Why do you think so few people have applied for / acquired a GRC?

[QuimReaper]

I was surprised to read recently that the number of people who hold a GRC is under 5,000, when apparently 500K people in the UK self-identify as trans. I'm just wondering why that might be - I'd have thought a majority of trans people would want their chosen pronouns on documentation. I note the fee has been reduced following the last GRA review, although I cannot possibly believe it was contributing to the low numbers originally.

Is it simply that having a GRC doesn't really impact your day-to-day life very much beyond having 'Mr' or 'Ms' on your bank statement etc.?

Because it requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and must be supported by a report from a second medical professional.

The number who have applied - and received - a Gender Recognition Certificate matches perfectly with that of transsexuals predicted to apply over the 15 years immediately following the GRA being signed into law.

That estimated number of 500,000 (pure fiction unsupported by any evidence btw - it has also been guesstimated by various trans rights groups as large as 1.3m ie 2% of the total UK population and as low as 250,000) is a number which includes many more people than just the transsexuals for whom Gender Recognition Certificates were created.

Is it simply that having a GRC doesn't really impact your day-to-day life very much beyond having 'Mr' or 'Ms' on your bank statement etc.?

No GRC is needed to change how your bank addresses you. Or what sex is on your driver's licence or passport. It's very easy to change your title from Mr to Mrs on your driving licence and although it's a little more involved to do the same on your passport, it still doesn't require a GRC.

Because genuine gender dysphoria affects a tiny minority of people, so it of course there will be a tiny uptake in this. It is not a surprise at all.

I also think the narrative of "live your truth/you are who you say you are/no one can take away your right to access any bloody space you like" peddled by TRAs probably feeds in to a sense of entitlement too, so individuals believe they can be what they say and that's the end of that.

I was surprised to read recently that the number of people who hold a GRC is under 5,000

This is the number of people who were expected to want to obtain a GRC when the GRA was passed in 2004.

From one of the parliamentary debates:
"Our best estimates—no one has a final figure—are that probably about one in 17,000 people suffer from gender dysphoria."

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2004-01-29/debates/f813c7d4-41a1-4cfd-8115-6be9753889e5/GenderRecognitionBillHl

This would give a figure of around 4000 people.

The law wasn't passed for the benefit of people like Alex Drummond who put on a dress and declare themselves women. The law was passed for the benefit of people who had made a full surgical transition.

Maybe someone knows the correct answer, but I assumed to obtain a GRC you had to have undergone surgery to become the opposite chosen sex?

I didn't think you could have a GRC without having undergone diagnosis and the full reassignment surgery?

Also, why people diagnosed with dysphoria shouldn't be lumped in with "trans" as that nowadays means intact penis whilst wearing female stereotype clothing, but possibly (if desired) to take/not take hormones?

Perhaps someone knows if that is correct, if not then it should be the case IMO.

Well actually to correct my post above - I 100% do not agree with changing birth certificates which are a document of fact and shouldn't be altered.

So my post above is in reference to what currently stands but I think even people with dysphoria are done a disservice by rewriting history, acceptance and acknowledgment are required, not rewriting history.

@Fizzydrinks123

Maybe someone knows the correct answer, but I assumed to obtain a GRC you had to have undergone surgery to become the opposite chosen sex?

I didn't think you could have a GRC without having undergone diagnosis and the full reassignment surgery?

Also, why people diagnosed with dysphoria shouldn't be lumped in with "trans" as that nowadays means intact penis whilst wearing female stereotype clothing, but possibly (if desired) to take/not take hormones?

Perhaps someone knows if that is correct, if not then it should be the case IMO.

Nope, no surgery necessary nor indeed are there any consequences if you then do things that undermine the solemn commitment you make to live for the rest of your life in your chosen gender.

See for example Freddie McConnell so obtained a gender recognition certificate saying they wanted to be a man forever and then immediately began fertility treatment to conceive and carry a baby.

Joanne was right www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-rowling-right-that-hormones-or-surgery-not-required-for-legal-gender-change

It does seem most people thought she was fibbing, because of all the campaigning about the GRC. and “how onerous the old GRC requirements were”.

When in fact the “old” GRA wasn’t onerous at all.

In the new GRC consultation, many respondents didn’t think it was fair to have to declare that they intended to remain in the new gender for life. That was very unpopular in the TRA respondent group.

When in fact the “old” GRA wasn’t onerous at all.

I suspect the reality is that, if you are genuinely transitioning, the process is not especially difficult as you would meet the criteria in the normal process and the only time-consuming (and possibly costly) factor would be gathering the paperwork. For those it wasn’t intended for, of course it’s complicated.

I'm sorry I can't remember the actual thread to link as it was some time ago but I remember in the lead up to the deadline for the GRA reform consultation there was a thread discussing current requirements to obtain a certificate. A trans poster talked quite passionately about how in their view, if an individual really, really wanted to be seen and accepted legally as the opposite sex then you should absolutely jump through every hoop currently presented. Otherwise if you won't it actually shows how little your commitment to this new life really is and the disrespect and regard your have for those who are that sex and oppression they've faced.

That's always stuck with me and I'd agree.

@clymene thank you - Oh so common sense etc doesn't apply - now that could be where all the confusion arises in people that aren't tuned in at all (enormous understatement)

Documentation you can change your name and gender marker on WITHOUT needing a GRC:

Passport
Driving licence
Bank
NHS
Pretty much anything else

Documents that you DO need a GRC to change:

Birth certificate
Wedding certificate?

Things you can’t change, even if you have a GRC:

Hereditary peerage title
Your ‘legal’ gender, once you have changed it via obtaining a GRC.

