Written evidence submitted by Mr Robert Murray [GRA1515]

The Government’s response to the GRA consultation:

• Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”?

I’m not sure why kinder is being used her – It is always used to shut up women and accuse anyone who has concerns about the process of being hateful.

The process is lifelong, irreversible and damaging. The consequences for women in being forced to accept men into their single sex spaces, services, sports etc. is very concerning so no the process needs to be rigorous to ensure this is not done quickly, frivolously or without proper scrutiny. Straightforward implies it can be done easily and without checks which is not acceptable.

• Should a fee for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate be removed or retained? Are there other financial burdens on applicants that could be removed or retained?

A significant fee should be retained to at least give some check on who is applying for this. Without any constraints on who can apply this makes the process even more open to missuses and abuse. The consequences are lifelong and severe to be able to go through this process for about 10% the cost of a puppy is ridiculous.

• Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?

No. The whole point of allowing ‘transition’ was to aid people with gender dysphoria. To remove this would call into question what this process is there for in the first place. If people don’t suffer gender dysphoria there is no need to transition.

• Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?

No. If they are serious about this lifelong commitment then this is not an onerous request.

Stating this what does it mean to live in their acquired gender anyway. This can only be tested by the use of regressive sexual stereotypes which is ridiculous.

• What is your view of the statutory declaration and should any changes have been made to it?

• Does the spousal consent provision in the Act need reforming? If so, how? If it needs reforming or removal, is anything else needed to protect any rights of the spouse or civil partner?

The rights of the spouse and civil partner should be clear and prioritised. Their rights cannot be unilaterally taken or changed by another party without their consent.

• Should the age limit at which people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be lowered?

No. It is already too low as it is. People do not reach maturity till their 20’s. Allowing someone to make irreversible decisions before they are 18 is not protecting their interests or safety.

• What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?
• What else should the Government have included in its proposals, if anything?
• Does the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill offer a more suitable alternative to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004? 

Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:

• Why is the number of people applying for GRCs so low compared to the number of people identifying as transgender?

Because it has become a trend and a social contagion. Many particularly young people which to identify out of their problems and issues by adopting a new gender.

In addition organisations and companies are accommodating transgender people without the need for GRCs so why bother applying. Many single sex spaces and services have already been colonised and transgender people can access services of the other sex just on their own say so. Individuals and organisations have become fearful of maintaining single sex services (or even language) due to being targeted and accused of transphobia. Any women only service (and it is only women only services) is shamed, harassed and bullied to accept transwomen for fear of being targeted for action by the gender identity extremists.

• Are there challenges in the way the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact? For example, in terms of the different language and terminology used across both pieces of legislation.

Sex is real, binary and immutable and you can’t change sex. The language of gender is confusing, ill-defined and based on regressive sexual stereotypes. The focus needs to be on not allowing sex, female and woman to be redefined.

• Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?

The whole gender identity movement is making sex and single sex spaces confusing when it should not be. Sex should mean sex – clearly defined. You can’t change sex. You can’t identify into a different sex and sex is a reality that needs respecting and protecting.

• Does the Equality Act adequately protect trans people? If not, what reforms, if any, are needed

The act was originally aimed to give some form of protection to the small number of people who were undergoing ‘gender reassignment’ to become transsexuals. Trans has now grown into a massive collection of people who often just feel like women or are non-binary or crossdressers etc. The protection for the original transsexuals has become watered down by looking to apply this to anyone who wishes to self-ID as trans. The definition in the equality act should potentially stay to protect the serious ‘transsexuals’ who suffer badly from gender dysphoria and are undergoing serious transition. It should not be amended to offer protections to someone’s self-declared identity.

• What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services?

Health protections should be available to everyone no matter what their sex. But sex is a reality and single sex services are there to protect the safety, privacy, dignity of women and protect their rights and specific needs

• Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and non-binary people? If so, how?

You first have to be able to define what this means. This is impossible as it has no bearing on any reality. Sex is real but gender/non-binary are just made up socially constructed concepts. If you can just self id into these categories then legally it is impossible to define or use them meaningfully.

You have a sex – the rest is just personality and how can we start giving rights to personality?

November 2020.