Responses to Scottish Govt GRA consultation now online

[howonearthdidwegethere]

www.gov.scot/Topics/Justice/law/17867/gender-recognition-review/review-of-gender-recognition-act-2004-list-of-orga/published-responses-from-organisations

Not sure what the deal is with individual responses. None published. Maybe the SG don't publish them as a matter of course or everyone opted not to have them in the public domain.

Posted too soon for everyone else

In my response, I suggested they should have complete transparency about the funding requirements of the organisations who provided official responses.
I bet most of them saying they welcome transwomen are actually dependent on that position for a percentage of their funding.

Thank you for all the lovely flowers. They're beautiful and much appreciated. I can't believe I'm alive in this world, right now. I cannot believe, after all that's been said and done, that a tiny group of men with a specific fetish have managed, somehow, to almost smother half of the population (actually, more than half, cos I need to include kids too), simply because everyone else is too lazy to challenge them.

I don't think it is about laziness, I think most of the population don't have a clue what's going on, or are so brow beaten as to not allow themselves a view. This was never about a grass roots movement building up influence and awareness, this has been paid for by powerful vested interests - powerful enough to silence every political party and almost every politician in this country, powerful enough to make sure everyone complies, whether they agree or not. I've never witnessed anything like it, the breath taking speed of implementation, the complete rolling over of fact for non fact, biology for feelings. This is going on across the world, not just the UK. This is a global agenda. They are redefining fact, redefining language, redefining women, redefining humanity. The future is looking feverish, the emperor is most definitely naked.

There are a couple of questions regarding divorce. The first is fair enough that spousal consent need not be required.

But, it also asks if legal gender recognition should stop being grounds for divorce. As an example, Amnesty responds :

"Current grounds for divorce where the ‘marriage has broken down irretrievably’ are broad and sufficient. To have legal gender recognition as a standalone reason for grounds for divorce would go against the spirit of equality; furthermore it may contravene the individuals right to privacy if individuals are required to disclose their personal circumstances in relation to their gender status."

Fortunately for the future of Scottish law, the Faculty of Advocates wrote:

"No. The proposals, if enacted, will render ineffective the provision for divorce on issue of an interim gender recognition certificate, but will then leave a spouse who seeks immediate divorce having to rely on a claim that the transgendered spouse has behaved in such a way that they cannot reasonably be expected to continue to cohabit. Unless relying on that ground, and in the absence of consent, the spouse seeking divorce will have to wait for two years. There must be consideration as to how to provide a ground that is not critical of either spouse for not remaining in a marriage after one of them has transgendered. The solution may be simply to allow legal gender recognition to be a ground for divorce that is open to either party."

Re divorce, if you make obtaining a grc grounds for divorce (explicitly or not), then you still have the situation where a spouse could be unwillingly party to a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. It makes more sense in terms of consent to require a willing spouse or divorce first.

I'm so sorry Alice but I'm a bit lost in the legalese here.

Does this mean that an immediately divorce would not be granted if my husband turned himself into a wife overnight and didn't want to divorce me? So I'd be obligated to wait the 2 years? Or does it mean I'd get an immediate divorce, even if my former-husband-now-wife didn't want one? I'm so tired that I can't make head nor tail of it.

Spindelina it does kind of make it almost a "forced marriage" doesn't it? I married Simon, not Susie. Why should I be legally married to Susie when it was Simon who signed the sodding register? The certificate is between Simon and me, not Susie and me. So many implications for this steaming pile of horsepoop.

These are just the responses to the consultation. I was just quite shocked by the attitudes they revealed. I think (but not from any great knowledge) that the plan is to change the system from spousal consent and they were looking at the option of making the acquisition of grc grounds for divorce. Even this is too much for some of the responders.

Amnesty were basically arguing that 'irretrievable breakdown' would cover grounds for divorce but that the transgender status of the spouse shouldn't be revealed as it contravenes their right to privacy. As, I imagine, the decision to transition is pretty much the main factor in a marriage breakdown, I'm not sure how they think a spouse could leave it out of a divorce petition.

On the existing arrangement, many of them want to do away with spousal consent. From the Advocates, response, it seems that spouses cannot currently stop a person seeking a grc (anyone?) but may give them other powers and it does enable them to get a divorce. So:
"We consider that a balance must be struck between the rights of the transgender person to seek official recognition of their acquired gender and the rights of their spouse to decide whether they want to remain in the marriage. It may be a concern that spousal consent gives the spouse too much power in the transgender person’s ability to access their legal rights. We consider that this is a difficult issue. Under the present system, a spouse cannot veto a person’s application for a gender recognition certificate. We are not persuaded that that should change"

And yes, I think that under the amnesty type scenario you could easily get stuck for 2 years waiting to divorce Stephanie / Stephen.

but that the transgender status of the spouse shouldn't be revealed as it contravenes their right to privacy.

What about the spouse's right to describe the truth about their past actions and sexual orientation?!?

I'm bloody furious.

I'm minded to write to each and every one and point out the consequences of their bandwagon jumping.

And I will thank the ones who recognise the end game of this. Utter madness.

Well, quite! I honestly don't know what the hell amnesty think they are suggesting!

I would think that actual legal brains will prevail in this but it shows how far down the rabbit hole we are that supposedly human rights organisations think like this.

Stephen trotting down to the paper shop in his new heels in the guise of Stephanie seems to be a bit of a rite of passage - one that they WANT to be noticed. I think the paper shop would notice when Stephanie totters in to pick up Stephen's Sunday Times, wouldn't you? It's hardly the most discrete of changes.....FFS, people notice if someone has had their chuffing hair dyed! I think they'd spot a change of gender. What a pile of dung.

