Changing gender to get cheaper but ‘self‑identify’ scheme is off - Liz Truss anouncement expect soon says Sunday Times

[stumbledin]

Well we've been here before, but this is what the Sunday Times is saying today 20 September 2020:

Quote: Plans to allow people to “self-identify” as a different gender will be formally dropped by the government this week.

Ministers have decided against the proposals, which were developed under Theresa May’s government, to allow transgender people to change their birth certificates without a medical diagnosis. Instead, they plan to reduce the cost of making such a change.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/changing-gender-to-get-cheaper-but-self-identify-scheme-is-off-0twtdw5fr

Sorry if this has been posted already - couldn't see it!

The Equality Act is reserved legislation but the Scottish Government line is that it is merely trying to amend the present process for obtaining a GRC which many applicants find ‘demeaning, lengthy, stressful and expensive‘ by allowing them to ‘self-identify’ and shortening the time they are required to live in their ‘acquired gender’ - This is despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France case (April 2017) regarding the ability of trans individuals to change the ‘sex’ entry on birth certificates. Here, a majority of judges ruled that the requirement to prove the existence of gender dysphoria and undergo a medical examination did not breach Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention and that these conditions ensure that individuals do not erroneously change their legal sex.
They also stated that in making decisions, States are required to strike a fair balance between the general interest and the rights of the individual.

Can I ask, did anyone see what Keir Starmer said in response to this announcement? Did he say anything? I have everything crossed he hasn't gone TWAW so I can vote and maybe even join labour again....

The Equality Act is reserved legislation but the Scottish Government‘s line is that they are merely adapting a process that many applicants find ‘demeaning, lengthy, stressful and expensive’ by allowing them to ‘self identify’ and by shortening the time they are required to live in their ‘acquired’ gender.
However, in the European Court of Human Rights case A.P., Garçon and Nicot v France
(Judgment April 2017) a majority of judges ruled that France had not breached Article 8 (Right to respect for private life) either on the need to prove that a person suffered from gender dysphoria or on the obligation to undergo a medical examination before that individual was allowed to change the ‘sex’ entry on a birth certificate. In fact the judges stated that this process ensured that the individuals involved did not erroneously change their legal sex.
They also stated that, in making decisions, States were required to strike a fair balance between the general interest and the rights of the individual.
But I agree with the view that Individuals should not be allowed to change the biological sex entry on birth certificates as this is totally different from gender. Trans activists have deliberately confused the two terms and it is this that needs to be highlighted and fiercely contested.