Should the Gender Recognition Act be repealed?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Basically, it's a lie and the government should not be in the business of falsifying official documents.

But on top of that:

• It reduces trust
• it perverts stats and analysis
• it reduces protections based upon sex
• People start to think sex really is changeable, or worse, just a piece of paper, when it's not, it's binary and immutable
• All sorts of issues in the NHS with sex based healthcare

The EHRC guidance ties itself in knots trying to deal with the fact we don't reliably record sex, the most basic of information.

A humane society can treat people with courtesy without falsifying reality. Trans people should not be treated differently to others, they should have every right to an existence free from abuse. But these legal fictions are no good for anyone.

You cannot become female at the stroke of a pen.

@KilkennyCats to protect people from discrimination. If you don’t know a true trans person then you won’t understand I suspect. Not talking about those jumping on the gender neutral bandwagon, I talking about those who have since early childhood struggled, those who don’t want to made to wear a uniform for the other gender etc. my nephew is trans and being made to wear school dresses was a major issue, you may not understand because unless you are in their head you can’t. This isn’t performative trans ideology, this is people quietly getting on with their lives and slipping into the disabled loo at the pub, wearing a rash vest and swim shorts at the pool and certainly not trying to compete in the wrong sex category or walk around naked at the gym in the opposite sex changing rooms. You need legislation to stop someone from being for instance not being discriminated against for work promotion because they are xy chromosome and wear a (normal length respectable) skirt or dress is what I’m saying, quite different to single sex spaces which I think do need protection

The Gender Recognition Act doesn't offer any of those protections. It's the Equality Act that protects against discrimination

There's one very good reason we should care, which is the Good Friday agreement requires that we remain signatories to the ECHR, I am GC but to be honest think a resumption of the Troubles in Northern Ireland would be a far worse outcome than allowing some trans people to update their identification, and to be honest think anyone who argues otherwise is not retaining a sense of proportion about this issue.

The enforcement powers of ECHR are not as high as we might think and are ignorable

Also, I think leaving the ECHR will be a manifesto pledge in the next general election so there’s at least a 50-50 chance of us leaving

not that I want to go back to seeing a bomb go off on the news every other day

I’m not saying that story is wrong, but I am saying how do we tell between the good ones and the bad ones?

Exactly!!! How on earth can anyone tell the difference between whose who have a mental health condition that causes them to not accept what their sex is, and the chancers, the AGPs and the utterly dishonest?

A question that could also be asked about men who regularly post on mumsnet, to be honest.

You just can't - and in fairness female posters could also be any of the following: just trolling, simulating a position (either for or against) to get an extreme reaction from the 'other side', sponsored by a foreign power simply to cause division and strife in British society

It's irrelevant.

It's like legislating that anorexia must be affirmed. People who are deeply distressed by the fact of their sex would be better served by access to good mental health support .

On the face of it, I agree that a man should not be discriminated against at work because he chooses to wear clothing that is traditionally female-coded, but what about the man who chooses to wear female-coded clothes at work in order to enjoy his fetish around unconsenting women? How could you draft legislation which permitted one man to wear a skirt, but not a other man?

Women wear trousers. There are styles which are neutral-coded, like jeans, and there are styles which are definitely more feminine-coded, like palazzo pants. But, no, it has to be a skirt or dress. If it was about the comfort of undivided garments, we already have one that is available to both men and women without causing any offence to either. How come trans-identifying people never want to wear kilts?

I'm not clear on your point here. As it stands, there is no legislation that governs what people can wear. Are you proposing that we legislate to enforce gendered clothing?

Exactly. I think the ones calling women , transphobes and bigots and advocating rape do kind of tell on themselves though….

Indeed, though some are far more insidious. Personally, I find it instructive to look at how these men interact with women who don't agree with them if I want to find out what they really think of women. Unfortunately I think too many men get involved in the GC movement because it gives them a perceived acceptable target for their misogyny, or out of paternalism - which is of course misogynistic in itself. Women don't need telling "but how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones", it's a question we have to ask ourselves basically every time we interact with someone of the opposite sex.

I wasn't proposing that anyone should be forced to have a gender field on their ID. As you say, some people won't want one. Simply that anyone who feels their gender ID is important may have one, but in addition to their sex, not instead of it, if sex is a field in that type of ID.
Some kinds of ID won't need either sex or gender and can be used in situations where they don't matter.

