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?

An excellent set of suggestions.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you?

I have said throughout this thread:

It is possible - as far as I know at least - to change the Equality Act to change how access to single sex spaces are governed and there is no ECHR case law that I know of that would prevent that.

It is not possible for the Gender Recognition Act to be repealed within the ECHR.

It’s like you don’t have the first clue about the difference between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act.

OK but if you’re supporting leaving the convention then you too need to set out why ripping up the Good Friday Agreement is a price worth paying to ensure that a few thousand people can’t change their birth certificate.

Don't forget responsibility for Covid, Shergar's disappearance, the fake moon landing and a host of other issues are all down to women and girls refusing to accept the strange penis in women's only spaces.

Stonewall law innit 😂

“Of course people can advocate to leave the ECHR. That is the only realistic way the UK can lawfully repeal the GRA.”

Not true. The GRA could be repealed and replaced with something else that protects the right to marry and the right for respect of private life for persons who believe themselves to be living as a member of the opposite sex.

Repeal and replace would not involve disapplying the ECHR.

Repeal and replace is far more realistic as a solution than leaving the ECHR in order to repeal without replacement.

Except that none of them would change the fact that the GRA cannot be repealed or hollowed out within the ECHR.

It's highly dishonest of you to be pushing this entirely false narrative that we have to choose between peace in Northern Ireland and women's rights.

Of course that isn't necessary.

We change the Equality Act, as explained above, to ensure that the rights of women, particularly minority women, are properly protected.

If people with gender identities want to go to the ECHR about that, they can bring it as far as I'm concerned. A big, high profile court case where they actually need to say the quiet part out loud, about how men with gender identities trump women's rights to safety and dignity, would be very welcome from my point of view. Either the court will be forced to recognise that trans people's right to swing their fists ends where everyone else's noses begin, or they will ignite a global discussion about whether the ECHR is actually fit for purpose.

If we eventually get to the point where the UK concedes that it cannot remain a party to the ECHR whilst also protecting women's rights, then it withdraws and negotiates a revised treaty with Ireland where the UK agrees to sign up to exactly the same legal obligations as before.

Nobody dies.

a few thousand people can’t change their birth certificate

I wouldn’t phrase it this way, it undermines the impact on women and children.

The GRA was likely started with that aim but those who are interested in women’s sex based rights are aware of how much more it has become.

Yes it could be repealed and replaced but the replacement would need to include a process to change sex markers on official documents.

Peace in Northern Ireland.... theorised as being paid for by a few thousand people with penises destroying the rights of half the population. All the losers women, all the winners men. Binary. Sex based.

I'm summarizing this conversation for my MP, the poor man could do with a good laugh.

Your assertion is untrue.

The GRA could be repealed and replaced without leaving the ECHR.

WHY. NOT?

All the stuff about gender that is apparently in the ECHR was imagined into it by reading between the lines. It is not actually written anywhere.

It can be imagined out just as easily as it was imagined in, simply by remembering that WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO.

So wims rage posting = end of GFA?

OK......

Everybody will note that @PlanetJanette has not at any point suggested that men with gender identities might want to wind their necks in a bit and accept that not everything has to be for or about them, otherwise they are at risk of compromising peace in Northern Ireland.

Fine. By all means set out why repealing the Gender Recognition Act is worth scrapping the Good Friday Agreement for.

I mean specifically. Once the GRA is repealed what specific changes will women notice in their day to day lives?

Because I can tell you what differences the women of Northern Ireland will notice when the agreement that ended the Troubles is dead.

Well this changes things

Nah. Optional gender category instead. Lying, and forcing other people to pretend to believe you, isn't a human right. It has actually got fuck all to do with the ECHR.

The only person suggesting scrapping the GFA is you.

Understanding case law is just as strong are understanding statute I see.

Case law developed by dozens of jurists over decades does not get discarded or undone like that in a system based on precedent.

No. Every person suggesting withdrawing from the ECHR is doing so.

Is anybody else feeling quite upbeat thanks to this nonsense from @PlanetJanette?

I can't help but feel that suggesting that women saying no to men will mean the end of peace in Northern Ireland is real death throes stuff.

I can smell the desperation from over here in continental Europe.

That’s not what the Court has said over a number of cases over decades.

“the replacement would need to include a process to change sex markers on official documents.”

Sex markers? Or acquired gender?

This is what David Lammy MP said to Parliament in 2003.

“The European Court of Human Rights interpreted the convention, which is now a part of UK law, in the case of Goodwin v. UK, and its judgment stated that a system for recognising transsexual people in their acquired gender must exist and that transsexual people must be granted their rights under article 8, the right to respect for private life, and article 12, the right to marry.”

Did David Lammy mislead Parliament at second reading of the bill when he said “acquired gender”? Should he have said official legal record of their biological sex?

I suppose it’s easy to be upbeat when you don’t understand:

• how case law and precedent works;
• the difference between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010;
• the complexities of the Good Friday Agreement.

You know there is twenty years worth of ECHR jurisprudence that followed the Gender Recognition Act, right?