I thought you needed a GRC to change the sex recorded on a passport

[PassingIntoTheWest]

But apparently you just need a letter from your GP...?:
[[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251703/Applying_for_a_passport_additional_information.PDF
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment]]data/file/251703/Applyinggforaapassportadditionall_information.PDF

RealityNotEssentialism good point that a lot of official documents and paperwork have a number of redundant or unnecessary info as it has accumulated over the years and no one has had to think about it or question it until now.

I'm in favour of re-evaluating passports, driving licences and other forms of identification and having a transparent public consultation on whether we actually need these sort of markers for sex or gender to be displayed if they serve no purpose in the process of assessing someone.

Your name, date of birth and address along with a recent photo are really all that's needed to verify you are who you say you are. Sex or gender doesn't come into it.

But while sex is recorded, it should be recorded truthfully. There is an awful lot of rolling back that is going to need to be done, for all these things that are "ahead of the law"

Agree Nonny. Especially if sex is now taken to mean gender-identity, which is essentially just a personality trait. Would be like if my passport also said ‘likes chocolate ice cream’ or ‘optimist’. Totally useless. If there weren’t all these ‘validating’ documents that tell people of the opposite sex that they are REALLY a woman etc, maybe some of the problems would go away. It would mean that ‘of course I should be in the women’s toilets because my passport says I’m a woman’ would no longer work.

You can change markers on any identity document (except birth certificate) without a GRC.
None of which changes affect your legal sex, which remains whatever is on your birth certificate.
A GRC changes the legal record of your birth.
And no, that will never stop being insane.

When I say that gender has replaced sex on all documents regardless of if they purport to have 'sex' on them, it really is true. Millions of us are assumed to have a gender, and it's on all our ID, in the place where our sex used to be, purely for the benefit of the people (of the opposite sex) who want to be documented as matching us.

The litmus test of whether a marker is sex or gender isn't what you are told it is.
It's much simpler.
Can that marker be changed from M to F or vice versa?
If yes, it's gender, not sex.

There are no markers left on official documentation that I can think of, that are not permitted to be changed to something opposite to ones biological sex.

Ergo, sex is no longer being recorded. Anywhere.
Gender is in its place.
People just haven't realised.

That's correct about the passport - a gp letter saying you are serious about transitioning and you can change the 'sex' on your passport.

But if any 60- 70 year old men (maspis) want to identify as women in order to get an uplift on their state pension if labour wins the election,
I expect a GRC might be asked for, until self-id comes in.

You can change markers on any identity document (except birth certificate) without a GRC.

How did this happen? (Genuine question, not rhetoric). Have you always been able to put whatever you want on passports and driving licenses - was it just a convention that you didn't lie? Or did something change? If so when, and who made the decision, and how?

I think - I don't know - that after the GRA, when GIRES et al were quietly pressuring the police, the NHS, the EHRC, to introduce self-ID policies ahead of the forthcoming equality act, they probably successfully lobbied the DVLA and passport authorities also.
And, like the other institutions, they happily folded, because an abject lie is unfortunately palatable to lots of people so long as

1. They can tell themselves the ends justify the means (the numbers will be so tiny that we can ignore the aberration)
2. They lack the insight to understand ALL the ramifications (this means that everyone has to have gender instead of sex, so that some can have gender instead of sex)
3. There is some personal benefit to making changes (look how woke, give us a cookie, Stonewall award)

My guess would be these changes happened circa 2009. If the NHS and police are the template.

It's just so fucking tiring. I remember being unaware of all of this, and wondering why MN was going on about it all the time. But I understand now.

Your name, date of birth and address along with a recent photo are really all that's needed to verify you are who you say you are. Sex or gender doesn't come into it.

Names and addresses vary throughout people's lives, and are very easy to change. So how can they reliably verify you are who you say you are?

The only things about a person that are independently provable and are unchangeable are their date of birth and their sex.

Depends on what you're trying to achieve.

If you're applying for a job role that involves handling sensitive and personal data, you will require all sorts of background checks which might include listing all the names and addresses you have ever used.

