V721 - Transgender Equality Bill 2014 Watch

Poll: Should this bill pass into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (29)
64.44%
Of the contrary, No (8)
17.78%
Abstain (8)
17.78%
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
V721 - Transgender Equality Bill 2014, TSR Government


Transgender Equality Act 2014
An act to further legal equality for transgender people in the British Republic

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Marriage Equality

(1) Section 12 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2014 is hereby repealed.

(2) Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 are hereby repealed.


2. Compensation for losses

(1) Couples who entered into a marriage in the United Kingdom who filed for divorce citing as a reason the acquisition of a Gender Recognition Certificate are entitled to apply for compensation from the Government.

(2) In order to be eligible, couples must meet the following criteria:
(a) They must have filed for divorce on or after 4th April 2005, citing as a reason that one or both partners acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate.
(b) They must submit evidence that they are, as of the passing of this Act, a couple and are co-habiting, married or in a civil partnership.
(c) They must submit evidence that the divorce resulted in a substantial financial loss, either directly or through the resultant voiding of a previously made agreement, such as through the loss of "survivor's benefits" in a pension agreement.
(d) Compensation awarded will be equal to the financial loss incurred, in addition to inflation or interest if they would have been applicable to the original sum in the time between the divorce and the application for compensation.


3. Grounds for annulment of marriage

(1) Sections (12) (g) and (h) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 are hereby repealed.


4. Sexual consent regarding transgender people

(1) (a) A failure to volunteer information on one's gender identity, past or present, the possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate or any other indication of a person's status as transgender or otherwise gender non-conforming is not in itself grounds for consent to sexual activity to be deemed invalid.
(b) Any person convicted of a crime due to such failure to disclose their gender identity status prior to sexual activity is to have their criminal record expunged, to be removed from the Sex Offenders Register and to be released from jail if applicable, as well as to have any other ongoing sanctions resulting from the conviction be removed.


5. Commencement

(1) This Act will come into effect immediately upon assent.


Notes

Section One of this Bill would remove the requirement for transgender people in a marriage or civil partnership to obtain written permission from their partner before acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which provides official recognition of their declared gender. This requirement is not only deeply demeaning to transgender people, when no such permission is required for any other action taken by a married person, but also provides an impediment to obtaining a GRC where the spouse had refused permission. In these cases, the transgender spouse must first file for divorce, a process which can take many months. In addition, research commissioned by international transgender,intersex and genderqueer information and support network T-Vox shows that 28.75% of spouses of transgender people have deliberately obstructed their attempts to file for divorce. Should this extend the process to take more than six months, compared to an average of four-to-five months, the period for which an Interim Gender Recognition Certificate which is granted in the event of spousal refusal expires, forcing the transgender person to restart the lengthy and expensive application process once the divorce is eventually confirmed. Because of both the indignity and unfairness of requiring written permission and the material harm caused where this is refused, it is time to repeal this requirement: partners of transgender people would still remain able to file for divorce should their transition adversely affect the marriage, but a GRC could regardless be granted in the intervening period.

Section Two meanwhile deals with the aftermath of the situation before the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2014, where married transgender people were forced to file for divorce before being granted a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). There were provisions for this divorce, which had to occur regardless of the wishes of the couple, to be immediately converted into a Civil Partnership since the commencement of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 on the 5th of December 2005, eight months after the commencement of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which introduced GRCs. However, even if this option was taken the divorce voided certain contracts related to the marriage, the most notable of which being "survivor's benefits" clauses in public sector pensions which allow for money to be paid out to a surviving partner once the other has passed away. Since these couples were no longer married, they no longer qualified as partners and this clause was therefore invalidated, often removing thousands of pounds worth of value from the pension. This meant that for many transgender people, even those with the support of their spouse, there was a substantial financial cost and thus disincentive to acquiring a GRC which granted them basic rights already afforded to cisgender people. This section would allow for compensation to be granted where this legislation forced divorces to occur that otherwise would not have done, and caused financial harm in the process. These losses were, in part, due to problematic practices in pension agreements related to the failure to recognise equally civil partnerships and marriages, but changing this would require substantial pensions reform which would also carry a 10-figure cost to the public sector and a 9-figure one to private firms, and therefore will be reviewed for potential inclusion instead in a separate future Bill. As an additional note, the provisions of this section should be considered in the context of MHoC Law where, under the Marriages and Civil Partnerships Reform Bill 2011, opposite-sex couples are permitted unlike in real life to enter into civil partnerships rather than marriages if they so desire: this means that any couple already in a civil partnership would not need to change that status should one of them apply for a GRC.

