Why do you think so few people have applied for / acquired a GRC?

[QuimReaper]

I was surprised to read recently that the number of people who hold a GRC is under 5,000, when apparently 500K people in the UK self-identify as trans. I'm just wondering why that might be - I'd have thought a majority of trans people would want their chosen pronouns on documentation. I note the fee has been reduced following the last GRA review, although I cannot possibly believe it was contributing to the low numbers originally.

Is it simply that having a GRC doesn't really impact your day-to-day life very much beyond having 'Mr' or 'Ms' on your bank statement etc.?

Why bother these days - the general impression is that you don’t need one to do want you want anyway.

I wonder how many begin the process of gaining a grc, but don't actually take the final step of changing their birth certificate?

So use the policy to help change official records and gain access to surgery or cross sex hormones, but don't actual ever recieved a diagnosis or have no intention of changing their birth certificate because it would be a disadvantage to them in some way?

There seems to be an awful lots of people invested in maintaining the gra, even when few actually use it themselves.

@InfoRelish

I can shed some light here, for the uninitiated:

1. Obtaining a GRC requires you to have 'lived in your acquired gender for two years' - there's no real specificity about what this means in the legislation, but date of name change via deed poll is most commonly used to establish this. Diagnosis, medical treatments and/or surgery are not prerequisites to obtaining a GRC.

1. Obtaining a GRC doesn't change your rights in law. The Equality Act 2010 makes no exception or special provision for those with a GRC. Sex based protections apply based on birth sex, and a GRC does not change this (though, rather confusingly, a GRC can be used to reissue a birth certificate) - if you were born male, you have male rights in the EA2010. If you were born female, you have female rights in the EA2010.

All transgender related rights in law are under the 'gender reassignment' section of the EA2010, and despite the somewhat misleading name, to be covered by those rights, it is sufficient to simply identify as trans - there is no requirmeent for diagnosis, treatment, surgery, nor any requirement that you must have obtained a GRC.

As for why so many don't have one? Probably because unless you're particularly bothered about your birth certificate, or in some really niche cases (there's a few bits of marital law that are affected by it) - a GRC doesn't really change anything for most people.

They can undergo transgender healthcare, access legal protections, access some mens/womens spaces that coincide with their identity (and those spaces they can't access remain inaccessible even with a GRC), and change bank accounts, driving licenses, passports etc without ever getting a GRC. It's £140 to get one, and the government hasn't yet reduced the price. I can think of a lot of good uses for £140, and I assume that all of the transgender people who don't have a GRC can too.

Day out at Alton Towers with the kids? £140 might just cover the tickets I suppose.

This blog post, by a discrimination specialist, shows that the status conferred by a GRC could matter quite a bit:

legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/02/legally-this-is-not-a-trans-rights-issue-its-a-sex-rights-issue-a-blog-about-boxes/

...comparators. For some types of discrimination, you must show evidence of what the act or decision caused to happen to you by reference to the comparative treatment of another very similar person who doesn’t share your PC [protected characteristic].

You must provide evidence regarding that other person; they will often be a real person who is in same situation but not sharing your PC (ie your box or sub-box). If there is no one to compare yourself to, you can ask the court to use a hypothetical comparator. So, a woman who claims direct sex discrimination will have to show evidence she was treated less favourably than a man – either by comparison to a real man or by comparison to how a man would have been treated in the same situation.

Importantly you cannot use someone of your own box or sub box as a comparator. So, if a woman is discriminated against compared to another woman that is not unlawful direct sex discrimination. The comparator needs to be a legal man. [...]

If someone gets a Gender Recognition Certificate it does now and will impact on whether you can use that person as a comparator. So, changes to the GRA affect sex discrimination laws profoundly. The fact that the “gatekeeping” has kept the numbers low means it has not been an issue to date. There are not huge numbers of sex discrimination claims anyway, so the issue is largely unlitigated, as yet. In addition, the breadth of the definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act (which does not require surgery or any treatment) means trans people have significant protection against unlawful discrimination just for being them in key areas such as work, education and access to services.

