UK government blocks Scottish bill that makes it easier for people to change their legal gender

[Tryhard]

I know UK politics isn't often mentioned here but the situation that's happened over the past month or so has been nothing short of a farce.

The Scottish government, in combination of not just SNP politicians but members from each party in Scotland, passed a gender recognition reform bill shortly before Christmas, in which it would make it easier for people to acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill

In reality, this bill changes very little about the existing process. The three main points is these - that it lowers the age needed from 18 to 16. In Scotland you have more rights when you are 16 as you are able to legally change your name, marry, age of consent, have a provisional driving license, et cetera. This brings this in line with that. The second is that it reduces the amount of time that you need to "present" as your desired gender (socially transitioning) from 2 years to 3 months. And the last part, commonly referred to as "self-id", is that you would no longer need a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The problem with the latter is that often specialists are required to be able to do such a diagnosis, and the NHS is under a lot of strain currently that means that it will take months (or even years) for people to get such a diagnosis currently, as well as generally being an involved and invasive process. The "self-id" legislation has already been implemented in several countries, beginning with Argentina in 2012.

You would think this bill, which has been in consultation for around six years before being introduced, is not really doing much other than making life a bit easier for trans people who want to acquire a GRC...

 

Well, the UK government has decided to block the legislation using the section 35 of the devolved Scottish parliament. Section 35 has never been invoked since the Scottish parliament's creation in 1998, so not for 25 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757

Basically, the Tories have managed to completely prove the SNP's arguments correct. Even if you hate the SNP, this move pretty much cements that they don't care about Scottish representative democracy, devolution is basically a joke and the so-called "union of equals" is questionable indeed. Now the precedent has been set for using section 35, there would be nothing preventing it from being used in any other situation, even if you disagree with this law. Since Scotland is meant to have its own devolved parliament and laws, this flies in the face of that, and is being invoked over a honestly rather trivial piece of legislation which all it does is make life a little easier for trans people.

And comments from the leading opposition party show that Labour are not much better on the issue - and would most likely have done the same thing if they were the party in power currently. The UK is sort of notorious for being anti-trans/TERF in nature and this just proves that they seem to have an influence over the major parties in the UK. The issue is that this bill happens to be pro-trans at all, rather than the contents of what it actually does.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1614918595548520448

It looks like the law will be going to court, but I just wanted to rant on the current situation. Some people have said this may inflame the discussion for Scottish independence (just last month as well the UK supreme court slapped down an attempt for holding a new Scottish independence referendum), but I am just very sad right now.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

I'm not sure why legal gender even need be a thing. Men and women are meant to be treated equally under the law, right? So the law shouldn't really care what gender someone is.

[Tryhard]

16 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm not sure why legal gender even need be a thing. Men and women are meant to be treated equally under the law, right? So the law shouldn't really care what gender someone is.

It's mainly to change your gender on legal documents. Having a gender recognition certificate is required for your gender to be changed on your birth certificate, any marriage or civil union documents, and your death certificate.

Basically, it's like legally changing your name, which trans people also often do at the same time.

I'm not trans myself but I can imagine that being legally accepted with your appropriate gender can give some peace of mind as well as accurately representing yourself on legal documents. I can see why a trans person would consider that important.

[Jotari]

45 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

It's mainly to change your gender on legal documents. Having a gender recognition certificate is required for your gender to be changed on your birth certificate, any marriage or civil union documents, and your death certificate.

Basically, it's like legally changing your name, which trans people also often do at the same time.

I'm not trans myself but I can imagine that being legally accepted with your appropriate gender can give some peace of mind as well as accurately representing yourself on legal documents. I can see why a trans person would consider that important.

But I don't see any reason gender should even be on legal documents. It made sense when gender determined who you could marry and what you could inherit, but in a world where men and women (and everything in-between and beyond) are meant to get fair treatment by the government and law, there is no benefit to having assigned gender on legal documents. If anything it's an avenue open to corruption and sexist decision making. The only legal documents where gender makes sense, imo, are census data and passports (passports because other countries don't have equalitarian laws when it comes to sex and would probably demand gender identification). Medical documents will naturally also need to specify, but that's pretty much always going to be based on biological sex and thus a moot point.

[Tryhard]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

But I don't see any reason gender should even be on legal documents. It made sense when gender determined who you could marry and what you could inherit, but in a world where men and women (and everything in-between and beyond) are meant to get fair treatment by the government and law, there is no benefit to having assigned gender on legal documents. If anything it's an avenue open to corruption and sexist decision making.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's more that it's the way the law currently is. 

