If you have a GRA and you detransition, can you go back to your bio sex legally?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

I'm not sure how to word this.

I think I have read that the GRA changes your sex in law. But you can only do it once. And so, people who detransition will remain of their adopted sex in law and for the rest of their lives, even if they no longer consider themselves to have a gender difference?

Is that correct? It's for a FB argument, obviously.

I don't think you can. Obviously you cam socially and to an extent physically detransition, but a GRC is a once only thing I think.

Source: vaguely remembered twitter thresd

I thought you could had to go through the process again in reverse?

(Source: vaguely remembered content from WESC and reform of the GRA)

Seems like it's one of those fuzzy areas where reality hits bureaucracy. All the procedures to get a GRC are on the assumption you're "transitioning" from actual sex to the opposite sex, and that you don't already have a GRC.

There's no defined procedure to "cancel" a GRC.

Keira Bell has written a bit about her difficulty going back to legally female.

Not sure it's impossible, and certainly not "rest of their lives", as whatever issues there currently are will eventually be resolved, I'm sure, but it is a bit of a mess.

There's also an issue that part of the terms of getting a GRC are commitment to it - it's not supposed to be done lightly, so undoing it is a bit "divorce"-like. There is also supposed to be some penalty for "false declarations" on a GRC, and it's hard to see how you'd ever trigger that, but detransitioning looks like it might be close...

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I don't think you can. Obviously you cam socially and to an extent physically detransition, but a GRC is a once only thing I think.

Source: vaguely remembered twitter thresd

I've had a quick Google and some Reddit etc posts seem to suggest that you can apply for a GRC again and go through the process.in reverse.

Certainly no easy way to have your actual sex recognised if you change your mind.

I think the law in Ireland has been set up to make changing multiple times easy.
It's not even seen as a bad thing or proof that gender is a load of old bollocks.

Twitter thread that I had half remembered ?wrongly):

twitter.com/MediocreDruid/status/1394659034817568768?s=19

(1/3) I would like to once again bring your attention to the fact the GRA does not take into consideration detransitioners.

There is no process to go back. Your only option is to reapply for a new GRC in your original gender.

One requirement is to have a GD diagnosis.

(2/3) I have been told by the panel that I would need a new diagnosis.

I have also just recently been told by my gender clinic that I would not get a diagnosis. Because I am female. I am a woman. There is no diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria for a woman who wants to be a woman.

(3/3) Unless I'm mistaken, and I really hope I am, this means detransitioners are unable to meet the requirements to reapply for a GRC. This means if we legally changed gender, we are now stuck with it.

So, if our government could fix that horrific oversight. That'd be grand. x

In some states in Australia you can change your legal sex once every 12 months. Bernard Lane who writes for The Australian has tried to unpick why this is happening. There does need to be a middle ground.

Thank you all.

Very helpful.

So, in summary - it'll take a test case and a lot of head scratching and confusion.

Couldn't this be challenged under discrimination due to gender reassignment? So those who don't have the protected characteristic can obtain a GRC, but those with it can't?

@123ZYX

Couldn't this be challenged under discrimination due to gender reassignment? So those who don't have the protected characteristic can obtain a GRC, but those with it can't?

I find your insight intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Post more, please.

I've heard certain mushrooms are good at expanding the mind, but working your way through this hall of mirrors has got to be close.

Very interesting @123ZYX

Could use more of your (potentially) legal mind

@123ZYX

"Couldn't this be challenged under discrimination due to gender reassignment? So those who don't have the protected characteristic can obtain a GRC, but those with it can't?"

No. Any other trans or nonbinary person, or any detransitioner, has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

[quote LowKeyLockee]@123ZYX

"Couldn't this be challenged under discrimination due to gender reassignment? So those who don't have the protected characteristic can obtain a GRC, but those with it can't?"

No. Any other trans or nonbinary person, or any detransitioner, has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment[/quote]
Im not a lawyer, just thinking "out loud", however the protected characteristic is those "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." So wouldn't cover all trans and non-binary people.

I agree that it would at least those in the process of applying for a GRC where it has not yet been granted.

In any case, the discrimination would only be gains those with the characteristic, even if it's not all of them. In the same way that inaccessible buildings are discriminatory against disabled people, even if not all disabled people are affected.

That should be "against those"

@123ZYX

Uh, sorry, that didn't send right. I'll try again

"I'm not a lawyer, just thinking "out loud", however the protected characteristic is those "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." So wouldn't cover all trans and non-binary people."

