MPs of all stripes who supported the 2004 Gender Recognition Act understood its purpose to be to allow a very small number of people who genuinely suffered from gender dysphoria to live more or less normal lives in their new gender. The key component was the issue of a new birth certificate in the new 'sex' following the issue of a GRC. This meant accepting a legal fiction and laying down clear qualifying criteria; there was a wide assumption that the criteria (2 doctors, for example) would likely be somewhat relaxed in a decade or two (which was essentially the good faith basis upon which Theresa May eventually had a go) but clear criteria would remain since there was no desire to erode the distinction in law between a man and a woman. I'm not a lawyer, but I hope the Supreme Court seeks to separate the perfectly decent intention of the legislation from the often nonsensical postmodern discourse that has dominated public discourse in recent years, as informed by the very significant change to DSM5 which effectively removed transgenderism per se as a medical condition. If the Scottish challenge is successful, it will effectively strike out the main plank of the legislation and require people with GRCs to reveal the original birth certificates at the drop of a hat. I see a lot of people supporting the principle of the Scottish challenge without realising that it would throw the baby out with the bathwater, and do some harm into the bargain. I should say that I really don't think it's the job of the Supreme Court to effectively strike out legislation in any case. This seems a clear political issue which should be dealt with in parliament if there's an appetite amongst the public for change.
When MPs voted on the GRA it was under the simple understanding that its intent was to provide people with a GRA full recognition under law in their new sex. They were briefed by officials that the birth certificate change was a 'legal fiction' employed elsewhere in law (e.g. in company law). There were obvious and sensible caveats, such as access to the original birth certificate by the police if required and justified. If people with a GRA were now to be excluded from a basic function such as representing their 'new sex', then the intent of the legislation would surely be fatally undermined?
The link in the paragraph beginning "This time, the appeal court ruled against the group" does not work. Perhaps you might be able to check the target and amend?
MPs of all stripes who supported the 2004 Gender Recognition Act understood its purpose to be to allow a very small number of people who genuinely suffered from gender dysphoria to live more or less normal lives in their new gender. The key component was the issue of a new birth certificate in the new 'sex' following the issue of a GRC. This meant accepting a legal fiction and laying down clear qualifying criteria; there was a wide assumption that the criteria (2 doctors, for example) would likely be somewhat relaxed in a decade or two (which was essentially the good faith basis upon which Theresa May eventually had a go) but clear criteria would remain since there was no desire to erode the distinction in law between a man and a woman. I'm not a lawyer, but I hope the Supreme Court seeks to separate the perfectly decent intention of the legislation from the often nonsensical postmodern discourse that has dominated public discourse in recent years, as informed by the very significant change to DSM5 which effectively removed transgenderism per se as a medical condition. If the Scottish challenge is successful, it will effectively strike out the main plank of the legislation and require people with GRCs to reveal the original birth certificates at the drop of a hat. I see a lot of people supporting the principle of the Scottish challenge without realising that it would throw the baby out with the bathwater, and do some harm into the bargain. I should say that I really don't think it's the job of the Supreme Court to effectively strike out legislation in any case. This seems a clear political issue which should be dealt with in parliament if there's an appetite amongst the public for change.
Many thanks. You're right to say the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. But it's not easy to predict how will interpret it.
When MPs voted on the GRA it was under the simple understanding that its intent was to provide people with a GRA full recognition under law in their new sex. They were briefed by officials that the birth certificate change was a 'legal fiction' employed elsewhere in law (e.g. in company law). There were obvious and sensible caveats, such as access to the original birth certificate by the police if required and justified. If people with a GRA were now to be excluded from a basic function such as representing their 'new sex', then the intent of the legislation would surely be fatally undermined?
The link in the paragraph beginning "This time, the appeal court ruled against the group" does not work. Perhaps you might be able to check the target and amend?
I’ve checked and it works for me. But sometimes people have difficulty displaying a pdf. Try this instead: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2023/2023_CSIH_37.html
Sorry. Too many links in this piece. Will sort it out when I get back to my desk later.