What is important is that there should be no more of this situation where ID that purports to show natal sex actually shows somebody's chosen gender instead.
Because it means that if somebody's sex does need to be verified, you are being told a lie. Birth certificates should be non-amendable (verifiable DSD-related errors being the exception).

There needs to be at least one type of UK ID that reliably shows sex, which can be used in situations where it is needed. Sex is a protected characteristic and there are sex-based rights.

And secondly, a whole data set is rendered meaningless when a particular field in the records contains different kinds of data. A database recording some (most) people's sex but other people's gender is just a mess. You can no longer get accurate statistics from it. (Eg your organisation's pay gap between men and women. Rates and types of crime, by sex. And so on.)

None of what you've said here answers any of the legal problems I raised. If you're just sharing what you wish the law was, ok fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but the question you asked, which I answered, was whether your proposal is legally workable. The answer remains, no it isn't, because it's not compliant with Goodwin, or with GDPR law, and to be honest you haven't convinced me it wouldn't be seen as discriminatory, even if voluntary, to require trans people to carry different ID to everyone else.

What is important is that there should be no more of this situation where ID that purports to show natal sex actually shows somebody's chosen gender instead.

Ok, but again our current legislation around allowing trans people to update their ID is founded in their right to privacy - if people are forced to carry ID where the sex marker plainly doesn't match their physical appearance, you are forcing them to out themselves as trans, and this isn't compliant with Goodwin. Again, you can wish as hard as you please, but if the law is going to be changed, this fact can't just be ignored.

And secondly, a whole data set is rendered meaningless when a particular field in the records contains different kinds of data. A database recording some (most) people's sex but other people's gender is just a mess. You can no longer get accurate statistics from it. (Eg your organisation's pay gap between men and women. Rates and types of crime, by sex. And so on.)

It doesn't render it meaningless necessarily, all statistical calculations have a margin for error, and the usual argument here is that since trans people at best guess make up less than 1% of the population the margin of error they create is very small indeed, and becomes negligible if the dataset is large enough. Data collection also isn't grounds for legislation necessary; there's lots of data about people we could collect but don't, either because it's not the primary purpose of that particular organisation (the primary purpose of a driving license, for example, is to identify who can legally drive; that we also sometimes use it for ID in other situations is secondary) or because of concerns about privacy, data protection laws, protection from harassment/discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics etc, all of which apply to trans status as much as they do any other characteristic.

As you say, trans people are a minority. Trans people who are not recognisable as such and might be "outed" by a document are a very much tinier minority. Yet because of those very few people, official documents can now be compelled to lie.
So yes, the law needs to change.

Ok. An opinion you're perfectly entitled to. I was answering the question you asked earlier, is your proposal legally workable. As the law is currently, no it is not, for several reasons.

Thanks. It's helpful to know what the legal situation is. But it's such an odd one, because treating sex as a big secret doesn't protect trans people as a category, it only (potentially) protects a small elite of "passers".

The rest of us, including most trans people, even if they have a GRC, are stuck with people knowing our sex whether we like it or not, and no matter what we have on our documents.

It's all a bit silly.

I cannot see us ever being in the situation where legislators will be willing to differentiate the law in terms of surgery/ no surgery or passing/ not passing. Therefore, the protected characteristic of GR is likely to be defined without reference to appearance and guidance based on all eventualities. Some trans people do pass, and so this needs to be a consideration when it comes to privacy.

I am more frustrated to the pandering around this issue and the appeals to think about all the gender non conformity biological females who are now at risk. Anyone saying that they accept the guidance should be stating that everyone is expected to follow it - not witter on about it being impossible to police. Policing is the secondary action, following the law is the primary one.

I think the problem is people being allowed to identify as things they are not. I would be fine with self ID, GRCs etc if a man could identify as a transwoman rather than a woman. Someone can officially be transgender, recognised and protected as such. Then sensible conversations can take place about protection as we wouldn't be fudging the issue pretending trans= opposite sex.

If that paperwork would then entitle him to get a driver's license that doesn't state sex, for example, so it's essentially redacted for documents and situations where sex doesn't matter so much. Not anything relating to medical records, as that would be/is so stupid, but the day to day potential outings. That would be a sensible solution, much better than him getting an F on the license.