It doesn’t seem to make much practical difference to a person’s everyday life as far as I can see. Maybe that’s why so many don’t bother.

umbel are you sure that you cannot change your birth certificate back?

The Gender Recognition Panel can revoke a GRC and issue a new one on application, on the basis that the original GRC was issued in error. This is recorded in the minutes of the GRC Panel, in response to a question received about detransition (although I don’t think that that word was used - I might be wrong).

I am not aware of any legislation preventing the Registrar from accepting the new GRC as evidence of the need to update the record and issue a new Birth Certificate.

The GRA2004 allows the Sec of State to revoke a GRC that has been obtained fraudulently. The Sec of State opted not to do this in the case of Freddie “I Want To Be Recorded as my child’s Father” Seahorse (can’t recall surname). This decision by the Sec of State is noted in the court record.

What I can’t recall is if the Court or GRC Panel then notifies the Registrar. That would make more sense than it being left up to the person convicted of fraud.

Because it requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and must be supported by a report from a second medical professional.

Yet again this reminds us that only a tiny proportion of trans people, in terms of being under the trans umbrella, have gender dyshoria. It might be as low as 1%.

Who are all of these trans people who don't have gender dysphoria? What are their motivations? One day asking these questions in the public domain in front of a curious general public will be permitted.

There's currently no way of "divorcing" a GRC. I can imagine that puts a fair few people off...

Molesmokes I may be totally mistaken. I based that only on what was said here:

The GRA is harmful as it is creating falsified and indelible records based on the current feelings of people. It has the ability to trap us detransitioners as when we begin to recover from gender dysphoria we are stuck on the “gender recognition register” and there is no policy to be able to revert to our original birth certificates with our birth sex.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/?s=Keira+bell

Why do you think so few people have applied for / acquired a GRC?

No need for one. So many organisations allow self-ID (although it’s illegal) that why would anyone bother with the paperwork? Unless as a very special form of validation.

I can shed some light here, for the uninitiated:

1. Obtaining a GRC requires you to have 'lived in your acquired gender for two years' - there's no real specificity about what this means in the legislation, but date of name change via deed poll is most commonly used to establish this. Diagnosis, medical treatments and/or surgery are not prerequisites to obtaining a GRC.

1. Obtaining a GRC doesn't change your rights in law. The Equality Act 2010 makes no exception or special provision for those with a GRC. Sex based protections apply based on birth sex, and a GRC does not change this (though, rather confusingly, a GRC can be used to reissue a birth certificate) - if you were born male, you have male rights in the EA2010. If you were born female, you have female rights in the EA2010.

All transgender related rights in law are under the 'gender reassignment' section of the EA2010, and despite the somewhat misleading name, to be covered by those rights, it is sufficient to simply identify as trans - there is no requirmeent for diagnosis, treatment, surgery, nor any requirement that you must have obtained a GRC.

As for why so many don't have one? Probably because unless you're particularly bothered about your birth certificate, or in some really niche cases (there's a few bits of marital law that are affected by it) - a GRC doesn't really change anything for most people.

They can undergo transgender healthcare, access legal protections, access some mens/womens spaces that coincide with their identity (and those spaces they can't access remain inaccessible even with a GRC), and change bank accounts, driving licenses, passports etc without ever getting a GRC. It's £140 to get one, and the government hasn't yet reduced the price. I can think of a lot of good uses for £140, and I assume that all of the transgender people who don't have a GRC can too.

Day out at Alton Towers with the kids? £140 might just cover the tickets I suppose.

"When in fact the “old” GRA wasn’t onerous at all."

I suspect the reality is that, if you are genuinely transitioning, the process is not especially difficult as you would meet the criteria in the normal process and the only time-consuming (and possibly costly) factor would be gathering the paperwork. For those it wasn’t intended for, of course it’s complicated.

Exactly this. See for example this series of tweets:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200921083048/twitter.com/iamtranssexual/status/1307960038292586496" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200921083048/twitter.com/iamtranssexual/status/1307960038292586496

I will never, ever understand how someone can change their sex on a birth certificate, I just cannot for the life of me work out how this was ever passed by government, is it really reissued to say that the day you were born you were the opposite sex? I can’t get my head around this at all.

Obtaining a GRC doesn't change your rights in law.

Are you sure about that? I thought that your legally recognised sex was important when it comes to some single-sex provision, such as prisons, where "all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

@ZaraCarmichaelshighheels

I will never, ever understand how someone can change their sex on a birth certificate, I just cannot for the life of me work out how this was ever passed by government, is it really reissued to say that the day you were born you were the opposite sex? I can’t get my head around this at all.

The GRA was passed as an alternative to legalising same sex marriage, so that two people of the same sex could marry as long as one of them obtained a GRC to say that they were legally the opposite sex.

Homophobia is the main reason why the GRA was passed.

Thanks Oldcrone if that’s the case how come it’s not been retracted? I can’t comprehend that if I was gay that I would be prepared to change my birth certificate to say I was a man so I could marry my female partner, that’s horrendous. I wonder how many actually did this, I can’t imagine there was a huge uptake.

I will never, ever understand how someone can change their sex on a birth certificate, I just cannot for the life of me work out how this was ever passed by government

Zara, I feel the same. The GRA has had many worse results, eg loss of women’s rights. But this is awful in a unique way.

Somehow the idea of the state deliberately and openly ordering false information to be recorded on an official document is mind-blowing. Actually, it undermines a lot of things that democracy relies on, in the way of trust and government by consent. “If they’re lying about that, what else are they lying about?”