And let's be honest, if getting some minor changes to making it easier to get a GRC is so controversial that the UK government is unilaterally blocking the bill over it, then any attempts to remove gender from legal documents would make them absolutely flip their shit. It's not going to happen.

[Eltosian Kadath]

I am kinda surprised it is Scotland where the UK is starting to really break down, and not Ireland, but you could see the UK heading for a serious fracture point for a long while now. As mostly an outsider (although I keep up with a few UK based content creators, so I see a bit more UK news than the average American), it really started being visible around the Brexit vote, and the disastrous difference between what that did, and what it was sold as, but the long term intentional under-funding of the NHS for a conservative push towards privatization of medical care, the inability for conservative policies to deal with the "cost of living" crisis (I much prefer the "cost of greed" crisis moniker, as it is more accurate to the situation, but less common), which forced Truss into resigning, and the failure of New Labour to fill the more Socialistic position need to balance the political ship has left things in tatters. The Conservative Government, and media have been trying for a few years now to make trans people into a scapegoat for the consuming issues at the heart of the UK, which is why in some ways it isn't surprising that they felt they had to act, but it seems a strange issue to be the straw which has broken the UK's back.

 

[Jotari]

21 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's more that it's the way the law currently is. 

And let's be honest, if getting some minor changes to making it easier to get a GRC is so controversial that the UK government is unilaterally blocking the bill over it, then any attempts to remove gender from legal documents would make them absolutely flip their shit. It's not going to happen.

Oh yeah, I don't realistically expect the world to go and remove gender from legal documents all of a sudden, but it is my perspective on the matter.

6 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I am kinda surprised it is Scotland where the UK is starting to really break down, and not Ireland, but you could see the UK heading for a serious fracture point for a long while now. As mostly an outsider (although I keep up with a few UK based content creators, so I see a bit more UK news than the average American), it really started being visible around the Brexit vote, and the disastrous difference between what that did, and what it was sold as, but the long term intentional under-funding of the NHS for a conservative push towards privatization of medical care, the inability for conservative policies to deal with the "cost of living" crisis (I much prefer the "cost of greed" crisis moniker, as it is more accurate to the situation, but less common), which forced Truss into resigning, and the failure of New Labour to fill the more Socialistic position need to balance the political ship has left things in tatters. The Conservative Government, and media have been trying for a few years now to make trans people into a scapegoat for the consuming issues at the heart of the UK, which is why in some ways it isn't surprising that they felt they had to act, but it seems a strange issue to be the straw which has broken the UK's back.

 

It might honestly have less to do with trans rights and much more to do with Scotland. I'm sure there are many people in West Minister who have been itching to "put Scotland back in their place" for a long time now. And despite how united Scotland seems to be in favor of independence at the current moment, it's highly unlikely any London government will give them a legal secession referendum within the decade. And for as dedicated the SNP is, I don't think they'll go the Kosovo route due to how disadvantageous that would be in the long term, especially for potential EU relations in regards to Spain.

[Armchair General]

3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

The UK is sort of notorious for being anti-trans/TERF in nature and this just proves that they seem to have an influence over the major parties in the UK

I kind of assumed that the legislators were pro-trans?

[Tryhard]

3 hours ago, Armchair General said:

I kind of assumed that the legislators were pro-trans?

They are, but I wouldn't really call the SNP or the Scottish Greens a major UK party. Since they are only active in Scotland.

I was more referring to Labour, Conservatives that are actually active in the rest of the UK. Some of their members in Scotland have voted for this bill but the majority of them elsewhere in the rest of the UK support the government motion to block it.

In my opinion, it sorta feels like the SNP and the other Scottish branches of the parties are the only ones that have tried to do anything good for trans people. And even then they have had pushback within their own parties too.

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

And despite how united Scotland seems to be in favor of independence at the current moment, it's highly unlikely any London government will give them a legal secession referendum within the decade. And for as dedicated the SNP is, I don't think they'll go the Kosovo route due to how disadvantageous that would be in the long term, especially for potential EU relations in regards to Spain.

I'd be careful saying how much Scotland back independence. While I support it myself, the polling on independence has been pretty consistently hovering around 50%. This whole situation may potentially move the needle but it's hard to say. There's still a lot of unionists in Scotland.

