A male 'non binary' person gains a female GRC.

[ArabellaScott]

A man applied for a GRC and was initially rejected. That was overturned at appeal, and he now has a GRC that says he is female, despite his identity being 'non binary'.

https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/What-we-think/DACB-succeeds-in-pro-bono-Gender-Recognition-Act-appeal

From the judgement:

'Dr Longworth stated that the applicant ‘has a stable feminine non-binary gender identity and has lived in a congruent social role since at least 2015’. '

'That letter recorded the applicants ‘goals’ for treatment as being:
a) To achieve a gynaecoid body shape, including adult female breast
development;
b) To achieve a reduction in facial and body hair; and
c) To retain the capacity to have a functional penis, with capacity for
erection and genital sexual response.

Dr Longworth’s letter explained that there was a basic biological incompatibility
between the first two goals and the third. If the applicant were to discontinue hormone treatment, as she had attempted in the past, in order to achieve goal (c), then her gender dysphoria symptoms would be likely to return. If, however, she were to continue with hormone treatment the long-term effect would be reduction in sex drive and the development of erectile dysfunction. Dr Longworth advised that it was for the applicant ‘to decide what takes priority’.

'The Panel considered that the detail relied upon to reach a diagnosis of gender dysphoria was lacking and that the language used in the letter describing the appellant as ‘non-binary’ contradicted her assertion that she was a transgender woman. The Panel concluded that this did not accord with the binary approach required by the GRA 2004. The Panel was also troubled by the period during which the appellant had ceased taking testosterone blockers and they considered that Dr Longworth’s report highlighted the appellant’s incompatible
treatment goals, namely wishing to retain male sexual function whilst seeking female gender affirming hormone treatment, thereby undermining the appellant’s overall aim of being recognised as a woman'

'With regard to s 2(1)(b), that she ‘has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made’, the Panel had concluded that this element was not satisfied as ‘there is very little evidence that you are living in real life as a female’.'

Discussion here from the man granted the GRC notes the possible ramifications of this on 'non binary' identities:

'there is a reference to "Castellucci v Gender Recognition Panel", which was a case in early January where someone was trying to seek non-binary recognition, and was ultimately rejected. They're in the process of appealing this decision, and it's possible that my judgement could be referenced in this appeal.
In my case, I was never seeking non-binary recognition, so it was a much easier fight, but I have at least set the groundwork for non-binary people to get some level of recognition, because they are essentially saying that the non-binary diagnosis has to be taken in the wider context of how I actually live my life.'

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1dr59oc/i_sued_the_gender_recognition_panel_and_the_court/

There were various issues raised by the panel, but the crux of it seemed to have been that the person had not produced evidence of 'living as female'.

However the winning appeal claimed:

'the doctor’s full description of the appellant in 2017 was that she had ‘a stable feminine non-binary gender identity’
.
Feminine.

Being 'feminine' is enough to get you a GRC, it seems.

Hair-raising case. The sex marker in my passport is not about femininity - why does this person have the right to undermine the meaning of my legal documents?

Sigh. Such utter bullshit. Reminds me of this, which I suppose comes from Dualingo or similar.

The whole concept of GRCs should never have been invented. Looking at those "goals", this man could simply shave his legs and wear a padded bra and there's no need for any change in his legal status or official paperwork or medical procedures or anything.

Why/how have we come to this, that we have a panel judging how feminine a man is, in order to reward him with a certificate of femininity, that he can use to access female single sex spaces (or not, according to Keir Starmer, at least on odd numbered days). It's just bonkers

Wait what?

a) To achieve a gynaecoid body shape, including adult female breast
development;
b) To achieve a reduction in facial and body hair; and
c) To retain the capacity to have a functional penis, with capacity for
erection and genital sexual response.

Well that's definitely the quiet part said out loud, but The Right Side of History have an amazing capacity for selective deafness.

Yes. He wanted the appearance of breasts. And 'femininity' - is this a legally defined term? Plus his functioning penis for sexual purposes.

Now he has a lady ticket.

Being 'feminine' is enough to get you a GRC, it seems.

They really are doing our work for us.

They can't help repeatedly demonstrating that a GRC should be seen as meaningless, and that the GRA should be abolished.

This case seems to permit define legal sex being inclusive of 'non binary'.

Alternatively, they are demonstrating that feeling a bit sad about being a man, and seeing yourself as 'feminine' is enough to get you a GRC.

The definition of 'woman' is looking increasingly vague.

I'd feel more optimistic if we weren't looking at an incoming government that is likely to wholeheartedly support this man's journey.

Under Labour's new proposals, either of his 'gender affirming' doctors could have signed off the GRC for him.

Yep.

Repeal the GRA.

It's the end of 'women's rights' and equity, isn't it.

They're treating "non binary" here in a man as MTF like they did in the Jaguar Landrover case. It's a completely meaningless concept. How can he be "non binary" and have changed his "gender" to "woman" "for all purposes"?

It's too early on a Sunday morning to engage my critical faculties to their warp-factor level😆but this case seems to prove that the law used to be an ass, but thanks to the GRA/GRCs it is a.... whatever the donkey-equivalent of a mammoth elephant is.
"living in the acquired gender" is such an impossible thing to prove, given that 'gender' is a contested term, you'd imagine that The Law would think it was way too amorphous and incapable of being proven or disproven to be a useful concept.

This case seems to say that this man's 'acquired gender' is 'female' in the eyes of the law, so it follows that having a functioning penis is part of the legal definition of being female..??

The law is an ass. Its pronouns are he/haw.

Thanks, I really ought to read that judgement.

Legal Feminist's summary is quite good ISTR.

It has just dawned on me: another reason why Labour want to ‘simplify’ the GRC process may also be that it will abolish these gender panels so open discussion of why some men who are very happy with their penises want female documents will be harder.

Important evidence of what is really going on will just be erased. We will no longer have evidence derived from government bureaucracies. That’s an issue - who cares what some random person on social media says, but the facts of this case can simply not be denied.

I don't think this case will set any precedent for the legal status of 'non-binary', whatever the appellant thinks. The board seems to think that his legal sex should be female because a) he is certain he is not male, and b) he has presented exclusively as female from a very early age (with one brief experimental blip in hormone treatment, which is unexplained - he says elsewhere that he's never had sex), and experiences dysphoria if he attempts anything else. They are giving more weight to his behaviour and mood than to his own theories about his gender identity, in other words.

I suspect he's a ND possible abuse survivor who is too literal-minded to jump the GRC hoops, and whose doctor hasn't helped by adding her own theorising to the mix.

Thanks.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/tag/forstater/

This one?

Does the general public understand, that it's a human rights breach for a change in legal sex to be made contingent on any medical or surgical treatment whatsoever?

No, I don’t think the general public understands that at all. Which is part of the problem.

It seems that RMW et al have managed to achieve their ultimate goal.

Words are meaningless.

Women's rights will be a concept without meaning from next week.

ETA: Correction, later this week.

[response to theilltemperedclavecinist · Today 10:14 ]

No. Look at how often we have to tell people that most transwomen are men with a penis who have no intention of getting rid of it.

A huge number of people think that being 'trans' equates to having your penis removed in some kind of mystical sex change ceremony.

'That letter recorded the applicants ‘goals’ for treatment as being:
a) To achieve a gynaecoid body shape, including adult female breast
development;
b) To achieve a reduction in facial and body hair

To be fully clear about what this means, I expect such modifications will be put forward for NHS commissioning?