Self ID process details - anyone know?

[crunchermuncher]

Hi apologies if this has appeared elsewhere but I haven't been able to get to the bottom of this: will self ID only remove the requirement for an applicant for a GRC to be approved by a medical panel? (And keep the ' live as the chosen sex for 2 years first' requirement)?

Or will it completely change the process into literally: go online, fill in a form, job done?

I was trying to discuss the issues with a mate who has trans friends and she seemed to think there would still be a requirement to demonstrate genuine commitment by living for 2 years as your chosen sex, after 'transistioning socially'. She argued that this will largely prevent men from seeking a GRC for nefarious purposes.

Does anyone know? I can't find details on the consultation itself (But may have missed it because of parenting, work, etc). If anyone can point me to reliable info that would be great as i suspect she's incorrect but I have nothing concrete to back this up and help me articulate a response.

No, no one knows. One of the problems with the consultation document is that it doesn't offer any concrete examples about how self ID might work. It asks us to say whether we think there should be a formal medical assessment or not and whether we think there should be a formal period of evidenced commitment to living as the chosen gender (that period currently stands at 2 years and you're asked in the consultation to say how long you think is reasonable). But there is no suggestion of what self ID might involve for people to consider and support or object to.

This is the link.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Fairplay for Women have guidance:

fairplayforwomen.com/

Good that you asked, I was actually working on a summary to post all of this!

Here are the relevant passages from the consultation document. From what I can tell it's a document outlining recommendations that are being consulted over, not set in stone. Italics are my own additions or comments but it's essentially quotation, not paraphrasing, and I've omitted sections for brevity.

The GRA Consultation is found online by searching ‘gender recognition act reform’, at this address:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Here are what I consider the relevant passages from the proposed Gender Recognition Act reform

Gender Recognition Act 2004 (p8)

An Act of Parliament that allows transgender people to gain legal recognition of their acquired gender, so long as that gender is a man or woman. Applications for legal recognition made under the Act are determined by a Gender Recognition Panel which applies the evidential requirements set out in the Act. Following legal recognition, an individual is entitled to a new birth certificate issued in the acquired gender and in law the person’s gender becomes the acquired gender for all purposes.

How does the Gender Recognition Act work? (p17)

In short, the GRA sets out a list of criteria that a trans person has to meet in order for them to receive legal recognition of their gender identity, so long as that identity is man or woman. The trans person has to collate evidence that they meet those criteria and send it to a Gender Recognition Panel.

What are the main qualifying criteria? (p18)

• Applicant must be 18 or over.
• A statutory declaration that the trans person intends to live permanently in their acquired gender until death.
• Application fee of up to £140
• Two medical reports – confirming that the applicant has, or has had, gender dysphoria and including details of any treatment the applicant has had to modify their body, e.g. hormone treatment or surgery.
• Evidence that the applicant has lived full time in their acquired gender for at least two years. This might include, for example, documentation displaying the individual’s name and gender marker.
• If married, the spouse must issue a statutory declaration of consent.
• The applicant cannot be in a civil partnership unless both they and their partner get legal recognition on the same day.

(Two additional methods with minor differences outlined for the cases of long-term trans people and those who have been recognised as changing gender overseas)

What does having a Gender Recognition Certificate mean? (p19)

Once a trans person has been issued with a GRC, then legally their gender becomes the acquired gender for all purposes save for a few exceptions listed in the GRA. A GRC also entitles an individual to a new birth certificate reflecting the acquired gender rather than the one that was recorded at birth.

Why does the Gender Recognition Act need updating? (p21)

Transgender individuals want legal recognition of their acquired gender and the dignity and respect that can come with it.

To resolve this, however, they have to go through the current gender recognition process that is set out in the GRA. Many trans people feel that this process is overly intrusive, humiliating and administratively burdensome. Further they argue that by requiring a diagnostic psychiatric report, the process perpetuates the outdated and false assumption that being trans is a mental illness.