Section Three repeals two clauses added to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 by the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The first of these supports the right to the annulment of a marriage where a partner acquires a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as primarily repealed by Section One of this Bill. However, the latter allows for the annulment of a marriage where it transpires that, at the time of marriage, a partner was in possession of a GRC and their spouse was unaware of this fact. There is no requirement for a partner to be informed before marriage if their fiancé(e) has had previous sexual relationships, a criminal record, or a sexually transmitted infection, nor any number of other things that they may wish to be aware of before marriage. Whilst this is something that would ordinarily be discussed by a couple before marriage, the legal requirement to do so is inconsistent and demeaning to transgender people, forcing them reveal their history despite the fact that the GRC is designed specifically to prevent them from being forced to do. This amounts to justification of transphobia, furthering myths about transgender people such as that they are "lying about who they are" whilst putting them on a legal standing below that even of former criminals, and must be repealed if we are to have equality.

Section Four acts in a similar vein, to remove the requirement for transgender people to inform sexual partners of their gender status. Although this requirement is not stated by any specific Act in UK or MHoC law, the case of Justine McNally has set a precedent that failing to disclose this information may be enough to constitute violation of consent, warranting charges of sexual assault serious enough to potentially result in a custodial sentence upon conviction. The precise facts of the case are unclear due to the victim being under 18 at the time of the offence, a guilty plea being entered and conflicting sources on the precise occurrences and motivation, it has resulted in a very confusing situation for transgender people who are left with no way of knowing whether or not their sexual activities are legal. Again, there is no such requirement on any other person, regardless of their history, and this also undermines the concept of consent as being made at the time of sexual contact. Additionally, it is deeply transphobic, with the implication being that to be transgender is to be deceptive. However, in this case it also presents a very real danger to transgender people, with many experiencing violence when partners or even potential partners are told they are transgender - to make this a requirement before sex is to endanger their safety, and the law should be clear this is not the case.

Changes from the first reading:

Section 4.(1)(a) has been amended slightly to make clear that it is the failure to provide this information that is now explicitly legal.

The note on opposite-sex civil partnerships being legal in the British Republic has been fixed, having previous mistakenly referenced same-sex partnerships. It has also been moved to the notes related to Section 2 rather than 1, and the relevance of it has now also been stated.

The notes on Section 4 of the Bill have been changed to make clear it is the confusion caused by and legal implications of the McNally case that is problematic, rather than necessarily the case itself where the exact events remain unclear.
0
reply
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
It's an Aye from me .
0
reply
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Aye.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
aye!!!!
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Aye.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
There's been a slight mistake here - an updated version of the Bill has been written but this looks to be a direct copy of the first reading. So if you're one of the people who had minor issues with the first reading please hold steady and I'll ask the Speaker if he can amend the OP.
0
reply
GoldenEmblem277
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Aye!
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Nay. Retrospective compensation is an awful idea.
0
reply
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Faland)
QFA
Could you please confirm receipt of my PM of two days ago regarding the situation with this Bill?
0
reply
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
The Ayes to the right: 29
The Noes to the left: 8
Abstentions: 8

The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it! Unlock!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (53)
8.75%
I used to but I don't now (16)
2.64%
No, but I want to start (222)
36.63%
No, I am unable to (140)
23.1%
No, I chose not to (175)
28.88%

Watched Threads

View All