#Equality Act 2010

[ryanwclement]

U.N. Declaration of Human Rights

by Ryan Clement TODAY, 10 December 2023, marks the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which came into force in 1948, being just 3 years after the end of World War II. The Declaration provides that, as human beings, we are entitled to stipulated basic rights regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social…

[coochiequeens]

Speaking to Sky News, he (Iain Anderson) said "We need to lower the temperature on all sides of this wherever you sit on this." That is classic abuser deflection. To not fully admit to any problems on their end but to try to make it a "we" problem.

The new boss of controversial charity Stonewall has failed to condemn the abuse aimed at the Harry Potter author in a Sky News interview dubbed a 'masterclass in obfuscation'.

Stonewall's new boss has failed to turn over a new leaf in a "car crash" interview where he was confronted with the abuse from trans activists aimed at JK Rowling.

Iain Anderson has recently been announced as the new Chair of Trustees for the charity at the heart of the gender controversy. Stonewall, once regarded as the front line for gay right causes has become embroiled in the bitter divide over transgender rights and women's rights.

Speaking to Sky News, he was confronted with the vitriol and ongoing abuse hurled at prominent gender critic and women's rights advocate Rowling and others who have lost jobs because of their views. Criticised for not taking the chance to condemn the abuse, he called on those on either side of heated debate to “lower the temperature”.

Many slammed his appearance, calling him out for failing to directly answer questions on trans women's inclusion in sports but he hinted at a shift from previous hardline stances that saw the charity heavily lambasted when he claimed he supports exemptions that can be used to exclude transgender people from women's prisons and toilets. He did, however, not go into detail.

He said: "We need to lower the temperature on all sides of this wherever you sit on this.

"We need a strategy for [discussing trans rights] as opposed to megaphone diplomacy. That's what I really hope for, that's what I hope we can do in the months ahead and maybe through the election period ahead.

"I want us all to have a respectful conversation but the thing for me is I want my community to be able to fulfil the opportunities that are available to it. That's the thing that guides me in all of this."

Journalist Victoria Smith did not take kindly to his statement. She said: "Like an abusive husband telling the world he's decided to be magnanimous towards his 'troubled, difficult' wife in the hope they can 'work things out'"

Columnist Janice Turner: "This @BethRigby interview with @iain_w_anderson is a car crash. He simply will not answer a single question. A masterclass in obfuscation."

James Esses, a child rights campaigner said: "It is beyond parody that Stonewall Chair has told people to 'lower the temperature' on the trans debate. Stonewall have been stoking the flames of this fire for years now and are responsible for pushing an ideology that endangers children and women."

On the topic of banning biological males from female single-sex spaces, Mr Anderson said:"There are protections that are in place. Those protections were put in place for a very, very good reason.

"I do support these protections, absolutely. The question is, do we need to look at the legislation that's currently in place? Does it work? I think it does work."

This is a shift in Stonewall's previous stance on the issue. In 2015, the charity wrote to parliament's women and equalities select committee seeking a review of the Equality Act 2010 to "remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces".

[tofueatingwokerati]

TRIGGER WARNING ⚠️ sensitive topics covered as well as references to self harm.

I was moved to my present address for my safety after being stalked, harassed and assaulted by a council tenant.

The police did nothing after I reported him beyond a virtual slap on the wrist by a PCSO (and people wonder why women don’t report these crimes) and the council did equally nothing to safeguard me.

It took two years to get me moved and only after I went to the government ombudsman, and revealed to my housing officer I was a rape survivor, was anything finally done.

A council manger, Paul Hadley (since retired I’ve been informed) said to me that it was my fault, that I must have been doing something to encourage him and in front of an antisocial behaviour officer present that the council were “not responsible for their tenants behaviour” and proceeded to deny me any safeguarding.

More complaints and ombudsman interventions would follow. Battle for equality rights never ends if you’re a women and happen to also have disabilities.

In the two years it took to get me moved I’d been in A&E as a suicide risk and was regularly self harming. My disabilities worsened and I ended up needing crutches as the pain intensified. My hips now “pop” regularly and I have permanent back pain after living through that ordeal.