If you're going to sign up for a new mobile contract, as long as your licence, bank card, utility bills etc all show the same name and address then you're good to go.
How are they going to make sure that's really your name? You aren't required to provide a birth certificate or deed poll.

In many instances 'verifying' your identity is an admin / tick boxing exercise.

Sex is relevant for specific areas but I can't see how it is required on a day-to-day basis.

So I'm not permitted to double barrel my DC's surnames and add mine without the permission of their decade long absent abusive father. But it only takes a GP's letter to get your sex changed. FFS.

Why am I even surprised.

Jelly well given that the law allows the ‘change of sex’ fiction, having it on the passport means very little. You could say that another relatively unchangeable thing is height, skin and eye colour but we don’t have that on passports. It’s also not relevant for the purpose of the passport which is to verify the identity of the holder which is mainly done through iris recognition software these days.

As an adoptee I can’t get a birth certificate with my legal parents name on it. Apparently because that would be a legal fiction and wrong.

It doesn’t matter how long I live as my new “ identity “ ( in my case more than 50 years ) I can never get the birth certificate to prove it . I don’t have a full birth certificate like everyone else. Anytime I need to show a full birth certificate I have to show an adoption certificate instead, breaching my and my parents confidentiality.

However a GRC is different, it’s confidential. People with one of them get a special department in the tax office and passport office to protect their confidentiality.

So if self ID comes in I’m thinking of applying for a GRC once ( to become male ) then again to go back to female. So I can get a new birth certificate like everyone else.

That’s really shit @kristinaM

GRCs are pointless anyway ...

Unless you are a man engaged in criminal activity who would prefer to be automatically processed as female.

This fact crossed my mind only a few days ago. With self-ID there is a massive incentive for sex offenders to change their legal sex. As others have said here, how often do you use your birth certificate? So it would have a negligible effect on his day to day life, but in the unlikely event he was convicted, they would be forced to process him as female.

KristinaM that’s so shit that you can’t get a birth certificate in your own name when people can get it for a sex they were never born as but believe they should have been.

The law is an ass.

Just don’t understand why gender/identity is so important as information to be collected - but sex isn’t. I imagine the police can no longer use man/woman/boy/girl /male/female when describing unknown suspects.

This shows the lie of the TRA's campaign against the spousal "veto". They claim not having a GRC prevents transition but really all it does is stop you changing your birth certificate.

Could you not refused entry at some countries for not having sex right? My h’s country would never accept feelings and gender. Unfortunately they are struggling with accepting homosexuality.

It's not 'trans rights' that are being demanded and steamrolled by the lobby groups, but 'trans privileges'. It's ultimately a dangerous game because giving one tiny group extra special concessions that no one else can access ends up breeding resentment and actually might increase hostility and prejudice towards trans people in the longer term.

If trans people get free reign to do what they like in terms of what goes on their passports or licences or modifying birth certificates etc. it leaves open a giant loophole to be abused by certain types of individuals, whether they are trans or not.

The trans lobby is creating more problems for trans people in the long term.

The ability to change identity documents on a self-ID basis combined with the privacy of a GRC is why the single sex exemptions are unenforceable in practice.

KristinaM that’s so shit that you can’t get a birth certificate in your own name when people can get it for a sex they were never born as but believe they should have been

Thank you. I can get a short Bc with just my name and DOB on it but I can’t get a full birth certificate, with my parents’ names on it. The one that’s used for passport applications etc

The ability to change identity documents on a self-ID basis combined with the privacy of a GRC is why the single sex exemptions are unenforceable in practice

That’s why people running a single service need to ask for BC and not any other ID document, such as passport. If you ask for a GRC you can’t tell anyone what it says.

What the...?! So you can't change your birth certificate if you can change your name but you can change it if you've had surgery/mutilation of genitals?! I thought it was meant to be a record of birth. You can change your name but your biological sex will always be your biological sex. Just as you can't go from Human too an Amphiprioninae. This makes no sense.

If in say 150 years a trans woman's skeleton was dug up, even after surgery, it'd show they're a human male. I hate this phrase, buttt, at the end of the day when all is said and done science is science.