My thoughts on last nights GRA debate

Let me start by a poem written by a 4th year at a US school, as stated in the excellent book by Amy Lee Nutt, Becoming Nicole.

You can breath in

To be alone

So now

No one is with me

SO IF YOU WANA RUN

OUTA HERE

But now I know

in my heart

Because I've freed

My mind

I think we should bear this in mind.

What was up for debate?

The GRA was up for debate, not the fact we need a GRA or "Gender Recognition Act" but to reform it. The GRA lets trans people get a GRC, or "Gender Recognition Certificate". This means that on the birth certificate you can change your gender, be buried as the gender you identify as and pensions.

What was not up for debate is the EA2010, or "Equality Act 2010". Some MP's in the debate seem to be confused between the two.

Why does it need to be changed?

The act was introduced in 2004. At the time it was a world leading piece of legislation. These days, with None Binary people coming out and more trans people coming out it is not fit for purpose.

Only 1% of a minority people in the UK (between 200-500k according to Stonewall, and multiple MP's also stated this number in the debate last night) have a GRC. This is mainly thanks to the process of getting one is very expensive and very intrusive.

What was said in the debate?

Most of what was said goes along party lines. Most of the Conservative's do not want to change the GRA that much and one even wanted to scrap it altogether.

For example, Miriam Cates MP has a degree in Biology, was going on about sex and cells. This has nothing to do with what was being debated. I would also like to put this, where Science backs up that sex and gender is separate.

A snippet from the previously mentioned book, Becoming Nicole;

What we know for sure is that we all begin life essentially genderless, at least in terms of out sexual anatomy. The last of our twenty three pairs of chromosomes make us either genetic males (XY) or genetic females (XX), but there are at least fifty gens that play a part in our sexual identity development and are expressed at different levels.

There was one exception to this from the conservatives', I don't know who he was. He did say something that was very important. There was no Transgender people in the room.

The welsh party in general was very supportive of making it easier to get a GRC. Same with the Scottish contingent apart from one glaring exception, Johanna Cherry, who before she even stared said she is proud to be associated with the hate group LGB Alliance. She then went on a rant on how Women's Rights are in danger. Other than that there was also another standout who again pointed out only 1% of trans people have got a GRC. Her name is Mhairi Black, MP. "The current Gender Recognition process is deeply invasive, traumatising, unnecessary, and dehumanising. It’s time to get reform done."

All of the Labour contingent was very supportive of streamlining the process of it. Annelise Dodds was on fire as usual tasking the minister who was there to bring some results.

The minister spoke last, be said the "needing spouse approval" is going to be removed thanks to another bill and the "Gender Dysphoria" mentioned in the current act will be changed. To what we don't know as he would not say but the consensus will be "Gender Incongruence" so will basically change nothing.

As usual the government is all smoke and mirrors.

My thoughts and Conclusion

One thing that did come out of this is there is a general consensus that this needs to be changed drastically, not a small amount as the current government wants to. The general feeling in the Trans Twitterverse is the meeting went well for us.

Another thing that was asked in the debate is why do Trans people need a GRC. Well to some trans people getting a GRC means everything mentally.

We just want to live a normal life, in the way our mind wants us to live. That is all we ask.

Edits

• Added information on who in the Scottish Party was a standout, Mhairi Black, MP.