Guardian podcast “ Understanding the fight over trans rights — part 1”

[SuperSleepyBaby]

www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/oct/08/understanding-the-fight-over-trans-rights-part-1

At one stage in this podcast - at 26 mins in - it is said that people have to make a statutory declaration that you intend to live in your preferred gender for the rest of your life - and, in Scotland, it is proposed that breach of the statutory declaration could result in punishment of up to two years in jail.

Does anyone know what would constitute a breach of the statutory declaration? How do they decide that if you are living as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’ or failing to live as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’?

people have to make a statutory declaration that you intend to live in your preferred gender for the rest of your life - and, in Scotland, it is proposed that breach of the statutory declaration could result in punishment of up to two years in jail

Madness.

"There's the rub'" nobody knows, so could never be challenged.

If you don't shave your legs for a day does that count?
What happens if you forget to put the bins out?
....Or would those be two examples based on outdated sexist stereotypes?

I think PP dug through to see what constituted proof of you living in your preferred gender and it seemed to be you have utility bills in your new name.....

i just cannot bring myself to listen to a guardian misinformation podcast on this

I mean i may be doing them a disservice and they may be giving the actual law as opposed to stonewall law but i just cant....

I believe there's currently no legal mechanism to detransition in England - you can't get a 2nd GRC to change back to your real sex, and there's no process to revoke a GRC.

But on the declaration/punishment stuff, the whole concept is so nebulous it's hard to see how such a punishment could ever be applied.

Only thing I can imagine would be some sort of punitive vindictive case brought by a TRA against a detransitioner.

Or maybe a TRA versus someone like Miranda Yardley (again), for not using "she/her" pronouns? (I don't know if Miranda has a GRC). Who's to say Miranda is living more or less as a woman than Alex Drummond or Jess Bradley or whoever? But it would definitely be Miranda being targetted. And then probably thrown out of court again.

How do they decide that if you are living as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’ or failing to live as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’?

Seeing rapists (penis related crime under English law) and other male patterned criminality are reported as committed by women - I imagine there won’t ever be a decision.

Its hard to imagine how anyone would ever be convicted of breaching the statutory declaration. What would they have to do exactly to potentially end up in jail?

It's such a serious mistake to make laws using terms that have not been or cannot be clearly defined. And yet Scotland persists.

Freddie McConnell the 'seahorse dad' has a GRC. Don't see them having that revoked for the manly act of giving birth.

I just listened to this. It's built around Steven Whittle's personal story and his account of his campaigning (and whatever you think about his aims you have to admit he's been an amazingly effective campaigner, probably one of the most significant individual activists in the last 30 years). I found it interesting to listen to his account and tried to see things from his point of view a bit.

It definitely comes down on the pro-self-ID side of the argument but it's mostly courteous and reasonably good-faith about the GC position, although with a slight 'silly ladies haven't really understood the nuance' head tilt from the (female) journos.

The next part is trailed as featuring more GC feminists speaking for themselves.

I quite enjoyed it, will listen to the next part.

“Living as a man/woman” an immeasurable undefinable concept, that can’t be agreed upon and therefore failure to meet any requirement is unenforceable. Just how legal wording should be eh?

The fact that McConnell had a baby soon after legally declaring to “live as a man” without consequences from the GRC panel shows a GRC is not worth the paper it’s written on.

Does anyone know what would constitute a breach of the statutory declaration? How do they decide that if you are living as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’ or failing to live as a ‘woman’ or ‘man’?

We asked the Scottish Government was asked to explain how it would - or even could - be established that a declaration had been made fraudulently. First we were assured this was all laid out, right there in the text of the proposed bill and accompanying consultation report. When we pointed out that it wasn't, we received the equivalent of a shrug.

*By we I mean a number of women's rights groups and a lot of individual campaigners.

Incidentally, there is again no provision made under this self-id law to accommodate detransitioners. The only way to revoke one's legal sex change would be to

• do another declaration (the law is unclear whether this would be allowed, but as the declaration is to "live permanently" as the other sex, this will likely present the same problem as the GRA does in this regard) or

-report one's own application as fraudulent (which is obviously less than ideal).

I’m lustening to it now. What’s struck me so far is the part where Whittle explains how an older transman who had managed to marry a woman applied for a GRC in 2004, was denied and the HMRC asked for £28000 in pension back. They’d been paying out on the basis this person was male.

Which got me thinking - back when SW was Young you can see how they and fellow trans men would have wanted legal recognition of their male gender. The benefits to them financially were huge. Could this have been their motivation for campaigning initially?

