MPs are being briefed that the GRA needs to be reformed to align with other European countries

[IwantToRetire]

Reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 – A Briefing Note for MPs

The purpose of this briefing paper is to outline the current legislation in Western European countries regarding the rights of trans and gender nonconforming people to change their gender markers on official government documentation legally.

It will briefly outline the current and proposed legislation for each of the Western European countries and identify the year that the legislation came in/or is coming into effect.

......

In conclusion, it can be seen that the United Kingdom has fallen behind the rest of Europe in terms of having gender recognition laws that are fit for purpose in the 21st Century. In addition, the United Kingdom has been surrounded by countries with improved rights for several years, and in many cases, it has far exceeded what we currently have in the statute books.

The aggressive approach we have seen from the previous government has only made matters worse for trans people, a demographic that makes up approximately 0.5% of the population. A targeting that was never justifiable when compared to how our European neighbours treat the legal and social standing of trans people in their countries.

A change of direction and governmental attitude towards trans people, bringing us more in line with the rest of Europe, is both necessary and long overdue.

TransLucent.Org.UK December 2024.

https://translucent.org.uk/reforming-the-gender-recognition-act-2004-a-briefing-note-for-mps/

Are any gender critical groups similarly briefing MPs?

I think it's both relevant and irrelevant, if that makes sense.

For me it's only relevant in the sense that we know that sovereignty is very important to people in the UK and that we don't want to be swept along into major social changes we don't agree with just because other countries think we should.

Briefed by men who won't take no for an answer.

I wonder if the Labour Government are hoping that the Supreme Court will deem sex in the EqA as biological sex so much like Cass it will save them from having to face the issue head on.

But other countries don't think we should (and if they do, at least as many think we shouldn't). The only people implying that are this lobbying group, with some thinly-veiled suggestion that British politicians (and, by extension, all British people) will be collectively regarded as bigots and pariahs by "right-thinking people" in those other countries if they don't immediately give in to all the group's demands.

I think we risk giving succour to the Brexiteers and Reform Party supporters (who never saw a straw man argument about the EU that they didn't immediately embrace) to advance the suggestion that Brexit might be protecting us from trans lunacy, or any other extreme social policy position, when that simply isn't the case. 🙏

(That works both ways. I also have no doubt that if Brexit hadn't happened, this lobbying group would be demanding that the UK take the issue up with Brussels, and would be in a huff when they discovered that Brussels said "Not our problem, sunshine"!)

The Labour and Conservative parties both have very active GC women's members groups who are working very hard at briefing MPs - Labour Women's Declaration and Conservatives for Women. I would think they're taken much more seriously and have much more access to MPs than a random lobby group no-one's heard of. I know SNP doesn't have such a group (their GC members have all left, it seems) but they're a small enough party at Westminster to be insignificant. Not sure about the LibDems. I can't imagine there are very many MPs who will take this 'briefing' seriously - maybe a few of the ideologues, no-one else.

Yep understood.

But the EA could be specifically updated to clarify how a GRC interacts with it.

The GRA says that it can be subject to future legislation. The best place to put that future legislation, so that the GRA and the EA aren't in conflict with each other, is in the EA.

Unfortunately, there is already momentum on forcing EU countries to adopt another country's recognition of someone's "gender". Here's Romania being put under pressure and found to be unlawful as far as the EU is concerned:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romania-infringed-transgender-mans-rights-eus-top-court-rules-2024-10-05/

So it seems that the EU mandate does get to cover this. That's presumably where Robin is coming from by saying we're "behind Europe".

I was responding to this bit:
It's pretty likely (hopefully) that the Supreme Court will decide that sex in the EA means biological sex. Therefore, as per Ruth Crawford's speech in court, this means that any male who identifies as a woman but doesn't have a GRC is a man as far as the law is concerned.

You seemed to be saying that the effect of a judgement that sex means sex would be to confirm that a person with a GRC had changed sex for the purposes of the EA, and those without one hadn't and only the former group could access opposite sex spaces.

So presumably there's going to be a MASSIVE uptick in the number of GRC applications. And this lobbying is about preparing the way for GRC holders to have access to all the sports, spaces and services that they want.

