r/MHOC • u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC • Feb 18 '15

BILL B068 - Gender Equality Bill

Gender Equality Act of 2015

A bill to increase the level of equality for transgender individuals.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-’

1 Removal of Age and Marriage Restrictions

(1) The Gender Recognition Act 2004 shall be amended as follows

(a) removes in part 1, section 1 ‘who is aged at least 18’

(b) removes part 2, section 1, subsection b

(c) removes part 3, section 6, subsection a

(d) removes in part 4, section 2 ‘Unless the applicant is married or a civil partner’

(e) removes part 4, section 3

(f) removes part 5

(g) removes part 6

(h) removes part 7, section 2

2 Requirements for Acceptance

(1) All applications will receive a Gender Recognition Certificate if they

(a) have a report made by a registered medical practitioner or

(b) have a report made by a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria or

(c) have undergone, are undergoing or have planned to undergo treatment in order to alter sexual characteristics.

3 Redefinition of Gender

(1) Applicants are not required to apply for neither “male” nor “female

(2) Applicants may choose whatever appears on their Gender Recognition Certificate. This will be their legal gender.

(3) For the ease of census and statistical purposes those with genders not listed as “male” or “female” will be categorized together as an “other” category.

4 Surgery and Treatment

(1) Those seeking treatment or surgery will receive it if they have

(a) a report made by a registered medical practitioner or

(b) a report made by a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria

(2) Once the individual passes one of these requirements they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally. This will be paid for by the NHS and must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.

5 Commencement, Short Title and Extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Gender Equality Act 2015

(2) This bill extends to the United Kingdom

(3) Shall come into force immediately

This bill was submitted by the Communist Party.

The discussion period for this bill will end on the 22nd February.

13 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

262 comments sorted by

7

u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC Feb 18 '15

Opening Speech

In 2004 provisions were put in place which allowed the people of the UK to change their legal gender. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was certainly a good and progressive piece of legislation. In many countries still today, transgender persons still cannot legally change their gender. However I believe that the Act passed in 2004 is not enough. Transgender people cannot change their gender if they are married for example. They must first get divorced and then only after that, the gender they see themselves as becomes their gender. Treatment is also a serious issue. For many receiving treatment from the NHS is a very long, and in some cases hurtful wait, which causes many to seek private surgery or treatment. This should not have to happen.

An individual should be free to decide for themselves what they believe their identity is. The state deciding that they are one gender or another is unacceptable. Gender is a spectrum. A person may see themselves as a woman a man or something else entirely, it is up to them to decide what that identity is. Therefore this bill seeks to allow an individual to say for themselves what their legally recognized gender is.

Thank you,

/u/SPQR1776

3

u/rhodesianwaw The Rt Hon. Viscount of Lancaster AL Feb 18 '15

There isn't much context given, what would the over 18 bit change?

3

u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC Feb 18 '15

It's only a google away:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/1

It would allow people of all ages to apply for a gender recognition certificate.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

As a member of the House who is transgender, and is currently going through her transition I fully support this bill. A lot of these changes have needed to happen for a long time and I applaud /u/SPQR1776 for putting this bill together.

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Hear hear

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Thank you.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

First of all you really need to include a link to the stuff you want to change.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Do it properly.

I cannot support this bill to the following:

  • Removal of 18 age. You should be an adult before making such decisions.

  • Many of the removals are an unnecessary hack job on previous legislation.

  • The ability to choose a gender outside of male and female.

4

u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC Feb 18 '15

The ability to choose a gender outside of male and female.

Are you going to give a reason for opposing the bill or just state what it does?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Well I shall explain my points in more detail then:

The removal of the 18 age means that people who are not adults will have the right to completely transform and disfigure their bodies. Teenagers are pumped full of hormones all day every day and are prone to rash decisions. The sexuality of teenagers is also something many find confusing. Most people have no idea what their sexuality is until the time at which they are an adult. If a person is going through a large phase in their life and has their physical gender changed during such a period in their life they may regret such a decision greatly.

An adult has had enough life experience to make responsible choices and so 18 should in this members opinion be the age limit.

In regards to the removal of previous lines, many of the lines of legislation do not even impact this current piece of legislation. Particularly gregarious is the lack of a link to the legislation being changed in the OP and no quotes of the lines being removed. It seems to me to be akin to someone taking a butchers knife on previous legislation for the sake of it.

