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

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"!

Wikipaedia entry for Stephen Whittle (founder of 'Press for Change' lobby group which drove the GRA and other legislation) highlights Aleksander's influence when still a child:

(extract)
"In 1966 his mother, Barbara Elizabeth Whittle (née Stead), being concerned at how different he was from his sisters, entered him in the examination for Withington Girls' School. Being one of the highest scorers in the city in the Eleven plus exam that year, he received a scholarship to attend. It was during his time at Withington Girls' School that he started reading medical books. He knew he was romantically attached to other girls at school – he never told them, and so his love was not reciprocated – but he also knew that he was sexually attracted to men. On top of that was a strong desire to be a man, to grow a beard and to have a hairy chest. He had read articles about people like Della Aleksander and April Ashley who had had a sex change. In 1972, at the age of 16, whilst visiting his doctor about a sore throat he read about a trans man" (continues)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Whittle

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'

Cf Recent interview with Eddie Izzard and Lorraine Kelly,

The Sun, 'SHE'S GREAT Eddie Izzard and Lorraine Kelly fight back tears in emotional moment as presenter calls the star ‘a fantastic woman’
Mary Gallagher
7 Jan 2021
(extract)
"All girls are foetuses, the nipples are there because they could have been breasts... stop being so obsessed about this, we are all human beings, we need to make it work."

www.thesun.co.uk/tv/13674232/eddie-izzard-lorraine-kelly-tears-amazing-woman/

Then I wondered if Della was shutting Laura up because the official line was, “There are so few of us!” and Laura was letting the cat out of the bag.

Yes, the official line during the GRA debates in parliament was that only about 5000 people would be eligible for a GRC.

Now we have people asking why 'only' about 5000 people have a GRC when there are about 500,000 trans people in the UK.

If parliament had been told that half a million people were likely to apply for GRCs they'd never have passed the original GRA. Same sex marriage and equal pension age would have looked like a much more acceptable solution.

R0wantrees - ”Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority"

Something that struck me when I first saw that was that Della Aleksander shut Laura down very abruptly at that point and I wondered why.

My first thought was that at that time “minority” was shorthand for “ethnic minority” and I wondered if Della thought Laura was being racist and didn’t want to risk any expansion on that theme.

Then I wondered if Della was shutting Laura up because the official line was, “There are so few of us!” and Laura was letting the cat out of the bag.

It certainly didn’t look like a genuine, “Don’t be silly, dear!” moment.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

Previous thread, OP Sunkisses wrote:
'BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".

It's absolutely fascinating and well worth a watch."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327193-BBC-Open-Door-programme-45-years-ago-on-transsexuals-a-real-jaw-dropper

We had effective Self-ID in 1970, and nobody else realised. How good was that?

Previous important thread collating evidence and history of transactivism in the UK prior to 2004 GRA
provides insight into the history and location of transactivism in UK.

AngryAttackKittens wrote:
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

That’s timely. In a recently resurrected thread, a reference to the part of the GRA2004 that covers the process if there is an error in a GRC. I’d completely forgotten this was in the Act as well as in the minutes of the GRC Panel (eye roll at myself as it was me who posted this previously):

The GRA provides for correction of "errors" in c 7, Section 6:

6 Errors

(1) Where a gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person, the person or the Secretary of State may make an application for—

(a) an interim gender recognition certificate, on the ground that a full gender recognition certificate has incorrectly been issued instead of an interim certificate;

(b) a full gender recognition certificate, on the ground that an interim gender recognition certificate has incorrectly been issued instead of a full certificate; or

(c) a corrected certificate, on the ground that the certificate which has been issued contains an error.

(2) If the certificate was issued by a court the application is to be determined by the court but in any other case it is to be determined by a Gender Recognition Panel.

(3) The court or Panel—

(a) must grant the application if satisfied that the ground on which the application is made is correct, and

(b) otherwise must reject it.

(4 )If the court or Panel grants the application it must issue a correct, or a corrected, gender recognition certificate to the applicant.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/6

The wording does not stipulate that the error must have existed at the time the GRC was issued, just that it "contains an error", ie. at present.

