Comments on: Women’s Rights and the Proposed Changes to the Gender Recognition Act

By: COGNITIVE & REGULATORY CAPTURE : Local Government. – @STILLTish. Gender Abolition

Sat, 01 Oct 2022 11:28:51 +0000

[…] Like a lot of women I was supportive of the legal change. We were told it would help a small number of disadvantaged people and was a positive change, in keeping with a positive commitment to Human Rights. Until the government proposed a move to abolish the, already minimal, gate-keeping and allow anyone to “Self-Identify” as the opposite sex, I did not see the difficulties. For a good article on that see here Oxford Law: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act . […]

By: Gender critical beliefs protected in high profile case - Policy at work - CIPD Blogs - CIPD Community

Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:12:27 +0000

[…] such changes to the GRA could be negative and undermine women's rights and safety. Professor Rosa Freedman and Professor Rosemary Auchmuty argued that 'self-identification will allow anyone to access women’s spaces at any time, […]

By: But Look How Much I Gained | Charlotte was Both

But Look How Much I Gained | Charlotte was Both — Sat, 31 Jul 2021 21:23:49 +0000

[…] The controversy exploded last year with proposed changes to the British 2004 Gender Identification Law – the changes would loosen the requirements for determining gender. The following is taken from an opinion piece by two scholars opposed to the changes: […]

By: Joelene

Joelene — Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:41:15 +0000

In reply to Tiana Steward. ‘womanhood’ is a sexist ideal of what female people ought to be... so sure, after all ‘womanhood’ is indeed a male ideal that trans women have every right to claim. This does not make them women nor does it open a legitimate claim for male access to female space.

By: Justaobservation

Justaobservation — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:40:13 +0000

In reply to Weronika. "Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls."

By: Melanie

Melanie — Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:41:01 +0000

I stumbled across this article rather late!
But I am shocked that a site purporting to give “a global perspective on human rights” should publish an article which is so fundamentally opposed to human rights.
Vociferous anti-trans activists have used the possible simplification of the procedure for applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate as an excuse to spread malicious and misleading propaganda, with the clear intention of inciting anti-trans hatred.
Members of the trans community are already at high risk of depression, PTSD, depression, self-harm, and suicide, at least partly because of the discrimination, abuse, and violence to which they are subjected on a daily basis. It is inevitable that encouraging transphobia will lead to higher rates of self-harm and suicide.
The activities of anti-trans activists may not be as blatant as those of terrorists who drive vans into bus queues, or who set off bombs in shopping centres, but the overall body count may well be higher.
There can be no excuses: they know what they are doing, but they go on doing it because they know that they will get away with it because the protections afforded to trans people by the law are grossly inadequate.
It is high time the law was changed. We need a “Lucy’s Law” ( named after Lucy Meadows, the trans teacher who was hounded to her death by transphobic media coverage of her transition) to make it illegal to incite hatred of trans people — with effective prosecution and penalties that reflect the seriousness of the crime.

By: Beverley Finnegan

Beverley Finnegan — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:18:10 +0000

I am so happy to find this site. Calm, intelligent and informed debate. This subject is impossible to debate in most places on the internet at the moment without being shut down, insulted, attacked and accused of being transphobic. The BBC has shut its doors to females (do I have to say cisfemales now?) who want to understand the wider issues. The only place there is any meaningful and respectful debate (apart from here) seems to be MumsNet (?!). I tried on FB and was rounded upon like a sheep who had wandered into the middle of a pack of wolves.

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:23:41 +0000

In reply to Weronika. Actually that's not true. That study explicitly says that trans women in the earlier cohort show higher criminality, likely due to similar structural oppressions as other groups that seem to show higher criminality, as well as poor mental healthcare. The younger cohort shows no such pattern, the criminality is just not there. It should also be noted that the study does not say *what* the crimes are; hence the likelihood many are crimes of necessity such as theft of food, which disappear in the later cohort as mentioned.

By: Rula

Rula — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:07:58 +0000

“The Equality Act 2010 permits service-providers to restrict services to women even if an individual has a gender recognition certificate stating that they are female, and provides a justification against any accusation of discrimination.”
This will still apply even if there are any changes to the GRA. The consultation is not on on the EA.
People have the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ even without a GRC.
Also if a man wanted to gain access to female space he could do that now by claiming to be female. You can’t legally ask to see a GRC anyway and people don’t have to carry them around with them. You would be in exactly the same situation with or without self id in that regard. I agree there is definitely more civil discussion needed.

By: Sarah Archer

Sarah Archer — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:06:23 +0000

In reply to Alan Henness.

Happy to oblige. The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender includes lots of links to peer reviewed articles that either use the term “cisgender”.