The fee of £140 and associated costs are seen as expensive and there is no right of appeal against the decision unless on a point of law.

Then I think it's worth going to Stonewall's recommendations on how to fill in the consultation to see what the 'mainstream' line from the trans rights activist lobby is.

www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/come-out-trans-equality

Here are what I think are the most relevant questions

Question 4: Do you also think there should be a requirement for a report detailing treatment received?

Stonewall's perspective on Question 4:

We would answer NO to the following question.

The law already says you do not need to have a medical intervention to be recognised as trans. Therefore legal recognition should not require a doctor’s report detailing treatment received. Being recognised as trans should not be a medicalised process, and the medical treatment trans people have received should not be a factor in the process. Not all trans people want medical interventions, and those who do can wait a long time to receive appropriate support.

Under the current gender recognition system, an applicant has to provide evidence to show that they have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years.

Question 5: (A) Do you agree that an applicant should have to provide evidence that they have lived in their acquired gender for a period of time before applying?

Stonewall's perspective on Question 5 (A):

We would answer NO to the question below.

Currently trans people applying for legal gender recognition have to submit evidence of living in their ‘acquired gender’ for two years. Trans people know their gender identity better than anyone else, and should not have to prove themselves as ‘trans enough’.

Question 5: (D) If you answered no to (A), should there be a period of reflection between making the application and being awarded a Gender Recognition Certificate?

Stonewall's perspective on Question 5 (D):

We would answer NO to the question below.

Trans people know and understand their identities. The process for legal gender recognition needs to show that the Government trusts and respects trans people. We do not think a ‘reflection period’ adds any benefit to the Government or the individual looking to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

That's my rundown of my impression of what's going on, please correct or clarify with me if I've made a mistake or you think I've missed more important passages

I have to admit when I sat down to work through exactly what was being asked for I was totally shocked and it's not unreasonable for someone who hasn't seen what's actually on the cards to assume that self-declaration isn't what's being pushed for.

One of the questions in the consulatation asks if you think there should be a minimum requirement for living in the gender that you want to be. Either 2 years or more, then another two options, maybe 6 months or more, less than 6 months. But you could suggest no requirement.
The consulatation is very long. There is guidance in the fair play website and women’s place website. Lots of guidance.

she seemed to think there would still be a requirement to demonstrate genuine commitment by living for 2 years as your chosen sex, after 'transistioning socially'.

No, at least part of the point is that trans groups, including Stonewall as mentioned above, are campaigning for all of this to be removed as an unnecessary burden on trans people.
I'm not sure where I saw this but I believe the form they'd need to fill in would need to be notarised so it wouldn't just be online.
That said, there wouldn't be any requirement for the notary to do anything other than witness it. It'd simply be a declaration.
Women's Place might have more detail.

Sorry I just realised I didn't actually answer the question. I don't know about the process but I think this is evidence that what's being ASKED for is self-ID and the removal of the current barriers.

Evidence of “living in the acquired gender" (p78)
To demonstrate that the applicant has lived full time in the acquired gender for at least two years (standard track) or six years prior to 10 December 2014 (alternative track) before the date of the application, the applicant must providesupporting evidence to the GRP. This is documentation showing the applicant has used a different name or reflecting their acquired gender. Applicants aregiven a range of suggested documents, including:

• Driving licences;
• Passports;
• Pay slips;
• Benefit documentation;
• Bank statements;
• Utility bills;
• Academic certificates; and,
• Letters from official, professional or business organisations such as

solicitors or accountants

Medical evidence (p79)

For standard track applications, the applicant must provide medical evidence that they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or transsexualism and have undergone surgical treatment for the modification of their sexual characteristics. Evidence must come from either a doctor registered with the General Medical Council or a registered psychologist registered with the Health and Care Professions Council.
Two medical reports are required for Standard Track Applications:

• Report A - Must be made by a registered medical practitioner or registered psychologist practising in the field of gender dysphoria and must include the details of their diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
• Report B – Must be made by a registered medical practitioner who may, but need not, practise in the field of gender dysphoria (so could be provided by, for example, the applicant’s GP or surgeon) and must include specific details of any treatment that the applicant has received. For example, this could cover what treatments (e.g. hormones) they are receiving and whether they have undergone, are undergoing or are planning to undergo surgery. If the applicant has not undergone surgery the report may explain why.

