Gender Recognition Law: Scotland -vs- England

[Stavros]

The Govt of the UK has decided to challenge the right of the Gender Recognition Bill, passed last December by the Parliament of Scotland to become law. It is the first time the Govt of the UK has challenged any of the laws passed by one of the Devolved Parliaments of the UK, and it is doing so, on the legal basis that the Gender Recognition Bill is in conflict with the Equalities Act 2010 which applies to all of the members of the UK.

The Bill can be found here-
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill – Bills (proposed laws) – Scottish Parliament | Scottish Parliament Website

An opposing view can be found here (details in links on the website)
Statement following the passing of The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill | Equality and Human Rights Commission (equalityhumanrights.com)

It seems to me that there are key issues: the Legal arguments, as referred to above.
And the Political arguments, which concern Gender issues as part of the wider debate on Society and its Cultural Frameworks, call it 'Culture Wars' if you want to.

As usual, this means there is a division between the Clinical aspects of Gender, and the Social/Political.

At root, is the right in the Scotland Bill, of a 16 year old (and older people) to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate without having undergone any clinical examination, thereby giving that person access to 'women only' spaces, which could range from 'Girls only' Schools, to Public Lavatories, and even Women's Refuges. For the UK Govt, this provision would conflict with provisions in the Equalities Act by giving Scottish holders of a Gender Recognition Certificate rights in England that Trans people in England do not have.

To complicate this matter, the UK Govt recognises the rights of Trans Citizens of countries that have issued them with Gender Recognition Certificates [GRCs], which raises the question -why would the UK accept GRCs from, say Bulgaria, Liechtenstein and Turkey, but not from Scotland?

Here is the list of countries whose GRCs have been approved by the Govt of the UK-
Gender Recognition Certificate: list of approved countries and territories - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Having stated in another thread in General Discussion that I think 16 is too young an age at which to begin a course of treatment leading to gender transition, I now find myself asking if my view is insecure.

Consider-
-it is legal for a 16 year-old to vote in local and devolved elections in Scotland and Wales, but not in England.
-It was legal for a 16 year-old to leave school and start work, as an Apprentice or part of a Training programme, this law has now been changed so that legally, a UK citizen cannot begin full-time work until the age of 18, not including part-time work, eg Saturday jobs.
-It was legal for a 16 year-old to marry, with parental consent, but the law here has also been changed to raise the legal age to 18. My understanding is that the anxiety concerned arranged marriages in Asian families where 16 year-old girls were being married to older males.

So there has not been any consistency across the UK with regard to the Rights of a 16 year-old.

For me the problematic aspect of the Scotland Bill, is the right to change one's gender without any clinical examination whereas the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 requires a clinical examination on the basis of 'Gender Dysphoria'.

BUT, this does beg the question: is Gender always a matter of Science, or can it be Cultural, or Personal -should we agree that the State has the right, and only the State, to define who a person is?

I am tempted to say yes, but I can see how this can create confusion and rejection. But if it is an objection from Women, this too begs the question -if Men as a dominant proportion of legislators should not impose their decisions on Women, why would we allow Women to have a similarly decisive role in this decision?

And, some 16 year-olds may justify clinical procedures, but others not -I don't know how one reaches a judgment in such cases if the reality cannot be satisfied with generalizations.

The 'Culture Wars' thus places Gender Recognition into a broader argument in which Liberals are accused of extending rights that in consequence weakens the rights of others, specifically women, but also weakens an inherited assumption about the security of Binary Gender Relations as the Foundation of an ordered society -and for some, a Society shaped by Religion, whichever one you choose.

I am not sure a 16 year old male transitioning to being female is going to hang around ladies toilets in the hope of having sex, but I can understand it being a relief from the greater anxiety/threat of being in a men's toilet. The anxiety over a 25 year-old or a 45 year-old acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate to prey on Women is real, but only to the extent that it might happen but is thus 'potentially' rather than 'actually' a threat.

But again, should the law insist that someone who wants to change their Gender, be subject to science, medicine and psychology, or should citizens be free to define themselves, and if it does not cause harm to others, why prevent it?

