Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
Froodwithatowel · 03/01/2024 14:14

I'll refer you back to Beetle's explanation above.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 14:20

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 14:13

Yet again - the binding interpretation of the Court is part of what states signed up to in the Treaty.

No country is forced to be part of any treaty but for so long as it is part of a treaty then they must abide by its rules - in this case that includes Article 46.

Which brings us back to square 1. The UK can disagree with the judgments if it likes. It can withdraw from the convention if it likes. But it is crystal clear that its current international obligations includes allowing a process for people to change the sex markers on official documents, and British civil servants and ministers are prohibited from acting in a way that is categorically in breach of international law.

Janette, the duty of the court is to interpret the actual treaty, not just fucking make stuff up as it goes along.

Of course there will be legal and political consequences if it oversteps its powers.

How could there not be?

But overstepping its powers to the point that a country like the UK says, "OK, have it your way. We've tried to be reasonable. We've tried pointing out that we never actually signed up for this gender recognition stuff when we entered into the treaty, and that you are basically adding new obligations in despite the fact that you are not democratically accountable to anyone and have no legal or moral authority to do that. You haven't listened. You haven't learned your lesson. So we're off."

That would be an absolutely fucking insane thing to do. It would be the end of the whole gravy train.

If we cannot retain an actual biological sex marker on official documents because it upsets trans people who cannot bear the thought of their biological sex being acknowledged in any way despite the fact that we can all bloody see what sex they are because we have eyes, we cannot have single sex spaces, we cannot have safeguarding, we cannot protect the rights of women and girls WHO ARE EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS TRANS PEOPLE.

The court pushing countries like the UK too far on this issue would be absolutely batshit.

And I'm pretty sure those judges like their cushy jobs and whopping pensions even more than they like trans people.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 14:22

I am so heartened by this thread because Janette is giving us a perfect illustration of how the hubris of trans people and their powerful allies will eventually kill the whole thing off.

There is a limit to how long people will stand for this nonsense, and it's closer than you think.

LoobiJee · 03/01/2024 14:33

I appreciate that when someone is repeatedly kicking sand in your face it’s difficult to focus on anything but the sand. However.

Here (again) is an overview of the Convention rights, and a reminder that the right to respect of your private and family life (Article 8) is not an absolute right. There is, for example, no absolute right for a convicted rapist, who wishes to be considered a woman by society, to have their status as a convicted rapist concealed in order to protect them from being “outed” as biologically male.

Also a reminder that the GRA pre-dated EA2010, which provides protection from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The second reading debate on the GRA talked about individuals who were reluctant to disclose their transsexual (as it was referred to then) status, for fear of discrimination. EA2010 made such discrimination unlawful, and the BBC’s ongoing efforts to secure positive representation of transwomen in a wide range of programmes will also help reduce the likelihood of such discrimination occurring in the first place.

The European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty between the States of the Council of Europe. The United Kingdom was one of the States that drafted the ECHR and was one of the first States to ratify it in 1951. The Convention came into force in 1953.

The current version of the Convention incorporates the amendments made by Protocols No. 11, 14 and 15, in 1998, 2010 and 2021 respectively.
The substantive rights and freedoms contained in the Convention are:

  • Article 2: the right to life
  • Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Article 4: the prohibition of slavery and forced labour
  • Article 5: the right to liberty and security
  • Article 6: the right to a fair trial
  • Article 7: the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalties
  • Article 8: the right to private and family life
  • Article 9: the freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Article 10: the freedom of expression
  • Article 11: the freedom of assembly and association
  • Article 12: the right to marry
  • Article 13: the right to an effective national remedy for breach of these rights
  • Article 14: the prohibition of discrimination in the protection of these rights
The UK has also ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, as well Protocol No. 1, which contains three additional rights:
  • Article 1 of Protocol No.1: the right to free enjoyment of property
  • Article 2 of Protocol No.1: the right to education
  • Article 3 of Protocol No.1: the right to free and fair elections
The European Court of Human RightsThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court which rules on individual or State applications regarding possible violations of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s judgments and other information relevant to the UK are publicly available.
ApocalipstickNow · 03/01/2024 14:34

Can we not have laws that protect trans people at work (whilst keeping the exemptions we have for occupations where sex is relevant)?

I mean, again, apologies for not understanding, but this sounds very much like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which wasn’t awfully popular, for understandable reasons.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 14:42

ApocalipstickNow · 03/01/2024 14:34

Can we not have laws that protect trans people at work (whilst keeping the exemptions we have for occupations where sex is relevant)?

I mean, again, apologies for not understanding, but this sounds very much like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which wasn’t awfully popular, for understandable reasons.

Protect them from what, specifically?

If it's protection from discrimination, we already have laws for that.