No, policing isn't secondary - laws do have to be workable, unworkable laws get repealed.

Yes.

Yes and I’d also like the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the Equality Act to be repealed as well, it is inconsistent with women’s rights

I don't want to derail to a discussion about Goodwin but his daughter Clare clearly adored him, working with him for many years (15? 17?) to prepare his case for the ECHR and was with him in Strasbourg. His son Antony seems to have been similarly devoted and both children remained in contact with him throughout his life, referring to him as "daddy", "father" and "grandfather" and stressing that there was no pronoun nonsense.

There were four children and I have no idea what the other two thought or think about this.

I know nothing about his wife other than that they divorced when Clare was 14 and Goodwin (aka Anthony Allington) left the family home to go to live in London and undergo surgery at Charing X. Both she and Goodwin appear to have been private, family-oriented people who did not court publicity so I doubt we will ever know what his wife made of all this.

From what his daughter says, Goodwin had little help from anyone other than her. He remortgaged his house three times to pay over £100K on the case (2002 prices); was opposed by the then Labour Government in private correspondence; was dumped and memory-holed by Press For Change asap after the case while PFC luminaries picked up OBEs etc.; in later life he regretted having had surgery surgery; worked until he was 77 and died unable to afford private surgery to repair damage to his urinary tract, the NHS having ballsed-up (!) previous attempts. A crowd-funder by his children to try to raise money for that surgery when he was 76 raised only £300 and all attempts by his daughter to gain support from "trans allies" and "trans celebs" fell on deaf ears.

I have got links to what his daughter has said about Goodwin but I don't think this is the right place to share them as it would only encourage derailing from discussion of the GRA itself.

++++++

RELEVANT TO THE ECHR AND THE GRA:

It is obvious from photos and video of Goodwin that he never remotely "passed" as a woman. His daughter maintains that he fought to the bitter end for "privacy" of documented information about his sex as an act of altruism, ie. not for himself but for "others who came after". I have not found enough information to clarify whether Goodwin's altruistic intention was:

a) to protect the confidentiality of "others" who did pass and would be "outed" by official documentation disclosing their sex, or

b) to protect non-passing post-op transsexuals from being "outed" as having a fake vagina (Clare thought that her father would be raped if placed in a men's prison) or

c) both of the above.

The GRA went further, of course, affording "privacy" to anyone who claimed to be intending to apply for a GRC at some point and without any requirement for surgical intervention. This is the now familiar Stonewall mantra of, "going above and beyond the law".

Alessandra Asteriti argues that:

• reforming the GRA to apply only to post-op transsexuals would mean the the UK would be in compliance with Goodwin, rather than "gold plating" the Legislation by "going above and beyond" what was required
• the UK is entitled to repeal the GRA and replace it with whatever legislation it likes, or none
• the POC of "Gender Reassignment" should be removed from the EA2010 because the EA already includes all the protection against discrimination needed for "transgender people" and its inclusion is both redundant and the result of a "category error"

The case for repealing the GRA
A category error cannot solved by exceptions
17 Jan 2023
(The arguments above stand despite the judgement in For Women Scotland.)
thecritic.co.uk/the-case-for-repealing-the-gra/

From Cambridge Scholars sample of
Gender Identity in International Law
A Certain Inconvenience
By: Alessandra Asteriti, 2024

"The legal theorist Ronald Dworkin compared judicial law-making to a “chain novel.”19 According to Dworkin, judges work in a continuous dialogue to create a legal narrative that has to follow its own internal logic and coherence. It is a powerful metaphor, and evocative of the work of judges, especially in common law systems. However, I believe it may have a fatal flaw: once an element is incorporated into the logic of the chain novel, it becomes very difficult to dislodge it. The element acquires legitimacy and status at each new chapter of the novel.
Each judicial iteration, and each legislative and administrative recognition, makes the removal of this element more difficult to accomplish.