After the ombudsman intervention I was given priority status to move. That came with more hurdles and barriers. Paul Hadley, again said I would get this property over his dead body. Somerset Council were consistently unprofessional, in breach of their duty of care and left me at risk consistently.

The housing officer I’d shared my rape experience with got me this home but they placed their own employment at risk to do it and said she would be paying for it for the rest of her time there. Being close to retirement I don’t think she cared what they thought of her any longer, she was an exceptional exception to an otherwise toxic council mentality towards tenants.

It shouldn’t need an employee to put their job in jeopardy to do what the law already specifies is their duty and role as a public service.

When I viewed my current home it was in awful condition and wasn’t accessible. I asked what work was being done to address this prior to my moving here and was advised nothing beyond pre-scheduled works example updating the boiler (which turned out to be faulty from day one). Beyond a decorating kit which I couldn’t safely use I was told repeatedly I could “always self fund” despite this being a provision under law and they had specific disability grants available for the works I was asking for, they refused me all accessibility and refused me an occupational assessment.

Whilst I was safe from one danger by moving here, the stalker, I was thrown into a new set of dangers to my health and safety.

As a vulnerable disabled person I was subject to bullying and harassment from neighbours very early on as they felt I was too young to be living in a bungalow without ever knowing, or caring about the context of my disabilities and what I was moved from.

One case of neighbour harassment became so extreme it ended in a protection order on their visitor.

The property, as already stated was in a terrible state. I photographed it all and sent it to legal counsel. They advised me not to move in (too late by this point) because it was not fit for human habitation and not up to council relet standards.

It took seven years to get the kitchen accessible and it’s still not 100% with faults from installation causing me undue resistance on my joints and risk of injury. I continue to battle that out with the council. It took going to the ombudsman again and the then CEO of the council to even get the kitchen adjusted under equality law.

The boiler has been faulty from day one. It has always done this thing where the pressure builds up and it eventually “burbs”. It’s so bad it sounds like it’s going to blow the cupboard door off. Eventually it started failing and I repeatedly needed to get out of hours engineers from the council to patch it up.

One year it was failing daily and I kept reporting it. The engineers kept having issue scanning the gas meter to log the call. They had a new system and it was having teething issues. This meant that every engineer would not have record of the previous days call out and openly treated me as a liar. Thankfully I had all the email communication to the gas repairs department and was able to prove this was a persistent problem.

During this time I was loosing mobility and dexterity in my joints, notably my hands and fingers. This meant I couldn’t keep myself safe. I was paying extra home help just to be safe, prep more meals and washing up as I couldn’t do anything myself (the kettle had to be repeatedly boiled as I had no hot water during all this).

I was huddled up in my bedroom trying to keep warm. As has been consistent with this council there was no safeguarding and no assistance. After almost a week of this and getting more & more unwell, I filed a formal complaint. I was given a tiny little heater and eventually compensated for the additional electric I was using as well as hourly cost of extra home help.

Since then it has failed again and again. In fact I dread every winter knowing it is going to fail.

Each and every time my mobility is materially impacted, because it usually fails overnight, meaning it’s had 8 hours for the temperature to plummet then hours more before an engineer can come out to patch it up.

In that time I loose mobility and dexterity. It happened again recently (dropping to 14°C by the time I woke to discover the boiler fault) and despite using electric heaters I simply could not warm up. Electric heaters are no substitute for central heating. It left me unable to make a meal and I was unable to get emergency home help to plug the care gap.

One engineer advised me that as long as they have parts they will patch it up indefinitely until it fails permanently. This is without any risk assessment to someone like myself materially impacted by temperature.

I filed another complaint upon many complaints at this point, with the council and they are refusing me a boiler update.

They’re refusing me a risk assessment and refusing me an occupational assessment whilst being fully informed this is having a detrimental impact on my health and safety.

It got so bad that I started to have intrusive thoughts and ended up on the phone to crisis. After an hour with them they were able to stabilise me. I then sought legal advise and as will come as no surprise was informed yes the council are in breach of equalities law but also they’re discriminating me on disabilities ground by refusing a risk assessment of my needs. The council have openly stated that I am getting “special treatment” any time works are carried out even though it ALWAYS falls under equalities/reasonable adjustments.