However, if the estimates of numbers of trans people are correct, then thousands or hundreds of thousands may be eligible to apply for a GRC. If the law is changed to allow for self-identification, this would increase the risk of adverse impact on sex based rights in some cases by, in practical terms changing who can and cannot be used as a legal comparator.

The author, Audrey Ludwig, admits that there has been very little litigation on this, but given that women might end up having to prove sex discrimination against a transwoman with a GRC, it's well worth having a public discussion about what a GRC is and what it can do.

Zutt - ”So use the policy to help change official records and gain access to surgery or cross sex hormones, but don't actual ever recieved a diagnosis or have no intention of changing their birth certificate because it would be a disadvantage to them in some way?”

You don’t need a GRC to do ANY of those things. Typically, someone would have done all that BEFORE applying for a GRC and would cite those things as evidence supporting the application for a GRC.

The GRC has nothing to do with accessing medical treatment or changing ID of any sort other than Birth Certificate and then any ID requiring a Birth Certificate. You can change your NHS ID and number just by telling your GP that you are now the opposite gender or sex.

Most things can be changed because Policies have been changed without any public consultation or because they were always that way, eg. I might be wrong but I don’t think it has ever been necessary to provide a Birth Certificate to obtain a Driving Licence.
It
MedusasBrandyButter that’s interesting!

The author, Audrey Ludwig, admits that there has been very little litigation on this, but given that women might end up having to prove sex discrimination against a transwoman with a GRC, it's well worth having a public discussion about what a GRC is and what it can do.

Indeed. It's also worth noting the constant minimisation by certain TRAs of the importance of a GRC, whilst simultaneously relentlessly campaigning to reduce the criteria to get one.

@Fizzydrinks123

Maybe someone knows the correct answer, but I assumed to obtain a GRC you had to have undergone surgery to become the opposite chosen sex?

I didn't think you could have a GRC without having undergone diagnosis and the full reassignment surgery?

Also, why people diagnosed with dysphoria shouldn't be lumped in with "trans" as that nowadays means intact penis whilst wearing female stereotype clothing, but possibly (if desired) to take/not take hormones?

Perhaps someone knows if that is correct, if not then it should be the case IMO.

Do people really still think that issuing a government document would require someone to have gone under the knife? How do they imagine that works ethically?

DeaconBoo I would say that it is very commonly misunderstood that only people who have undergone full genital surgery are eligible. This is still the case in some countries.

There were cases in France taken under Human Rights legislation that I think resulted in changes to the law in EU member countries. (Vague memory of that so I might be wrong.)

When people are surveyed about “trans rights” they are obviously very supportive. However, when asked specific questions about access to eg. Women’s Changing Rooms by someone who has not had any surgery then the number drops like a stone, to under 20%

Is a self-identifying transwoman with a penis a woman?

Q2. We would now like you to think about a person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman. In your own personal view would you consider this person to be a woman or a man?

Only 19% of the UK agrees with the concept that transwomen are women.

fairplayforwomen.com/poll/#a2

You don’t need a GRC to do ANY of those things. Typically, someone would have done all that BEFORE applying for a GRC and would cite those things as evidence supporting the application for a GRC.

I know. Some are using the 'living as a woman' to change id but not actual ever applying for a GRA.

So in effect, some need the gra to exist to legitimize their desire to change the sex on some id, but will never have to prove a medical need for it. Without the GRA, would it be possible for so many men to change some of their sex markers and proudly state that they have no intention obtaining a GRC?

Do people really still think that issuing a government document would require someone to have gone under the knife? How do they imagine that works ethically?

The GRA came about because the government had to find a way to allow transsexuals to marry someone of the same birth sex without legalising same sex marriage (see the twitter thread that Datun posted a link to).