It is obvious from the minutes of the Gender Recognition Panel User Group (thank you MForstater!) that Panels and GRP Admin are incredibly supportive and go out of their way to accommodate applicants:

medium.com/@MForstater/long-slow-demeaning-intrusive-and-distressing-or-swift-professional-and-efficient-e100f2fb41f8

Is there any reason to suppose that GRPs would not be equally helpful to detransitioners?

Any plan to repeal the GRA needs to include provision for detransitioners to revert to their original birth certificates. The GRA allows for a court to issue a "corrected or correct" GRC if the original GRC was issued by a court. Perhaps the simplest way around it would be to enable courts to issue "corrected or correct" GRCs to any detransitioner?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3941154-should-the-gra-be-repealed?msgid=97731665

We had effective Self-ID in 1970, and nobody else realised. How good was that?

This sounds horribly like you're saying you'd found a loophole in laws that were there to protect women. I trust that wasn't what you meant?

The GRA is outdated, was never meant for the amount of people that wanted self ID, and wasn't ever publicly consulted on.

3. Why bother? As others have said, I can change everything apart from my birth certificate, marriage certificate (neither of which I want to change) and certain pensions records without a GRC. Trans people might complain about Corbett v Corbett (that put a stop to the previous informal process that changed birth certificates) but it left in place the right to change passports, driving licences, bank records, medical records (!!!), and the rest with - at most - a letter from your GP. We had effective Self-ID in 1970, and nobody else realised. How good was that?

It cannot be seen as "good" by anyone concerned for Safeguarding that any teacher, social care or health professional working with children or vulnerable adults can hide their male sex and history.

Any adult working in these areas who has used what are loopholes in the Safeguarding framework to change their key documents (passport/DBS/qualification certificates etc) is demonstrating a disregard for Safeguarding & Child Protection principles.

How can employers and organisations prove that they meet the EA if they don't know sex of their employees for example?

Indeed.

How can employers and organisations prove that they meet the EA if they don't know sex of their employees for example?

No one else’s business most of the time.

But there are times when it is.

Or like Karen White who simply self ID’d into a woman’s prison without a GRC or have you forgotten?

No, haven't forgotten. The difference between KW and a male with a GRC, though, is that KW was put in a women's prison at the discretion of extremely unfit for purpose decision making processes. A GRC holder has to be placed in the female estate.

What difference does legal sex make to a burial?

Bugger all to the buried, who is dead and knows nowt about it.

Kith and kin matter more at that point but is still of low priority in the long term.

That point is emotional and personal rather than of historical relevance - and that is what you are when you are dead: history.

I have had to come to terms with this with an uncle whose grave has been moved and then moved again. It has been gut-wrenchingly upsetting to go through this but give it a few years and none of us personally affected will be around to bother.

What matters is truth - and the truth is persistent, scientifically verifiable biology, not unverifiable subjective and variable “gender feels”.

Hmmmm only if you were to be buried in a sex segregated cemetery for religious reasons I suppose. I guess there are these on the world?

What difference does legal sex make to a burial?

Why should those left behind have to bury them as the wrong legal sex?

This question contains the essence of the issue. What on earth is a "legal sex"? Sex comes from biology, the concept of legal sex being ditched is the only sensible solution.

what is the difference between 'marrying as a man' and 'marrying as a woman'?

According to one person who replied to the WEC call for evidence it would be a "gross deceit" for them to marry as a man but it is a huge imposition to expect them to go through the trauma of applying for a GRC after they have transitioned.

Nope, makes no more sense to me than a man having a passport stating they are female but staying married as a man.

And what about when someone dies? Why should those left behind have to bury them as the wrong legal sex? Why should family have to bury someone they’ve known and loved as a woman, as a man? It’s such an indignity for some.

I wasn't aware that there are specific differences in how someone is buried which is dependent on their sex. In a funeral for a transgender person the mourners can refer to that person using the name and pronouns they knew them by when they were alive. They wouldn't need a GRC for that.

