Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?
The process by which a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued is overseen by a Gender Recognition Panel. Here a judge talks, with breathless excitement, about their involvement in the process. It is rare to get any insight into the workings of the panel except, as I found, by looking at Legal Cases which do shed some slight on its laxity sorry, complexity. This piece is very revealing in its tone, and use of language. Remember this panel determines who can redefine themselves, in law, as the opposite sex and be treated as if they were legally a man, or a woman. Though note the legislation had amendments to prevent a woman inheriting a peerage or accessing legacies entailed on the male line. They made sure the important things were protected. Exclusions were built in to legally discriminate against females who claim a male identity. Ireland did the same with the priesthood.
Article, in full, here Gender Recognition Panels
I think a lot of the people involved in the “gender identity” business feel they are claiming a place in history (the right side of history) by working in such a radical/revolutionary field. 
This article is written in the language of social justice warriors not of cool, calm, deliberative thinkers. This is legislation which has massive implications for women’s rights. It directly impacts the implementation of legislation around single sex spaces and women’s right to exclude men from our political organisations. Yet NOT ONCE does this essay even touch on the potential (I would say actual) implications for women’s rights!
Will I draw fire from Social Justice Warriors if I appropriate the Chinese Curse “May you live in interesting times”. Women, in the UK, are indeed living in a cursed place.
Ms Gray is very frank about the process and the stance of the panel. I am not surprised. Much of what she says is controversial, in feminist (non libfem) circles, but has been utterly normalised by the, cognitively captured, judiciary. If only women had managed to capture the state with such alacrity we could be living in a very different world! If only women were part of this marginalised community what we could do with such power?
The use of language is highly revealing. “avant-garde” and “radical” . This is language more appropriate for someone authoring experimental fiction. Though in a sense they are doing exactly this but with real life consequences, not just a critical review in high brow literature journals. The judge seems almost disappointed that we were pipped at the post by other jurisdictions who have already moved to “self-selection of one’s gender”. The Pick and mix of Sex coming to a courtroom near you. The Judge seems disappointed she is stuck with our old-fashioned and “oppressive” desire for some “evidential requirements”, this is a Judge rejecting evidence as “oppressive”. Are we lamenting that we have we not kept pace with the social engineering that has embedded itself in western (elite) culture because we are no longer leading it?
For this judge it has been an exciting opportunity to be at the “cutting edge” ,or not, of a Brave New World. This excitement is not quite shared in the real world where ordinary women deal with the consequences. The judge wants us to know how this “small group of judges” decided how they would operate. As we can see , below, they decided the progressive thing to do was to be “enabling” and facilitative. They certainly have been “enabling” and I am not sure I would speak of what they have “enabled” in such gushing terms.
They have all we are told gained their experience via the “Social Entitlement Chamber” which is just the most fabulous name for a school of judges who seem so out of touch. Here ⇓⇓ we are told that the team work to be as accommodating as possible so that the applicants can demonstrate their “entitlement to a GRC”. Ms Gray takes this very seriously and has only refused 3 out of an estimated 2800. So less than 0.1% were refused. Even then the applicant can go on to appeal. At that stage only one judge needs make the decision. (See my earlier review of one such case: GRC Appeal)
I dare say the answer to this blinkered view is that time and time again the lobby groups advising are from one sector only. Any implications for women have been ignored and, if considered at all, clearly discounted. They have spoken to “professionals in the field” including endocrinologists and psychologists. The problem with these “experts”, who are encountered again and again in legal cases , is that they are ideologues. The “experts” are wedded to the notion that “gender identity” is a real, biological, phenomenon and only a bigot would define women as a biological sex class.
Ms Gray anticipates that her role may be at an end. No doubt seeing the requirement for any scrutiny to be disregarded in a rush to impose Self-identified status as a woman/man. I too wish for an end to the Gender Recognition Panel but for entirely different reasons. It was a mistake to enshrine a legal requirement to recognise a change of sex as if it was literally possible. The eradication of the notion of “sex” will hurt women and, ultimately, those who wish to be protected as “same sex oriented”. This is not revolutionary. Its regressive.
This is the not the only case involving this appellant an earlier case was also brought because the driver felt the suspension was motivated by discrimination 
The complainant raised a few other issues related to how the other taxi drivers treated them. Also mis-gendering was an offence that even occurred a bit closer to home: 
The court took a dim view of the appellant, who abandoned the passengers late at night, and made it clear the case succeeded on procedural grounds and not because their behaviour was acceptable. It also makes clear this was followed by abusive emails and phone calls to the regulatory body.