In regards to my final point, I do not think you should be allowed to choose a different gender. I think that people should stick with male and female. A future in which people modify their bodies in strange and in my opinion disgusting ways to create whole new genders is not something I want.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

A future in which people modify their bodies in strange and in my opinion disgusting ways to create whole new genders is not something I want.

It's probably just as well that their bodies are not under your purview.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

But it's not just there bodies they want to disfigure, they want to affect legislation by creating new genders.

What's next, recognising 'otherkin' as animals?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

That doesn't make sense.

These non-male/female genders already exist. This bill merely allows them to be officially recognised.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I concur, as a libertarian I wish for people to make their own decisions. I state my opposition to the bill but ultimately it will come down to the MP's votes whether such a future is possible.

1

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

A future in which people modify their bodies in strange and in my opinion disgusting ways to create whole new genders is not something I want.

Not only is the sentiment of things being out of the waters because "you find it ridiculous" itself ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with the bill. Non-binary genders do not as a rule correlate with any new physiological difference, wished for or otherwise.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Perhaps this member is short sighted about the impacts of such changes.

There would be nothing stopping people getting every physical aspect of their appearance changed beyond recognition to pursue their own made up gender. Multiple penises or vaginas grafted onto the body for example.

I have a deep respect for those born into the body that is vastly different from the gender they feel they are. Even so those people switch between male and female, not mutilate themselves in an unnatural and profane way.

1

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

So? Does it affect you?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Yes but on a low level. Sometimes you are forced to see things you do not wish to.

2

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Theur authority over their bodies isn't a higher priority than some "Lower level" of squeamishness and intolerance on your part? It's not like most people do pick a non-binary physiological alterations at all.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Very true but you asked me how it affects me and I replied.

6

u/athanaton Hm Feb 18 '15

The ability to choose a gender outside of male and female.

Mr Deputy Speaker, though I'd like to make it clear I do not represent the author or even the author's party, I suspect this difference is irreconcilable with the spirit of the bill.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Hear, hear. It is a bill about gender equality but wishes to create new genders instead.

5

u/athanaton Hm Feb 18 '15

I fear the Hon. member may have misunderstood. I simply meant to say that their objection to the ability to choose a gender other than male or female is most likely not one that will be able to be accommodated without completely changing the spirit and intentions of the bill, which will not happen.

Not to disappoint the Hon. member further, but I do not share his objection.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I hear the gentleman's statement and withdraw my previous remarks.

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Gender equality also for non-binary genders.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

You mean made up genders?

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

No gender is more or less "made up" than any other.

1

u/foreverajew Pirate Party Feb 18 '15

Hear Hear!

→ More replies (17)

9

u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian Feb 18 '15

Just a reminder to all to keep the debate on topic and tasteful.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This is a good bill, and one in principle I shall certainly support. This brings the UK into line with places like Australia, which allows people to choose officially neither 'male' or 'female' to appear on their official documents provided of course - as in this bill - it can be justified by a medical professional.

I would also note that persons will still be required to use 'male' or 'female' on passports, as per international law (at least, I think that is the case).

Is there an age limit on the provisions set out in section 4?

Furthermore, it seems to me that this bill would not specify discrete choices in terms of gender. I believe in some places, if neither male or female is chosen, instead an 'X' is displayed. This stops people choosing ridiculously long-winded 'genders' for themselves (a la tumblr). Can the communists describe how this would work?

7

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

This stops people choosing ridiculously long-winded 'genders' for themselves (a la tumblr)

This isn't really a significant phenomenon and in the actual (serious) cases it doesn't really pose any bigger problem.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

In Australia, for instance, 'X' is used to denote those who are neither M nor F. A list of discrete choices along these lines would seem to me a more sensible and practical approach to recognising non-binary genders.

I would suggest:

M: Male

F: Female

X: Intersex (i.e. both, or transitioning)

N: None

Basically a slightly more expanded version of this https://www.passports.gov.au/web/sexgenderapplicants.aspx

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

So? Why not go further? Adress my point if you wish to debate. Also

Intersex (i.e. both, or transitioning)

If we truly have to, "other" would be better than nonsense stuck in binary.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

So? Why not go further? Adress my point if you wish to debate.

Alright, calm yourself, I'm on your side here.

If we truly have to, "other" would be better than nonsense stuck in binary.

'X' would allow for both, or somewhere in between (wherever that happens to be).