An applicant only needs to provide one medical report for an Alternative track application. If that person has undergone or is undergoing treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics, then the report needs to provide details of that treatment.

I am under the impression that there's a massive amount of confusion about chicken/egg situations - how can you get the required documentation if you don't have a GRC? - and I'm working on getting sources for that. A starting point is passports:

www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender

Gender change
Send one of the following when you apply for a passport:

• a Gender Recognition Certificate
• a new birth or adoption certificate showing your acquired gender
• a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming your change of gender is likely to be permanent

We can clearly see a conflict in that it is suggested you provide a passport, but to change the passport it's suggested you use a GRC

www.gov.uk/change-name-driving-licence

Change the name or gender on your driving licence
Send DVLA your old driving licence along with the right application form and any supporting documents to change your name or gender.

Again...not clear at all. I do think this is part of the 'objection' to the current system, that it's circular, but the conclusion does obviously seem to be (from the trans rights activist lobby) that you should just do away with medical checks. I believe the Stonewall answers make that clear.

Clarification: first round of quotes are from the GRA consultation document which can be found at

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Important to be aware too, practically under self ID it becomes irrelevant who has registered officially and who hasn't in many of the key safeguarding instances. It is not currently considered ok to ask for identification and no one is going to gatekeep at the doors of women only spaces, so in effect someone will self ID by the act of walking into a women only space and instantly be regarded as identifying as trans and entitled to be there.

This is currently mooted as 'having already happened', and is happening now, but will happen much more widely and begin openly including men who are not trans but will enjoy the right of entry for their own agenda if self ID becomes demonstrable, provable law and is widely published as having happened.

It is worth noting that organisations like Stonewall and the Green Party are not only lobbying for the 2 year requirement to be done away with but also for changing the Equalities Act. If self ID goes through, that will be their next focus

drive.google.com/open?id=1G2umQtLSxHUv1J6H3v2GebqFumIFOQw0

Here is my summary document (docx and PDF) and full GRA. I have used the one-page as a starting discussion point with people before. I will be doing the same with the Stonewall summary and other quotations in my above posts - if anyone else has already done so with similar things like the Green Party, Labour Party, etc. please let's all combine our work (I'm only one woman!) so we have the rundown in their own words.

I also have links for incidents like Speaker's Corner, cotton ceiling, Labour party disputes, all compiled together, spread across multiple sources with both biases since I really wanted to avoid the characterisation of the shrieking transphobic harpy who wants to 'kill all trans' - cognitive dissonance can be so bloody strong, it's terrifying. I've been there and I know. I will post this separately.

When I first reached out on mumsnet I was just looking for people to talk to without fear. Seeing what's actually being pushed for, and realising that nobody knows because so much mainstream media is dancing around the point (transphobia! bigotry! disrespect! hate group!), made my blood run absolutely cold.

Thank you all so much! It's so very confusing and complicated and I admit I've only so far got up to Q4 on the consultation because parenting, illness etc. But I'm determined to put together a full and coherent response. And I couldn't do it without all the resources here and the brilliant women unpicking the confusion and shining a light into the murky corners of the ill thought through proposals

I've tried to talk to people about it, who know trans people who have really suffered.
Their response is 'but no one would choose to go through that unnecessarily '
The thing is, men abusing the system won't be going through anything. They won't have to show people their female driving licence etc will they?

The GRA in 2004 was designed for an estimated 5000 people. Has that legal doorway been crowbarred open and exploited in any way by men who do not define themselves as transsexual or have had SRS? What benefits have they gained from doing so? What have women lost in the process?

