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

They would go through the GRC process. This is recognised by the GRC Panel and Government as an issue for Intersex People who need to obtain a GRC. They still need to get a diagnosis of dysphoria to comply with the legislation but the panel is aware that this is a formality. It is one of the issues considered when Reform of the GRA was being proposed.

I have no GRC and I have no intention of getting one. Three main reasons.

1. I do not want to falsify my birth certificate, which is an accurate record of my birth.
2. Neither do I want our marriage certificate to be changed. If I was granted a GRC, our marriage certificate would need to be changed to show that we were a same-sex couple who had been married in a register office. We were actually married in a church, but churches don't do same-sex marriages. We would even be able to change the date of our marriage (for consistency) but we wouldn't be compelled to do that. It feels like a dogs dinner.
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?

The reason I got involved in this campaign from 2016 was that I did realise and I figured that we were shooting ourselves in the foot. Or more likely Stonewall UK and others were shooting us in the foot for reasons I did not understand at the time).

My thinking has developed since then but I still view this entire campaign for legal Self-ID as a massive own goal.

Ta, Molesmokes.

I seem to recall Keira Bell (I think) talking about her GRC and not being able to get it undone, because of the "dysphoria" requirement.

But it's perfectly possible she hasn't made the attempt, and it would just be a question of putting "n/a" in the relevant box and a bit of explanation in the comments...

Related - does anyone know what the procedure would be for someone wanting to get a record change on the grounds of actually being assigned the wrong sex at birth? No dysphoria or gender identity claims, you just were recorded wrong - likely due to a DSD or maybe a "Brazil"-style clerical error?

Would the GRC panel handle that?

A GRC can be revoked by the Sec of State if it is obtained fraudulently. The Sec of State notified the court in Freddie’s case that he chose not to exercise that option. This is recorded in the Court Ruling on the case.

A GRC can be revoked on request and it will be recorded by the GRC panel that the original GRC was issued in error. The person also needs to submit a new application for a GRC. The Panel would then issue a new GRC so that the person can have another new birth certificate issued.

This process is recorded in the GRC Panel Minutes, in response to a question submitted about the process if someone wanted to revert legally to their birth sex. Whether it has ever happened is another matter entirely.

Theoretically, there is a technical difficulty in that any applicant for a GRC should submit medical evidence that they suffer from gender dysphoria. That might be true, in the sense that they now experience discomfort being legally identified as the wrong sex. However, it might rather be the case that they no longer suffer the dysphoria that made them eligible to obtain a GRC, ie. that they are cured.

I am convinced from reading the GRC Panel minutes that the Panel would find a way to make this happen that causes as little distress as possible. They record details of the type of work conducted by staff between meetings, such as the considerable amount of time spent contacting applicants by phone to talk them through the process, provide advice and reassurance, etc.

This process is on another planet from the genuinely complex, massively time-consuming and degrading gate-keeping familiar to anyone who has applied for any sort of disability benefit. The GRC Panel WANTS people to navigate the system successfully - it’s not a “test”, it’s a compassionately guided, administrative process with set requirements in terms of documentation to be submitted.

The GRC Panel minutes (they do NOT discuss individual cases) were released to Maya Forstater following a FOI Request. They make fascinating reading as it is clear as day that the Panel bends over backwards to accommodate and assist applicants.

It is also clear that the approval process is strictly administrative, simply making sure that the documentation submitted complies with the legislation. There is no sense in which the panel makes value judgments and all the drama queen rubbish about it being a “degrading” process is a load of BS.

I’ve seen social media posts from people claiming how awful it was when they “went in front of a panel” - that never happens. There is no provision to meet an applicant - it’s all done on paperwork.

The GRC Panel minutes are linked in this article by Maya Forstater:

”LONG, SLOW, DEMEANING, INTRUSIVE AND DISTRESSING or SWIFT, PROFESSIONAL AND RESPECTFUL?”

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

Here is a link to the Hansard records by Hairy Legged Harpy.

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945?s=20

I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard

One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.

Always v helpful is Hairy.

Goodwin v United Kingdom had nothing to do with marriage.

Really?

The applicant in this case lived as a woman and would only wish to marry a man. As she had no possibility of doing so, she could therefore claim that the very essence of her right to marry had been infringed

The court ruled that there had been a breach of Article 12, the right to marry.

InfoRelish seems to be here to spread misinformation.

We went through all of this with self ID. Yes, we've heard all the trans activists arguments: "it won't make any difference to single sex spaces! It's just admin!"