Or like Karen White who simply self ID’d into a woman’s prison without a GRC or have you forgotten?

I thought the authorities had claimed that this happened because of an error.

No one else’s business most of the time.

To follow this with how trans people don't want to marry as the sex they are seems a bit contradictory. If it's nobody else's business and it doesn't really matter why are these little details so important? If they can have the legal protections they get from being married and are recognised as a married couple, what is the difference between 'marrying as a man' and 'marrying as a woman'?

Self-ID for a GRC would mean that a rapist would be able to simply self-ID his way into a women's prison

Or like Karen White who simply self ID’d into a woman’s prison without a GRC or have you forgotten?

In that case it's impossible for anyone to prove what sex they are.

No one else’s business most of the time.

Same sex marriage does not solve anything for many. Your average trans man does not want to marry as a woman. And many trans women don’t want to marry a man as ‘two men’ because they see themselves as women. Particularly if they’ve gone through medical and surgical transition.

And what about when someone dies? Why should those left behind have to bury them as the wrong legal sex? Why should family have to bury someone they’ve known and loved as a woman, as a man? It’s such an indignity for some.

Press For Change: Five Principles for the evaluation of legislative proposals covering transgendered people in the United Kingdom

August 1997

Soon after the general election in Britain in 1997, Press for Change began a wide-ranging consultation to determine people's opinions about the way ahead in dealing with the new government. We wanted to know, mainly, how people thought we should conduct the campaign, and where the emphasis should be.

One spin-off from this process was a set of guidelines to form, in advance, our bottom line ... a litmus test for any proposal made to us ... a means of checking whether a piece of legislation included all the people we represent in an acceptable fashion.

These have become known as the 5 P's ...

P 1 - Is the legislative instrument on offer motivated by a recognition of the need to correct an incorrect or premature assumption of sex or gender identity, subsequently discovered to have been invalid?

We put this principle first, because it reminds us that if we've failed to establish such a fundamental about our case, and we're being offered something that's aimed to humour and facilitate what is still (fundamentally) believed to be a "change" to a previously correct record, the rest will, at best, be simply ameliorative ... and (at worst) minimalist or prescriptive by nature. The other reason for insisting on a test of this type is that it then sets down the basis for interpreting the intent of the actual bill, if and when ambiguities or points of law need to be tested.

P 2 - Is the effect of the legislation inclusive of the needs of all transsexual people, including (but not limited to) pre- and post-operative people, FtM's, non-operative MtF's, those already married, those retired or aged, legal minors, disabled people, EC citizens, citizens living overseas, etc..)?

We have included the above named categories, as a permanent and unavoidable reminder of our obligations to the whole community whom we serve as unelected representatives,

P 3 - Does the effect of the legislation specifically ensure that transsexual people in the United Kingdom are protected according to the principles embodied in the European Declaration on Human Rights?

This is really a shorthand way of asking if it covers marriage, family, work and privacy rights.

P 4 - Does the legislation establish self-definition as the principal and overriding qualification for correcting a previously recorded sex/gender status?

This ties in with principle P1, but is to remind us that the single biggest threat we must guard against is the establishment of medical or legal "gatekeepers" with the power to impose their values on applicants. We had to concede this during earlier attempts to define legislation, as it was an idea ahead of its' time, but that's why we should develop these principles as our "stake in the ground".

P 5 - Does the legislation provide real privacy and recognition for people, or will it still enable exposure and consequent discrimination to be continued by other means?

This is our reality check. It's there to remind us, for instance, that a change that isn't grounded in principles 1, 2 and 3 still permits defacto obligations for self-disclosure to persist ... within the insurance industry, for instance. We have to remember that we're seeking legislation to achieve a result, not just to put in place a few specific legal changes for what we've historically seen to be the main causes of discrimination. Cause and enablement are two very different things. An unchanged birth certificate may directly cause many problems ... a change to status and papers that doesn't tie up the loose ends properly may still enable discrimination by other means.

archive.md/fiwXs