Trans man denied Gender Recognition Certificate over attempt to conceive

[IwantToRetire]

A trans man has been denied legal recognition of his gender by the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) after it ruled that his attempt to conceive a child meant he was not “living as a man”. The decision has sparked outrage among human rights advocates and legal experts, who argue it breaches both domestic and international human rights law.

Article continues at https://www.scenemag.co.uk/trans-man-denied-gender-recognition-certificate-over-attempt-to-conceive/

Agree 100% on foundations of nothing.
it’s impossible to ‘live as’ the opposite sex. Also impossible to not ‘live as’ your original sex that you still are and always will be. Because humans can’t change sex. That’s the foundation that we’re all stuck with.

I don’t give a shit about hairstyle or clothes and gender non conformity, but don’t expect me to lie or accept lies, or to have to share female spaces with men. GRA is very bad law.

Like @TheNightingalesStarling says (rephrasing with different terms for clarity) how many male people with a trans identity are happily continuing a male heterosexual sex life (including fathering children) while officially being seen as women without any of this scrutiny?

This is important. Misogyny in action disadvantaging the ones that can actually get pregnant and holding them to a higher standard than the other of the precisely 2 (in a biological sense) available types of adult human.

(Love the username by the way. I'm a big fan of Peter Grant)

Absolutely. You should keep living at the sex OR you should make a detransition declaration or be criminally liable for no disclose of detransition.

You should not be able to get a GRC and then change your mind as such with there being ramifications.

I don't think there is any legal recognition of detransition in UK law. Once you have a GRC that's it, there is no way to undo it.

Remember, TRAs want self ID. They are furious that a trans person has to go before a panel, that they could be turned down. In Scotland the plan was that you would pay £5 and basically tell the authorities what you were doing.

They genuinely believe that a trans person knows their own mind and no one else should interfere with this. It's an internal feeling not dependent on clothing, pregnancy etc. They want to do away with sex based notions completely.

This is just part of their core belief system.

Not that it makes a huge difference that you can't reverse a GRC because presumably you can still change your name again and change your driving licence and passport and nearly all other documents etc back to your birth sex. You don't need a GRC to change them in the first place and presumably that still works the other way round. But your birth and death certificates would still be wrong sex and there would always be a GRC marker on your register record.

The same should apply both ways.

If you choose to do pretty much the only thing women can do and men can't (have a baby) you are not living as a man and should not be granted a gender recognition certificate.

If you choose to do pretty much the only thing men can do and women can't (rape someone) you are not living as a woman and should not be granted a gender recognition certificate.

There also needs to be a mechanism for revoking gender recognition certificates already granted to people who subsequently do these things. Although that would require an amendment to the Gender Recognition Act and I think the whole thing should just be repealed anyway because it's unworkable nonsense.

To get a GRC you have to make a statutory declaration which has legal consequences. Trans people have pointed to this as a safeguard against bad actors.
They can be prosecuted for making a false statement.
The problem that could be used against detransitioners.

That’s why all of these laws around the world are fiction and need to be repealed

I agree with @NotBadConsidering but there isn't an obvious path to do this. According to Michael Foran (legal expert with a lot of input to the FWS case) the UK's GRA is about the most minimal possible implementation of the European rules on legal gender recognition. So repealing the GRA would mean changing the European law or putting the UK outside it. Or we could end up with a different and worse GRA because European law says we must have something.

She had another baby too. She gave birth ergo she’s a woman.

I've said before that I see the international aspect as a big problem. "They have similar legislation in many other countries...". Well more's the pity. And the citizens of some of those countries are starting to regret it. Nevertheless, like many here, I'd love to see the back of the GRA. But apart from anything else, the UK couldn't repeal the GRA without falling foul of the ECtHR, surely? Of course you could make the case that that's a price worth paying. Can't see any British pols pushing for it.

But Farage, maybe?

Omg yes that should be without a doubt automatic. You rape someone, GRC revoked or banned from obtaining one. I don’t even know how this is a question.

I think I am trying to say it’s not fair that TW can reproduce but TM can’t. I am not an expert on human rights but I would assume reproductive rights are one of them. If that’s the case then finally the trans community have a legitimate drum to bang about how they don’t have equal rights.

Does this mean I am going to campaign for trans rights TM to be pregnant - no. I have enough hills to die on already.

But as redtoothbrush said it does to highlight the complete absurdity and double standards of this painful idea of ‘gender identity’. I don’t even know how we got here tbh and how people can take this seriously. Just wear what you want and act however you want.

The problem that could be used against detransitioners.

Isn't Keira Bell stuck as legally male despite detransitioning? No way to change back. Other jurisdictions allow you to do it every 12 months, which at least allows detransition to happen, even though it portrays the heavy irony of “gender identity” as being something fluid and changeable, not fixed like people who transition children claim.

Why only rape?

Having a baby for a trans man has no dimension of consent or lack of consent from the other party to the conception.
The equivalent for a transwoman should be any activity by which they gain pleasure from their penis, whether consensual with another person, non consensual, or solo.

That's not really measurable though, is it?

The decision is ultimately sexist because it has a bigger impact on trans identifying females than on trans identifying males because of the nature of who carries the baby.

It means there is effectively a higher bar for getting a GRC for a female than for a male.

And it's all connected with carrying a baby. Which is why women are disadvantaged most in society the first place.

So the question about how you apply this equally to trans identifying males to avoid discrimination to trans identifying females, is one that's very valid and one that should be pointed out.

Why? Because it shows that trans identifying males have privilege over trans identifying females on the basis of sex.

And THAT starts to crumble the idea of male privilege being something that you identify into and out of because discrimination on the grounds of sex is very much still there and can't be just ignored and dismissed. Having it identified in trans identifying males and females as a comparative group is very noteworthy.

But we might find that they turn down trans women for not "living as a man" to their satisfaction. It doesnt all have to be about pregnancy.

Of course not. Which is why this decision is ultimately misogynistic and antifeminist.

Though a reform of the GRA which acknowledges that there is fundamentally no way to "live as a woman" or "live as a man" without being sexist, which gives everyone the freedom to live as they choose if it harms no one else, and gives everyone the right to have a "gender" description of their choice on official documentation which is explicitly independent of sex which is biological and unchangeable and must be accurately declared if and only if relevant (eg if trying to access singke-sex facilities) would be a far better remedy than imposing restrictions on what biological functions a person with a trans identity is allowed to perform.

Bloody right too!
Men can't have babies....
If you are "Trying to Concieve" you are not living as a man, nor taking your testosterone...

Can't have it both ways.

Reminds me of the Monty Python Loretta sketch except in reverse.

Favourite line "it's symbolic of his struggle against reality"

I genuinely don’t understand how gender dysphoria would make you want to remove your breasts but having a pregnancy bump for months on end is absolutely fine.

"Define living as a woman"

We dont know how many people, male or female, who are denied a GRC because of their desire to be a mother or father.

I suspect these people have problems getting a diagnosis, so dont get as far as the panel.

Well done!