I was just saying that a decision that Sex = bio sex would effectively disapply the GRA from the operation of the EA. There would be no interaction. Of course this could be changed by new legislation, but until then a clarification that Sex = Sex would not be an incentive to apply for a GRC. The judges would not have to refer the EA back to Parliament if they took this view, so the Government wouldn't have legal "cover" to make changes. Though that might not stop them!

Do you have any evidence for this......from Starmer? The last i heard him say on the matter was that "modernising the GRA was an election/manifesto pledge".

Watch it get kicked into the long grass.

'Translucent' trying to get changes to the GRA before the Scottish judges come to their conclusion on 'Sex'?

Do you have any evidence, though? Things he's said.

Fair enough.

Yes, Ruth Crawford wasn't saying anything new in law (as @Ereshkigalangcleg has also said above) so perhaps my choice of words was poor.

But she did say the quiet bit out loud in the Supreme Court. It's on the public record.

The scrutiny on being able to change driving licences and passports is also increasing.

I do think there will be an uptick in GRC applications as a result of all of this "sunlight" on the facts. Reliance on ignorance of the existing law (once sex is clarified.... hopefully 🤞) is presumably a big reason why so few people bother with a GRC.

But some of those ideologues are on the front benches...let alone the usual shouty ones from the backbenches.

I think appointing Wes Streeting as health secretary was a biggie. They're not arguing with Cass. And I think he has made some comments recently which suggest a softening of his stance on women's rights, which, if not an apology to Rosie Duffield, come quite close to saying what she was criticised for saying. I'd have to try and find some links though.

Labour REALLY want Farage as the next PM don't they?

Idiots.

But she did say the quiet bit out loud in the Supreme Court. It's on the public record.

Yes, that part was excellent, and the frothing on Blue Sky was something to behold.

I cant be bothered to read the briefing again but from memory this is effectively about self identity.

ie the briefing is saying modern "democratic" countries have gone down this route and the UK is being held back.

And irrespective of Brexit (which is not relevant in any way) using Europe as a yardstick (there are other countries that effectivley have self id) is to appeal to those who think european society is more sophisticated, etc., etc., than the UKs.

Whether they achieve this or not, is not about the issue of clarifying the word sex in the EA.

If the word sex is not changed to mean biological, then we have the situation we have now. That where "proportionate" single (biological) sex services etc., are permissable. The problem with that is too many people have been Stonewall or been financial coerced by funders to not implement that option.

That needs to be a campaign in itself. To make not just women's groups, but shops, swimming pools, the NHS get a backbone etc., stand up for women's sex based rights.

If they do change the wording of the EA so that sex means biological, then that would be fantastic, and make life so much better. And simpler.

Those with a GRC would still be a protected characteristic under the EA, but would loose their right to impinge as "legal women" in some instances.

Obviously, the whole notion of a GRC bought in to deal with an issue we no longer have a problem with (ie same sex marriage) is to me ludicrous.

I really resent that this is now effectively a political campaign to make everybody adhere to a belief system that in reality is a tiny minority.

I know I've said this before, but this is now much more about social engineering than taking into account an even tinier minority who experience gender dysphoria.

You get the feeling that people who form groups like this would really like to tell everybody what they should think and say.

So are we significantly out of step with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Chechnya, Rumania, Bulgaria et al?

There is an interesting comment on that case here: https://eapil.org/2024/10/15/cjeu-rules-member-states-must-recognise-a-unions-citizen-change-of-first-name-and-gender-identity/

Basically, the CJEU's judgement only went as far as saying that the Romanian authorities have to accept the appellant's current gender identity only insofar as it applies to their exercise of EU rights, notably freedom of movement. So for example they can't refuse an ID card or passport on the basis of the change of reported gender (and, probably just as important, name).

It reaffirms, however, that a person's gender (gender identity, etc) is a matter for the member states for all other purposes. That is stated explicitly near the end: "the recognition of a Union citizen’s name and gender identity change for other purposes – such as marriage, parenthood establishment, social security rights, health care, and participation in sports – appears to remain within the competence of individual Member States."

The CJEU got involved partly because of the Brexit issue (i.e., did this person's GRC still count after Brexit), but also because as a result of the GRC, they wanted a new birth certificate. Had they never left Romania, there would have been no GRC, and so the question would not arise.

