Jeremy Vine and Baroness Hale

[Pineapplepyjamas]

Baroness Hale on radio 2 atm.

Jeremy Vine just asked her whether a male who has not had any surgery should be able to identify as female, and whether the law should get involved.

Baroness Hale said this is currently a legal requirement to get a new birth certificate. Is that true?

Great to hear the question being asked.

No it's not true. The only criteria is you have to be over 18, living in role for two years (which is proven by paperwork in your new name) and have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The diagnosis of gender dysphoria specifically does not include any kind of surgery.

By which I mean that you cannot get a new birth certificate until you have a gender recognition certificate using the criteria I described above.

Interested to hear about this.

I thought the 'intention' to do something was enough. Having the thought cross your mind, like (as I intend to go on a diet, but may not do so yet or ever )

Lady Hale was President of the Supreme Court. That is a bit shocking if that is what she said.

@Cailleach1

Interested to hear about this.

I thought the 'intention' to do something was enough. Having the thought cross your mind, like (as I intend to go on a diet, but may not do so yet or ever )

Yes, that is in order to be protected under the equality act. The protected characteristic is gender reassignment. There is no criteria for that.

It means you can't be discriminated against.

Like being fired or denied housing.

But she's talking about a birth certificate. You can only get a birth certificate with a gender recognition certificate. And there is criteria for that.

With a gender recognition certificate you are legally female. And that's a whole different ball game.

@Pineapplepyjamas

Baroness Hale on radio 2 atm.

Jeremy Vine just asked her whether a male who has not had any surgery should be able to identify as female, and whether the law should get involved.

Baroness Hale said this is currently a legal requirement to get a new birth certificate. Is that true?

Great to hear the question being asked.

Am I reading the comment by Baroness Hale correctly from your post, op?

She said surgery is a legal requirement to get a new birth certificate?

I think his question fell between to stools:

Common understanding and the law.

His question lacked specificity

She answered from a place he/we might not have anticipated

And then what Datun said.

So now everybody listening thinks that all the trans women who get to bunk with trapped female prisoners are without their male reproductive organs. And all trans women elsewhere.

All the rapists who identify as women, too. Begs a question or two.

Considering it is around the 90%/85% environs who don't have surgery, on their male reproductive organs this is not a clear message going out over the media.

@Cailleach1

So now everybody listening thinks that all the trans women who get to bunk with trapped female prisoners are without their male reproductive organs. And all trans women elsewhere.

All the rapists who identify as women, too. Begs a question or two.

Considering it is around the 90%/85% environs who don't have surgery, on their male reproductive organs this is not a clear message going out over the media.

Oh for fuck's sake, I hope he issues clarification.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

I think his question fell between to stools:

Common understanding and the law.

His question lacked specificity

She answered from a place he/we might not have anticipated

And then what Datun said.

Another man not in full possession of the facts. But that's not going to stop him talking about it, is it. Or, indeed, finding out any facts.

Indeed!

Over and over again! He is a repeat offender.

@Cailleach1

Lady Hale was President of the Supreme Court. That is a bit shocking if that is what she said.

Not really. It isn't physically possible for any individual to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every law ever passed. However she's have been better advised to say she wasn't sure of the relevant law.

You need to listen very carefully to what was said. If you go to 13:30:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_two

you'll hear Vine ask Hale about "somebody who was born with a male body can identify as female without having had any physical transition" and Hale responding that "the law at present lays down a specific process which does involve medical intervention in order to be able to get a new birth certificate and be recognised for all legal purposes in a new gender" and then goes on to say that this isn't required for all kinds of self identification.

Although she seems to be saying that drugs at least, and maybe surgery also, are required to get a GRC to change a birth certificate, and on my hearing that's what she means, her terminology is broad enough that "medical intervention" can instead be said to refer to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That's how it will be interpreted by those wishing to show that Hale didn't get this wrong.

That was the live version, if you go to the listen again version:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00106lr

you'll need to listen from 1:27:34.

Originally the basis and thinking for the GRA was that this was intended for transsexuals - ie people who would have surgical reassignment.

However, international law apparently means you cannot have a medical procedure a prerequisite for some right.

So they removed that and still said that it was primarily intended for transsexuals, and obviously they would all want to have surgery but maybe there might be some medical reason why they couldn't.

But nothing in the law itself has it as a requirement.

Concerns about this during GRA2004 debates were dismissed, because of the application process checks.

