B1544 – Reform of the Gender Recognition Act (2004) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
B1544: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act (2004), TSR Government
An Act to make the application process for a GRC less intrusive, whilst continuing to prevent it from misuse.

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, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Amendments to Gender Recognition Act (2004)
  • Application subsection 1: A person of either gender who is aged at least 18 may make an application for a gender recognition certificate - to be reduced to 16 years.
  • Determination of applications subsection 1a: has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made - to be changed to 1.5 years for under 18s, and 6 months for over 18s.
  • Under marriage, a spouse will no longer have to consent for the marriage to continue for an applicant to be approved for a full GRC. Instead, they will have to go through divorce proceedings if they do not wish to continue the marriage.
  • Bill to include protections - those in ownership of a GRC should be sent to prisons that align with their recognised gender, where appropriate. Those on ownership of a GRC should be entitled to use shelters for their recognised gender.
  • GRCs to be extended to cover non-binary identities. Document will now include 'X' as well as 'M' or 'F'.
  • Cost to be reduced from £140 to £70, which can be made payable through installments.

2. Enforcement and Punishment
  • No enforcement or punishment is applicable to this bill.

3. Exemptions
  • To be sent to a prison that aligns with their recognised gender, an individual will have to have been in receipt of a GRC before sentencing, or they will have had to have lived as their acquired gender for at least a year, and not have committed violent crimes against the gender they identify as.

4. Extent
This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

5. Commencement

The provisions of this Act come into force on January 1st 2020.

6. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Gender Recognition Act (Amendments) 2019
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Not old enough to drink, not old enough to cut your balls off.
Nay.
3
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Nay - allowing children to be mutilated is a horribly regressive policy.
2
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Mr Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill on the basis that it seeks to further damage gender norms.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
That'll be a solid noooooope.
0
Miriam29
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
While I am not in opposition to decreasing the period of time lived as the new gender, I think 18 is a better age to make such a life-changing decision. Nay.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Surprise surprise, first act of the "new" government is to continue to pander to the mentally ill
1
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
I'm more confused as to how self-professed feminists in support of women's liberation from gender roles (ie being a housewife, wearing pink, etc) can support an Act that has sticking to those gender roles as a requirement of following this act.

The sound you can hear in the background is Emmeline Pankhurst* turning in her grave
* the first feminist campaigner.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
I'm more confused as to how self-professed feminists in support of women's liberation from gender roles (ie being a housewife, wearing pink, etc) can support an Act that has sticking to those gender roles as a requirement of following this act.

The sound you can hear in the background is Emmeline Pankhurst* turning in her grave
* the first feminist campaigner.
Don't try to understand the contradictions of the left, it will use up enough of your mental capacity to drag you down to their level.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
Beyond that the formatting of the bill leaves a huge amount to be desired with there being no subsections and the notes being integrated into the bill itself.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
Why should minors be able to make such a life-changing irreversible decision?
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Not old enough to drink, not old enough to cut your balls off.
Nay.
(Original post by Connor27)
Nay - allowing children to be mutilated is a horribly regressive policy.
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Why should minors be able to make such a life-changing irreversible decision?
There seems to be a significant misunderstanding here - getting a GRC does not require having surgery, nor does it mean you would automatically be able to have it. Reassignment surgery is something that would have to be approved by a care team, and cannot be decided solely by an individual, nor solely on the basis of having a GRC.

To apply for a GRC you have to intend to live as that gender for the rest of your life, but it is a fully reversible process, and you can reapply to be recognised as the previous gender again, assuming you meet the same criteria.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Beyond that the formatting of the bill leaves a huge amount to be desired with there being no subsections and the notes being integrated into the bill itself.
I would note that I believe I integrated all changes based on comments when this was previously put forward. If there are concerns with the formatting, I'm unsure why those weren't raised then :dontknow:

(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
I'm more confused as to how self-professed feminists in support of women's liberation from gender roles (ie being a housewife, wearing pink, etc) can support an Act that has sticking to those gender roles as a requirement of following this act.

The sound you can hear in the background is Emmeline Pankhurst* turning in her grave
* the first feminist campaigner.
The straightforward answer to this is that being transgender is completely independent from gender roles - and neither of your examples, nor any others, are mentioned in this bill in any form.
9
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by shadowdweller)
The straightforward answer to this is that being transgender is completely independent from gender roles - and neither of your examples, nor any others, are mentioned in this bill in any form.
Please explain
has lived in the acquired gender
then, in a way that conforms with your feminist principles.

