The Faculty of Advocates' Response to the Scottish Government's Consultation on GRA Reform

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

arb.advocates.org.uk/news-and-responses/responses/2018/mar/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Very similar responses to mine!

Oh Pinky I love you .... so fabulous to hear a voice of reason from an authoritative body... so few of you around.... and hope that others will follow suit....

Dare I hope you are leading the way?

However, in relation to the 2 responses I specifically mentioned, self-id and the transitioning of under-16s, I can not see that their response is anywhere near as measured as the Advocates’

As far as I can see The Faculty of Advocates did not actually give a yay or nay to question 1 and you are quoting very selectively from the Law Society's response.

I agree champion, those protections are not being used as it is with the pressure being applied from the trans lobby.

You have ignored all the comments about self ID being a serious matter not to be embarked on lightly or for frivolous reasons.

You have ignored the suggestion that a false declaration could be a criminal offence.

Q2 – Should applicants to the proposed gender recognition system in Scotland have to provide a statutory declaration confirming they know what they are doing and intend to live in their acquired gender until death? We broadly agree with this proposal. There should be a high degree of formality to the process and a person self-declaring in this manner should be in no doubt that if they do so lightly or for spurious reasons, there will be consequences for them. Consideration should be given to creating a criminal offence of making a false statement, and to building in a period of reflection between perhaps an interim certificate and finalisation of the process

And here is the full reply to Q6

^Q6 –Which of the identified options for children under 16 do you most favour?
We do not most favour any of the identified options^.
This is a difficult question and a number of considerations must be taken into account. There are strong
arguments that children may require additional support and protection in the context of making the very
significant decision to self-declare. It is noted that existing law allows children who, in the opinion of a
qualified medical practitioner, are capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the
^procedure or treatment to consent to that procedure or treatment, in general terms.
3^
It would seem
inconsistent to have a capable child able to consent to the medical procedures that may relate to a gender
transition, but not to the legal procedure for recognition. That may however place a considerable burden on
^the attending medical practitioner.
It is acknowledged that gender dysphoria can be strongly experienced by children under the age of 16, and^
it may be necessary to ensure that they are able to make a self-declaration is capable of doing so.
There is an argument for making gender change for a child under the age of 16 subject to court process, to
protect children who may be at risk of being pressured into gender transition without adequate medical or
^psychological support and evidence.4
It may be possible to develop a hybrid approach allowing an application with parental consent with a^
requirement for a supportive opinion from an expert such as a psychologist or other relevant medical
practitioner, and an alternative court based process where the supported parental consent route is not an
option.
.

The inference I drew from the under 16 answer was that, having discussed other options, the hybrid (the one I quoted) was their favoured one

Really? They said they had no preferred answer.

I think it is a reasonable and measured response. The Faculty of Advocates did response does not actually answer question 1 one way or another.

I have no legal expertise but I also thought the Advocates was better although both were fairly measured.

I'm a bit disappointed that the idea as to whether they should be codifying subjective belief into law in the first instance wasn't challenged but perhaps that is beyond their remit and I'm expecting too much.

Like Champion I'm also concerned that the supposed protections for sex based exemptions and criminalisation of self id abuse will be toothless in reality unless every individual or organisation adversely affected can afford to pursue through the courts.

Similar to my own responses with the benefit of legal knowledge (except I said parent application instead of court process for children, but the case they cite is a serious point) and fairly uninterested in non binary as a legal matter.

I mean the F of A btw. Not read the Scots response.

@Mummybear701 it was a really difficult task. Did my best.

The Faculty response is much, much better, which is to be expected. I’d be amazed if anyone there cares an iota for being thought trendy or woke. They’d just hate to be wrong.

The Law Society is under different influences. I’m disappointed, though not really surprised. It went to an Equalities subcommittee.

Fab work, PinkyPie.

The Faculty response doesn't answer the first question.

It's disappointing that neither response to Q2 seems to have considered how anyone can be prosecuted for making a false declaration, when the declaration is only based on a feeling in someone's head.

That goes without saying. It's a statutory declaration and will be treated as other statutory declarations are.

In terms of answering the questions; I'm not alone in thinking that the questions were loaded and presupposed agreement. I am not sure which box was checked on the consultation website as that was a matter for someone else, but we were flagging up issues that may arise. It's a wholly dispassionate response.

Hi Pinky

It’s a lovely dry response. Almost deadpan.

A speculative question if I may? If a solicitor refuses to do a statutory declaration (supposing the law changes) on the grounds of conflict with their philosophical/ religious beliefs then would they need to stop doing all statutory declarations in order to avoid discrimination against transgender people?

I would consider that such a refusal could be problematic for the notary/solicitor.

"A passport and a driving licence in one gender but Scottish recognition in another will cause difficulties for the person concerned and for others who rely on such documents for identification"

Absolutely brilliant. The response argues for self-ID. Passports and driving licences are easily changed but get ahead of birth certificates because of the treacle-like process in the Gender Recognition Act. The only way to resolve this and bring the documents in line is to reform the GRA with self-ID. This document should be a real help to getting the change approved. Yay and thank you.