We asked about another referendum in the last few months and the UK supreme court shot it down. So I'm not really sure what our path should be going forward because it does seem like the Tories at least are content to never give us the ability for another referendum.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/supreme-court-judgment-on-scottish-independence-referendum/

I believe the SNP have pretty much ruled out any kind of Kosovo situation because they want to win independence democratically, and to not try to do anything that will harken back to 2017 Catalonia since it may be a sticking point for Spain considering voting on re-entry into the EU.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Tryhard

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

While talk of Scottish independence is on the rise, I think an under-discussed alternative would be proper federalism in the UK. Right now, the individual parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island have power through devolution. As such, the Central Government can revoke it when they wish, as we saw here. But in a federal system, the constituent countries (including England) would have their own organic power, independent of what is "devolved" to them. As such, they would have more latitude to make up their own minds about their own policies. Just as in the United States, what's law in Mississippi differs from what's law in Massachusetts. I don't see it discussed much, but I wonder whether such an option would be more palatable to Scots (and to the nation as a whole) than full-on independence. 

Regarding the specifics of the law... what a bunch of wankers. I've seen governments doing enough of policing people's bodies and social identities (especially trans ones) for a lifetime. Y'all need Informed Consent.

[Tryhard]

42 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

While talk of Scottish independence is on the rise, I think an under-discussed alternative would be proper federalism in the UK. Right now, the individual parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island have power through devolution. As such, the Central Government can revoke it when they wish, as we saw here. But in a federal system, the constituent countries (including England) would have their own organic power, independent of what is "devolved" to them. As such, they would have more latitude to make up their own minds about their own policies. Just as in the United States, what's law in Mississippi differs from what's law in Massachusetts. I don't see it discussed much, but I wonder whether such an option would be more palatable to Scots (and to the nation as a whole) than full-on independence. 

Regarding the specifics of the law... what a bunch of wankers. I've seen governments doing enough of policing people's bodies and social identities (especially trans ones) for a lifetime. Y'all need Informed Consent.

Federalism has been talked about before, even Starmer has mentioned wanting to do it. The problem is mainly that the man is a politician that has very few true convictions and has already shown himself to be flip-flop on issues like the one this topic is about - Labour did have a section about gender recognition reform in their manifesto.

Labour’s 2019 manifesto pledged to uphold transgender rights and to push for reforms to the Gender Recognition Act “to introduce self-declaration for transgender people”.

He said the UK should be pushing for pro-trans laws as recently as a few months ago.

...And yet he is now arguing against that very thing. I cannot trust him.

Believe it or not, some Tories actually supported federalism, even Boris Johnson back in 2015, less so around now. It never actually materalised into anything. I don't think an actual push towards federalism is going to happen.

I'm not going to say that federalisation would be unpopular but there's always going to be a portion of the populace that would prefer to cut ties and support independence over it.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Tryhard

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

While talk of Scottish independence is on the rise, I think an under-discussed alternative would be proper federalism in the UK. Right now, the individual parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island have power through devolution. As such, the Central Government can revoke it when they wish, as we saw here. But in a federal system, the constituent countries (including England) would have their own organic power, independent of what is "devolved" to them. As such, they would have more latitude to make up their own minds about their own policies. Just as in the United States, what's law in Mississippi differs from what's law in Massachusetts. I don't see it discussed much, but I wonder whether such an option would be more palatable to Scots (and to the nation as a whole) than full-on independence. 

Regarding the specifics of the law... what a bunch of wankers. I've seen governments doing enough of policing people's bodies and social identities (especially trans ones) for a lifetime. Y'all need Informed Consent.

The way I see it, the UK is already a Federation, just one with a huge Federal territory (ie England). But British people seem to take great offense when I point this out for some reason. But, like, it is. It's not a case where each constituent country has a parliament. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have parliaments, and then England has the parliament of the whole union. Sure, it's weird for a Federal Territory to be the biggest territory in the Federation when it's usually the smallest, but functionally that's how it's working. As far as the reality of it is, I don't think it would address any of the real issues Scotland has (which is, to but it overly bluntly, STFU London, stay out of our business) unless they go with a pretty radical Swiss style federation, and it definitely wouldn't help any Northern Irish issues.

[Hrothgar777]

This isn't really a forum I want to get all political on, but sure. I'll bite. These are my two cents as an American who leans right:

 

On one hand, I can see the Tories' side of this. 16 is a very impressionable age for a lot of young people, and we currently live in a time when the number of self-identified trans people does, due to fad and social contagion, greatly exceed the number of people who are irreparably "predisposed" to feel that way for life (such people exist but are a rather small fraction of the population in the West and elsewhere). Because of the mental heath and social consequences of a non-trans person first getting involved in and then doubling down on the lifestyle for potentially decades on end, and ESPECIALLY of permanently sterilizing themselves and pumping their bodies full of hormones while depriving their bodies of those produced naturally and in natural quantities, it's unconscionable to let a 16 year old just suddenly decide to do it after 3 months of crossdressing.