It was sympathy for such transsexuals who had had surgery to transform their bodies into a facsimile of one of the opposite sex, and the fact that there was only a very small number of such people, which led to the GRA and its legal fictions being seen as an acceptable solution.

But then in writing the legislation, the situation has to be turned on its head. So we go from 'How can we draft a law which will allow transsexuals to marry after they have undergone surgical transition?' which was the original intent, to 'Who should be allowed to use this legislation which allows transsexuals to 'change sex' in a legal sense?'

Obviously people who had undergone surgery (the people for whom the legislation was intended) would be eligible to apply. But the problem was where the line should be drawn between those who could and couldn't use it.

It would be unethical to say 'you must have surgery', so other requirements were put in to the legislation in an attempt to separate genuine transsexuals from people such as crossdressers.

There were cases in France taken under Human Rights legislation that I think resulted in changes to the law in EU member countries.

It's my understanding that in cases brought before the ECHR, the rulings only apply to the specific country, in this case, France. So the Goodwin v UK ruling only applied to the UK.

Also, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court extend much further than just the EU and include all 47 states in the Council of Europe.

www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention

If trans women are women then why would they need a GRC anyway?

Maybe that’s where they are going with this.

I would think most people think that there is still input from a psychiatrist requiring surgery being undertaken etc from brief chats I've had with your average/regular/straight men on the subject they mostly have no idea that the trans person that has gone to the lengths of having facial surgery etc would still be intact - when that fact is mentioned they assume even deeper psychological issues are at play than they first assumed of just wanting to appear the opposite sex etc

I have a vague understanding of the issues and am shocked and appalled but haven't had time to dig deeper, I think many more people will have much less of an understanding that I do and wouldn't actually believe where things are if they had the time to take it on board.

The dangerous situation is that there is clear method in this madness: to confuse everyone in plain sight so they can't say they didn't understand the implication later down the road.

Related - does anyone know what the procedure would be for someone wanting to get a record change on the grounds of actually being assigned the wrong sex at birth? No dysphoria or gender identity claims, you just were recorded wrong - likely due to a DSD or maybe a "Brazil"-style clerical error?

I don't know what happened to this woman who was in the news a few years ago after she discovered she had been wrongly recorded as male at birth. Her parents were given a birth certificate saying that she was female, but it was wrong in the birth register, so she didn't discover the error until she applied for a copy of her birth certificate as an adult.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2618898/Mother-five-told-illegal-gay-marriage-birth-certificate-error-recorded-BOY-UK-law-means-CANT-changed.html

It would be unethical to say 'you must have surgery', so other requirements were put in to the legislation in an attempt to separate genuine transsexuals from people such as crossdressers.

Indeed. Which is why, my opinion, it needs scrapping entirely. Its original intention is no longer necessary. And it is now being exploited by a cohort for whom it was never designed.

There is nothing at all to indicate, for example, that rapists being put in female prisons was a desired outcome. Quite the opposite.

And yes, the idea that you can buy a document to lie about the sex you were born and, apparently, even the date of your marriage (!) is simply wrong.

And yes, the idea that you can buy a document to lie about the sex you were born and, apparently, even the date of your marriage (!) is simply wrong.

And that's not meant to imply that I believe a fictional marriage date is worse than a fictional sex.

It's more that I didn't know that, and it will never cease to strike me afresh how many further lies have to be accommodated, because of the one big one.

OldCrone - thanks for that real-life example. Deary me... There's no end to how far idiocy can go once it's part of a bureaucracy, eh?

it will never cease to strike me afresh how many further lies have to be accommodated, because of the one big one.

Helen Joyce has brought this up repeatedly (from her maths background) you can't allow one falsehood into the system or the entire thing just dissolves.

Or putting it another way - "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly..."

Without the GRA, would it be possible for so many men to change some of their sex markers and proudly state that they have no intention obtaining a GRC?

I think this is a really interesting question. Presumably the identity document is based on someone really believing they should be a woman. That should filter through to all aspects of their life.

