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?
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.