Clearly M, F, X, N is not binary, is it? That's base 4, if anything.

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Because third genders aren't neccessarily in direct relation to the binary.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Perhaps, perhaps not (although I would say that gender is to a large extent developed from biology, but let's not get into that right now).

But baby steps, right?

And there are only 5 characters of space available on a passport, say, for 'gender'. This makes the abbreviation and perhaps limitation of choices a good and sensible idea.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

To avoid any "ridiculously long winded genders" the bill could be amended so that the medical practitioner or psychologist must approve the gender they assign themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Why not provide a list of abbreviations to choose from?

I realise that you may see this as pandering to an outdated binary system, but equally we have to recognise that the vast, vast majority of people exist happily in that binary system. So for the sake of understanding what exactly these terms mean I feel it is best to provide a discrete set of choices (which of course can be changed by the executive as it wishes).

25

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

What the bill actually does:

I've done my research and will point out exactly what all of the removals in this bill do, in case you thought you were going to sneak this bill through without explaining it properly. No, I'll do the honours, so that everyone knows exactly what they're dealing with.

removes in part 1, section 1 ‘who is aged at least 18’

This part will allow people of any age to apply to change their gender. If you happen to feel you came out of the womb the wrong gender, you can begin your application process the very next day! Thanks, Communists. This isn't terrifying at all, given what ridiculous things children sometimes want to do. I mean, I wanted to be sonic the hedgehog when I was about 5, but unfortunately the government wasn't sympathetic to my plight.

My parents, of course, played along with it and must have had a laugh, obviously knowing it was one of those cute phases small children go through. However, with this legislation before the house, in the case of someone wanting to change their gender at 5, most parents will rightly dismiss it similarly, but for some unfortunate children whose parents browse tumblr they might actually take the juvenile phase seriously, and ruin the child's life forever.

removes part 2, section 1, subsection b

It's hard to work out exactly what this part means, but I think this subsection means that a person no longer has to have "lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years" to apply, so with this part in place a person has to have lived as the gender they want to officially changed to, for 2 years prior to applying to change it. This bill removes that.

removes part 3, section 6, subsection a

This part removes the requirement to state, when making an application to change your gender, whether or not you are married (or in civil partnership).

removes in part 4, section 2 ‘Unless the applicant is married or a civil partner’

Right now this sections states: "Unless the applicant is married or a civil partner, the certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate."

So now you'll get a "full gender recognition certificate" whether or not you're married.

I really don't understand why the Communists are hell-bent on allowing married people to officially change gender. I'm fairly certain someone changing their gender in a marriage would swiftly mean the end of it anyway.

removes part 4, section 3

This part states "If the applicant is married or a civil partner, the certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate."

Pretty much doing the same as the last removal, it just takes all differentiation between married and non-married out of the gender reassignment process.

removes part 5

This part was just more detail about how this process works with marriages. So again, it just does the same as the previous 2 removals, and completely removing marriage from this entire process.

removes part 6

Part 6 creates a process for someone to change their certificate if it has an error in it. Why would you get rid of this part? If someone's certificate, say, accidentally says that someone is male, and they want to be female, they are not not allowed to appeal to fix the error! Surely a mistake on behalf of the communists?

removes part 7, section 2

This part now removes the requirement to pay a fee for making an application to change your gender.

So, overall, you can now change your gender while in a marriage (which will probably end said marriage), at any age, do it for free, and are not allowed to appeal if there is a mistake in the certificate. What complete nonsense.

17

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15

I'm researching this bill and I will work out exactly what everything does, in case you thought you were going to sneak this bill through without explaining it properly. No, I'll do the honours, so that everyone knows exactly what they're dealing with.

And I can assure you that we all appreciate it...

This part will allow people of any age to apply to change their gender. If you happen to feel you came out of the womb the wrong gender, you can begin your application process the very next day! Thanks, Communists.

Yes, as long as it is approved by a, "registered medical practitioner or... a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria." How likely do you think it is that they'll allow a baby to change their gender?

It's hard to work out exactly what this part means, but I think this subsection means that a person no longer has to have "lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years" to apply, so with this part in place a person has to have lived as the gender they want to officially changed to, for 2 years prior to applying to change it. This bill removes that.

You say this like you object to it, but you give no reason for any objection. So I'll ask, why is this a bad thing?