I even wrote to Duncan Sharkey, the CEO of Somerset Council. I got a short response from a different department repeating the deadlock to upgrading the boiler, refusing me equal access to refuse & recycling collection (thats a whole other story of discrimination over almost a decade) and telling me to take it up with the ombudsman.

So here we go again, I now need to go back to the ombudsman but this time I am looking at legal options (I even took out extra home insurance knowing this would happen) as well as taking this to the national press is my next step. Enough is enough!

Ultimately this goes beyond a boiler, beyond me as one person. This is about an institutional failing towards disabled people and a toxic mentality of blaming tenants when the council don’t want to spend money to carry out their legal duty. They hide behind policy and procedure to deny you equal access and place wilful barriers to health & safety by denying risk assessments.

I once had a council surveyor blame the damp in my previous home on my cats “heavy breathing”, telling me to get rid of the cats and in his report blamed me for not using the extractor fan. There was no extractor fan. Can you guess, yes the council had refused me an extractor fan in that property, but still the council blame the tenant for their failures. As an aside the damp was so severe along the entire block that the wall was collapsing in one property and they had to be relocated for their safety.

But yeah, blame the tenant, it’s Somerset Councils continued consistency, blame the tenant and discriminate, all to save a few pennies whilst taking rent money from us all.

Rouge landlords are not consigned to the private sector!

[awakenlng369]

MEN ARE NOT WOMEN

[monkeyfishgirl]

joke's on this guy: we don't have the legal protection necessary for it to count as a hate crime

[omtai]

i fucking feel like this

[jenniferdiazisatransgirl]

If you’re in the UK please consider signing this petition.

While the UK Government have responded to this saying changes to the Equality Act are not necessary, yesterday it was revealed they have sought advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on implementing the very change this petition is against and that the UK Government said there is no need to do.

[ishouldbedoingalright]

she reads statutes as a hobby

[ryanwclement]

Ethnicity Pay Gap

by Ryan Clement RECENTLY, I had the pleasure of chatting to Dianne Greyson of #EthnicityPayGap who has been championing the cause of highlighting and addressing pay gap due to workers’ ethnicity. Dianne spoke about her work and some of the challenges she faces. We also spoke about Colourism, which is a term I first encountered many years ago through one of my favourite authors, Alice Walker. As…

[coochiequeens]

Stonewall UK is backing a guy suing to be included in women’s sports even though he “maintained a personal blog for a number of years, where he has written about having had a cross-dressing fetish since he was a child, and that this fetish was something that impacted his ability to retain jobs and marriages alike.” This is what I mean when I say the TQ+ community is dragging themselves down by backing these freaking instead of distancing themselves.

A trans-identified male who goes by the Julie-Anne Curtiss is suing England’s Rugby Football Union (RFU) over their decision to ban males from playing in the female category. Curtiss claims that RFU’s policy breaches the Equality Act of 2010 and his human rights.

Last week, the CEO of Stonewall UK, Nancy Kelley, publicly promoted a crowdfunder for Curtiss’ legal fight against the RFU and said, “If you can, support [Curtiss] in her fight for an inclusive rugby game #MakeSportEveryonesGame.” 

In the description on his fundraiser, Curtiss shared that he began his “transition” in 2016 and is perceived “as female” by his “female friends, colleagues, loved ones and most relevantly, by [his] female rugby team mates.”

Curtiss writes that: “Trans women come in all shapes, sizes and ability levels, just like cisgender women,” in an apparent effort to compare larger-bodied females to men. He continues, “The new RFU policy has no nuance and instead has decided all trans women to be excluded. It is difficult to see how this broad-brush approach can be ‘necessary.’”

RFU’s policy to exclude males from female sport is described as an “injustice” and Curtiss asks readers for assistance with legal fees and “expert evidence.”

As of the writing of this article, €6,550 (approx. $7,000 USD) of a €20,000 (approx. $21,500 USD) goal has been raised. 

Curtiss has maintained a personal blog for a number of years, where he has written about having had a cross-dressing fetish since he was a child, and that this fetish was something that impacted his ability to retain jobs and marriages alike. 

