Should GRCs be revoked if a male person commits a sexual offence & is sent to prison?

[happydappy2]

The granting of a GRC to a male is a huge statement of trust that you will ‘live as a woman’ If you then commit a sexual offence against a woman/child (in a male way, ie using yr male genitalia) should that GRC then be revoked? Part of prison sentence is deprivation of Liberty…

The current prison policy is bonkers, issuing GRCs is crazy but just like you can lose yr driving licence, might GRCs be taken away for bad behaviour?

Inclined to agree with NiceGerbil, but thought it an interesting choice of words from OP that a GRC is a statement of trust. Hadn't thought of it that way. We're so used to the TRA argument being nothing but 'me, me, me', when it really has to be a two-way street.

To get a GRC you need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or gender incongruence as it is currently called in ICD.

icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f90875286

To get a diagnosis of gender incongruence, paraphilic disorders must first be ruled out. These include:

Exhibitionistic disorder
Voyeuristic disorder
Pedophilic disorder
Coercive sexual sadism disorder
Frotteuristic disorder
Other paraphilic disorder involving non-consenting individuals

If a patient fits the diagnostic criteria for one of the above 'disorders' then they should not receive a diagnosis of gender incongruence (aka gender dysphoria) and therefore they should not be eligible for a GRC.

So in the case of sex offenders it should be possible to revoke a GRC by challenging the original diagnosis that led to eligibility. It wouldn't be a case of removing someone's rights for bad behaviour (I agree that's a slippery slope we must not go down), it would just be a case of misdiagnosis.

I suppose someone could bring a legal challenge by arguing that at the time of their gender dysphoria diagnosis they were not a sadistic pervert, and that they developed their abusive paraphilic disorder some time later and completely coincidentally, and that therefore they should be allowed to continue legally identifying into the opposite sex class despite now being a convicted sadistic pervert.

That would be an informative case.

The whole GRA is obsolete now though. I can see no good reason for keeping it.

The government having the ability to remove from individuals a legal status if they don't behave themselves is a very slippery slope.

Would pave the way for unilateral removal of loads of stuff for a wide variety of reasons.

I agree with this principle, which is why I'm adamantly against the government fighting to remove the vote from prisoners. Human rights are universal, and that includes prisoners and past offenders.

However, a GRC is not a human right, is it? It's a privilege. Being a sex offender against women seems like it should be up in the first couple of things on the list that would disqualify you on the original application.

Such offenses would already disqualify you from quite a few professions where safeguarding is an issue. And letting males have female ID is totally the same sort of safeguarding risk.

I mean, we accept the principle of removing a driving license for dangerous driving.

Why would we not remove a "woman" license for dangerous "womaning"?

@OhHolyJesus

Yes.

I would also like to see it revoked for those who break the promise of the 'declaration'.

For example, promising to live the rest of your life 'as a man' and then doing the most female thing you can do, get pregnant and have a baby.

Agree.

@LangClegsInSpace

The whole GRA is obsolete now though. I can see no good reason for keeping it.

Agree on this point too. Well done, TRAs! If the GRA had genuinely only affected a few thousand people as Parliament was told when it was debated and hadn't been used as a foot in the door to get gender replacing sex, I would have accepted it. Would still have disagreed with it, but wouldn't have felt it was harmful. Now I do.

@RedDogsBeg

Yes absolutely the GRC should be revoked, I'd go further and say ANY violent or sexual crime, ANY crime involving children including downloading or procuring or producing images of child sexual abuse.

Further under no circumstances should a man in prison for ANY sexual or violent crime be remotely considered for any form of surgery or anything else allied with changing gender and should NEVER in a million years be even considered for a GRC let alone be granted one.

Do a male crime, serve time as a male in the male prison estate and remain the male that you are for the rest of your days.

Totally agree

Brilliant idea OP.
Please someone make this an AIBU question!!

It does seem to me that if you are found guilty of a sexual assault you should not be entitled to call yourself a woman and be treated as such

@Echobelly

It does seem to me that if you are found guilty of a sexual assault you should not be entitled to call yourself a woman and be treated as such

It does seem to me that if you are a male you should not the entitled to call yourself a woman.

Yes

Being as there is a part that says:

"(c)intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death"

I think they should at least have stipulations as to what constitutes this and then the ability to withdraw the GRC if the person doesn't comply with it

Given that the MoJ doesn't even require a GRC before placing someone on the women's estate, I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make.

I think this is part of a broader problem. Detransitioners with a GRC can’t change back to their birth sex either. I think the whole grc approach is not fit for purpose. It’s not clear to me that it is needed now same sex marriage is legal.
I think if it were to stay I would create a detransition protocol and have certain actions as detransition by action eg rape is a statement of detransition by a TW and getting pregnant is a statement of detransition by a TM.

@DdraigGoch

Given that the MoJ doesn't even require a GRC before placing someone on the women's estate, I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make.

The horror of that is being exposed now, calls for the removal of a GRC from violent male sex offenders will focus even more minds, reveal the rot at the very core of this and force those who have willingly and deliberately advocated for it into the light to justify it.

Of course, but I'm sure it won't happen. A GRC should be given only to men who have fully 'transitioned' as in surgical intervention. Surely this is the only way to show that the person has really committed to their wish to 'live as a woman' (their words not mine).

Just realised that it's more difficult, and more expensive, to get a Blue Badge than it is to get a GRC. How bonkers is that?

The granting of a GRC to a male is a huge statement of trust that you will ‘live as a woman’

This is very apt and very well phrased by the OP, the trust has been totally broken and not by women but to the detriment of women and girls and this needs to be made plain and highlighted to the Government and everyone else up to their necks in this.

The government having the ability to remove from individuals a legal status if they don't behave themselves is a very slippery slope.

What happens to your legal right to drive if you do something that seriously endangers others with your car?

I don't agree with GRCs at all. This has been abused past the point of being tolerated in any shape or form, it has been proved it's impossible to gate keep degree of transition because of the relentless pushing of boundaries, the answer is just no. No one gets a legal fiction of being part of a group they are objectively, in fact not, and does not have the right to the resources of that group. Creating additional groups alongside with different classifications and boundaries? Crack on.

What happens if you are given indefinite right to remain?

There are loads of others I'm sure.

A driving licence can be removed at any time for a variety of known reasons.

Yes it's a slippery slope.

What happens if you are given indefinite right to remain?

If it can be taken away, it's not an indefinite right, and it's been missold.

One of the other heinous ones is stripping citizenship from people who have dual citizenship. International law prevents people being left stateless, but they figure they can do it for dual citizens.

Sorry, no, if it can be removed, it's not citizenship.

Yes it's a slippery slope.

Which is why you have to be very clear what is a "right" and what isn't. For example I'm in favour of Universal Basic Income, but my concern is that it only works if it truly is a universal right. The moment it became remotely conditional, you've undermined it and started down the slippery slope.

A GRC is a very long way away from a human right, or it should be. It is not a universal right to be viewed/treated as the sex you are not.

What happens if you are given indefinite right to remain?

and if that indefinite right to remain was found to have been awarded based on lies told by the recipient?