[thombergeron]

As a staunch and eternal enemy of the United Kingdom, I welcome any and all developments that will speed its dissolution.

[Stavros]

As a staunch and eternal enemy of the United Kingdom, I welcome any and all developments that will speed its dissolution.

The thread is concerned with Gender Recognition Law. Brexit may be the most insidious 'enemy' of the Union, but I would have thought on the basis of your other posts, you would like to comment on the law. Evidently not. A pity.

[thombergeron]

It didn’t occur to me that I would need to spell out specifically the ways in which the Scottish Secretary’s poorly executed decision further undermines the already tattered legitimacy of His Majesty’s Government. One needs only note Mark Drakeford's astonishment to recognize the larger significance of Jack's decision.

And it's not clear what more needs to be said about the Gender Recognition Law. As you note, it's firmly within the international norm. It reflects the evidence-based guidelines of every relevant NGO and professional organization. And given that transwomen are women, Jack's reference to the Equalities Act is specious.

And finally what, pray tell, is the clinical marker for gender? How is one's gender empirically assessed?

[Lorca81]

To the OP point/question regarding age, most of the trans women I know were pretty damn certain that they were trans by 15 or 16. Whether or not and to what degree they began transition at that age depends on many circumstances, but in particular the timing and degree to which male puberty set in is a big factor, from what I’ve been told.

Also, IIRC, sixteen-year-olds can join the military in the UK under an early entrance program and buy/drink beer/cider/wine. I guess those are two other datapoints that lend credence to the legally adult status of mid-teens in the UK.

So, while I do agree that some degree of medical/psychological gatekeeping is prudent for folks who want to transition in their teens—or any age for that matter—I do not share your reservations about Scotland lowering its age threshold from 16.

[Stavros]

To the OP point/question regarding age, most of the trans women I know were pretty damn certain that they were trans by 15 or 16. Whether or not and to what degree they began transition at that age depends on many circumstances, but in particular the timing and degree to which male puberty set in is a big factor, from what I’ve been told.

Also, IIRC, sixteen-year-olds can join the military in the UK under an early entrance program and buy/drink beer/cider/wine. I guess those are two other datapoints that lend credence to the legally adult status of mid-teens in the UK.

So, while I do agree that some degree of medical/psychological gatekeeping is prudent for folks who want to transition in their teens—or any age for that matter—I do not share your reservations about Scotland lowering its age threshold from 16.

I agree with most of your post, because my views on 16 year-olds are not secure. I left school to start work when I was 16, as did most of my classmates, in what I believe was one of the poorest performing schools in the Borough.

The link below is from an article that first appeared in the Telegraph, which is why it is so hostile, but for reasons that puts in in the same frame as the Republican hostility in the US. The article is contentious on some levels, because of the claims it makes that more young girls are claiming 'trans' rights than boys. I am not sure some of the sources for these claims are secure, and I wonder why it is that groups of young girls can be said to be part of some 'mass hysteria' but the same thing doesn't happen with boys, which to me suggests a different attitude to female behaviour than male, and not the basis for sound clinical advice.

I do wonder if gender issues being part of the curriculum are part of the problem, with the note that here there is a suggestion that 'Liberals' or 'the Left' are to blame for putting ideas into the heads of young people they otherwise would never think of. Is this officially part of the Department of Education's curriculum in the Key Stages process? I wonder how many teachers be it in Primary, Junior or Secondary level believe in Gender issues as referred to in the article, but I can see how young people on social media sites would be introduced to it, and at various levels.

What I think I see is an attempt by so-called 'Conservatives' to shift a marginal issue to the centre ground, to weaponize 'gender studies' as part of a broader attack on perceived 'Liberal' bias in education where 'diversity and inclusion' is a cause of the breakdown of, wait for it, 'God, Family and Country', allegedly part of a Marxist conspiracy, which is pretty daft when one understands just how rigid Marxism is in its use of categories. But the impact of immigration means that our societies in the UK are more diverse than they were when I was in school, so that diversity and inclusion is a logical attempt to educate children at an equal level of opportunity and outcome.

