- GRARG Going forward. MEETING 18th MARCH 2021 8pm - March 17, 2021
- Meeting of GRARG 21st January 2021 - January 21, 2021
- A letter to Ms Alison Rose, CEO of the NatWest Group - January 14, 2021
The law and its development
The Forstater Employment Tribunal judgment: a critical appraisal in light of Miller Karon Monaghan February 2020
To sum up: statute and case law recognises a binary distinction between the sexes; that binary distinction is dependent upon biology and will usually (though not always) find reflection in gender ascriptions; the EA 2010 recognises a binary distinction between males and females and recognises gender reassignment status as a distinct characteristic. The GRA is a muddle.
Legally this is not a ‘trans-rights’ issue, its a ‘sex-rights’ issue: a blog about boxes Audrey Ludwig July 2020
Does the law say that trans women are women? The Legal Feminist July 2020
GENDER RECOGNITION AND THE RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE: A RESPONSE TO THE COMMON’S BRIEFING PAPER @hatpinwoman 16th July 2020
Pronouns; compulsion and controversy The Legal Feminist 19th July 2020
Making polices Equality Act compliant Audrey Ludwig 20th July 2020
Where does legislation come from? Policy formulation to drafting Scott Wortley 18th September 2020
On Thursday 24 September, MPs debated the Government’s response to the recent consultation on the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004.The debate was prompted by an Urgent Question from Crispin Blunt MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Global LGBT+ Rights, to Equalities Minister Liz Truss MP.
Read the Government’s response to the GRA consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-responds-to-gender-recognition-act-consultation.
Watch the debate: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/f63a02f0-0018-4a77-b8d4-037dc41e3558?in=10:38:15
Read the transcript: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-09-24/debates/9A57DC36-172D-40CF-98D6-502F1B9A78F0/GenderRecognitionActConsultation
R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1530 (Admin) – This case concerned a challenge to the lawfulness of the current policy of Her Majesty’s Passport Office to require those who apply for the issue of a passport to declare whether their gender is either male or female, and that a passport will only be issued bearing an “M” (male) or “F” (female) indicator in the sex field, rather than an “X”, indicating an unspecified sex. The claim failed.
Jay v Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 2620 (Fam) (08 October 2018) and note the evidence of Dr Barrett quoted at para 29 of the judgment:
“Separately, and recently, she reports gender identity problems. Her history, if taken at face value, is reasonably consistent with this diagnosis but the difficulty is that other aspects of that history are rather directly at odds with the documentary records leading me to have doubts about the veracity of her whole history – which would include a reasonably consistent history of gender identity problems. This aspect might be made clearer if a source other than [Ms Jay] could be interviewed …. If collateral collaboration is elicited I would reach an additional diagnosis of some sort of gender identity disorder. Whether the intensity of gender dysphoria caused by that disorder is great enough to merit or require a change of gender role might be explored in the setting of a gender identity clinic; it might be sufficiently intense in a prison but not so outside one and in civilian life, for example. If collateral corroboration is not convincingly elicited I would have grave doubts and wonder whether [Ms Jay]’s somewhat dependent personality had caused her to unwisely latch onto a change of gender role as a seemingly universal solution to both why her life had gone wrong and how it might be rectified.”
Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and others: 2200909/2019, judgment February 2020
Miller v The College of Policing  EWHC 225 (Admin) judgment February 2020
R (McConnell & Anor) v Registrar General for England and Wales – blog by Aileen McColgan QC 14 June 2020
The question which arose for the Court of Appeal in the McConnell case was whether a GRC entitled the appellant, who became pregnant and gave birth to a child after having acquired male gender under the 2004 Act, to be listed on the child’s birth certificate as its father. The Court decided it did not.
BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA US Supreme Court 15th June 2020
Commentary and Reform Proposals
How common is intersex Dr Leonard Sax August 2002
What reforms of the gender recognition regime could work? Maya Forstater 9th July 2020
What is the Gender Recognition Act? LGBT Foudation
Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains Lise Eliot Nature 27th February 2019
Gender: Why “Self-Identification” Is Not Enough Michael Mascolo Ph.D. Sep 2019
Martine Rothblatt: A Founding Father of the Transgender Empire Jennifer Bilek 6 July 2020
What is a woman? Helen Joyce June 2020
Of course sex materially exists Kathleen Stock June 2020
In Humans, Sex is Binary and Immutable Georgi K. Marinov 2020
The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology Joanna Williams Civitas June 2020
Sex, gender and gender identity: a re-evaluation of the evidence BJPsych Bulletin July 2020
Our society can’t function if it can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality La Scapigliata Jan 25 2019
The Dangerous Denial of sex Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton Feb 13 2020
The Irish Question – WPUK October 2018
Male-bodied transgender inmate housed with women Law Society Gazette Ireland October 2019
THE ANTI DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL Case 68/2018 As long as the question regarding changing rooms for transpeople is unclear, transpeople must expect reactions by using sex segregated changing rooms. Even though it can be uncomfortable for transpeople to be subject to questions about what they’re doing in the women’s changing room, this does not qualify as harassment…