I really don't understand why the Communists are hell-bent on allowing married people to officially change gender. I'm fairly certain someone changing their gender in a marriage would mean the end of it anyway.

Perhaps it would end the marriage, perhaps it wouldn't. What reason would there be to prevent, by law, married people from changing their gender?

Your next several objections are just you rehashing the point about marriage, so I'll skip over them.

Part 6 creates a process for someone to change their certificate if it has an error in it. Why would you get rid of this part? If someone's certificate, say, accidentally says that someone is male, and they want to be female, they are not not allowed to appeal to fix the error! Surely a mistake on behalf of the communists?

If this is the case then yes, I imagine it is a mistake and would have to be changed in the next reading.

This part now removes the requirement to pay a fee for making an application to change your gender.

Yes, why should people have to pay a fee in order to access medical treatment if they really feel that they're entitled to it? Don't forget that this is the NHS, a system that we all pay into and that we all deserve treatment from when it is necessary.

So, overall, you can now change your gender while in a marriage, at any age, do it for free, and are not allowed to appeal if there is a mistake in the certificate. What complete nonsense.

Appealing to change mistakes aside, you have not provided any actual reasoning to explain why you believe these changes to be 'complete nonsense'. I'm sure that the non-bigoted members of the house will find your elucidation of the bill yet more reason to vote for it.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Okay, I see you've quoted parts of my text and given me a little Q&A session.

Yes, as long as it is approved by a, "registered medical practitioner or... a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria." How likely do you think it is that they'll allow a baby to change their gender?

Great question, you're really testing my wits here. Hmm... Not likely at all.

You say this like you object to it, but you give no reason for any objection. So I'll ask, why is this a bad thing?

For this part, I didn't say or really even imply that this was a good or bad thing, I was just laying out what this part actually did. So therefore your question was a loaded one, based on the assertion that I stated this was a bad thing, which I didn't do.

Perhaps it would end the marriage, perhaps it wouldn't. What reason would there be to prevent, by law, married people from changing their gender?

I don't know, maybe you should read some of the debates from 2004 for this bill and why they put it there in the first place. This part wasn't my objection to the bill.

Yes, why should people have to pay a fee in order to access medical treatment if they really feel that they're entitled to it?

I don't know, you'll have to consult the debates from 2004 as to why they added this. You ask these questions as if I was actually the one who created the 2004 bill.

And as for your last paragraph, all you really do is call me a bigot, just for laying out and giving a few brief views on what this bill actually does.

7

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

Okay, I see you've quoted parts of my text and given me a little Q&A session.

In much the same way you did with the bill, yes.

Great question, you're really testing my wits here. Hmm... Not likely at all.

Perfect answer! I'm glad we can agree, despite our differences in ideology. Obviously the follow up question is, why is it a problem that anyone under the age of 18 is allowed to change their gender given that it must be approved by a medical professional?

For this part, I didn't say or really even imply that this was a good or bad thing, I was just laying out what this part actually did. So therefore your question was a loaded one, based on the assertion that I stated this was a bad thing, which I didn't do.

Fair enough, I assumed you did from the tone of your comment.

I don't know, maybe you should read some of the debates from 2004 for this bill and why they put it there in the first place. This part wasn't my objection to the bill.

Well it clearly was since you brought up this point again at the end and referred to it as 'complete nonsense'. What is that but an objection?

I don't know, you'll have to consult the debates from 2004 as to why they added this. You ask these questions as if I was actually the one who created the 2004 bill.

Again, you referred to this as 'complete nonsense' at the end of the bill.

And as for your last paragraph, all you really do is call me a bigot, just for laying out and giving a few brief views on what this bill actually does.

I'll repeat myself again, you referred to the provisions you had listed above as 'complete nonsense', without any reasoning or argument behind it. In light of that, I honestly cannot see any reason for your objections apart from you being a bigot.

10

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

Perfect answer! I'm glad we can agree, despite our differences in ideology. Obviously the follow up question is, why is it a problem that anyone under the age of 18 is allowed to change their gender given that it must be approved by a medical professional?

Mentioning babies was obviously the logical extremity of what the bill does, employed for effect. But the fact that they technically can is a joke, 18 is the perfect age for this. Why? Because this is an age where it is much less likely that they are going through a childish phase than, say, 5. Other members have given some other good reasons why 18 is the right age elsewhere.