The fact is, though, that transitioning may not be the answer to adolescent anxiety, and I don't know how to deal with this other than to urge caution, because if the clinical treatment is irreversible, or damaging, the consequences can be dire indeed.

The article from the Telegraph is here-
Why teenage girls are on the front line of the trans war (yahoo.com)

[filghy2]

I do wonder if gender issues being part of the curriculum are part of the problem, with the note that here there is a suggestion that 'Liberals' or 'the Left' are to blame for putting ideas into the heads of young people they otherwise would never think of.

How much school time would actually be spent on these issues? I find it strange that a few suggestions from teachers supposedly count for more than years of parental influence, not to mention the influences of TV and other popular culture where trans are rarely seen. Aren't we normally told it's the other way around - that there's little schools can do to overcome the effects of the home environment?

If your kids are so easily influenced by something a teacher says then what does that say about your parenting? How much time are you spending in proper conversations with your children?

[Stavros]

How much school time would actually be spent on these issues? I find it strange that a few suggestions from teachers supposedly count for more than years of parental influence, not to mention the influences of TV and other popular culture where trans are rarely seen. Aren't we normally told it's the other way around - that there's little schools can do to overcome the effects of the home environment?

If your kids are so easily influenced by something a teacher says then what does that say about your parenting? How much time are you spending in proper conversations with your children?

I agree because the question here is, who is setting the agenda, shaping the narrative? If you look at it from the Telegraph perspective, the issue is not clinical, but political, and is more concerned with 'indoctrination' than any reference to actual medical/psychological anxieties that need to be addressed. Or, when they are, it is to argue that the clinical response is to immediately begin a course of treatment, though I am not sure if this is universal, just as we don't know how many of the teenage girls expressing discontent with their gender on Jan 1st feel the same way on Dec 31st.

So it is not about parents, but teachers, who for a long time have been paraded as 'left-wing' more concerned with planting ideas in children's heads than teaching them facts and figures. And to counteract the teachers, we have a self-appointed cohort of journalists and activists who have their own political agenda to pursue.

A similar trend is underway in Florida where the teaching of Black Studies in various forms is under attack on the spurious grounds that courses are too far removed from what children need and is in reality a form of indoctrination designed to smear 'White America' with a catalogue of crimes whose end result is the hatred rather than the love of country.

As was once said in China -'destroy the history and you destroy the country' -but if we cannot face the facts about our past, we or the next generation will walk blind into the future.

[filghy2]

So it is not about parents, but teachers, who for a long time have been paraded as 'left-wing' more concerned with planting ideas in children's heads than teaching them facts and figures. And to counteract the teachers, we have a self-appointed cohort of journalists and activists who have their own political agenda to pursue.

It seems like a strange argument for the UK, given you've had 13 years of Conservative rule - and no states, so the central government has more power. If these people really believe things are as bad as they claim, aren't they also saying that the politicians they support have been completely ineffectual?

[Stavros]

It seems like a strange argument for the UK, given you've had 13 years of Conservative rule - and no states, so the central government has more power. If these people really believe things are as bad as they claim, aren't they also saying that the politicians they support have been completely ineffectual?

There is a separate legal system in Scotland, which gives them powers that can only be blocked by Westminster if there is an objection to the meaning of UK law, as has happened with the Gender Recognition Bill. As for nothing being done to combat left-wing teachers, and setting aside the darling of the 'Right' who is a 'no-nonsense' headmistress who cracks heads to get things done, it is a complaint of people like Nigel Farage and Richard Tice that the Tories have lost their mojo, the irony being that Liz Truss was supposed to be the 'radical reformer' but was so disruptive early on she never got a chance to do it.

More obvious is the argument that if there have been so many left-wing teachers over the years indoctrinating children, why as adults do they not all vote Labour?

That said, I wonder if those on the left who have given up on 'class struggle' have decided culture struggle is the preferred option, the claim in the Telegraph being this is Gramsci's 'march through the institutions' at work, as if the Christian Right has been dormant for the last 50 years. I think there may be some issues in education but I am not sure how widespread it is, and the tendency toward hysteria that we have seen with Gender issues doesn't help organize a rational debate based on evidence.