The Times: Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

[ResisterRex]

Read it and weep, vipers

"Labour will make it easier to change gender and is considering allowing a single family doctor to sign off on the decision under plans to “simplify” the process.

The party is considering how to make the legally binding certificate easier to obtain while still having guardrails to prevent mirroring controversial ­proposals in Scotland that would have ­removed doctors from the process ­altogether.

The plans include ditching a panel of doctors and lawyers that approve ­gender recognition certificates, the document allowing transgender people to have their affirmed gender legally recognised, and only requiring one doctor to be involved in the process.

The Times understands that one option under consideration is that the doctor could be a GP. Labour would ­also ­remove the ability of a spouse to object to the change. A source said the party wanted to make the process “less medicalised” but added that the plans would retain the involvement of a doctor and would not allow people to self-identify in order to obtain legal changes.

They said it had not yet been decided whether the medical professional would be a GP or a gender specialist, with the issue likely to go to consultation if the party wins the next election.

The discussions centre on concerns that if the single doctor was a specialist, a GP would still need to make the ­referral, therefore retaining the two-step process that Labour wants to drop."

Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/604c739c-70b7-4819-866f-370ae67da6ab?shareToken=2a1dede2a48c5ec7388167f16bdd6cbb

And I expect the TRAs will be absolutely furious with a public consultation.

My GP refused to sign a piece of paper for my son's dyspraxia. All assessments were done externally, all I needed was a final signature from a GP or paediatrician. He refused as it was something outside his training and experience and he hadn't done it before. This was a man of integrity and I respected his humility. Sadly I fear many online vultures would take the money and sign anything.

Well, this is what Labour long said they would do.

I think KS, like NS, is a true believer.

The Cass report showed how complex the reasons for feeling of gender in congruence are. People with gender incongruence need holistic MH support. A GP is in no way qualified to make decisions on this. They are generalists, not specialists. That’s why GPS refer patients to specialists.

But KS and the Labour Party know this. This is their way of getting self Id.

Haven't men been rejected by the psychological assessment from obtaining a GRC for being suspected pedophiles? Presumably that's OK under Labour.
And before the mods delete this as 'something that should never be said' this was from a FOI about reasons for being rejected for a GRC.

This is their way of getting self Id.

Of course it is.

All that bumpf about a ‘change’

Many of us knew it was spin. It was blatant

Yes. Same for me.

So you're considering voting Tory, the party that has defunded public services and local councils so badly that over 10,000 women were turned away from refuges last year? How very pro-women's safety.

A 'gender specialist'. Well that's 100% being approved no matter what. Ffs!

And 'dehumanising' - have they any idea what disabled people have to go through to get a few crumbs from the table.

Labour can FUCK OFF.

And this is our problem. There is no party to vote for

And disabled people have to reapply periodically, I would imagine. Whereas you only have to go through the GRC process once.

this! Im 100% not voting Tory but im
not voting Labour because they’re either too stupid to see what impact their TWAW policies will have on women or they just don’t care

i have no one to vote for

I honestly thought they were leaning the other way.

Edit - Sorry, beginning to lean the other way.

Not surprised by this at all. Frankly unless someone explicitly says 'biological sec' then I assume they include transwomen. Labour have clearly thought they were being clever with their use of words. Can't stand them, would never vote for them. This country is going to be awful when they get in and it's bad enough now,

Most people still will.......this move was always on the cards.Labour have not changed their actual stance once in all of these years.

This poorly framed law will simply prolong the agony, as the consequences will become ever more evident, and will, in fact, accelerate. Labour has refused to critically analyse this issue at all...it is pure ideology and about making good on the promises made to Stonewall and activist backbenchers over the years.

Annalise Dodds is thoroughly inept on this issue. Kier Starmer is simply passing the buck.

I'm not sure why people believed they may be shifting position...maybe wishful thinking?

Bizarrely, this is the one policy pledge that Starmer is definitely going to follow through on. This has always been clear.

