Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Sex and gender are different in UK equalities and discrimination law (gender transition is also protected). The bigger issue than this law which reforms the process of getting a "Gender Recognition Certificate" which changes the sex on your birth certificate, is that the courts have now confirmed (lower courts only) that a GRC changes someone's sex.

Well, if sex and gender are different than changing one's gender shouldn't change their sex.

[Sheilbh]

Sorry little bit wrong in that description - but this is a good summary of the legal issues:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/

To be honest my view was broadly that the proposed legislation didn't change much in practice, but made international recognition and birth/death certificate changes easier for trans people. I think the courts ruling on the Equality Act does make it a little different as we have sex based and gender assignment based rights and protections it's not clear how those two regimes interact following that ruling and I think there is a solid case it makes a difference.

[Josquius]

The sex / gender distinction stuff is such a nonsense that really muddies the waters. Bloody victorians.

It is sad that such a minor bit of book keeping that doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of people became such a big bit of news.

[Tamas]

I just don't see the need to pretend somebody could change their biological sex at will. On the other hand people should be free to express their identities the way they want and if its key for them for that to get different pronouns, it's not a big ask from society to oblige. But it IS a big ask from society to pretend biological sexes don't exist, so I think it would be a reasonable compromise from all involved that birth certificates remain unchanged and that sex-based regulations (as few as needed like shelters and such) are based on birth sex rather than gender. And then gender could easily become changeable back and forth at everyone's hearts content.

[Josquius]

I just don't see the need to pretend somebody could change their biological sex at will. On the other hand people should be free to express their identities the way they want and if its key for them for that to get different pronouns, it's not a big ask from society to oblige. But it IS a big ask from society to pretend biological sexes don't exist

It doesn't. At least not in the strict binary sense the anti trans folks present.
If someone has replaced their vagina with a dick then why not say they've changed sex. It all comes from this outwards appearance anyway.

, so I think it would be a reasonable compromise from all involved that birth certificates remain unchanged and that sex-based regulations (as few as needed like shelters and such) are based on birth sex rather than gender. And then gender could easily become changeable back and forth at everyone's hearts content.

This wouldn't be a reasonable compromise at all as its just continuing to exclude trans people from being their chosen gender.
You'd continue to get the transphobes to whinge and protest about anything that discriminates based on "gender" rather than "sex".

Trans women face the same problems as cis women as far as a need for shelters goes. They're far more likely to be in such a situation in fact. So excluding them sits very uneasy.

I'm a bit iffy on birth certificate changing myself largely due to reasons of it being a bit 1984ish. Even if someone is a woman now they weren't when they were born. I hope even if they get a paper to show people in the virtually non existent instances birth certificates are needed, that records remain there was a change.

[Sheilbh]

I just don't see the need to pretend somebody could change their biological sex at will. On the other hand people should be free to express their identities the way they want and if its key for them for that to get different pronouns, it's not a big ask from society to oblige. But it IS a big ask from society to pretend biological sexes don't exist, so I think it would be a reasonable compromise from all involved that birth certificates remain unchanged and that sex-based regulations (as few as needed like shelters and such) are based on birth sex rather than gender. And then gender could easily become changeable back and forth at everyone's hearts content.

You can already change your birth certificate.

The current position in the UK is that you can apply for a gender recognition certificate which allows you to get issued with a new birth certificate with your acquired gender. To do this you need to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and evidence that you have lived in your acquired gender for two years, as well as a statutory declaration that you intend to live in that gender.

The reform proposals are basically to try to de-medicalise the process and make it more of an administrative system without a panel assessing applications. So it removes the requirement for a diagnosis and reduces the period that you need to live in your acquired gender to three months.

However a GRC only affects your birth certificate, marriage/civil union certificate(s) and death certificate. You do not need a GRC to change your name officially or change your detaills including recorded gender with the NHS, utilities and banks, as well as passports and driving licences. In fact doing those things is probably necessary evidence to prove you've lived in your acquired gender for the last two years.

Obiously there's no requirement for surgery or anything like that.

Only 5,000 people have applied for a GRC (over 95% are granted and an application costs £5). In part I think that is because, as trans rights activists say, it's a medicalised, intrusive and involved process. However I suspect part of it is also that it actually has relatively little impact - I can't think of any time when I've needed to use my birth certificate v a passport, driving licence or utilities bill. In part, one of the reasons I've supported reform is because I don't think it actually makes that much difference.

That has possibly changed with the For Women decision in the Scottish courts. It was a case in the last few weeks basically around the Equality Act. I think there's always been a bit of an ambiguity here as "sex" and "gender reassignment" are both protected charitistics. They're protected from discrimination but also have the carve-outs and duties in the Equality Act. The court decided (based on what was intended and how the Gender Recognition Act works) that someone with a GRC has changed "sex" legally - so the protected characeristic of "sex" legally is more than a biological defition.