If it's around being outed, in the very unlikely event that someone "passes", you run into difficulties with female colleagues sharing single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms with a member of the opposite sex without their consent.

I do not think that trans people's concerns about not being "outed", which are in many cases entirely hypothetical, should trump women's right to consent or not consent to sharing single sex spaces with the opposite sex.

ApocalipstickNow · 03/01/2024 14:50

Well, Margot Butters is saying it’s a real fear so it must be true. 😶

It was my understanding that, as you have confirmed there are laws protecting trans ppl from discrimination at work, so I’m unsure what the fear is?

how do you get acceptance when you insist on denial? How can any of this be compared to LGB rights, no one is telling the gay people I’ve worked with they have to lie about their spouses for their own safety.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 14:57

ApocalipstickNow · 03/01/2024 14:50

Well, Margot Butters is saying it’s a real fear so it must be true. 😶

It was my understanding that, as you have confirmed there are laws protecting trans ppl from discrimination at work, so I’m unsure what the fear is?

how do you get acceptance when you insist on denial? How can any of this be compared to LGB rights, no one is telling the gay people I’ve worked with they have to lie about their spouses for their own safety.

Yes, and it's really worrying that some trans people such as Butterfly and their allies such as Janette are too short sighted to see the likely result of their behaviour.

Fighting to have equal rights to all other groups and not be discriminated against because of who you are is all well and good. Very few people would begrudge trans people that.

It's when you keep insisting that you should have rights which trump other people's, that your "right" to be treated as though you are the opposite sex, to change the sex markers on your official documents, to access single sex spaces for members of the opposite sex, to not be "outed" and all the rest of it, is more important than the rights, safety and dignity of other groups, that's when the rest of society starts to lose sympathy for your cause.

That's when people who were saying, "Trans people are oppressed and vulnerable, we should be kind" a few years ago start to say, "Oh well, fuck you then. I really don't care about what you want anymore. It's time to consider some other people's rights for a change."

EasternStandard · 03/01/2024 15:35

The question over international law is an interesting one

I’m not sure why some parts can be disapplied but I expect we’ll see more divergence soon

This is Barnier recently relating to another issue

‘During this time, we have to create a constitutional shield [allowing national law to take precedence], and to ask the French people to decide."

I think it’ll be scrappy and messy but the ECHR may well find it’s challenged more

LoobiJee · 03/01/2024 15:55

“Caroline Cossey's story was still stark and raw when I was coming of age - she was hounded out of public life due to being outed.”

So did you come of age in the mid 1980s Butterfly?

according to Wikipedia.

Caroline Cossey (born 31 August 1954[2]) is a British model and actress who often worked under the name Tula.

In 1978, Cossey won a part on the game show 3-2-1. A tabloid journalist then contacted her, revealing he had discovered she was transgender, and planned to write about it. Other journalists researched her past, attempting to interview her family members. Cossey dropped out of the show, convincing the producers to release her from her contract. After this incident, Cossey purposefully maintained a lower profile,

Cossey was cast as an extra in the 1981 James Bond film For Your Eyes Only.[6] Shortly after the film's release, the tabloid News of the World came out with a front-page headline "James Bond Girl Was a Boy." By her own accounts, Cossey was so upset she contemplated suicide. However, she continued her modelling career by focusing, once again, on smaller assignments.[4] Cossey then responded by releasing I Am a Woman (1982), which was her first autobiography.[7]

In 1991, Cossey released My Story, which was her second and final autobiography. In it she gave details of her transition, her relationship with Fattal, and her unsuccessful battle with the European Court of Human Rights. . She was featured in the September 1991 issue of Playboy in the pictorial "The Transformation of Tula," as an acknowledged transgender person.[9]
In 1992, Cossey married Canadian engineering student David Finch.[10]

ArabellaScott · 03/01/2024 15:57

PlanetJanette · 03/01/2024 14:13

Yet again - the binding interpretation of the Court is part of what states signed up to in the Treaty.

No country is forced to be part of any treaty but for so long as it is part of a treaty then they must abide by its rules - in this case that includes Article 46.

Which brings us back to square 1. The UK can disagree with the judgments if it likes. It can withdraw from the convention if it likes. But it is crystal clear that its current international obligations includes allowing a process for people to change the sex markers on official documents, and British civil servants and ministers are prohibited from acting in a way that is categorically in breach of international law.

Sorry, but it's really not 'crystal clear' at all, no matter how many times you try to make that assertion.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 16:02

ArabellaScott · 03/01/2024 15:57

Sorry, but it's really not 'crystal clear' at all, no matter how many times you try to make that assertion.

Apparently it is crystal clear in clown land.

PomegranateOfPersephone · 03/01/2024 16:36

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 13:13

To expand further on this point.