Maybe it was the posts on a few lines that seemed to placate

I’m with you it was obvious

It is side stepping the issue, because what politicians are currently doing is promoting the idea that a man could potentially be a woman.

Then saying safeguarding is in place because a GRA will not automatically mean that the man can be placed on hospital wards or in prisions. Professionals can determine the situations were single sex applies.

But where does that leave women and girls using toilets and changing rooms? Even if the move to self id fails, they have increased awareness that that men can become women, and debates will feature lots of men, who do not pass, claiming to be women. If toilets and changing rooms arent ever mentioned when discussing single sex space, they wont be seen as part of the problem.

So this move will have the effect of increasing awareness that even if the man looks like a man, he could potentially be a woman, and toilets and changing rooms aren't included as single sex spaces. Therefore even if women feels safe enough to confront the man, she with be unsure of her legal right to single sex toilets and changing rooms.

If politicians want to make it easier for men to change their gender, they need to be honest and tell everyone what that means in everyday situations not just in places where id can be verified.

Combination of wishful thinking and slippery language, I suppose.

At the moment, the law allows a spouse to opt out, get a divorce and sort out all the financial and custody arrangements while the husband/wife is still legally male/female and the name on documents and bank accounts etc is the same. This happens before the GRC is granted. So the divorce may delay the actual issuing of the certificate, but the spouse has no say in whether it is granted or not.
What Labour are proposing would remove the right to divorce for that reason.

Has anyone had sight of the criteria that GPs would be expected to apply when deciding to sign or not sign?

If, or as soon as, Labour share any criteria to suggest not everyone will be entitled to be signed off, their approach will be rejected by the TRAs. If there aren't any criteria, then it's a pointless hoop to jump through - and the point of the proposal, to reduce 'unnecessary hoops', is thwarted.

A significant issue in this area is disability discrimination. The original thinking behind the GRC process was to enable doctors to differentiate between those who had gender dysphoria, for whom 'transition' was considered an appropriate treatment, from those with other conditions such as personality disorders or paraphilias. Things have changed so much in terms of how trans identities are conceptualised, that introducing a system where people with mental health conditions with a 'trans identity' being denied something (a GRC) that those without the condition aren't, is likely to fall foul of the law.

The current GRC process is a process for people with a defined medical condition (hence the panel deciding on who should be awarded one). Once you say that there is no medical condition (which is what TRAs want) there is no need for any medical sign off.

I think Labour are likely to go down the route of saying that a GRC makes little or no difference to anyone else (citing the exceptions in the EA) so it should be available to all. However, the GP sign off undermines this. It's really poor fence sitting that doesn't address anyone's concerns (unless there are robust criteria that GOs are required to apply - but why is this then better than the expert panel?)

And me. There’s no way back for them now.

I’m starting to lose track. Didn’t Labour promise to separate sex and gender? If yes then surely whoever wants can have at it with declarations of whatever gender stereotypes they want, surely? If no, and sec and gender are still going to be legally easily conflated, then this is very worrying proposal.

Maybe! They thought re-wording things and making very slight changes in the positioning of the furniture may fool people.

Labour simply does not grasp this issue. It is totally ideologically led. Until they recognise that 'trans' is a concept and that 'gender identity' is a relatively recent notion - they are never going to be able to act with clarity, nor make good law.

it is going to take years of revelations, continued push-back, court cases and pressure to turn this thing around. They just see themselves as coming into line with other European countries - even though those countries that passed self Id first are only just now beginning to realise the gravity of what they have done.

This was always the activist's plan...push it through before people had any consciousness of the issue. That Labour is now doing this in the face of mounting evidence against - is just plain stupidity.

One of the comments on this article says

"Obviously this is not really a medical decision anyway so the form should be signed off by the council DEI or Stonewall officer."

This is a very good point. Why are more people not saying this is a lifestyle choice not a medical issue?

The article references Labour's desire to protect biological women's spaces and rights, but there's nothing about that in the actual article. Does anyone know what Labour are saying about how they plan to do this?