What does this mean for the Gender Recognition Act?

[CatsChin]

I can't find if this has been addressed today: but surely today's ruling means that the GRA will need to be revoked?

It's a huge part of the problem e.g. in the NHS - how can you enact today's ruling if discussing a person's biological sex remains a sackable/illegal offence?

Any ideas if this has been addressed?

How is discussing a person's biological sex a sackable/illegal offence? Every case brought by a person sacked by their employer for this sort of thing has been found in favour of the sacked person.

The employers have been applying Stonelaw, not UK law. That is what needs to change. The actual law needs to be made completely clear to employers and service providers.

But, yes, I agree that the GRA needs to be revoked. It is bad law, ill-conceived and incoherent.

The NHS is a clear example: we currently have to recreate patient records for each trans patient on request, which do not cross-reference previous records. There's no way around it at the moment because of the GRA.

I agree it's got to be revoked, but I don't think today's ruling can be properly enacted until this is done.

It doesn’t mean anything. The ruling is specifically about what is meant by the term ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010. It doesn’t refer to any other legislation and in the ruling emphasises that all other protections for gender rights remain in place.

I don’t think that’s true, @Mercedes519. I’m fairly sure Lord Hodge mentioned a section of the GRA as being incompatible with the EA. Would need to double check though.

I do think it's become incompatible. How is the NHS supposed to protect single-sex spaces if they cannot reveal a person's natal sex?

Just listened back and he says the provisions of the EA are inconsistent with s.9.1 of the GRA.

I think the inconsistency was fairly obvious and it’s unbelievable it wasn’t spotted at the time.

Anyway, there are several similar threads running on this which probably explain it more fully.

There were so many complaints at the time that were just ignored. These can still be read on Hansard, and the same tricks we see today of emotional manipulation, linguistic butchery and "it's not happening but if it does it's not that much, and anyway it's a good thing".

It's sad that so many intelligent people just switched off...

Thank you, I will definitely be checking out Hansard. This case has piqued my interest about the deepest, darkest origins of all this crap.

I’d also like to know this. Surely the GRA is incomparable with this new ruling?