Yes, you are not a lawyer. No, it covers all trans and nonbinary people, and all genuine detransitioners (see Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd 1304471/2018)

Couldn't this be challenged under discrimination due to gender reassignment? So those who don't have the protected characteristic can obtain a GRC, but those with it can't?

The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 should not be relevant here as the Equality Act 2010 only applies in certain contexts - eg employment, education, service provision and so won't be relevant for the gender reassignment process (unless this somehow counts as a service...). In any event, you couldn't challenge the Gender Recognition Act 2004 using the Equality Act 2010 - there are exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 for situations where discrimination arises out of the application of another Act of Parliament: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/22

A Human Rights Act challenge on Art 14 (discrimination) together with Art 8 (respect for private/family life) would be the way to go IMO.

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd 1304471/2018

I honestly wouldn't place too much weight on this judgment. It's not authority for anything as it was just an Employment Tribunal, and the fact that they declared the argument that non-binary wasn't covered "totally without merit" shows that the Tribunal didn't really grasp the issues. Obviously, the Tribunals and Courts could expand gender reassignment to cover people who declare they are non-binary, like how the concept of race is generally accepted to have been expanded to cover caste - but it's not totally without merit to argue that it's not covered!

@123XYZ asked "Couldn't this be challenged under discrimination due to gender reassignment? So those who don't have the protected characteristic can obtain a GRC, but those with it can't?"

All matters pertaining to discrimination in regards to gender reassignment are matters in the mainland of the UK under the Equality Act

Any claim of discrimination based off of the Convention would not be based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but rather whether a person's Article 8 right to privacy had been breached and if, as a result, their Article 14 rights had also been breached. The Convention covers multiple countries, all of whom have their own laws, and as such the Convention does not use a country's own discrimination laws to determine discrimination, but rather considers whether the law of a member state's government has or has not caused a breach of somebody's human rights under the Convention

@YourSexNotGenderIsOnFire As with all judgements and orders made by any court or tribunal this is a judgement kept on record. In other words it makes up part of the case law of the UK. Although not binding on other courts or tribunals, other courts and tribunals are required to consider such a ruling should it be raised and the matter be similar enough, to ensure consistency of rulings where ever you are in the country. The only difference between precedent and case law is that precedent is case law that must be adhered to by the inferior courts and of all superior courts inferior to the court that set the precedent, whereas non-precedent case law requires only that judgements on the same matter at the same level are kept consistent with each other to avoid unnecessary appeals to sort out matters of law

@LowKeyLockee

Uh, sorry, that didn't send right. I'll try again

"I'm not a lawyer, just thinking "out loud", however the protected characteristic is those "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." So wouldn't cover all trans and non-binary people."

Yes, you are not a lawyer. No, it covers all trans and nonbinary people, and all genuine detransitioners (see Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd 1304471/2018)

I remember thinking it was strange how they kept referring to the "non-binary" JLR employee as she/her and a transwoman.

The judgment did seem very confused, as though the judge really didn't understand the issues at all.

Seems quite common in the first tier ETs.

Sadly, this is also from a vaguely-remembered twitter thread, but isn't the GRA formulated so that a person may have two goes at transitioning (in case they can't quite do it the first time)?

How does that work, & would affect anything for detransitioners? Are people who try & don't manage it, then regarded as detransitioners? What's their legal status at that point?

would IT affect

the Convention does not use a country's own discrimination laws to determine discrimination, but rather considers whether the law of a member state's government has or has not caused a breach of somebody's human rights under the Convention

Well yes that's my point. The UK, in providing for transition from natal sex but not detransition, is arguably in breach of Art 8 and 14. The Equality Act 2010 is of zero relevance here.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

I'm not sure how to word this.

I think I have read that the GRA changes your sex in law. But you can only do it once. And so, people who detransition will remain of their adopted sex in law and for the rest of their lives, even if they no longer consider themselves to have a gender difference?

Is that correct? It's for a FB argument, obviously.

I remember the late great Angela Clayton giving an answer to this. The GRC holder would have to go through the whole GR process again including all the medical/psychiatric stuff. I don't know of anyone actually doing this though.

So, worst scene scenario - what if a female detransitions back to being a woman, and some years down the line gets sick. Her medical records say she is male. Does that cause her problems? Does she have to "out" herself as a detransitioner with every hospital appointment?

I can't figure out the impact that the paperwork might have on a person in that situation. I can see why someone would want to change their sex markers in the first place, I can see that affirmation is a thing that people want - but, what if your paperwork all says you are something that you know you are not, only in reverse?

Does it matter practically? Does the law not care about messy situations like this?