• Gender Recognition Act Reform – It’s Time

    This week the Scottish Government will be considering a piece of legislation which will affect most people’s lives very little but which has great significance for those seeking legal recognition that their gender is different to that which was assigned to them at birth.

    People being recognised legally as having a changed gender is nothing particularly new – it has been happening for years. What it means is that people are able to have access to documents that reflect their lived experience in the world. After all, if everyone experiences you as being one gender and yet your passport indicates that you are legally a different gender then that is going to cause you trouble sooner or later.

    The proposals being discussed this week are mostly about the simple question of who should make the decision about someone’s changed gender. Up until now, it has been necessary to get a medic to agree, after a long process of living in one’s new gender that one is in fact now legitimately the gender that one already knows oneself to be.

    One of the problems with this is that doctors (as represented by their professional bodies) don’t seem to feel that this is an appropriate decision for a medic to make about another individual.

    There has been a great deal of debate in recent years about this. Some of it reminds me of the very worst public prejudice about gay people that we used to see in the public realm all the time. Some of it has been barely hidden hatred of trans people.

    Now, I’m not trans, so people might wonder whether I’ve got any skin in this game, so to speak. Well, I have been the victim of an anti-trans hate crime. (That’s not just my opinion, that was the determination of a Sheriff Court judgement). Being the target of that hatred was horrible. How much more horrible it must be to be trans and be subject to the current discourse day in, day out.

    The question that I always ask people who are worried about changes to the Gender Recognition Act is always the same. “Who do you think should decide whether someone has changed gender?”

    I don’t always get an answer to this. It seems to me that the driving force in all of this should be those who are at the heart of these matters – those seeking to be recognised as having a gender expression different to that with which they were born.

    The current proposals don’t have any effect on the right to use gendered spaces – access to spaces and services generally was determined with the Equality Act. The current proposals have no effect on anyone’s rights, other than the right of someone to access a passport and other similar official documents that are appropriate to who they are.

    I’ve yet to meet anyone objecting to reforming the Gender Recognition Act who has witnessed any crime involving access to gendered spaces that they thought should be reported to the police.

    Yes, oddly, they still often claim to be against “self ID” for trans people.

    At that point in the conversation I usually say that I can think of no-one other than a trans person who is better qualified to determine their gender and that they should be able to do so, subject to it being a criminal offence to make a fraudulent application to be recognised in a gender that was not assigned to one at birth.

    “Yes,” cry those who claim to be against self-ID – “Yes, that’s what we need! We need it to be illegal to make a fraudulent claim that one is a different gender – that’s what the government should do”.

    I then find myself having to explain patiently that this is exactly what the government is proposing and what trans people are asking for.

    It is time, for reasons of dignity and justice and common sense that the Gender Recognition Act was amended to allow this to be the way that people get access to the documents that they need and which reflect who they are.

    The time for Gender Recognition Act reform in Scotland is now. The government should press on ahead confident that they are doing the right thing.

23 responses to “Nuptials Review”

  1. Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed Avatar
    Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed

    It is funny, Ryan, that you mention that the couple have been “living together” for some time. I mentioned that at Padre Bosco’s Liturgy blog in a conversation about Kate’s private confirmation service and felt I was poo-pooed for being a traditionalist. I had mentioned that I felt the confirmation seemed like legalisms so that he could still be the future King and playing church for a couple who had been publicly cohabiting for some while already.

    Agatha, you jumped to that conclusion by yourself, you naughty girl! I was suggesting just the opposite, that had Adam found a suitable companion there would not likely have been any hanky panky in the story.

    BTW, what you hint about is illegal here also.

    The primates of Ireland and Wales were invited, as well as, the Archbishop of York, but I have not noticed them in the BBC video.

    What I did not realize by watching the Royal Channel feed directly from the BBC, was that folks who watched the feed on the TV networks were subjected to the mindless banter of ill informed news commentators, including the American Broadcasting Company’s insipid, cotton candy-ish Tournament of Roses Parade commentating team, whose repartee is usually constrained to such fascinating topics as the array of exotic barks and the number of celery seeds applied to a particular parade float!

    On the Royal Channel there was no prattle, just the events as they unfolded with a crisp HD picture for my 24″ display, great color and excellent audio, the music was wonderful. I have raced through the on demand video and listened to the music and played it for others a few times now.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I certainly saw the Primate of All Ireland on the video. I think he was in the quire rather than by a tree, but I’m not sure now. It is turning into an Ecclesiastical version of Where’s Wally, isn’t it.

      Whilst on the topic of the Archbishop of York, it’s worth taking in his comments on cohabiting, milk and cows.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8481736/Royal-wedding-Archbishop-backs-William-and-Kates-decision-to-live-together-before-marriage.html

  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    any excuse, eh? 😉

    Plus, evangelical churches (say) tend to be more MILFalicious than most, so I suppose that the scenario I describe could have happened to *some* clergyperson.

  3. Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed Avatar
    Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed

    It appears that Kate also forgot an important family tradition! This was begun by the late Queen Mother at her wedding, and was followed by the Queen, as well as Princess Diana and it had been reported that Kate would also lay her bouquet on the Tomb of the Unknown on her way out of the church. But I recall that she still had it in the state carriage and at one point she had handed it to the Prince as she was climbing into the coach.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I believe that the plan was always to carry the bouquet back to Buckingham Palace and then send it back to the Abbey to be put on the tomb later.

      I think it may be something to do with having the flowers for the official photographs.

  4. Stewart Avatar

    @Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed – Diana would not have done on the way out after the service as her wedding was at St Paul’s – not the Abbey.

  5. Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed Avatar
    Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed

    That will teach me to accept what Statesonian commentators say, rather than research it myself. The Wiki says that the brides send their bouquet that day after the wedding to the tomb.

    That is right Stewart, Diana’s funeral was help in the Abbey.

  6. Agatha Avatar
    Agatha

    I guess Kelvin, you have never met a bride who was marrying the second in line to the throne. Surely their marriage is all about procreation. Not to say they don’t love each other etc but it is a hereditary monarchy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Why does God allow suffering?

    Why does God allow suffering? Here’s my answer in the form of a sermon. To be strictly honest, I’m not sure that it is particularly my answer. I think it may be the only answer. And I’m moved to have seen that this has been shared by people since I preached it and has been…

  • Ariodante – Scottish Opera – review – ****

    This review appeared first at Opera Britannia Scottish Opera’s new production of Ariodante has a huge amount going for it. Performed by a solid cast, there’s a cracking trouser role, glittering sopranos and a pantomime baddie countertenor to boot. Only some dubious work in the pit and some slightly odd decisions from the director get…

  • Pilgrimage Days – Who on Earth Are You?

    I’m looking forward to hosting two Diocesan Pilgrimage Days at St Mary’s on 20 and 27 February 2016 exploring the theme “Who on earth are you?” It is difficult to think of a better week for exploring our identity as Episcopalians but it isn’t going to be all about the Columba Declaration. We’ll be focussing…

  • The Primus’s Radio Interview about the Columba Declaration

    It is incomprehensible to me that the Church of England establishment, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, can have claimed in the English Synod yesterday that the Scottish Episopal Church is “content” with the Columba Declaration and sees it as a positive move forward when the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church is describing it as…