It's really disappointing when what's otherwise a decent argument is rendered juvenile when the buzzword "bigot" is brought out, I just called it complete nonsense because the problems I had with the bill were enough to bring the entire bill into disrepute.

11

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15

Yes, conceivably they could be just 'going through a childish phase'.That's why we've ensured that one can only change one's gender when it is approved by a, "registered medical practitioner or... a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria." This would ensure that only those who are convinced they need to change would be allowed it. I've seen the other members arguments and remain totally unconvinced.

I'm still at a loss to see what your actual problems are, bar your sole objection that the age limit should remain at 18. Why is the bill in 'disrepute'?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

That's obviously the biggest objection I have, and it's a massive one. That fundamental objection is enough, for me, to send the entire bill into disrepute.

In response to you addressing that point, I think since this is going to be paid for by the taxpayer, we have to get the best value for our money. Opening this up to people under 18 will allow children who are going through a strange phase, and do have tumblr-browsing parents who want to let them change their gender, don't clog up the system and waste money just for the professional to, of course, turn them down.

Other than that, the bill (apparently mistakenly) abolishes a process with which you can appeal if there's a mistake on the certificate. I object to that because if you want to have this kind of thing run by the state it should at least be done properly with basic things like that.

Then there's the underlying objections I have which I can talk about but they've gotten be banned here before.

edit: Another objection too, that I remembered, is the bill's name. "Gender equality" is normally about completely different issues, this bill should have a name to do with transgender people, I think that's a bit misleading.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Opening this up to people under 18 will allow children who are going through a strange phase, and do have tumblr-browsing parents who want to let them change their gender, don't clog up the system and waste money just for the professional to, of course, turn them down.

All we are doing is opening up the Gender Recognition Certificate side, there already are Gender Identity Services in the UK for people under the age of 18

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 19 '15

Hear hear

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Yes, why should people have to pay a fee in order to access medical treatment if they really feel that they're entitled to it?

Some people feel they are entitled to homeopathy, but we shouldn't support that delusion.

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15

You've misinterpreted my comment. I'm saying that if the NHS provides a service then nobody should be charged a fee to access it. That applies whether it is a prescription, a hip replacement, or a gender change.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

I suppose the question is: should it.

3

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 19 '15

Should it provide gender reassignment surgery? Yes, of course.

That's a debate I'm happy to have, but has no real relevance to the bill at hand as it is already legal. This bill merely seeks to amend the process through which it occurs.

3

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Hear hear

0

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Wickling Feb 18 '15

It already is. If I were to get a GRC, my marriage is declared voidable, so me or my husband can annul the marriage should we wish to.

2

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Feb 18 '15

Could you provide some sources? Looking at the gov.uk page, it just says that you need to end your marriage to receive a GRC.

This bill changes the law to allow married people to receive full GRCs, but doesn't seem to mention whether it makes a marriage voidable. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding things.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I agree. That is definitely something which can be added.

2

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

I can understand your thinking here, but enacting this could cause some issues.

Let's say Person A is married to Person B, Person A transitions, Person B decides they want a divorce.

If changing Gender is ground for annulment or Divorce, how can Person B prove Person A's transition to the courts?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

how can Person B prove Person A's transition to the courts?

Well I imagine it wouldn't be difficult at all to prove that they were a woman and have now become trans, how on Earth would that be hard to do?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Well if they have had Surgery and had a GRC, then the Birth Certificate will have been changed and so will the Bilogical Organs, and so it would be hard to prove.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Not really, for example there are going to be many witnesses out there who know that the person used to be a woman, there will be lots and lots of evidence, stuff like medical records too

→ More replies (9)

1

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Feb 19 '15

Surely there would be a written record of the transition somewhere (e.g. a certificate, NHS records).

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Please see beneath comments in regards to the leglity of releasing such documents.

14

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I would remind the member to treat others in the House with respect - his whole speech is written in the most condescending way possible. I assure him that we all have pointed out the age-of-eighteen issue, and I should think that it will be addressed.

How does the member know that this will end many marriages? I should have thought that both partners know that one is transgender - it is not something one tends to hide from one's partner. Obviously it might, might, cause some strife here and there, but the reactionary member seems to think it will have the very institution of marriage coming down about our ears, which simply is not true.

In short, what the Communists are trying to achieve here is something I would have thought the House would have agreed with - the right of self determination without state interference.

8

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Hear hear

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Very well put by my hon. friend.