It can come as no surprise if cited in a divorce, not to anyone who knows the couple in question, and therefore Stephen/Stephanie has a bloody effing nerve saying it would infringe their privacy if "revealed".

You know what, if there IS any alien life in the myriad of solar systems out there, and they somehow have some sort of observation going on us, they must be peeing in their pants laughing at this shite. Plus, staying well away, just in case the madness is infectious.

Care for ScRoland have been very detailed.

Scotland

I'd hoped SCRA would have been a bit more circumspect since they're responsible for safeguarding children.
It's also disappointing that the churches issued one central response rather than asking each parish/diocese to submit. It unfairly weighs it in the favour of pro-self-id groups because they have responses from different branches/councils, etc.

On the spousal veto:

The GRA predates equal marriage. It used to be the case that you couldn't get a GRC unless you ended the marriage first (hence the recent pension case). Married applicants would be granted an interim GRC and would then have 6 months to start proceedings to annul the marriage. Once the marriage had ended they got a full GRC and a new birth certificate.

Now we have equal marriage so people can change legal sex and remain married - but only if both parties agree. Married applicants need to include signed consent from their spouse, otherwise they get an interim GRC and proceed as above.

It's not a veto on getting a GRC, it's a veto on fundamentally changing the terms of the marriage. If your spouse doesn't consent, you end the marriage and then get your full GRC. Why wouldn't you? Why would you stay married to someone who refused to recognise your stunning and brave true self? The only reason I can think of is a religious objection to divorce - which is why an interim GRC is grounds for annulment.

Here are my answers to those questions:

Question 7
Should it be possible to apply for and obtain legal gender recognition without any need for spousal consent?

NO

A marriage is a contract between two people. If one of those people legally changes their sex then the contract has changed - something that should only happen with the agreement of both parties. For example, a man in a heterosexual marriage applies for a GRC and beomes legally female. The wife is henceforth in a lesbian marriage having never agreed to this. Conversely, in a lesbian marriage, if one party transitions and becomes legally male, the other party is now deemed to be in a heterosexual marriage, without her consent. Much is spoken about the importance of respecting people's identities. If this is important then it is important for everybody, not just the person who is transitioning.

Question 9
Should legal gender recognition stop being a ground of divorce or dissolution?

NO

It is wholly unfair on a spouse to remove this as a ground for divorce. The spouse would then need to wait up to two years or cite 'unreasonable behaviour' in order to legally end the relationship. Part of the public sector equality duty is to foster good relationships between those with a particular protected characteristic and those who do not share it. This proposal is likely to actively worsen those relationships by removing a straightforward, no-fault ground for divorce. Aditionally, as noted above, a marriage or civil partnership is a contract between two people. If the terms of that contract change then either party should have the right to end the contract on those grounds.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure this has ever been grounds for divorce, just dissolution (annulment) I've recently read arguments that it should be divorce rather than annulment because the latter creates a legal fiction that the marriage never existed (and one legal fiction - change of sex - is bad enough!) So I think there should be a choice of divorce or annulment and if there's no agreement on this the court should decide. Either way, finances, housing and child arrangements all still need sorting out, with the help of the court if necessary.

If the spousal veto was removed, all those trans widows could end up stuck in marriages for 1-2 years (Scotland) or 2-5 years (England & Wales) unless they were prepared to cite unreasonable behaviour. Doubtless this would be very very easy in lots of cases, however:

1. It makes things even more stressful and antagonistic and puts those women in a position where they can easily be accused of transphobia for saying their spouse's transition is unreasonable behaviour in itself

2. What counts as unreasonable behaviour is up to the judge to decide. We really can't afford to be complacent on this.

I've read a lot of bullshit from TRAs about the spousal veto being a way for abusive spouses to stop their partner legally transitioning.

It's very clear to me which way round the potential for abuse works here.

Thanks Pencils that's a brilliant analysis and cements why I'm so angry that the pitfalls and emotional trauma for the spouse are being dismissed so flippantly.

Amnesty.. but are we surprised given the scandals of charities full of abusive men ?
I don’t understand how this is happening. I don’t understand how rape crisis centres and women’s shelters, of all places , can give in on this. HOW IS THIS HAPPENING ?
It really feels like a nightmare.

Civil partnership is an interesting one because unlike marriage, a cp can only be single sex. If an applicant is in a cp, the couple can either end it or convert it into a marriage. I went a bit off piste with this question and looked for silver linings (equal CP by the back door )

Question 8
Civil partnership is only available to same sex couples. This means that the civil partners cannot remain in their civil partnership if one of them wishes to obtain a full Gender Recognition Certificate.

Should they instead be allowed to remain in their civil partnership? This would mean that a woman and a man would be in the civil partnership.

YES

If both parties are in agreement they should be allowed to remain in a civil partnership of a man and a woman. This would potentially pave the way to civil partnerships being available for all heterosexual couples as an alternative to marriage. Many people, women especially, do not want to get married because of the very long, oppressive history of that institution. Because of this, women (usually) and children are left financially unprotected in the event of relationship breakdown. Opening up civil partnership to heterosexual couples could make real practical differences to the number of lone parents and children living in poverty.

Thank you @PencilsInSpace that is really helpful.

The thing is no one in Scotland£ even really knew this was happening. No one apart from them Organization s. And us here

I would think if ordinary ppl in Scotland kne2 this was happening the6 would be totally outraged.

But it’s all been kept in a wee thems who have to know and respond in right way have been told

No one not one single person I know has an6 clue bout this consultation

I spoke about it at a family dinner and said what if ur husband£ Steve suddendly said he was Stephanie and they wer3 just like Steve would be straight out the door

They couldn5 even imagine that u would be expected to pu5 it with it

One mor3 thing. Fuck u iPad keyboard