GRA reform will erase all record of birth sex? Help please!

[Hazeldine]

fairplayforwomen.com/gra_basics/

Just rereading this article from Fair Play for Women as I'm writing to my MP.

This paragraph has jumped out:

"Because GRA reform won’t just allow every trans person to change the sex they were born on their birth certificate, it will also become impossible to confirm it was ever changed. On paper, a transwomen’s maleness will have been totally erased."

(My bold)

Can anyone point me to an official/government source confirming this? I am not casting doubt on FPFW, but I'd like to send a "neutral" link to my MP to show this if possible.

Thank you!

Nobody knows what the GRA reform will be. Not until it happens.
Theexisting GRA rules regarding birth registers is a matter for the registrar.

"... the issue of a gender recognition certificate obliges the Registrar General to make an entry in the GRR and to mark the original entry referring to the birth (or adoption) of the transsexual person to show that the original entry has been superseded. This will ensure that caution is exercised when an application is received for a certificate from the original birth (or adoption) record. If applicants for a birth certificate provide details of the name recorded on the birth certificate, they will be issued with a certificate from the birth record. If they supply the details recorded on the GRR, they will receive a certificate compiled from the entry in the GRR. The mark linking the two entries will be chosen carefully to ensure that the fact that an entry is contained in the GRR is not apparent. The mark will not be included in any certificate compiled from the entries on the register. "

The register will not reveal any link between the old and new birth certificate, so therefore impossible for anyone but the registrar to confirm it was ever changed.

Apparently there is no mechanism to rescind the GRC once issued either so sadly the detransitioners are a bit stuck.

@gardenbird48

Apparently there is no mechanism to rescind the GRC once issued either so sadly the detransitioners are a bit stuck.

Detransitioners with a GRC have to go through the GRA process all over again.

I thought I’d seen a report that said there was no mechanism for that - the GRC is issued for life so there was no anticipation of it needing to be reversible.

I actually got in touch with FPFW asking for clarity on this and Nicola got back to me really quickly!

Basically, according to Section 22 of the GRA2004, it is illegal for any official who finds out that an individual has had the sex on their BC changed via a GRC to reveal this information, except in a very limited number of circumstances.

These are:

(a)the information does not enable that person to be identified,

(b)that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,

(c)the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,

(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,

(i)the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or

(j)the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

Here’s a link to the relevant section of the GRA2004:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

While this allows for an individual’s birth sex to be disclosed if, for example, it is directly relevant to a criminal investigation or prosecution, it makes it impossible (illegal) to prove whether a person accessing a sex-segregated space has changed their legal sex.

The “impossible to confirm” part was meant in the context of everyday instances, like access to single-sex spaces and services.

A record of the birth sex is kept but can only be disclosed in very limited circumstances.

Yes, it has been confirmed by a detransitioner here on another thread. Presumably by the nature of the declaration to obtain a GRC, it was not anticipated that there would be any need to reverse it.

Yes, note that there is no automatic exemption for medical staff, something which a former MNer who was a doctor pointed out years ago. It is a criminal offence to reveal such information.

From the link she provided:

Q Why would doctors face criminal charges over mis-recording gender?
The Gender Recognition Act 20044^ outlines the rights of patients who have legally changed their gender and presented a GRC.
It is an offence under Section 22 of the Act for doctors to disclose information relating to the patient’s former gender to any third party without the explicit consent from the patient. Consent should be obtained prior to sharing information with any other party (including to another person within the practice), even if considered necessary for the provision of care.

www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/regulation/qa-recording-gender-in-medical-records/20008359.article

So how does that work for inherited titles? I thought they were exempt from the GRA so those pesky women still couldn't inherit as transmen- but if a trans man presents with a male birth certificate and no one can question it- then what?

@PaternosterLoft

I think it's a bit silly in this day and age for males to have precedence over females when it comes to inheriting titles. Hopefully the law will change to tidy that one up in the near future so it will no longer be relevant.

So how does that work for inherited titles? I thought they were exempt from the GRA so those pesky women still couldn't inherit as transmen- but if a trans man presents with a male birth certificate and no one can question it- then what?

One of the many ill thought through contradictions of this bad law.

