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?

At this point I prescribe sticker therapy for all.
This shit is making my head hurt, again.

Aren't all transwomen, women until like, they're not for reasons usually to do with some disgusting crime. Then they were pretending, having us on and no one ever can tell us, before the crime, how are we supposed to know good transwoman from bad faith actor.

If only there was some way of keeping bad faith actors out of women only spaces. Cant think of one meself, but I'll put my thinking cap on. I'll be back.

And why does any of this mean women should be comfortable in situations where they are naked or vulnerable or having intimate care with a male who probably hasn’t actually had his penis removed anyway.

Earlier there was a comparison to same sex marriage. (Note- autocorrect changes it to sexy marriage😂). I remember at the time some people disagreed, saying it devalued their own marriage. I can’t agree with that but ultimately it didn’t stop heterosexual couple marrying in the way men in women’s spaces stops women with trauma etc. same sex marriage didn’t mean all marriages had to be between two ppl of the same sex, just those that wanted. Mixed sex facilities do not leave a single sex option do they?

These large organisations, not directly accountable to the public they are there to serve, are very useful when governments dont want to justify laws and regulations.

Very true. The EU was blamed for everything the Government wanted to do but the public didn't like and then they wondered why the public wanted out of the EU and were surprised when given the opportunity to say so did just that.

Coming back to this because I’ve just spotted this article thanks to another thread.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/confusing-history-with-conspiracy

Which quotes from a plan dating back to 1992.

“In 1992, for the first ICTLEP meeting, Martine Rothblatt - who was at the time going by the name Marla Aspen - authored this document which draws on medico-legal precedent and the ideology of the time to lay out a proposed template for the shape transsexual and transgender activism should take.
^^
Indeed, the document is refreshingly candid and sincere, frequently using clear language throughout that modern activists would absolutely shy away from. It draws the important distinction that sex is understood as anatomy, while gender is role play, clothes and behaviour:

Summarizing our definitions of sex and gender, the former is a classification of life into males and females based predominantly on anatomy. Gender is a classification of life into masculine and feminine based predominantly on role-playing behavior.
[…]
From an empirical standpoint, a transgendered person is one who takes on the clothes, mannerisms or other features of the gender not associated with one's anatomical sex. It is then clear that transsexuals are a subset of transgendered people, namely that subset which also wants the sexual anatomy associated with the other gender.”

It jumped out at me, as the only other document where I’ve seen “mannerisms” used was in the “gender identity” definition in the glossary in the Council of Europe paper.