no element of the GRA that requires trans people to 'pass' in order to be eligible for its protections
2. Being outed is a real, current issue relevant to some trans people including myself and is a very serious problem in certain lines of work
3. Amending the GRA to include birth sex on certificates amended by the GRA to protect people's birth sex from being disclosed serves no purpose other than to undermine the protection the GRA provides for the handful of people who have one.

It is not 'fair for everyone' - it is callously removing the legal protections of a tiny handful of people for completely nonsensical and self-contradictory reasons.

And yet we have The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

But there is no such prohibition in the treaty that the UK actually signed and agreed to comply with.