• 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.

8 responses to “End of Life (aka Death)”

  1. Bob Faser Avatar

    Kelvin, as always, you’ve made some important comments here, particularly given your high-profile stance on marriage equality and related issues. Some ultraconservative types try to convey the impression that all issues related to sex, marriage, families, and bioethics are a “package deal”. One either takes a conservative stance on the lot, or a progressive stance on the lot. Your ability to discern here on an issue-by-issue basis is refreshing.

    Another important thing is your question of “Who would actually benefit from lives being shortened at will? The patient is not the only person affected by a death, nor the only possible person to derive any “benefit” from life being cut short.” I honestly believe that it’s not only in Agatha Christie novels where a desperate person may be led to shorten the life of a old, ill family member for their own material gain.

  2. Beth Routledge Avatar

    I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.

    In medical ethics this is called the Doctrine of Double Effect and is a recognised thing.

  3. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    You show both profound good sense and Christian sensibility here, Kelvin. I hope that attempt at a seat in the British parliament won’t be your last. There is such a great need for your voice in a much more public arena than a blog, or a microphone in a church.

  4. Anne O'Connell Avatar
    Anne O’Connell

    A beautifully nuanced, and well constructed piece on a vexed argument. Thank you.

  5. Bob Chapman Avatar

    “I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.”

    It is all about intent. If the drugs are given to relieve pain, then it is the correct thing to do. If the drugs are given to shorten life, then it is the wrong thing to do.

    At no time should medical people feel compelled to keep a person alive simply to avoid a lawsuit or a criminal charge. There are examples of this happening in the US.

    At no time should treatment be given against the patient’s wishes.

    And, you can’t expect a one-size-fit-all approach to always be satisfying here.

  6. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    This is a sensitive subject. I can understand that people facing a terminal illness and in great pain may want to have control over their predicament. I agree that better quality palliative care would relieve much anxiety over this issue.

    Life is precious and should be treated as such. There’s too much potential for a lessening of the sacredness of life if euthanasia is legalised.

    Agree with your take on this issue Kelvin.

  7. Rosemary Sloan Avatar
    Rosemary Sloan

    It isn’t just about not dying in pain. It is also about living in pain. And about living with no dignity or control or choice. That bothers me just as much.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      And can you imagine that it might be better to tackle the problem of living in pain directly rather than presuming that battle will always be lost and instead giving people the opportunity to die, Rosemary?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • On Footwashing

    During tonight’s Maundy Thursday service at St Mary’s we don’t have a sermon. Well, not a spoken one anyway. In the middle of the service we set up some chairs and get out some bowls and wash feet. It isn’t so much that we don’t have a sermon is it more that the washing of…

  • Prayer for Cities Under Attack

    In the last few days there have been terrorist attacks in Maiduguri, Ankara, Istanbul, Brussels. People from all around the world and all traditions stand in solidarity with those places under attack. Eternal God hear the cries of your people as we stand in solidarity with those under attack. Protect the innocent, comfort the needy,…

  • The Three Great Festivals of Distress

    Last week, one of the three Great Festivals of Distress passed. In my own congregation, it passed peacefully and joyfully, for which we all give thanks. The ability of Mothering Sunday to cause distress is something with which I suspect all priests are familiar and which many priests will dread. However, Mothering Sunday is but…

  • 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…