A young person might have a goth or emo phase that lasts 2-12 months and then they grow out of it. This analogy must be taken to apply to anything that has the characteristics of a fad concerning young people. If a self-identified trans person is still sure of it after 2 years then there's a reasonable argument that it ought to be approved, but 3 months is next to nothing.

Finally, while it's understandable that needing a professional gender dysphoria diagnosis can make the process take longer, in medicine it's always best to make sure the patient is actually sick before administering a potentially hazardous treatment.

The above mainly relates to sex changes but also gender transitioning. Getting married, to illustrate a point, doesn't force you to live with your partner and act married to them, but in practice the bride and groom will consider special obligations and expectations to have been imposed on them by the mere fact of the arrangement. While I'm a foreigner with less than even cursory knowledge of Scottish law, and thus I don't know if the Scottish law would make it easier for 16 year olds to pursue surgery, it could still cause harm even if it doesn't, so far as it could impose on the 16 year old the expectation that they are "wedded" for life to a new sense of identity that possibly shouldn't have been ascribed to them in the first place.

 

On the other hand, as the OP pointed out is it any of London's business to make the decision of what's good or isn't good for Scotland? The values of Scotland appear to be more progressive than those of the UK at large, and the solution when you have this kind of mismatch is rarely for one to force their values upon the other.

[Tryhard]

4 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

On one hand, I can see the Tories' side of this. 16 is a very impressionable age for a lot of young people, and we currently live in a time when the number of self-identified trans people does, due to fad and social contagion, greatly exceed the number of people who are irreparably "predisposed" to feel that way for life (such people exist but are a rather small fraction of the population in the West and elsewhere). Because of the mental heath and social consequences of a non-trans person first getting involved in and then doubling down on the lifestyle for potentially decades on end, and ESPECIALLY of permanently sterilizing themselves and pumping their bodies full of hormones while depriving their bodies of those produced naturally and in natural quantities, it's unconscionable to let a 16 year old just suddenly decide to do it after 3 months of crossdressing.

A young person might have a goth or emo phase that lasts 2-12 months and then they grow out of it. This analogy must be taken to apply to anything that has the characteristics of a fad concerning young people. If a self-identified trans person is still sure of it after 2 years then there's a reasonable argument that it ought to be approved, but 3 months is next to nothing.

Finally, while it's understandable that needing a professional gender dysphoria diagnosis can make the process take longer, in medicine it's always best to make sure the patient is actually sick before administering a potentially hazardous treatment.

The above mainly relates to sex changes but also gender transitioning. Getting married, to illustrate a point, doesn't force you to live with your partner and act married to them, but in practice the bride and groom will consider special obligations and expectations to have been imposed on them by the mere fact of the arrangement. While I'm a foreigner with less than even cursory knowledge of Scottish law, and thus I don't know if the Scottish law would make it easier for 16 year olds to pursue surgery, it could still cause harm even if it doesn't, so far as it could impose on the 16 year old the expectation that they are "wedded" for life to a new sense of identity that possibly shouldn't have been ascribed to them in the first place.

To make it clear, the bill doesn't change anything about gender reassignment surgery. That still remains as it always has.

It doesn't make it any easier for people to get hormonal or any gender affirming care. That still remains as it always has.

People already could 'socially transition' at their own will. It's not like you can stop someone who does so.

So there is no "medical" consequences of the bill that is proposed. That's honestly why a lot of the arguments made against it are irrelevant, and baffling. Because some don't truly understand what it actually affects.

 

What the bill does do is make it easier for people to get a gender recognition certificate, which has already existed since 2004 in the UK.

At best, this would maybe mean a few hundred people per year get access to a gender recognition certificate, when before they could not. All this allows them to do is change their legal gender, which can be reverted by their own will as well.

I'm going to be honest, I don't see the life-altering decisions that getting a GRC is going to cause, regardless if the conditions are made more lenient. I've compared it to legally changing your name because that's pretty much the closest implication. 16 year olds (or even earlier!) could already unofficially self identify as the gender of their choosing, all this changes is you see that reflected in your birth certificate, marriage document, and death certificate. If you are a trans person who doesn't even care about changing this, then you don't even need to care about a GRC in the first place.

In that regard, the bill is actually very inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, I would argue it doesn't actually help tackle the more serious problems trans people face in any meaningful way although I'm sure some would be happy with the bill passing, and yet it is still somehow controversial, requiring a far deal more scrutiny over six years than any other legal bill has required for consultation. The fact is that probably any pro-trans legislation, regardless of content, would be absolutely unacceptable to the Tories and the base they choose to tell untruths to, because trans people have been a convenient scapegoat for not only them, but in general in the UK.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Tryhard