In one post, he says that his desire to become a girl could partly be explained by the fact that “the girls’ side of [his] school seemed to me to be more ‘peaceful’ and certainly less overtly aggressive.” 

He added that at eight years old he would dress in his sisters’ clothes and “loved the softness and it made me feel something deeply emotional inside.” 

In another post, Curtiss says: “I never wanted to have homosexual sex, but strongly desired to have sex with a man, as a woman.”

Curtiss admitted that into his young adulthood, his cross-dressing compulsion was so bad that he would steal his step-mother’s clothing. His step-mother “tried to deal with this by locking her dressing room, which [he] got around by stealing and copying a key.”

Curtiss said “Despite the seeming normality of my life…I just could never shake or get beyond this yearning to be a girl. I was so jealous of the way girls were able to dress. I loved the idea of being able to wear make-up, mini-skirts and long hair. It drove me crazy… I didn’t want to be a man in girl’s clothes… I wanted to BE a girl.”

He continued to share that as an adult when he lived by himself he was pleased to dress however we wanted at home, “…but no matter how hard I tried, I was always consumed by the fact that I was a man-in-drag, not a woman.” 

He mentions his exposure to pornography, “Unfortunately all I was exposed to was the weird world of transsexuals through porno magazines and I didn’t identify with that either. It seemed to me that even if I could re-assign my gender, I would forever be on the periphery of society, not able to lead a normal life and still not be considered a real woman.”

In May of 2016, Curtiss started his public display of his “womanhood,” writing on his blog that he “didn’t look particularly convincing, but “… internally I finally felt whole. Since then, rather than being asked to leave my job I’ve been extended 6 times!”

In August of 2022, Curtiss compared trans-identified males not being allowed to play in women’s sport with racist South Africa, writing: “Many have been surprised by my connecting this issue to Apartheid South Africa. Here’s a little history lesson. The Apartheid regime premised their ideology on the ‘fact,’ as they saw it, that people of colour (POC) were sub-human and therefore needed to be treated differently.”

Cutiss quietly deleted the multi-post thread after receiving backlash.

Earlier this year, Curtiss was interviewed by ESPN UK, where he announced his legal challenge to RFU’s ban on male players in the female category. 

In a video that has since been widely shared, Curtiss can be seen towering over much younger female athletes. He stated that critics who oppose male players in sports for women and girls “need to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary,” until policies favoring gender identity over biological sex are accepted.

It was in July of 2022 that the RFU shared their decision to revise their “gender participation policy” and exclude anyone “recorded male at birth” from participating in female contact rugby.

The organization shared that their extensive review and consultation process of the policy concluded, with peer reviewed research, that the physical differences between men and women are too stark to ignore. 

Male “advantages in strength, stamina and physique brought about by testosterone and male puberty are significant and retained even after testosterone suppression,” meant that the RFU could not justify allowing men to compete against women in safety and fairness. 

Anticipating controversy, their decision was paired with ample statements regarding the thoroughness of the “research” that went into their ultimate revision of the gender policy.

“The RFU recognises this was a complex and difficult decision and the policy change was not taken lightly or without thorough and full research and consultation.” 

Jeff Blackett, RFU President, even released a personal statement with the decision: “I would like to thank everyone for the passion, time and effort that has been put in to consulting with us and informing this policy review. Inclusion is at the heart of rugby values and we will continue to work with everyone to keep listening, learning and finding ways to demonstrate there is a place for everyone in our game. We know that many will be disappointed by this decision however, it has been based on all the scientific evidence available. Our game can be strengthened by everyone who is involved; be it in coaching, refereeing, administration or supporting and playing non-contact forms of the game.”

Curtiss has shared that his solicitors sent a pre-action letter to the RFU “asking it to explain why it thinks its new policy is lawful,” and confirmed that the RFU responded and “seems intent on defending its policy.” The RFU’s response letter wasn’t shared to the public by Curtiss due to confidentiality. 

While Curtiss admits that his legal battle against the RFU “has to specifically focus on how the policy has impacted [him] personally,” he hopes that this will “influence the RFU’s approach more generally” for “every trans woman and girl who wants to play contact rugby [with women].” 