Gender identity constitutes the perfect case study for this potential flaw. After having entered the case law of the ECHR in Goodwin v UK20 with little or no scientific evidence, it acquired authority and legitimacy, so that each following chapter of the novel just referred back to Goodwin in a validation exercise. The Goodwin case is fetishised beyond any reasonable judicial approach to previous jurisprudence, on the basis of poor legal reasoning and a very flimsy factual basis."
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-0364-0550-2/

Again on Repealing the GRA
Some theoretical considerations
7 Oct 2024 - Alessandra Asteriti

"There is an argument to be made that the GRA seriously overstepped the criteria imposed by the Goodwin decision to limit the recognition of an “acquired gender” to post-operative transsexuals, and this alone would warrant its repeal."

"the ECHR is not a domestic court operating under English law and, as all international courts, is not bound by the rule of precedent. Simply put, the ECHR is not bound by the Goodwin judgment."

"There are no legal consequences to its repeal, except the possibility of an application by an individual who claims that its repeal affects his or her rights under the HRA and therefore the Convention, if, after having exhausted domestic remedies, they have their application accepted at the ECHR. It is important to remember that the Convention requires an actual victim. Failing an individual application, there are no other legal consequences, least of all the UK being forced to exit the Council of Europe. The fact that the ECHR is an international court, not a court of appeal, also means that there can be no “appeal” to it, but only an application."

"Arguing that the GRA can be repealed is not a political position. It is a legal one. As a matter of law, the GRA can be repealed just as any other law. All the more so because its original purpose has largely been overcome by other legal developments, such as the possibility of same sex marriage and the equalisation of pension rights between men and women. It is true that there remains a residual right to privacy which has been included in the GRA. This right has no legal basis. It can more correctly be described as a right to confidentiality of information held by the State. The information consists in the application to obtain, and the conferral, of a GRC. If the GRA were to be repealed, no GRCs would be given and there would be no need to maintain any confidentiality about their existence. The GRA contained the device for its own ultimate demise because this “privacy” is only relevant when a person has so successfully undergone a sex transition that revealing their birth sex would potentially be a stressful experience. But, since the GRA does not require any such transition, how would it be stressful to be recognised as a male by your ID documents when your appearance is clearly and unadulteratedly male? To anyone claiming that the GRA cannot be repealed because of this residual right to privacy simply ask, privacy of what?"

"I am only interested in how gender ideology is corrupting the law and affecting its proper functioning, to the point of endangering the rule of law. My argument is strictly legal. The political challenges of repeal are not my concern. But it is disingenous to present these political challenges as legal ones. They are not."

alessandraasteriti.substack.com/p/again-on-repealing-the-gra

Of Myths and Misconceptions
What does international law really do?
9 Dec 2024 - Alessandra Asteriti

Please read the article to see how these Myths are dispelled - this wall of text is already too much:

1. The Court in Goodwin ordered the UK to pass a law for transgender people.
2. Repealing the GRA will create immediately a breach of the Convention and/or force the UK to leave the Council of Europe.
3. Repealing the GRA is an immediate violation of the HRA 1998.
4. A repeal of the GRA will automatically result in a declaration of incompatibility and/or a breach of the ECHR.
5. Cases of the ECHR are “law”.
6. Gender identity is protected under the ECHR and repealing the GRA would force UK courts to rely on the law of the ECHR.
7. Repealing the GRA would force/compel the UK to leave the ECHR/Council of Europe.
8. International law effectively prevents the UK from repealing the GRA or would force the UK to follow self-ID as the standard.

alessandraasteriti.substack.com/p/of-myths-and-misconceptions

Unfortunately this next article is partially pay-walled but IMHO it is worth taking out a Subscription to read everything on Alessandra's Substack "Gender Dissisent" - or buying her book or asking your Library to stock it.

What does Goodwin really say?
Why the GRA can be repealed
14 April 2025 - Alessandra Asteriti
https://alessandraasteriti.substack.com/p/what-does-goodwin-really-say

Alessandra Asteriti -The genealogy of gender identity in international law
WDI Conference July 2024

Absolutely not. I’m referring to clothing choices reflecting desires.

a man should not be discriminated against at work because he chooses to wear clothing that is traditionally female-coded ie gender identity/gender expression/gender belief as a Protected Characteristic.

V

the man who chooses to wear female-coded clothes at work in order to enjoy his fetish around unconsenting women ie fetish-play that is potentially one or more of the offences of Public Decency etc

How could you draft legislation which permitted one man to wear a skirt, but not a other man? ie How do you differentiate between the two?

Well this seems very sensible.