I completely don't understand how someone can have a passport or driving license stating they are female when they are actually male. And they simultaneously have a marriage certificate based on being a man.

None of this makes any sense. The initial lie should never have crept in.

The GRC was meant to protect the privacy of people who had made a surgical and medical transition, and also allow them to marry. That was it. Everything else (passports etc) was already in place.

It is now being used to displace biological sex as the definition of what it means to be a woman.

If it were not for the Article 8 (right to privacy) of the ECHR, I would campaign to abolish the GRA. But as long as we are members of the Council of Europe, that would be a futile campaign. This needs to go back to Europe so that the interpretation of Art8 is modified.

that's helpful to hear @debbieinbirmingham - can I ask re. "the right to privacy" you mentioned - is the thinking that a person marrying someone may not known they were born a different biological sex than they present post surgery?

If that's the case then I don't think that's good as it one person's right to privacy is another's right to facts being withheld?

It would be ok in plain sight and both partners know one another's history, but without both being aware then it would store up problems that may come to bite one day. I like to think "truth sets you free" etc and informed choices are made with full knowledge.

It is difficult to understand all the different terminology and sorry if this is boring/obvious question for most others.

Personally, I was a bit muddled with the idea of birth certificate and passport needing to show the same thing, as you need to supply birth certificate for a passport - so it isn't the case and a passport can reflect personal choice? Sorry again, just trying to grasp as seems contradictory from an uninformed person's point of view.

Hi @Fizzydrinks123. The privacy element was privacy from officialdom. Under the GRA it is an offence to disclose someone's transgender status in an official capacity. The marriage element is different.

If I were applying for a first UK passport, I could send in my birth cert (male) and a letter from my GP explaining my "change of gender that is intended to be permanent", and the passport would come back with a female marker.

What seems to bother the authorities more is not consistency with birth certificates, but other passports of dual nationals. It seems to be forbidden to be male on one and female on another. That has been a problem for trans people with one passport issued by a jurisdiction that won't change the marker.

@debbieinbirmingham - thank you for that.

I'm sure others reading but not posting will find those posts useful too.

The way things come about and "seem" isn't necessarily where anyone intended them to be (unintended consequences etc) so it very helpful to learn what the perceived "good motivations" were that start a particular journey.

Returning to the motivations can help filter out people with bad motivations who hitched a ride in plain sight and have different reasons for imposing their view whilst also claiming to be "virtuous" (ie. Owen Jones springs to mind).

"change of gender that is intended to be permanent"

That's my point, if the 'change of gender' is permanent, how is it possible for individuals to have some id stating that they are male, and some female for years on end?

These people are using the concept that they could in theory get a grc, change some id, but not others.

Fizzydrinks123 to change gender marker on an existing passport, you need to show one of the following:

1. GRC
2. New birth certificate or adoption certificate, showing your new acquired gender
3. Letter from doctor or medical consultant saying gender change likely to be permanent.

One of these things is not like the others. I believe if you can’t persuade your GP to write the letter, Mermaids will do it for you. People are getting this done for their ‘trans’ kids, some as young as 4.

@AnotherLass

InfoRelish seems to be here to spread misinformation.

We went through all of this with self ID. Yes, we've heard all the trans activists arguments: "it won't make any difference to single sex spaces! It's just admin!"

Nope. It makes a huge difference. As Julian Norman & all the other lawyers endlessly explained. Prisons is one key example. Yes you can be transferred to a female prison without one, like Karen White was, but if you have one, you are AUTOMATICALLY put in a female jail, with no more risk assessment than would be done on a biological women. You are treated exactly the same as a biological women, and you don't even count as trans in the stats. That's a huge difference.

Misnoifmassets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

Page 9:

"Additional structured risk assessments and resources are required before a person is allocated or transferred to part of the estate which does not match their sex assigned at birth, including where a person has gained legal recognition of the gender with which they identify."