EU law, and in particular the relationship between EU law and national law, is a very tricky area, and it's very easy to read more into a CJEU judgement than is there. The CJEU is not what most people would call an "activist" court, in terms of pushing social boundaries; it's generally the European Parliament that leads on social questions. However, the CJEU does very often come down on the side of the individual against the state in borderline cases. We might not like the fact that the court told Romania to recognise this person's GRC, but if instead of a GRC it had been a same-sex marriage certificate I think the verdict would have been exactly the same (Romania does not recognise same-sex marriage either).

I assume you mean Czechia rather than Chechnya (which is a Muslim-majority region of Russia), but anyway: Yes, there is a split between (roughly) "old"/"Western" Europe and "new"/"Eastern" Europe on gender recognition, self-ID, etc. See https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/documents-formalities/legal-gender-recognition/index_en.htm and click on whatever country interests you.

Yeah, sorry. I did mean Czechia.

It's helpful to see it unpicked like that. Thank you for sharing.

if instead of a GRC it had been a same-sex marriage certificate I think the verdict would have been exactly the same

Relating to a name change for freedom of movement only? (just to check I've understood what you're saying)

Relating to a name change for freedom of movement only? (just to check I've understood what you're saying)

I don't have all the details, but reading between the lines it seems that this person wanted a new birth certificate, perhaps as part of an ID card application. And you need an ID card or passport to take up your FoM rights.

I remember a case at the European Court of Human Rights about 30 years where France lost because people were unable to change their sex on their birth certificate for any reason. You got your sex/gender "assigned at birth", as the trans rights people say, and that was it for ever. The twist is that this case was brought, not by a trans person, but by someone (I don't remember if it was a man or a woman) who had simply had the wrong sex put down on their birth certificate because their genitalia were wonky at birth (this apparently happens sometimes due to hormones). This problem had sorted itself out and the person was now an adult with fully functioning genitalia that they were perfectly happy with, but they were unable to marry because their birth certificate said M (or F) when they were F (or M), and they wanted to marry "another" M or F, which was illegal at the time.

Apparently this happened quite a lot. I had a French friend who had done his military service in the arrivals office and he told me that they regularly had very obviously female conscripts reporting for duty after getting their call-up papers (every male in France got them round about their 18th birthday until about 2001). They would show their ID card and yep, it said male, which was why they had been called up. They were immediately failed on medical grounds, but these women could never marry because it was literally impossible to change your sex on your birth certificate.

Anyway, France got its arse kicked at the court in that case and had to change its laws to allow you to change your sex on an official document, although I doubt if they included self-ID as one of the allowable criteria at that point. One thing I remember vividly was the person's lawyer noting that Turkey (hardly a bastion of soggy woke liberal values) allowed people (including trans people, with some degree of medical justification) to change their sex on their ID card, unlike France.

But a judgment like that apparently is then used as a stepping stone to self ID. The argument being "if men can change their ID to male, but women can't, that's sex discrimination, which is illegal".

(That's basically the same argument ACLU etc are attempting in the US supreme court with respect to cross-sex hormones - saying testosterone is safe for males but not females is sex discrimination).

That's the basic problem with the sex discrimination (or other discrimination) laws - they start from a basis of "outlaw discrimination generally", then try to add in the sensible exceptions they can think of, like sport or whatever. But they didn't think of adding exceptions sufficient to cover idiocy.

And trans laws suffer the same problems - if you let someone change their ID because they've chopped their cock off, then it's unethical to require someone to get their cock chopped off to change their ID, so you have to offer it generally.

The one short-circuit I can think of is that in the case of ID like above - there shouldn't be any right to "change your ID". That framing is wrong. Rather it's that the authorities are required to make sure it's correct.

If they become aware you are female when the ID says male, they are required to correct it. You get no direct say in the matter. Most you can do is make them aware of an error. And if it was wrong, you'd have no choice about it being maintained as wrong - they'd correct it even if you didn't want it corrected. So the form of any legal case is specifically "my ID is factually incorrect", not "I don't like my ID".

(And obviously no male should be changing their ID, cock chop or not.)

Helen Joyce has talked about how you can't let "0=1" anywhere in maths cos the damage spreads everywhere. Any allowance of choice of ID in any circumstance is the equivalent of that - and then it spreads via the medium of discrimination legislation. I don't think the place to fix it is to necessarily try to throttle the discrimination legislation - it's that you have to realise that you can't ever limit "ID choice" in any area where such legislation exists, so you can't think you're bringing it in for a limited group. It has to be blocked outright.