Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Gender Recognition Bill 2004 - Hansard records

32 replies

PencilsInSpace · 03/12/2017 21:46

I've found all the debates, written answers etc. for the gender recognition bill when it was going through parliament in 2004.

Does anybody fancy a thread for poring through these?

I think there may be quite a lot in there that we can use to challenge the proposed changes to the GRA. Reading through the debates we can see what the original intentions of the law makers were. Biology hasn't changed since 2004 and neither has male violence. What has changed is the range of people who might seek a GRC and what their intentions are.

I think a case could probably be made that the self ID proposal runs counter to the intentions of the original act.

For example, the very first paragraph of the first written answer, even before the draft bill was published, states that the gender recognition bill was introduced in response to 'the Government's commitment to legislate to allow transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the acquired gender to gain legal recognition in that gender'.

That's not what is happening now. No 'decisive steps' necessary, no living 'fully and permanently' in the acquired gender.

OP posts:
Regressionconfession · 04/12/2017 12:47

Sorry above a bit off topic. I'll have a read too!

Regressionconfession · 04/12/2017 12:46

I had a light bulb moment the other day re the difference between 'transexual' and 'transgender'. The 2004 Act already caters to transsexuals - those committed to living as women and who have transitioned. I know it's an obvious point but sometimes it's helpful stating the obvious.

Maybe it would be helpful to spell it out the difference to those jumping on the liberal band wagon - ie., those self identifying are actively deciding not to transition.

Original poster
PencilsInSpace · 04/12/2017 12:31

Goodwin vs. the UK ECHR 2002. It wasn't just about the right to marry, also the right for TIMs to stop paying national insurance and claim a pension at the same age as women (so that will soon be obsolete as well), some completely reasonable stuff to do with workplace discrimination that is now covered by the EA and some administrative difficulties with the DSS.

OP posts:
Original poster
PencilsInSpace · 04/12/2017 12:20

IIRC the 2004 act was based on a not unreasonable ECHR case to do with a trans person's right to marry. This predated civil partnerships and now of course we have equal marriage, which makes much of the original intention of the GRA redundant.

Imherefornow - equality impact assessments are to do with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This was part of the Equality Act 2010 so I'm not sure what requirements there were in 2004 to do impact assessments. The requirements are certainly there now though and if a public organisation fails to properly consider how its policies affect people with different protected characteristics they can be legally challenged.

Thelilywhite - TBH I'm not sure how much time I'll have to devote to this either. I don't think we'll manage a forensic line-by-line analysis, but with lots of us just dipping in and out we might find some useful stuff. I'm particularly keen to find the bits where they debate the clause on peerages and titles Wink

OP posts:
BetsyM00 · 04/12/2017 12:01

I also really want to explore this when I've got more time. You make a good point Pencils. I think there are definitely several legal points to challenge.

The intention of the original act was also to allow for transsexuals to marry, so there may be an argument that the act should have been repealed on the introduction of civil partnerships.

Also, from the Scottish consultation:
"3.08. In 2006, the non-binding Yogyakarta Principles were agreed by a wide-ranging group of human rights law experts, representatives of nongovernmental organisations and others. They set out existing international human rights law and principles, as the authors believe they should be applied to the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Principle 3 asks countries to:

“take all necessary … measures to ensure that procedures exist whereby all State-issued identity papers which indicate a person’s gender/sex including birth certificates … reflect the person’s profound self-defined gender identity” and to “ensure that such procedures are efficient, fair and non-discriminatory, and respect the dignity and privacy of the person concerned”.

3.09. In 2015, Resolution 2048 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Resolution 2048) expressed concerns that requiring someone seeking legal recognition of their acquired gender to have been medically treated or diagnosed is a breach of their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. The resolution calls on all Member States to:

“develop quick, transparent and accessible procedures, based on selfdetermination, for changing the name and registered sex of transgender people on birth certificates, identity cards … and other similar documents”.

3.10. The view of the Scottish Government is that the 2004 Act requirements are unnecessarily intrusive and do not reflect the best practice now embodied in the Yogyakarta Principles and Resolution 2048."

So there is no case law for the proposed law changes under Article 8 of the ECHR, just some 'concerns'. No court decision or EU directive.

Article 8 says:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

  1. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

I could make a case to legally challenge the GRA on the basis of every point made there - protection of children's health, rights and freedoms of women being curtailed, national security of document change, and so on.

Was the original 2004 Act based on an ECHR case? If so, can this be appealed/judicial review? At a very basic premise we have legislation that states humans can change sex - this is factually incorrect.

I'll come back to this...

Imherefornow · 04/12/2017 11:36

Wow! This is an exeptional find!

I will definitely work my way through this to see if there is somr precedent to enforce an equalities impact report and strengthen the demand for a full consultation...there's quite a lot! But I do love to read Smile

Thelilywhite · 04/12/2017 09:55

pencils
Have just noticed this thread. I think this is a great idea. Much as I would love to join in discussions ( im so wound up sbout all this its keeping me awake at night) I have very little spare time so wouldnt want to commit and then not live up to that. I hope others will say yes though

Swipe left for the next trending thread