A GRC is a document that means your affirmed gender (or ‘acquired gender’) will be legally recognised in the UK.
Practically, this means you can:
It has existed since the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004.
It is not related to the gender on your driving licence, passport, medical or employment records, or your bank account, all of which can be updated through their own systems.
It is only possible to be recognised as male or female, there is no option for nonbinary people.
You can apply for a gender recognition certificate if you’re 18 or over, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK, have been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years, and intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life.
Applicants must fill in a statutory declaration and then submit a copy of their birth certificate, any documents showing a gender related name change, reports written by 2 different medical doctors (or a medical doctor and clinical psychologist) which detail any gender affirming treatments or a reason why they haven’t had medical intervention and evidence they have lived in their affirmed gender for two years.
It costs £5 to submit an application, however people normally have to pay additional fees to obtain the documents that are required.
A panel then decides if the application is approved or denied.
The following changes proposed in the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill would only affect applicants who have a birth or adoption record kept by the Registrar General, or are ordinarily resident in Scotland, the system for anyone else would remain the same.
The UK Government’s consultation on the Gender Recognition Act back in 2018 showed huge demand for reform, 64% of respondents called for the requirement of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to be removed, 80% supported the removal of the requirement for a medical report detailing all treatment, and 78% called for the removal of the requirement for individuals to provide evidence of having lived in their ‘acquired gender’ for a period of time.
It is also the position of the United Nations that the legal recognition of gender identity through self-identification is the most efficient and appropriate way to ensure human rights are enjoyed.
Access to single sex spaces is outlined by the 2010 Equality Act, which states that trans people have access to their preferred single sex space, unless there is a proportionate and justifiable reason for them to be excluded. This provision remains the same, trans people do not have to have a GRC in order to be protected by the Equality Act, or to access single sex spaces. Why has the UK government objected?
The Secretary of State rational as to why the GRR Bill should not go ahead at this time.
Firstly, that the creation of 2 parallel and very different regimes for issuing and interpreting GRCs within the UK is practically and legally undesirable for all, including the individual holder of the GRC. This is because the new bill could mean that a person has one legal sex in Scotland and a different one in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There are privacy concerns about if someone’s legal sex is recorded as part of their professional role and changes over time, if people see this it could count as an illegal disclosure.
There are also administrative concerns about people having two different legal sexes recorded on government databases, and suggestion that IT systems may not be able to handle this.
The second category of adverse effects is the perceived increased risk of fraudulent applications due to an easier application process. As noted, within the new GRR Bill there is a punishment of imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine or both. Furthermore, if an application to the court against a person is made for a sexual harm prevention order, a sexual risk order, or a sexual offences prevention order, they would be prevented from applying for a GRC.
The effect the changes would have on single sex schools has also been highlighted. A single sex school in Scotland could not refuse entry to a person with a GRC in the gender of the school. The school could refuse entry, if separately from gender reassignment, there were grounds for refusal under specific circumstances.
Up until the 1970s, transgender people in the UK were able to marry people of the opposite sex with the unofficial correcting of birth certificates. This was not entirely legal, however was practically accepted and meant that the person could get married as their affirmed gender and enter a marriage with a person of the opposite gender.
This changed in 1970 with the case Corbett v Corbett, where a cisgender man, Arthur Corbett wanted to divorce his transgender wife, April. As there were very limited options to divorce someone at the time, Arthur and his lawyers argued that the marriage should be annulled because marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman and April was assigned male at birth. Despite him having got married knowing April was trans, and her having undergone gender affirming surgery, the court declared April as biologically male and annulled the marriage.
This then set the precedent for trans people in the UK not being able to change their legal sex, up until the 2004 when the Gender Recognition Act introduced Gender Recognition Certificates.
/prod01/prodbucket01/media/durham-university/professional-services/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/86245-1-2999X718.jpg)