Who is trans - re GRA?

[loveyouradvice]

Surely for the GRA this is the nub of it....

Who qualifies as trans? Someone who has gender dysphoria or anyone who wants to?
i.e. who qualifies to be able to change their gender legally

It is interesting that both this i.e. WHO do we recognise as trans for the purpose of legally changing their gender.... and the impact of someone changing their gender legally are NOT spelt out clearly in the consultation.

Both are rather glossed over.

Yes indeed.

As I keep saying most people aren't fixated on definitions. The consultation takes about the evidence which will be needed (read with the existing) Act and that's what is needed rather a definition.

No change to the consequences of granting a GRC are envisaged so there's no need for it to be in the consultation.

Talks about, not takes about

Snappity, trust me, people care about distinctions. You can say it doesn't matter as much as you want.

It defies belief that you literally don't have a definition of the word "trans".

No change to the consequences of granting a GRC are envisaged so there's no need for it to be in the consultation.

That makes no sense.

For example, if they proposed a change so that anyone who fancied one could be issued a driving license, then, despite the fact that no changes are being made to what a driving license allows you to do, it would have a dramatic effect on road safety.

If you are changing how something is granted, of course you need to look at what is being granted, and what the effects of changing someone's ability to gain that privilege will be.

Once a transwoman becomes a woman legally - by changing his birth certificate - then he will not be a transwoman. He will be a woman.

He won't be able to cherry pick. ie A Woman for the purposes of access to single-sex spaces and services, but a Transwoman for the purposes pursuing remedies for unfair treatment.

He won't be able to cherry pick. ie A Woman for the purposes of access to single-sex spaces and services, but a Transwoman for the purposes pursuing remedies for unfair treatment.

Why not? Why would 'gender reassignment' not apply?

I’ve had a read through of the 112 genders and could pick out at least a dozen I could be and I suppose I could provide evidence of them. And yet I’m a woman, so where is the the cut off point? There needs to be a definition.

The key issue is that once someone has a GRC they are no longer considered trans.

At the moment, the categories 'women' and 'female' can include natal females who do not have a GRC and males with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria who do have a GRC.

Should the amendments be made, the categories 'women' and 'female' will include natal females who do not have a GRC and males who want a GRC.

I don't understand how anyone can think that the categories of 'women' and 'females' will means anything of any significance should the changes be made.

Thanks beau and of course that is absolutely NOT what the consultation spells out ... lost in all the wordery!

In fact I think it goes out of its way to suggest that it is not a significant thing by explaining that trans people already have these rights and it is just to make their lives easier!!!

I am not a swearing woman but I seriously want to say F... O ....

Hi DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg

You asked me: Why would 'gender reassignment' not apply? (in cases where the subject pursues remedies for unfair treatment).

In short, it's my understanding that government is throwing out the gender reassignment protected characteristic.

This is one reason why transexuals oppose the GRA proposals, and why trans people themselves need to think about the consequences for their 'rights'.

We know that, at present, transexuals can prove that they have undergone reassignment with medical evidence. They can show how they have jumped through hoops with a big fat file involving different medical professionals over a number of years. There was no question but that they needed protecting in law, during and after the lengthy process in employment, housing, services etc.

The proposal is that gender reassignment becomes a simple administrative affair, without evidence or corroboration. Even if gender reassignment continues as a characteristic (which I doubt) there is an easy get-out for those who treat transpeople unfairly. They couldn't have known; they didn't know, there was nothing in writing, there was only the subject's word etc etc.

In the worst case scenario for transexuals the government will throw out the 'gender reassignment' clause but fail in its efforts to introduce 'gender identity' as a protected characteristic.

The government's proposals require them to be much clearer on the impact of the GRA on the Equality Act - not just for women but for transexuals.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might well be), but my understanding is this:

1. At present, to get a GRC requires a fair bit of effort, especially diagnosis by medical professionals of dysphoria and 'living in the gender' (sic) as appropriate for a period of time'.
2. The new proposals would eradicate the need for this fair bit of effort and mean that anyone could simply make the declaration. They need not - for example - have 'lived in the gender' (sic) and might still look, to all intents and purposes, like their natal sex.
3. This is a major and significant change and is the main reason GC women (and others) are concerned, because it potentially opens the door to fetishistic and opportunistic men to gain access to women's spaces, for one thing.

It's the lack of diagnosis of dysphoria that's a problem - with out that the door is open to transvestites (& any other man who thinks it would be fun to invade women's spaces). I imagine social transvestites are unlikely to apply but think erotic transexuals/fetishists will.

Trans will mean anyone who says they are for whatever motive.

It is essential that the definition of transwoman is narrowed down because there is a world of difference between what Joe Public thinks it means (old school trans, think Miranda Yardley) to the very wide definition promoted by Stonewall.