If, in the early 2000s, the consequences of implementing a policy allowing people to change their legal sex had been properly examined, the conversation would have gone something like this.

Q: What impact does allowing someone to change their legal sex have?

A: It allows them to be treated for all intents and purposes as though they are the opposite sex to the one they actually are.

Q: In what situations do we actually treat the two biological sexes differently?

A: In situations where we have single sex spaces, in sports, and in healthcare.

Q: Why do we treat the two biological sexes differently in those situations?

A: For reasons of safety, dignity and fairness, particularly for members of the female sex who are particularly vulnerable to male violence, unable to compete fairly against biological males in physical tasks, and some of whom have religious beliefs prohibiting them from being in a state of undress around members of the opposite sex other than their husband.

Q: Would allowing some people access to single sex spaces for the opposite sex in these situations undermine the purpose of those single sex spaces existing?

A: Yes, it would.

Q: Would allowing male people in particular to access single sex spaces where women are undressing, washing, using the toilet or receiving intimate care compromise the safety and dignity of those women?

A: Yes, it would.

Q: Are there any situations where we actually treat men and women differently, where we could accommodate some men's wish to be recognised as women without it having a negative impact on the rights, safety and dignity of the women in those situations?

A: To date we cannot think of any.

Q: If we introduce a new law allowing people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex in all situations other than those where allowing them to do so would have a negative impact on members of the opposite sex, what practical effect would it have?

A: Very little. Possibly none at all. They could be legally recognised as the opposite sex in situations where their sex isn't relevant to anything, but that is all really.

Q: What would be the impact of allowing someone to change the sex marker on their legal ID?

A: It means we would have no clear way of proving what sex someone is, if they say they are the opposite sex to the one they actually are.

Q: So how would we regulate who has access to which single sex spaces?

A: We would have no way of doing that.

Q: Doesn't that pose a safeguarding risk?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: What if it is just a very small number of people? Such a small number that most people would never be affected by this in reality?

A: We have no way of knowing how many people would seek to change their legal sex.

Q: But assuming it was a small number, could we allow just that small number into spaces for members of the opposite sex on the grounds that the harm caused to that small number by denying them access to such spaces outweighs the potential harm caused to the opposite sex in the very unlikely event that they encounter a person who has changed their legal sex in a single sex space?

A: This doesn't seem feasible.

Q: Why not?

A: Because in practice nobody is going to be checking who has changed their legal sex and who has not. So if a woman encounters a male person in a women's communal changing room, she has no way of knowing whether that male person is legally female or not. She has to assume he might be and either accept his presence in that space or remove herself from it.

Q: So the only way to let people change their legal sex without harming the rest of society is to allow them to have a piece of paper stating that they may be considered the opposite sex to the one they actually are in all situations other than those where we treat the two sexes differently?

A: Pretty much.

Q: And in order to do that their legal ID would still need to state their biological sex as well as their legal sex otherwise the system won't work?

A: Indeed.

Q: So is there any point in doing this?

A: Not really.

It is precisely because no fucker thought to have that conversation 20 years ago that we are having to have it now, to justify rolling back rights which have already been granted, but never should have been.

Edited

This is pure gold!!

👏👏👏👏

Thank you @MargotBamborough ! So much logic and reason. Completely gets to the point. Surely any reasonable person who reads it will be persuaded?

sanluca · 03/01/2024 16:53

Here (again) is an overview of the Convention rights, and a reminder that the right to respect of your private and family life (Article 8) is not an absolute right.

Indeed. As stated earlier the court rules that for gender identity every person has the right to establish the details of their own identity. That is it. That is all it says.

It then refers to a detailed analysis (but not guideline) of the case law guide on the rights on LGBTI persons.

There on transgender issues it is recognised that self determination is the freedom to define one's gender identity. The right to respect of private life applies to gender identity, regardless of surgery.

Then it comes to gender recognition, seen by the courts as separate and meaning the change of the sex marker on legal documents. This is imo where the court overstepped.
The court rules that the the gender change of a post operative transgender person needs to be recognised. However, point 62, because of general interest this is done right, a stringent procedure needs to be in place to verify the intentions.

So that is self id out the door.

Furthermore, the court recognises the historical nature of the birth record system and that facts predating the sex reassignment need to be able to be proven, even if this causes the transperson some distress.

So no rewriting of history.

Governments need to provide quick, transparant and accessible procedures for changing the sex registration... oops, doesn't that conflict with above?

Governments can't demand full sex reassignment surgery. I fully get that, but again, the earlier point is based on a post operative trans person so again the guidelines are a jumble of decisions.

