Stavros
01-17-2023, 04:33 AM
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 (https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill)
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) (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-following-passing-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill)
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 ( (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories)www.gov.uk (http://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?
The Bill can be found here-
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill – Bills (proposed laws) – Scottish Parliament | Scottish Parliament Website (https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill)
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) (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-following-passing-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill)
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 ( (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories)www.gov.uk (http://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?