This is something that we all need to address in our responses to the GRA consultation.

The biggest single change that is coming is the most dangerous.

In 2004 the debate that created the GRA said specifically it was designed for transsexuals - not crossdressers or others. It was said most would have surgery and so did not make it mandatory but insisted on medical diagnoses that there would be reasons why surgery did not occur such as age or ill health. Most did, Around 60 - 70% I believe.

The doctors predicted that 5000 transsexuals existed and would be covered by the GRA. As of last week - 14 years on - 4990 have. Of which about 3000 are transwomen. The others are transmen.

The government is saying the GRA needs reform because it is not working for those for whom it was intended.

The above shows that is a complete lie. It is one of the best predictions of need and meeting of need in the history of usually useless government statistical predictions.

The entire push is from those who cannot get in for medical reasons and so want to shut off any medical assessment.

But - and here is the key - the GRC is not really the problem. The ability to change the birth certificate is. That was only agreed on the basis that medical assessment and diagnosis were involved and that doctors thought there was reason to why a medical condition might turn out to be the cause of transsexualism.

At present only 2000 - 3000 transwomen in the UK have altered birth certificates in that way.

Self ID not only will vastly increases that number it removes all argument of a medical reason to alter a birth certificate because doctors are no longer going to be involved in deciding the matter. People will be doing it themselves based on their perception.

Right now an altered birth certificate, pretence as it may be to many of you on here (which I do understand even though I have one), has a basis in medical evaluation and involves very modest numbers.

Those were the reasons it happened. I seriously doubt it would have done without the four figure number and medical involvement as backstops.

Half a million self declared legal women who have not gone near a doctor alters entirely the concept of the term women. It changes society in a huge way. We can all see that.

It is arguable that we transsexuals who used the GRA up to now did too. But if medical assessment is replaced by self declared feelings as cause to legally change sex there is no coming back from that. It is a revolution.

This is the battle that should be understood out there. Society in general should decide this. Not just trans people. Not just Feminists.

We need to ask the government why they are saying the GRA is not working when it clearly is given the 2004 debate. And how allowing people to declare their own sex on a birth certificate instead of the judgement of science and medicine as forever up to now is just a minor bureaucratic change.

If the country accepts it as that, fair enough. But I have a feeling most people do not know this is even a question being asked.

We have to have a definition and it needs to be clear.
It cannot be a trans person is anyone who says they are.

Thanks Home - that's really helpful.

Homefromthehills that is very true. This is just my concern and most people I chat to have no idea. They imagine the few thousand transsexuals. No one I’ve spoken to understands that most trans males won’t ever have any hormones, and keep their penises.

Of course there needs to be a definition.

My post was deleted ! I have no idea why.

I have asked mumsnet to clarify the deletion. I used a biological sex definition. That appears to be the reason but I’m hoping they will make it clearer, as I didn’t feel it was at all an offensive post, I was responding to @homefromthehills interesting and well written post above mine.

Half a million self declared legal women who have not gone near a doctor alters entirely the concept of the term women. It changes society in a huge way. We can all see that.

Ireland already has self-declaration of gender by way of statutory declaration. To date there have been around 350 applications. Scaling this by population size predicts there would be around 4500 applications in the UK. However, as noted there are already around 5000 GRCs in the UK.

The suggestion that there would be 500,000 GRCs issued in the UK if self-id goes ahead does not match the evidence.

2. The new proposals would eradicate the need for this fair bit of effort and mean that anyone could simply make the declaration. They need not - for example - have 'lived in the gender' (sic) and might still look, to all intents and purposes, like their natal sex.

It is likely that an individual would have to declare they "intend to continue to live in the acquired gender until death". Penalty under the Perjury Act of up to 2 years in jail for a false declaration. So no "anyone" would not be able to change their gender under a reformed GRA.

3. This is a major and significant change and is the main reason GC women (and others) are concerned, because it potentially opens the door to fetishistic and opportunistic men to gain access to women's spaces, for one thing.

Access to women's spaces are controlled by the Equality Act and not the GRA. So the GRA reform would have no impact in this area.

Some GC women would like to eliminate the existence of trans women (trans women being a tool of the patriarchy to undermine the sex class women). The first step is to eliminate them from public life. These GC women are scaremongering to frighten non-ideological women to join them in fighting the reforms.

In short, it's my understanding that government is throwing out the gender reassignment protected characteristic.

Where does this understanding come from? There is nothing about this in the government's announcements or the consultation itself. In fact the government has been emphatic that the Equality Act is not changing.

SarahAr
It is likely that an individual would have to declare they "intend to continue to live in the acquired gender until death". Penalty under the Perjury Act of up to 2 years in jail for a false declaration. So no "anyone" would not be able to change their gender under a reformed GRA.

Can you explain how a man would live as a woman? Remember it's 2018, not the Victorian era.