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?

I think this needs clarification either way.

What are pp reacting to precisely

It’s part of the “running interference” strand of the campaign.

Like the leak of lawyer’s comments on an earlier draft of the schools guidance, and the BBC articles.

It’s also part of the “ad hominem” attacks strand of the campaign, where they claim that all women who object to a middle aged male’s presence in the changing rooms alongside their 12 yo niece after swimming are all brexiters, right wing etc.

Ok, I know I’m being thicker than a whale omelette here, but what has a recognition that some men want to legally be women (that is not taken up by the vast amount who id that way) got to do with the Good Friday Agreement?

I don’t understand how they are linked so can someone explain as if it’s a BBC Bitesize piece?

Sure.

The Good Friday Agreement requires that the ECHR rights, and access to the European Court of Human Rights for individuals, be protected in Northern Ireland.

So the GFA requires that the UK remain a party to the ECHR.

The ECHR requires that there be a process to change sex markers on official documents.

So repealing the GRA is not possible without leaving the ECHR. And leaving the ECHR is not compatible with the Good Friday Agreement.

LoobiJee seems to think the case law on this stopped at Goodwin.

There have been multiple cases since then that have explicitly found a right to a process to change sex markers on official documents.

Repeal.

Has anyone counted how many times on this thread PlanetJanette asserted (falsely, as demonstrated here) that the GRA could not be repealed without leaving the ECHR?

Taking that up with the ECtHR may be necessary. MargotBamborough’s action plan might lead to that destination. If I was in government and wishing to reform or repeal (and I would choose the former route) I would be prepared for a court case to decide the issue. Only if the ECtHR produced a perverse judgement that was based on a ridiculous premise, such as the possibility of correspondence between the binary biological category sex and the non-binary socially constructed category gender, would I consider attempting to take the UK out of the ECHR. But first I would expect the Government to argue its case in court.

Men shoulder the blame for all this. For violence and for demanding more from women year on year, and for pushing TRAs into schools and harming children.

Women get zero blame for merely saying no.

As I said my main priority is single sex spaces and safeguarding dc so maybe this can be achieved via the EqA revision. But women can still say no if it’s not enough.

So unless women submit to Cock Supremacy it's our fault for the Troubles restarting?

Are you feeling quite well, Janette?

You claim that that is a fact. I remain unconvinced that you have considered all possibilities.

ALL HAIL THE COCK SUPREME

I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW OVERCOCKS

ETC

At 14.36 PlanetJanette acknowledges that it could be repealed and replaced within the ECHR.

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

Why?

The ECHR ruling, being referred to does not require domestic governments to permit changes to sex markers, it requires laws to protect trans gender persons from discrimination, and rights to privacy and family life.

It does not require our government should give a legal sex status contrary to a persons biology.

I have checked.

Planet Janet snook in yet again to gaslight you all.

The argument that we would have to leave the ECHR, and bin the Good Friday agreement is such utter nonsense, and obviously being argued on some other SM.

Check back i asked Janet Planet to explain and they did not respond

Wonder why?

It needs to go.

No human in our entire evolution has ever, or will ever, change sex.

What we're being asked, nay TOLD, to do is lie.

No.

Certificate or no, if you've got or had a cock you're a bloke.

What this thread has shown us is that the only women whose predicament PlanetJanette is interested in is the women whose predicament can be leveraged by PlanetJanette as a form of rhetorical human shield.

Multiple Governments have argued their case and lost.

Here’s what David Lammy said in 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.”

The right to respect for private life; they have it. Private life is private, men using women's spaces and services is public. Coercing language is public.

The right to marry: they have it.

a system for recognising transsexual people in their acquired gender: not to change their sex marker. Not to pretend they have changed sex or have no sex.

Then the Court needs to think about the impact on other groups and reconsider its position.

Read more carefully.

I recognised that it could be repealed and replaced in my very first post on this thread. But any replacement would need to allow a process for changing sex markers on official documents. Which hardly seems like a form of repeal that would be acceptable to those advocates for repeal in here.

Which judgment do you think is being referred to?

Then if the ECHR cannot be forced to remember that women actually have rights too, an alternative solution will have to be found which both preserves peace in Northern Ireland AND protects women.

You do realise that when you make these ridiculous arguments we can all see that you have literally no argument to justify your position that people born with penises are more important than people born without penises?

Why do some people get to falsify their records and some don't?

Are you aware that case law evolves in twenty years.

Are none of you capable of reading beyond Goodwin?