The fact we're in this mess demonstrates that the whole 'no one would ever exploit' is about as disingenuous as the insistence that usual safeguarding shouldn't apply because it's unthinkable to suggest that any trans person will ever under any circumstances be sexually abusive and take advantage.

The details of reform are not yet decided - thus the consultation. You, along with any one else including trans individuals are free to comment. I have.

Sex based spaces such as refuges will still be protected, as explicitly mentioned in the consultation document. As has always been the case, abusers of the system will be prosecuted.

Dommina, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it is easy to apply the sex-based space exemption in the current climate. One example I can think of off the top of my head is Ann Sinnott's criticism of the wording of the rules around single-sex toilets in Cambridge. She ended up resigning from her post as a councillor and many articles describe her concerns as being motivated by transphobia.

There are also multiple examples of male people in female refuges or prisons causing difficulties over how to apply the Equalities Act and balance sex-based rights against gender-based rights. If you can't try to apply the system without being branded a bigot, I think it's fair to say that there will be difficulties with people feeling unable to speak up against, let alone prosecute, abusers. Assuming you're here in good faith, I suggest you have a look at some of the threads on this forum detailing abuses of the system as it currently stands.

Clarification to the above, from

www.varsity.co.uk/news/15961

The policy, which applies exclusively to property owned by the council, states that “transgender people will not be excluded from gender-appropriate sex/single-sex segregated facilities”.

Sinnott told The Times that Cambridge council was acting in “dereliction of the law”, claiming that the abolition of single-sex facilities “at a stroke” goes against the 2010 Equality Act.

Sinnott’s resignation was prompted in part by concerns regarding the policy’s wording. The Labour councillor claimed that “transgender” is an “umbrella term” allowing “infinitely higher numbers” of people to access to all-female facilities.

Sinnott suggested the term “gender reassignment” be used instead, with this being a characteristic protected under equality law, referring exclusively to those either undergoing or planning to undergo gender reassignment surgery.

The CUSU LGBT+ Campaign has disputed Sinnott's claim that the policy violates the 2010 Equality Act, arguing that the Act is “literally a legal protection for many different minorities, including trans people”. They added that the difference in wording “does not open up women’s spaces to anyone other than those who should already be there”.

I speak from personal experience when I say that for years people who are quite clearly male not just in the way they present but also in attitude
have walked through the doors of women-only / lesbian-only organisations and events and insisted that they are women and that no one has any right to ask them about their sex, or ask for some form of photo identity. When it happened in a group I was involved in ten years ago we had no idea who or what we were dealing with: you have nothing to go on but the word of an individual who sets every alarm bell in your head and your body ringing. A GRC or a changed birth certificate are irrelevant when something like this happens because no aggressive TRA type will let you even ask for it, let alone show it.

Ten years ago, when it happened to me and the group I was involved with, the police came out and listened to our account of the 'transwoman' who had threatened to blow down the doors of the building. They were sympathetic and bemused but not sure what they could do. Today we would probably be given a lecture on inclusiveness and warned about hate crime.

Sex based spaces such as refuges will still be protected

Rubbish. Either you know full well and are lying, or are very badly informed, but no, refuges have not been protected. Women's prison single sex spaces have not been protected. Girl Guides has not been protected. Hospital wards have not been protected. There is nowhere the sex based exemptions have actually worked

Unless you are following the same disingenuous line that Theresa May uses, which is 'single sex spaces ARE protected' (and any man is whatever sex he says he is).

There is nowhere the sex based exemptions have actually worked

Unless you are following the same disingenuous line that Theresa May uses, which is 'single sex spaces ARE protected' (and any man is whatever sex he says he is).

This - it's all true.

I think that the actual, official process is irrelevant. Will the shop assistant be able or willing to ask the male waiting in line for the female changing rooms for proof that he is in fact a "she"? etc. It is what will happen in day-to-day life that matters and as we are already seeing, self-id means what it says. The emperors new clothes and all that.