The Equality Act is really complicated - and not fully implemented. For example, there's what Polly Toynbee called "socialism in one clause". It's a duty on public bodies to "have due regard to the desirability of exercising [their functions] in a way designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage" has not taken effect yet, but I imagine it will once Labour takes office. It's a combination of general prohibitions on discrimination, with some carve-outs (such as single-sex services) and duties on public bodies to do equality impact assessments and "have due regard" to various aspects of equality when fulfilling their duties such as a general obligation to advance equality of opportunity between groups having regard to current inequalities etc.

So the Scottish Government's notes on their legislation included the line that it doesn't change the position and protections already built into the Equality Act - I'm not sure that's totally true after the recent ruling. Although practically (in other possibly right-wing heresies) I'm not sure the Equality Act has done a vast amount apart from requiring public bodies to complete lots of impact assessments and employ people to complete impact assessments and giving extra grounds for judicial review - but that's just me

[Tamas]

Thanks Sheilbh, so in fact the new legislation is around changing one's sex, not gender. I do not understand why that is necessary for someone to be able to live/act the way they want to, but I also realise this makes my views obsolete so I will just stop here before I start needlessly offending people.

[Admiral Yi]

Is sex your physical gear and gender how you identify?  I'm sure this has been discussed before but I don't have it straight in my head.

[Tamas]

Is sex your physical gear and gender how you identify?  I'm sure this has been discussed before but I don't have it straight in my head.

As Sheilbh explained you don't need your physical gear altered to qualify for sex change in your records.

[Admiral Yi]

As Sheilbh explained you don't need your physical gear altered to qualify for sex change in your records.

Then the other way around?  Sex is how you identify and gender is your gear?

Or something else?

[Tamas]

As Sheilbh explained you don't need your physical gear altered to qualify for sex change in your records.

Then the other way around?  Sex is how you identify and gender is your gear?

Or something else?

As I understand legalities-wise your gear doesn't compute into it at all.

As for the difference between sex and gender, I thought your sex was your birth biology and therefore more difficult to override by legal procedures than the 100% social construct gender. Sheilbh's explanation highlights I was wrong and biology is not a barrier here. So I guess indeed there is little to no practical societal difference is left between sex and gender. Whcib I am assuming is the problem of the females critisicing this law.

[Josquius]

Thinking about this I was leaning towards a gear change should be necessary for sex change briefly there, given the way definition of sex works.
But thinking about it further the only reason we do that is babies are naked. Its all based on appearance and gear rarely makes an appearance.
Which would seem to suggest non passing trans people or even ugly cis people don't work... But then saying outright "I am x" is the ultimate arbitrator of appearance.

[Sheilbh]

Thanks Sheilbh, so in fact the new legislation is around changing one's sex, not gender. I do not understand why that is necessary for someone to be able to live/act the way they want to, but I also realise this makes my views obsolete so I will just stop here before I start needlessly offending people.

Yes and no.

The new legislation is about making it easier to get a gender recognition certificate, de-medicalising it and making it more of a simple administrative process. Part of the reason I've supported it is because I think that's a good thing (and I still do), but also it doesn't really impact the way equalities legislation works - this was also the Scottish government's position. Following the For Scotlnd decision - which will end up going to the Supreme Court, I think it does mean we probably need to have a wider re-think/conceptualisation of equalities laws.

I think the issue isn't that UK lawmakers haven't made distinctions between biological sex and gender identity. The Gender Recognition Act is clearly written in a way designed to ensure that the category of male or female reflects identity; the Equality Act includes provisions in relation to discrimination and positive duties that must be objectively justified, and are, primarily on the basis of biology. It's not that the distinction isn't made, but rather that our legislation straddles both and that's now been clarified by the courts in ways that I think undermine the argument I'd previously made that it's quite a small change that just makes trans people's lives easier.

And it is worth saying none of the legislation is about or really impacts on toilets. It's about things like single sex services, public sector equality duties, duties around promoting equality in senior leadership roles etc.

Of course acknowledging that it impacts equalities legislation would mean it's outside the Scottish parliament's competence because equality law is a reserved matter. For them to use it as a wedge issue, they need to pretend it doesn't have that impact. Following the ruling from the Outer House of the Court of Session (a Scots court) - I'm not sure that's sustainable or true.

We are having it too, so you won't be spared.

Interesting - what's it over in Spain? I ask because Spain is normally one of the examples we see of countries who've already made these change and it's not caused any issues or controversy there.

[HVC]

Science experiment for our British posters. Can you say Purple Burglar Alarm

[Josquius]

Science experiment for our British posters. Can you say Purple Burglar Alarm

Yes?
I don't get it.