Supreme Court Ruling - the actual number of people affected

[Talkinpeace]

This is just a memo thread to make the data easy to find.

The FWS Supreme Court ruling covered ONLY those with a GRC.

All individuals without a GRC had been ruled to have no rights other than as their birth sex (ie no self ID) at the earlier hearing.

So How many people have a GRC in the UK ?
This is the master record of GRC's issued
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2025
As at September 2025 a total of 10,256 GRCs have ever been issued
of which 6,514 were to those born male.

We have no idea how many GRC holders are alive
but as 2,143 of those holders were born before 1960 its a reasonable guess that a fair few have since died.

So, the number of men affected by the FWS supreme court ruling was likely around 6,000
out of a national male population of over 33,000,000

I do not care what the total number of deluded men is. Laws should not be built around male fantasies, lies printed on pieces of paper are just that. Lies. It doesn't matter if we're talking about 3 or 30k men, they're still men and their fantastical notions do not get to supersede the rights of 51% of the population.

Many women get GRCs
We do not know all of their motives.

Any move to repeal the GRA has to take into account their needs and wishes and preferences as well.

A "sunset" approach may be best in the long run

BUT
the key point is that in the absence of Self ID in this country
identifying as "trans" in this country
has no more meaning than identifying as a Jedi

6000 holding the law of the land and everyone opposing it to ransom?

One might think that's an imbalance of power.

This is one of the things that rarely gets mentioned in the discussion about the ruling. If the Scottish government had won their case, trans-identifying men still wouldn't have been allowed into women's spaces if they didn't have a GRC. So the Guides, the WI, NHS Fife etc - they would still have been breaking the law if the ruling had gone the other way, because they've been allowing in males without a GRC.

It's one of the reasons, incidentally, that the NHS Fife ruling is a complete dog's breakfast, because it argues something that is legally impossible - that a trans-identified man, with no GRC, should be allowed in a woman's changing room. Neither side in the FWS case argued that. There is absolutely no ground for that belief in the Equality Act.

repealing the GRA would be a start but what is really necessary is revoking the PC of gender reassignment…we can but dream

Even women with GRCs are subject to the realities of life, law and safeguarding. Their needs, wishes and preferences cannot take precedence, regardless of their motives. A woman who claims to be a man remains female. A woman who gives birth is a mother, even if she claims to be a man. Mauling language in order to pretend that women may be anything other than female is harmful to all women. Babies are breastfed, not chestfed. Promoting mastectomy to girls and young women is harmful. Teaching girls that they cannot or must not recognise a person’s sex is abusive.

And men also have the right to privacy and dignity.

What I would say about people with a GRC, is that I think they need to be considered in terms of it being very clear what it entitles them to and doesn't. And it shouldn't put them into difficult situations where they are being asked to do something impossible.

I think because it is such bad legislation that is a real risk, and that is on the legislators, not the people who got one.

Almost certainly imo the way forward is to stop issuing them and maybe even revoke those that have been issued. But again - I think they need to have a plan, not flip flop in unhelpful ways, and what will happen and what people need to do must be made very clear and straightforward as possible.

It is always worth reminding people that the Gender Recognition Act
discriminates in favour of males over females
because it always accepted that sex matters
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16

It is always worth reminding people that the Gender Recognition Act
discriminates in favour of males over females

Of course it fucking would, wouldn't it
JFC this ideology boils my piss.

Does possession of a GRC entitle you to many rights non-holders don't have nowadays? You don't need one to change driving licence or passport, do you? Is just to change birth certificate (which is mad, anyway), and a few obscure things to do with pension rights and primogeniture?

Having the legal right to falsify your sex on official documents is such complete, utter and obvious horseshit.

Why should anyone have that right? It is fraud.

Repeal the GRA is the only answer.

Yes, it's embarrassing. Yes, parliament was played worse than the string section of the London Philharmonic and that's humiliating to admit. But tough shit. We all have to own up to our mistakes.

Perhaps the lesson that can be taken is to apply some god damn brain power to these acts before waving them through next time.

1 male identifying as a female effects how many women over the course of his life?

The way they frame this as ONLY trans people being affected pisses me off.

The starting point is biased from a fundamentally flawed logic and methodology.

I wish we were getting to a place where virtue signalling legislation would not be a thing, and where legislators remembered that laws are complicated and need to actually function.

But I am not sure. It is still common to see people complain, "X MP voted aganst ant-racist legislation, he must be a racist, don't vote for him." Not just people, but NGOs and such too. Without giving a hoot that the legislation was total crap. Representative are expected to vote to show they believe in the right causes, not because the law is needed or well crafted and useful.

The UKs GRA is where it is.

In the big scheme of things we are much better off than the countries that brought in Self Id
usually by the back door.

If others are able to provide links to legislation that needs unravelling
we could compare
(remember that nothing in the USA around trans is other than EO so not law)