Point 66 states that having to provide a prior psychiatric diagnosis is not considered a breach as it 'strikes a fair balance between competing interests'. Doesn't say with whom though

Point 67 states that a transperson cannot change the basis of a marriage and that either consent or divorce needs to managed first. So that is support for transwidows.

I see options here for the UK government to add to the birth certificate, instead of overwrite using the statement above that birth certificates need to historically correct.

Question then is how to use this ensure single sex spaces for women, as decreed in article 14, can stay single sex.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2024 17:02

The GRA and later Equality Act exist to preserve our dignity and protect us from discrimination.

The Equality Act does not exist solely for people with a transsexual identity, there are 9 protected characteristics, not one.

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 17:39

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2024 17:02

The GRA and later Equality Act exist to preserve our dignity and protect us from discrimination.

The Equality Act does not exist solely for people with a transsexual identity, there are 9 protected characteristics, not one.

And gender identity is not even one of them.

sanluca · 03/01/2024 19:54

The Uk government needs to adjust the GRA to fit the not rewriting history - no falsifying birth certificates - requires diagnosis and if men don't show correct intent, then retract the GRC, in line with article 8.

Then strengthen the EA in line with article 14 to provide a robust framework to ensure full participation, no direct or indirect discrimination (like making womens toilets mixed sex but leave the mens the mens), ensuring safety of women foremost (as in line with the goals of the European Court) to enforce services and sports providing single sex facilities. Then let transactivists take the UK government to court and let their arguments be fully visible for everyone. I don't think the EC will want to go on record women don't have the right to privacy or be protected from discrimination.

Henrietta70 · 03/01/2024 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BlessedKali · 03/01/2024 20:56

REPEAL THAT FUCKER. Men can't ever become women, there is no point having something that pretends this is the case.

We might as well ban gravity.

ditalini · 03/01/2024 21:00

Wow. I just read Henrietta's post before it got deleted and agree with every word.

Way to go silencing heartfelt female anger, person who reported it. Much kind, so feminist.

Boomboom22 · 03/01/2024 21:04

Why is henrietta not allowed to say what her own family member has said plus other documented points like the breastfeeding guy? In relationships people post about what their husband does or in aibu people post about their uncle or strangers even. So what warranted deletion? The 3 letter word instead of tw?

MargotBamborough · 03/01/2024 21:09

BlessedKali · 03/01/2024 20:56

REPEAL THAT FUCKER. Men can't ever become women, there is no point having something that pretends this is the case.

We might as well ban gravity.

This is basically the crux of it.

It is not possible for humans to change sex.

We can grant people the right to be the opposite sex, but we cannot actually give them the ability to be the opposite sex.

Parliament could pass a new law tomorrow giving me the right to be legally recognised as a cat. But I would not actually be a cat, and this would be completely fucking obvious to both humans and cats.

The only thing we can actually meaningfully grant trans people is the right to be in spaces they would not otherwise be allowed to be in, i.e. single sex spaces for the opposite sex. But then they would no longer be single sex spaces, they would be mixed spaces, and they would no longer serve their purpose for the people they were intended for.

There is no squaring this circle.

What we need to do is stop trying to perform these absurd legal and verbal gymnastics to give these men what they want, and just say, "No, you can't have it."

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 03/01/2024 22:35

The Uk government needs to adjust the GRA to fit the not rewriting history - no falsifying birth certificates - requires diagnosis and if men don't show correct intent, then retract the GRC, in line with article 8.

Its likely that the public ae going to start questioning the disgnosis process soon.

If we are expected to play along, and pretend that the man in front of is anything other than a man, we need to be sure that the experts know what they are doing.

When the whole model is about affirming - even for children, its questionable if there is any real diagnosis.

JellySaurus · 03/01/2024 22:49

We can grant people the right to be the opposite sex, but we cannot actually give them the ability to be the opposite sex.

Straight out of Monty Python.

Who could have predicted that absurd comedy would predict reality 45y later.

Grammarnut · 04/01/2024 08:26

sanluca · 03/01/2024 19:54

The Uk government needs to adjust the GRA to fit the not rewriting history - no falsifying birth certificates - requires diagnosis and if men don't show correct intent, then retract the GRC, in line with article 8.

Then strengthen the EA in line with article 14 to provide a robust framework to ensure full participation, no direct or indirect discrimination (like making womens toilets mixed sex but leave the mens the mens), ensuring safety of women foremost (as in line with the goals of the European Court) to enforce services and sports providing single sex facilities. Then let transactivists take the UK government to court and let their arguments be fully visible for everyone. I don't think the EC will want to go on record women don't have the right to privacy or be protected from discrimination.

All excellent ideas. But I fear the EC would want to go on record as not supporting women's rights to privacy etc because 'trans is special'!

Swipe left for the next trending thread