Who decides what constitutes as living as a certain 'gender'?

I put the bins out. Am I living as a different 'gender'? How does that change my 'gender'?

@Deltoids1

I’m lustening to it now. What’s struck me so far is the part where Whittle explains how an older transman who had managed to marry a woman applied for a GRC in 2004, was denied and the HMRC asked for £28000 in pension back. They’d been paying out on the basis this person was male.

Which got me thinking - back when SW was Young you can see how they and fellow trans men would have wanted legal recognition of their male gender. The benefits to them financially were huge. Could this have been their motivation for campaigning initially?

I'm not sure how that is possible? Your sex only mattered for pension purposes at the time because men got their state pension later than women. And the value of your pension depended entirely on what you had paid in. An annuity provider might have calculated differently, of course, based on the generally lower life expectancy for men, but that has nothing to do with HMRC.

Can anyone explain?

Listen from 9 mins. It might not be HMRC but SW says £28000 back pay for pension rights. What does he mean?

The other thing that struck me was the over reach. I can understand how SW as an activist campaign for the changes up to 2004 and the GRA. The lack of legal status personally affected him, his partner and their children. I understand his motivation for the activism.
But once all those sims had been achieved an arrogance seemed to take over and they pushed and pushed until the government decided to consult on the GRA reforms. And as SW themselves states in the podcast, since then things have gone downhill for trans people and it’s left them in a poorer place as a consequence.
The thing is Steven, you only have yourself to blame for this. Feminists have been saying since 2016 that old school transsexuals will be thrown under the bus as a direct consequence of forcing society to believe TWAW and self-ID.
The next podcast looks at the GC side and discusses a middle ground way forward.
I can’t help feeling that can’t happen without some humility and acknowledgment of the clash of rights from people like SW.

Could this have been their motivation for campaigning initially?

I would say it was a bonus factor, the GRA was built on homophobia and was to avoid sanctioning same-sex marriage, as we know.

There is quite a lot about pensions on the government GRC advice page, basically, yes it does make a difference:

If you are already in receipt of your State Pension it may be affected by getting a full Gender Recognition Certificate, e.g. if you are a transgender man your State Pension age may increase.
Some examples of situations where your State Pension may be affected are if:
• you don’t have enough National Insurance contributions and are thinking about paying voluntary contributions,
• you are thinking about putting off claiming your State Pension,
• you are eligible for a State Pension that is payable by virtue of your husband, wife or civil partner’s National Insurance contributions,
• you are a widow/widower/surviving civil partner receiving an additional State Pension based on your late husband, wife or civil partner’s contributions.
You are strongly advised to seek further information so that you are fully aware of the effect that changing your gender may have on your State Pension. Further information is available on www.gov.uk/new-state-pension or if you are already in receipt of a benefit or pension please contact the office dealing with your claim. You may wish to speak to the DWP Gender Recognition team (see page 5 for their contact details).

www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-how-pensions-and-benefits-may-be-affected

Not a huge Guardian fan but it’s good to see an attempt at actually presenting not just both sides of the argument, but the origins and relevance of the argument itself.

@Deltoids1

I’m lustening to it now. What’s struck me so far is the part where Whittle explains how an older transman who had managed to marry a woman applied for a GRC in 2004, was denied and the HMRC asked for £28000 in pension back. They’d been paying out on the basis this person was male.

Which got me thinking - back when SW was Young you can see how they and fellow trans men would have wanted legal recognition of their male gender. The benefits to them financially were huge. Could this have been their motivation for campaigning initially?

I have no idea how on earth this could happen, as the retirement age for women was earlier, so if HMRC had anything to say on it, they would actually OWE the transman money, if they claimed they thought he was a man? I guess they could take back the 28k, but then pay out the correct amount, which would be higher (at the time?)

Only way this makes sense is if the transman was actually a transwoman and HMRC had been paying them as a female person.

There was no financial beefit to transmen for being recognised as male. There was, however the benefit to transwomen who were recognised as female, and I am fairly sure this was actually one of the reasons for the GRC in the first place, so transwomen culd claim pension at the age women did, and also as a workaround for equal marriage instead of just..legalising equal marriage and pension ages. They just made it possible for some

an older transman who had managed to marry a woman applied for a GRC in 2004, was denied and the HMRC asked for £28000 in pension back. They’d been paying out on the basis this person was male.

Yeah this is completely arse about tit. If a pension provider believed a female person to be male, paid out on that basis, the provider would owe the female person money, not want any back