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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

@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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.