Lynne Jones in particular did this. Two quotes here:

To be candid, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who sports a full beard would have their application for a gender recognition certificate granted, I wonder what world he is living in.

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a trans-man who has not undergone phalloplasty would go into a male changing room, for example, with a football team and expose himself? That is highly unlikely. I can confirm that there are open women's changing rooms. I went into one just over the road this morning. Quite frankly, the idea that a male-to-female trans-person would be granted a recognition certificate if they did not undergo a penectomy is, again, unthinkable.

the law at present lays down a specific process which does involve medical intervention in order to be able to get a new birth certificate and be recognised for all legal purposes in a new gender"

Well that's sneaky, isn't it. Medical intervention is a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Which can be hoodwinked out of any doctor at any time.

It's quite extraordinary how many people are talking about this issue and not saying anything.

The euphemisms, the skirting around the law, the lack of follow-up questions to determine clarity.

Why can you not say only women have a cervix Keir? Why is it transphobic? You don't know? Can you get someone on here from your party who does know, given it's your policy.

All of it.

Quite frankly, the idea that a male-to-female trans-person would be granted a recognition certificate if they did not undergo a penectomy is, again, unthinkable.

No problem making it a legal requisite then.

I wonder what she thinks about men who have babies then.

No problem making it a legal requisite then.

Indeed. "It's so obvious it goes without saying" is never a convincing argument.

JR: We know have a different debate, about whether somebody who was born with a a male body (sic) can identify as female without having had any physical transition. Do you think the law should get involved in that?

LH: Well, the law is involved in the sense that the law, at present, lays down a specific process which does involve medical intervention in order to be able to get a new birth certificate and be recognised for all legal purposes in a new gender.
But of course that is not required for all sorts of self identification. People can do that without having to go through that process. It is a complex question as to how, and whether, the law should be changed and I certainly don't want to express any particular view on it.

So, Vines initial question was about identifying as female without any physical transition. Hale's answer that the process as laid down in law involved medical intervention . Only insofar as a doctor is needed to write a report. Put a medic's pen on paper or digits on computer buttons.

One would infer from that that this medical intervention involved physical transition, when a male needs to do sweet fa physically to be regarded in law as a woman; for all intents and purposes. if you were listening to that you'd think medical involvement vis a vis a physical 'transition' was a requirement of the legal process.

Sorry, that was clear as mud.

Vine asked about physical 'transition'. Hale said that indeed 'medical intervention' was a requirement in the legal process. Everyone listening would infer that medical intervention to be the physical 'transition' that Vine had asked about.

@NecessaryScene

Originally the basis and thinking for the GRA was that this was intended for transsexuals - ie people who would have surgical reassignment.

However, international law apparently means you cannot have a medical procedure a prerequisite for some right.

So they removed that and still said that it was primarily intended for transsexuals, and obviously they would all want to have surgery but maybe there might be some medical reason why they couldn't.

But nothing in the law itself has it as a requirement.

Concerns about this during GRA2004 debates were dismissed, because of the application process checks.

Lynne Jones in particular did this. Two quotes here:

To be candid, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who sports a full beard would have their application for a gender recognition certificate granted, I wonder what world he is living in.

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a trans-man who has not undergone phalloplasty would go into a male changing room, for example, with a football team and expose himself? That is highly unlikely. I can confirm that there are open women's changing rooms. I went into one just over the road this morning. Quite frankly, the idea that a male-to-female trans-person would be granted a recognition certificate if they did not undergo a penectomy is, again, unthinkable.

There really was zero foresight from the majority of MPs that they were playing with fire.

I'd really like some of those MPs to be tackled over the Hansard records and what has come to pass.

Yes, Hale was either wrong or consciously sought the misdirect the listeners. I've long thought that, being an impartial very senior member of the judiciary, she took a bit too much pleasure in being seen as being on the side of "progressive values".

@NecessaryScene

No problem making it a legal requisite then.

Indeed. "It's so obvious it goes without saying" is never a convincing argument.

It just sounds entirely deliberate to me. Shock someone into denying what they think might happen on the basis of it being so unlikely as to sound crazy.

Women are gaslit and hoodwinked all over the shop, just like this.

If they were to clarify, they should state that the medical intervention' referred to, is not a requirement to change anything about a man's body in order for him to be recognised legally as a woman.

They should state that the medical intervention could simply take the form of a doctors report and diagnosis. I don't know if it has to be typed or written - that is the only physical effort necessary and it is on the part of the doctor.

But they won't, will they?