Earlier this year, World Athletics, the international governing body for the sport of athletics, followed the RFU’s decision to ban males from competing against women. World Athletics’ previous guidelines allowed men to compete in the female division if they had suppressed their testosterone levels below a certain threshold – a standard which critics pointed out was set to as much as five times higher than the average amount of the hormone found in females.

World Athletics since announced that male competitors who have gone through male puberty are not permitted to compete in the female categories of international competitions.

FINA, the international swimming world’s governing body, also voted to ban trans-identified males from elite female competitions if they had undergone male puberty.

Earlier this year, the Scottish Rugby Union also banned trans-identified males from competing in women’s contact rugby, citing the safety of female players.

By Yuliah Alma

Yuliah is a junior researcher and journalist at Reduxx. She is a passionate advocate for women's rights and child safeguarding. Yuliah lives on the American east coast, and is an avid reader and book collector.

[spywitch]

I saw this utterly baffling tiktok that was like “blue haired they/thems are ruining the queer community and alt fashion” and the comments were full of ppl agreeing and being like “yeah I don’t wanna even wear piercings or dye my hair anymore bc I don’t want people to think I’m one of them.” I just like don’t understand HOW bootlicking bitches like that exist.

Like, these must be the high school bullies who attacked all the queer and neurodivergent kids bc they were heavily closeter, and they STILL haven’t learned how to Not completely dehumanize others over harmless shit. I swear its a gross defense mechanism, where people just easily internalize the hatred they see spewed at the community and desperately need to seperate themselves from it and put themselves above others.

And like I say that because I’VE done that, I can be pretty judgemental and easily get the ick over simple things like other ppls interests, style or small behaviors… but I also like lol am self aware enough to recognize that I’m often just being petty or projecting insecurity about my own “weird” or undesirable traits… and I also am not an absolute fucking prick who acts like people I don’t really like or find cringey are subhuman and somehow harming me or my community.

Like genuinely what the fuck do these people think is so bad about Blue Hair Nonbinary whatever the fuck? Like oh what people won’t “take the community seriously” because their entire experience as queer people isn’t centered around misery and wishing they were cishet? Like people can transition and change their names and pronouns but you draw the line when its weird ones you don’t like? Cishets will notttt pick you lol, no matter how you try to pick apart and generalize other people based on how they appear and seperate yourself from them, cishets will use you to project further violence against the entire community and then eat you up too.

And my GOD, those weird and annoying queer people paved the way for the rest of you fuckers. Those fearless alt bisexual girls and flamboyent gay boys and Nonbinary Blue Haired SJWs who came out and fought for themselves first in your middle/high schools and are always the first to challenge the general homophobic and transphobic sentiments of the entire group/generation… just for these bland ass wannabe assimilating gays to be like “ew they’re RUINING the community.” Actually die

[liberaljane]

Women's Not So Distant History

This #WomensHistoryMonth, let's not forget how many of our rights were only won in recent decades, and weren’t acquired by asking nicely and waiting. We need to fight for our rights. Here's are a few examples:

📍 Before 1974's Fair Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for financial institutions to discriminate against applicants' gender, banks could refuse women a credit card. Women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused without a husband’s signature. This allowed men to continue to have control over women’s bank accounts. Unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions entirely.

📍 Before 1977, sexual harassment was not considered a legal offense. That changed when a woman brought her boss to court after she refused his sexual advances and was fired. The court stated that her termination violated the 1974 Civil Rights Act, which made employment discrimination illegal.⚖️

📍 In 1969, California became the first state to pass legislation to allow no-fault divorce. Before then, divorce could only be obtained if a woman could prove that her husband had committed serious faults such as adultery. 💍By 1977, nine states had adopted no-fault divorce laws, and by late 1983, every state had but two. The last, New York, adopted a law in 2010.

📍In 1967, Kathrine Switzer, entered the Boston Marathon under the name "K.V. Switzer." At the time, the Amateur Athletics Union didn't allow women. Once discovered, staff tried to remove Switzer from the race, but she finished. AAU did not formally accept women until fall 1971.

📍 In 1972, Lillian Garland, a receptionist at a California bank, went on unpaid leave to have a baby and when she returned, her position was filled. Her lawsuit led to 1978's Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which found that discriminating against pregnant people is unlawful

📍 It wasn’t until 2016 that gay marriage was legal in all 50 states. Previously, laws varied by state, and while many states allowed for civil unions for same-sex couples, it created a separate but equal standard. In 2008, California was the first state to achieve marriage equality, only to reverse that right following a ballot initiative later that year. 

📍In 2018, Utah and Idaho were the last two states that lacked clear legislation protecting chest or breast feeding parents from obscenity laws. At the time, an Idaho congressman complained women would, "whip it out and do it anywhere,"

📍 In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to safe legal abortion in Roe v. Wade. At the time of the decision, nearly all states outlawed abortion with few exceptions. In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths. Unfortunately after years of abortion restrictions and bans, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022. Since then, 14 states have fully banned care, and another 7 severely restrict it – leaving most of the south and midwest without access. 

📍 Before 1973, women were not able to serve on a jury in all 50 states. However, this varied by state: Utah was the first state to allow women to serve jury duty in 1898. Though, by 1927, only 19 states allowed women to serve jury duty. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 gave women the right to serve on federal juries, though it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states passed similar legislation

📍 Before 1988, women were unable to get a business loan on their own. The Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 allowed women to get loans without a male co-signer and removed other barriers to women in business. The number of women-owned businesses increased by 31 times in the last four decades. 

Free download

📍 Before 1965, married women had no right to birth control. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that banning the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

📍 Before 1967, interracial couples didn’t have the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In 2000, Alabama was the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the books.

📍 Before 1972, unmarried women didn’t have the right to birth control. While married couples gained the right in 1967, it wasn’t until Eisenstadt v. Baird seven years later, that the Supreme Court affirmed the right to contraception for unmarried people.

📍 In 1974, the last “Ugly Laws” were repealed in Chicago. “Ugly Laws” allowed the police to arrest and jail people with visible disabilities for being seen in public. People charged with ugly laws were either charged a fine or held in jail. ‘Ugly Laws’ were a part of the late 19th century Victorian Era poor laws. 

📍 In 1976, Hawaii was the last state to lift requirements that a woman take her husband’s last name.  If a woman didn’t take her husband’s last name, employers could refuse to issue her payroll and she could be barred from voting. 

📍 It wasn’t until 1993 that marital assault became a crime in all 50 states. Historically, intercourse within marriage was regarded as a “right” of spouses. Before 1974, in all fifty U.S. states, men had legal immunity for assaults their wives. Oklahoma and North Carolina were the last to change the law in 1993.

📍  In 1990, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) – most comprehensive disability rights legislation in U.S. history – was passed. The ADA protected disabled people from employment discrimination. Previously, an employer could refuse to hire someone just because of their disability.

📍 Before 1993, women weren’t allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. That changed when Sen. Moseley Braun (D-IL), & Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) wore trousers - shocking the male-dominated Senate. Their fashion statement ultimately led to the dress code being clarified to allow women to wear pants. 

📍 Emergency contraception (Plan B) wasn't approved by the FDA until 1998. While many can get emergency contraception at their local drugstore, back then it required a prescription. In 2013, the FDA removed age limits & allowed retailers to stock it directly on the shelf (although many don’t).

📍  In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that anti-cohabitation laws were unconstitutional. Sometimes referred to as the ‘'Living in Sin' statute, anti-cohabitation laws criminalize living with a partner if the couple is unmarried. Today, Mississippi still has laws on its books against cohabitation. 

[radically-annoyed]

Lmao wtf is the uk government doing now? In this essay I will-

[johnbrace]

Council (Liverpool City Council) 22nd November 2023 Part 4 of 4

[jenniferdiazisatransgirl]

So the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK has suggested that the UK Government should define sex in the Equality Act of 2010 as biological sex. If the Government goes ahead with this, which knowing the UK Government at present they likely will this will drastically gut trans rights in the UK and make Gender Recognition Certificates pretty much meaningless.

It would actually probably make a GRC impossible to acquire as doctors require you to use the facilities of your gender before they will even support you getting a Gender Recognition Certificate.