Nope. It makes a huge difference. As Julian Norman & all the other lawyers endlessly explained. Prisons is one key example. Yes you can be transferred to a female prison without one, like Karen White was, but if you have one, you are AUTOMATICALLY put in a female jail, with no more risk assessment than would be done on a biological women. You are treated exactly the same as a biological women, and you don't even count as trans in the stats. That's a huge difference.

RE: Prisons - the Transgender Policy Framework is here:

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

Page 9:

"Additional structured risk assessments and resources are required before a person is allocated or transferred to part of the estate which does not match their sex assigned at birth, including where a person has gained legal recognition of the gender with which they identify."

Risk assessments exist for trans people accessing prisons, access is therefore not automatic, but a case by case basis.
These risk assessments apply "including these a person has gained legal recognition" - the legal recognition is not a requirement for consideration, otherwise this clause would not exist.

"She claimed that she had problems and faced sexual harassment at work during and following her gender reassignment. She also alleged that the fact that she keeps the same NI number has meant that her employer has been able to discover that she previously worked for them under another name and gender, with resulting embarrassment and humiliation."

Self-ID for a GRC would mean that a rapist would be able to simply self-ID his way into a women's prison according to that prison document I posted a link to earlier.

There appears to be no way to remove a GRC from someone who makes a fraudulent declaration to live as the opposite sex, since Freddy (the 'seahorse') went to a fertility clinic to get pregnant just days after getting a GRC and making a declaration to 'live as a man' and was allowed to keep the GRC (even though pregnancy is not normally considered to be something covered by 'living as a man').

So presumably a rapist would be allowed to keep their GRC. If being pregnant can be considered as 'living as a man', then it could be argued that raping people using a penis can be considered as 'living as a woman'.

So basically Self ID has been brought in by stealth and is effectively the prevailing system of the day, rendering GRA unnecessary/redundant unless you feel very strongly about documents?

This is.. not true. The GRA was passed because an ECHR ruling (Goodwin v United Kingdom). It had nothing to do with gay marriage whatosever - and the very idea that somebody should change sex because they're gay is as daft as it is homophobic.

The ECHR ruling said that Goodwin, a male to female transsexual, should be allowed to marry a man. This could have been remedied by passing a law allowing same sex marriage. The legal fiction of letting someone change the details of their birth record to say that they had been born the opposite sex was preferred by parliament to allowing same sex marriage.

I don't think anyone suggested that people should 'change sex' because they're gay (it's the Iranians who do that), but in 2004 same sex marriage was dismissed as a solution to the ECHR ruling and I'm sure that for some MPs this was due to homophobia. Had they been less homophobic, perhaps we'd have had same sex marriage 10 years earlier and there would have been no need for the GRA.

Your example rather proves my point here - 'all individuals whoa re transgender' is not the same as 'all individuals who have a Gender Recognition Certificate'.

No it's not, but the purpose of my post was to illustrate one particular circumstance where transgender people are treated differently depending on whether or not they have a GRC.

This is the part of the document I quoted:

"all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender."

The purpose of a GRC is to change someone's legally recognised 'gender'. (It should be 'sex', but they seem to have made a half-hearted attempt to acknowledge that people can't actually change sex.)

The 'legally recognised gender' of a person who was born male and identifies as a woman but doesn't have a GRC is male.

The 'legally recognised gender' of a person who was born male and identifies as a woman but does have a GRC is female.

The person with the GRC will be sent to a women's prison. The person without a GRC will be sent to a men's prison.

"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."

This is.. not true. The GRA was passed because an ECHR ruling (Goodwin v United Kingdom). It had nothing to do with gay marriage whatosever - and the very idea that somebody should change sex because they're gay is as daft as it is homophobic.

[quote OldCrone]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[/quote]
Your example rather proves my point here - 'all individuals whoa re transgender' is not the same as 'all individuals who have a Gender Recognition Certificate'.

As far as I'm aware, there are zero examples of a space that is explicitly not accessible to a transgender person unless they have obtained a GRC. Under the EA2010, a space either meets the 'proportional means to a legitmate aim' clause (in which case it's based on birth sex, and a GRC doesn't change that) or it doesn't meant the clause (in which case it's based on identity, and a GRC doesn't change that either).

AGP - role play, wearing the lady clothes and make up turns them on, not a certificate.

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?”

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.

Homophobia is the main reason why the GRA was passed.

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

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.

"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 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.

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.