I think it's a bit silly in this day and age for males to have precedence over females when it comes to inheriting titles.

Absolutely agree. Unfortunately the establishment seem quite keen on it. And the Equality Act 2010 doesn't seem to have been enough to sort that issue out.

I suppose it goes back to the Middle Ages when earls and barons were expected to lead armies of knights into battle, and it was assumed at the time that women weren't as good as men at that sort of thing.

It is however quite crazy that these rules still exist.

GRA has such serious problems it should be reviewed (not kicked into the long grass) and on the basis of those findings I don’t see how it could not need to be repealed. We now have the equality act 2010 which gives protections for anyone having gender reassignment.

It is an offence under Section 22 of the Act for doctors to disclose information relating to the patient’s former gender to any third party without the explicit consent from the patient. Consent should be obtained prior to sharing information with any other party (including to another person within the practice), even if considered necessary for the provision of care.

Doesn't that make the Act transphobic? It bars HCPs from giving an unconscious or incapacitated trans person appropriate life-saving treatment.

Doesn't that make the Act transphobic? It bars HCPs from giving an unconscious or incapacitated trans person appropriate life-saving treatment.

The doctor on here said she couldn't refer a transman patient with, for instance, uterine pain. She had to say a pain in the abdomen.

And if that meant that the person wasn't fast tracked, for say a cancer diagnosis, there was nothing she could do about it.

While this allows for an individual’s birth sex to be disclosed if, for example, it is directly relevant to a criminal investigation or prosecution, it makes it impossible (illegal) to prove whether a person accessing a sex-segregated space has changed their legal sex.

Great. So if it’s for investigating a crime then yes it can be disclosed. But if you’re just having a nose at whether a person in the toilets is trans or not then no, it’s none of you’re business.

Glad we’ve got that in proportion.

i suppose it goes back to the Middle Ages when earls and barons were expected to lead Aries of knights into battle, and it was assumed at the time that women weren't as good as men at that sort of thing

I know this isn’t the point of this thread, but I think it’s more to do with keeping power, money and influence in the hands of males, however they identify, ie maintaining the status quo/patriarchy.

@KnowingYou

While this allows for an individual’s birth sex to be disclosed if, for example, it is directly relevant to a criminal investigation or prosecution, it makes it impossible (illegal) to prove whether a person accessing a sex-segregated space has changed their legal sex.

Great. So if it’s for investigating a crime then yes it can be disclosed. But if you’re just having a nose at whether a person in the toilets is trans or not then no, it’s none of you’re business.

Glad we’ve got that in proportion.

There was a case in America I think where a transman presented at hospital with abdo pains but because their medical records were marked as male, no one considered the possibility that they might be pregnant. Unfortunately this was the case and the baby died due to mother and baby not getting the appropriate medical treatment in time. So there are other times, apart from some mythical nosy woman in a toilet cubicle who’s curious about genitals, where born sex/biological sex matters very much. In fact it can be matter of life or death.

@KnowingYou

While this allows for an individual’s birth sex to be disclosed if, for example, it is directly relevant to a criminal investigation or prosecution, it makes it impossible (illegal) to prove whether a person accessing a sex-segregated space has changed their legal sex.

Great. So if it’s for investigating a crime then yes it can be disclosed. But if you’re just having a nose at whether a person in the toilets is trans or not then no, it’s none of you’re business.

Glad we’ve got that in proportion.

It’s not about “having a nose”, it’s about whether the single-sex exemptions laid out in the Equality Act 2010 can actually be applied in practice.

If self-ID comes in and any male person (not just trans people, but ANY man) is able to change their legal sex to female based purely on self-declaration, single-sex spaces and services (legal under the EA2010) will become impossible to enforce. Anyone with female ID must be accepted as such for practical purposes.

It is unbelievable to me that people can’t see how such a system is open to abuse and puts the safety and privacy of vulnerable people (yes, trans people too) at risk.

@Hazeldine It is quite right that the current Gender Recognition Act (GRA), makes the original gender recorded on the birth certificate secret and expunges all public records.
When the GRA was introduced no-one foresaw that ancestry sites would be used to look at original birth records bypassing the principle in the Act. No one knows what the reform will say but will probably close this loophole before courts apply privacy law to enforce it anyway.