Parliament to discuss should transgender people to self-identify their legal gender on 19 May 2025

[IwantToRetire]

@MNHQ - please note this post is not about a petition but is about a forthcoming HoC debate. Thanks

Posted as a point of information.

We believe the government should change legislation to make it easier for trans people of all ages to change their legal gender without an official diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Transgender people have a history of major discrimination in the UK and around the world. Major studies in reputable journals have shown a positive correlation between allowing trans people to live as their gender, rather than their sex assigned at birth in regards to positive mental and physical health outcomes.

Government replied after 10,000 signatures:

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation that reflects the seriousness of changing a person’s legal gender. The Government will not be introducing self-identification.

The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad.

This Government is proud of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the rights it affords to transgender people in this country. The GRA has operated for 20 years and has allowed trans people to be recognised in law. The Act enables trans people to live, work and die in their acquired gender and this is important in ensuring that trans people can live with dignity and respect.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation, with appropriate checks and balances that reflect the seriousness of changing a person’s legal sex. The Government is committed to modernising, simplifying and reforming the legal gender recognition process to remove indignities for trans people whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We believe this strikes the right balance, and the Government will not introduce self-identification as part of these reforms.

The government is committed to ensuring trans people can live their lives as they wish. In line with the King’s Speech, this Government will deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring forward a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices.

We are also working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime to make them aggravated offences.

Cabinet Office

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation that reflects the seriousness of changing a person’s legal gender. The Government will not be introducing self-identification.

and

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation, with appropriate checks and balances that reflect the seriousness of changing a person’s legal sex

which is it? Legal gender or sex? Or is it both?

You can also change everything, including passports and driving licences, with just a doctor’s note, so this really only applies to birth/marriage/death certificates and pensions/HMRC dealings I think.

The endless trouble caused by the GRA is a constant reminder that basing legislation on lies or delusions is a very bad idea. For practical reasons, as well as the obvious moral and ethical ones.

'This Government is proud of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004'

It was the wrong law for the wrong reason, nice to know those in charge of the country's affairs are 'proud' of being so wrong.

I don't understand the purpose of this debate. Clearly the government position is that they agree with the supreme court ruling so what is there to debate about a Self ID that gives you a certificate with no practical relevance?

I wrote to my MP anyway highlighting the prison statistics as evidence that self ID is open to abuse.

Is it letter to MP time?

Where does it say that there will be a debate? The text above suggests that there’s no follow up from the petition. If there is to be a debate I’ll be writing to my MP too.

They have to have debates in response to petitions. But the debates are held in a different space in Parliament not in the chamber. Cue MPs paying fealty to their local activists on whom they rely and dodging responsibility for actually sorting out the mess.

My understanding was that at 10,000 signatures the govt will respond (which they have done), and at 100,000 signatures the matter is considered for debate.
So I wonder what the source of this date of 19 May comes from.
petition.parliament.uk/

I can't see any debate listed for that date, however I did spot this on Mon 19th in the HoL

I'm confused.

You get a response once your petition hits 10, 000 signatures and possibly a debate at 100,000 signatures - is that it?

So this must have garnered 100k in a short time - no surprise there, we know how you can harness the power of SM.

Yet the debate will be a brownie point-scoring, medal-burnishing exercise only - no change will be forthcoming?

Have I got that right?

I would support this. Let all official ID have two entries - sex and gender. Sex is biological and only changeable through the courts in the vanishingly rare circumstances the original identification was wrong. Gender can be left blank (for those who think it’s nonsense), or completed with anything the individual desires (M/F/NB/Fae…) without need for a doctors certificate.

Given it’s sex that matters for entry to single sec spaces, I see no harm in giving those individuals who want it autonomy over their identified gender.

What a waste of time and money.

If they get 100k signatures they get a debate, but it doesn't mean anything is going to change/happen as a result.

Agree, that need 100,000 signatures to get a debate and that doesn’t happen in the chamber. It’s a process which the government do not control.

The issue is considered for debate, there’s no guarantee of a debate at 100,000 sigs.

The gender assignment act isn’t worth the piece paper it’s written on. It just need to be repeal. No one can change sex.
men cannot become women why is the state allowing them to lie.
it just utter nonsense

The petition has roughly 125,000 signatures so it may be correct that a debate is scheduled.

Reform sweeping the board in the local elections. Great that Labour are cracking on fighting the issues that really matter to ordinary voters. That always ends well.

The chances are your MP will be very attentive following their party being absolutely ashamed of their results at the recent council election.

Remember to include your name and address so they know you're a constituent.

As I said in my OP I didn't list the petition web site link because I was worried MNHQ would delete the thread.

But obviously I didn't make up the date. It is there on the petition page.

I would have thought the issue now is that given the Court ruling is this debate still relevant.

The EHRC Interim Guidelines say:

If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

• A trans woman is a biological man
• A trans man is a biological woman

So identifying as trans no longer has any legal meaning. So why do they need a "right" to do it.

In a way I wish this lack of legal status to the word trans could be more publicly and constantly repeated. Witht the proviso that if organisations want to accommodate this current life style fad they can do so, but must alert all users to the fact that impersonators are on the premises and have no right to demand acknowledgement of their impersonation by others, not expect to be welcome in their impersonation.

ie to be trans is no different than when some people were mods or rockers, or some people were hippies and beatniks, or ...

The list is endless and each decade that them.

Just to add, sorry for the mess I made of the thread title.

As usual I mistyped something. Thought I had corrected it but ended up deleting other words.

Corrected: Parliament to discuss should transgender people be able to self-identify their legal gender on 19 May 2025

Search term to use to find url to see confirmation of date
Allow transgender people to self-identify their legal gender

Saw this on Reddit last night.

AFAIK it's not linked to any promise of legislation. They're usually very poorly attended. The madder TRAs will turn up and bloviate, hopefully the out and proud terfs will counter with facts and sanity and a government rep or two will say the status quo is just fine.

I suppose those of us with crap tra-adjacent MPs should write to them and underline the importance of supporting the rule of law. But given even Angela Rayner has replied to her constituents welcoming the judgment (possibly through gritted teeth, silly cow) it shouldn't be worrying?

It will be interesting to see.

They're usually very poorly attended.

Mabye, but as the discussion resulting from petitions about clarifying the word sex in the EA can be very significant.

And is small even more of a reason to get those committed to Sex Based Rights to attend.

The petition discussion led to Kemi Badenoch challenging companies to see if they understood the need for women only services.

Can you imagine the signal it would send if only those MPs who are pro self id turned up.

It would be seen as self id being the next stage.

Although as I said up thread, I would like it clarified what status a trans identity has in law, which self id or GRC.