Define ”has lived as a woman” without resorting to gender stereotypes of the sort I thought you were against and I'll vote for this Bill. (and using the ladies' loos doesn't count - my nan sometimes goes in the gents' when there's a long queue and nobody cares).
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
The GRA was passed to solely to enable transgender people to marry at a time when same-sex marriage was not available. The act is therefore now not needed and should be repealed entirely.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Good bloke)
The GRA was passed to solely to enable transgender people to marry at a time when same-sex marriage was not available. The act is therefore now not needed and should be repealed entirely.
Given it's currently the only way to be legally recognised as your acquired gender (as far as I'm aware) I don't think that repealing it would be beneficial without replacing it with a better alternative.
1
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Please explain

then, in a way that conforms with your feminist principles.

Define ”has lived as a woman” without resorting to gender stereotypes of the sort I thought you were against and I'll vote for this Bill. (and using the ladies' loos doesn't count - my nan sometimes goes in the gents' when there's a long queue and nobody cares).
I think perhaps the issue is that you are conflating gender with gender roles, rather than it being an inherent issue with GRCs. Living as a woman does not mean being a housewife, or wearing pink, and nothing has been mentioned to suggest that.

Living as a woman in this case means presenting as female - namely using female pronouns and using a female or gender neutral name. Evidence for this could include driving licences, passports, letters from banks or other financial institutions, utility bills, or academic certificates displaying the individual’s name and gender marker. Gender stereotypes, as enforced by the examples you've given, would be very different.

It's worth noting that some people who are trans may fall into certain gender roles or expectations in the same way that some ciswomen may - but if they are choosing to do so, that's well within their rights, and is not an inherrent aspect of transitioning, nor of acquiring a GRC.
1
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by shadowdweller)
I think perhaps the issue is that you are conflating gender with gender roles, rather than it being an inherent issue with GRCs. Living as a woman does not mean being a housewife, or wearing pink, and nothing has been mentioned to suggest that.

Living as a woman in this case means presenting as female - namely using female pronouns and using a female or gender neutral name. Evidence for this could include driving licences, passports, letters from banks or other financial institutions, utility bills, or academic certificates displaying the individual’s name and gender marker. Gender stereotypes, as enforced by the examples you've given, would be very different.

It's worth noting that some people who are trans may fall into certain gender roles or expectations in the same way that some ciswomen may - but if they are choosing to do so, that's well within their rights, and is not an inherrent aspect of transitioning, nor of acquiring a GRC.
Don't you need a GRC to change your gender on a passport anyway?
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Don't you need a GRC to change your gender on a passport anyway?
It can be used as evidence for changing your gender on a passport, but there are other options; you can also use a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming your change of gender is likely to be permanent, for example. There are routes to change various pieces of identification without need of a GRC. What a GRC does allow, however, is for you to get a new birth certificate with the gender, meaning that you can update other forms of documentation inline with your gender - for example, National Insurance and electoral register, among other things. Without one you are unable to change anything that requires your birth certificate as evidence, and you're also not legally recognised as the gender until you receive one.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
Strong aye on this :yes:



(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Surprise surprise, first act of the "new" government is to continue to pander to the mentally ill
Should we also be refusing depressed people antidepressants? Should we be refusing people with anxiety anxiolytics?
If trans people are "mentally ill", they should be offered the same range of treatments as other mentally ill people. The medications that make anxiety better are called anxiolytics and examples of which are benzodiazepines. The medications that make trans people better are called HRT.

If you believe that being trans is a mental illness then we should be offering the same range of treatments, as surprise surprise, science shows that HRT and surgery and other options make trans peoples' lives drastically better. If you think that trans people shouldn't be taking drugs to make them better then why should depressed people take antidepressants. Surely antidepressants "pander to their mental illness" by making them better, no?
If you believe that being trans isn't a mental illness then it's none of your business what we do and it's not your place to comment on what we do.

(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
irreversible
Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure it is reversible?
Last edited by Glaz; 1 month ago
1
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Glaz)
Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure it is reversible?
A GRC is 100% reversible - you simply have to provide the same evidence for the gender you're wanting to be recognised as after again, same as applying for it the first time around! :yep:
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Has your university offer been reduced?

Yes (50)
30.67%
No (85)
52.15%
Don't know (28)
17.18%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed