#grc

You may already be aware but the UK Supreme Court has ruled on the definition of a woman in UK law and it is not in our favour.

"The UK Supreme Court has unanimously decided that the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010 refers solely to biological sex, and does not include people with a Gender Recognition Certificate."

What this means is that being assigned at birth the biological sex of female means you are legally a woman, regardless, and being assigned the biological sex of male at birth means you can never legally be a woman, regardless.

Trans people still have protection under the law as "gender reassignment or presumed gender reassignment" remains a protected characteristic of the Equality Act 2010. However, trans women do not have the right to sex-based protections anymore, even if that was the reason for discrimination, and can be legally excluded from women-only spaces.

Obviously this is horrifying and disheartening, but it's important that you have all the facts. For anyone who isn't aware, here's a short timeline so yk what happened and who to blame

2018, Scottish Government passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, which happened to include those with Gender Recognition Certificates/ living as women and undergoing transition as women for this purpose

2023, Scottish Government passed the Gender Recognition Reform as an amendment to the Gender Recognition Act. This would have made it easier to legally change gender

January 2023 Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Government used powers given by Section 35 of the Scotland Act (powers that allow UK government to veto Scottish legislation despite their devolved power) to block this.

Despite that particular reform being blocked, the Scottish definition of womanhood remained and this freaked out the group For Women Scotland, who got a case appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge the Scottish Government. Case began November 2023

The group For Women Scotland is significantly funded by J.K. Rowling, who's money will have been a big help to them in their legal fees for this case. There will be other prominent donors

The case is called to interpret the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act, and is against the Scottish Ministers. They are being represented by their lawyers rather than appearing in court and have mostly not been commenting.

The Labour Government has been called on for comment and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson says the government supports maintaining the sanctity on single sex spaces, and they appreciate clarity in the law

Hi Anon,

I have attached a link which provides all the information you’ll need to apply for a GRC.

There is no interview for a GRC. You will need to provide them with as much documentation as you can to prove that you have lived in your chosen gender for 2 years.

The application fee has been reduced dramatically and is now £5. If you want a new birth certificate after receiving your GRC, this will be an additional fee, but you will be provided with this information after receiving your GRC.

The only reason you would be rejected for a GRC would be if you cannot provide proof that you have lived experience for two years or if you do not provide the correct information within the timeframe they will give you. However, they are very helpful and if you do not provide what they need they will write to you to ask for more information.

My advice when applying for a GRC is that it is better to provide more information than not enough, as it will just take more time and money to send extra documentation to them. Getting the two reports back from your GIC and GP can take some time and a lot of chasing up and you may also be charged for each report.

Cependant, avec la prise de contrôle par le Canada de la Terre de Rupert, qui deviendra très rapidement les Territoires du Nord‑Ouest, pour la première fois, le gouvernement va systématiquement interférer avec le mode de vie et avec les coutumes des Autochtones. Les colons affluent par milliers pour s’installer sur les terres où les Cris et les Pieds‑Noirs chassent le bison. Dans le Canada des années 1870, comme dans la plupart des pays dont le système juridique est fondé sur la common law britannique. En 1869, William McDougall, envoyé à titre de premier lieutenant‑gouverneur canadien des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest, est porteur de directives prescrivant l’organisation d’un corps de police dirigé par le capitaine D.R. Cameron. Ottawa relance l’idée d’un corps de police fédéral le Parlement adopte en mai une loi constituant un service de police de 150 recrues. En 1903, le premier poste de la Police à cheval au nord du cercle polaire arctique est établi à Fort McPherson. Le corps de police est connu sous le nom de Police royale à cheval du Nord‑Ouest, le titre royale a été ajouté en 1904. 1918 création de la GRC. En novembre, on adopte une loi fusionnant la P.R.C.N.‑O. et la Police du Dominion qui avait été constituée en 1868, en tant que service de police fédéral, pour garder les édifices gouvernementaux et appliquer les lois fédérales. Lorsque la nouvelle législation entre en vigueur le 1er février 1920, l’organisation née de cette fusion prend le nom de Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) et son quartier général est transféré de Regina à Ottawa.

The GRC's ultimate goal is to turn back the clock. They want to go back to the way things were before the Blip. Their slogan is literally "Reset. Restore. Rebuild." They're working hard at undoing societal changes that took place after the Snap so that everyone can pretend the last five years never happened, including progressive policies that we should want to keep around.

The Flag-Smashers' ultimate goal, meanwhile, is to turn back the clock. They want to go back to the way things were during the Blip. Their main policy is open borders which is actually a progressive policy, but it was something that already existed before the GRC came along.

So now their agenda is constantly phrased as trying to go back to the way things used to be. "They think life was better during the Blip, but it wasn't." They've imagined a romanticized version of a glorious past that they're trying to restore by burning down the present status quo, which is more or less regressive politics 101. But that romanticized glorious past specifically means, "Progressive policies existed."

So we have this weird political situation where the regressive regressives have been largely successful at regressing all the progressive policies and so the progressive regressives have to try and regress progressively over the progression regressions of the regressive regressives.