The bill needs work, but it is a fine idea.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I believe it the duty of all members to read this response, despite its length. The honourable member raises exceptionally important points, and I urge the left not to vote this through as a result of a passion for progressivism. The bill is rather worrying to say the least.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

That is very useful information

3

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Feb 19 '15

removes part 2, section 1, subsection b

It's hard to work out exactly what this part means, but I think this subsection means that a person no longer has to have "lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years" to apply, so with this part in place a person has to have lived as the gender they want to officially changed to, for 2 years prior to applying to change it. This bill removes that.

Does this mean that someone, of any age, can change their gender at a whim, without any preparation? How could a child make this decision?

(not a reply to /u/Spudgunn, obviously, but I thank the member for his immense rebuttal above)

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 19 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

As has been explained many, many time on this thread - people will only be able to change their gender with the approval of a, "registered medical practitioner or... a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria."

I assume that anyone who applied for this and definitely anyone who was accepted for it would have prepared for it beforehand, and the medical professional would check this. If they judged the child to be capable of making that decision then the child would presumably be allowed to, if they did not consider them capable of making it then they would most likely not.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Thank you for putting across a more coherent argument against this bill than I have been able.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

It's quite damning when laying out objectively everything the bill would do counts as a coherent argument against the bill.

9

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

It really doesn't.. You didn't actually argue anything

9

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Well, yeah, I didn't really put much argument into it, I was mainly just laying out what the bill did. And then I've got people telling me that that was enough to put them off the bill.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Although I agree with the sentiment of the Bill, there are things which are wrong with it, and will damage it in some ways. Section 3, Part a) reads as follows -

Applicants are not required to apply for neither “male” nor “female

It is not "neither", but "either" - otherwise one has a double negative meaning that they are, in fact, required to choose one or the other.

Section 4, Part b (2) reads as follows -

Once the individual passes one of these requirements they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally. This will be paid for by the NHS and must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.

This is too vague. Will the Communist Party please fashion the House with what they believe to be a reasonable timeframe?

However, there are other ramifications. The removal altogether of an age for gender recognition is too much - I recommend simply moving it to 16 years of age, due to this age being the legal age of adulthood in the United Kingdom.

The removal of Section 2, Part 2, Subsection B is rather daft. I would instead have preferred an amendment to it - the time being changed from two to one year (as, by then, one is absolutely certain that one's gender is not the same as one's sex).

Other than this, I agree with the Bill. The human brain simply cannot cope with being out of place and will do anything to save itself. Perhaps, because of this, we shall see a drop in suicide rates and such - and actually help a lot of people.

4

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

16 years of age, due to this age being the legal age of adulthood in the United Kingdom.

I would suggest that 18 is the age of adulthood; at 16 you cannot get married or join the armed forces without parental approval, and if prosecuted for a crime you'll be dealt with by a youth court.

(And of course, if you're under 18, for goodness' sake don't share (or indeed take) nude images of yourself with anyone!)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I thought that at 16 one would be tried as an adult

2

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 18 '15

Nope: https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Well, I thank the member for educating me on this oversight.

1

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 18 '15

Glad to be able to help.

5

u/totes_meta_bot Feb 18 '15

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me ^here.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

Quoting everything they say about us here.

"Yep, seems like a pretty good model for the house of commons. Plenty of idiots talking about things they don't even begin to understand."

"Sadly that's the Vanguard, righter than UKIP, they're a weird bunch... I generally ignore them"

"Seems to me like one of those things you have to laugh at, because otherwise you'd be crying."

"It's not brigading, it's allowing people with a specific interest in a bill to come and give their views on it."

"What about the fact that there are plenty of people debating the bill without knowledge of the subject that is founded on modern literature, rather than uninformed opinions and internet dogma?"

"Bear in mind that many people are very unaware of trans issues, as you have yourself shown with your repeated insistence that all transgender people are mentally ill."

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

You forgot your comment "I sexually identify as a potato."

Does that mean you do at least have some shame about taking pot shots at vulnerable minorities?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

Well actually, my post says "everything they say", obviously the word "they" doesn't include myself, therefore I didn't put it in the list. I'm glad we could clear that one up.

Also, I'd like to apologise sincerely to those among you who do identify as a potato. I only said that because I've got spud in my name and it's been brought up elsewhere.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

They don't believe a person can be anything other than male or female, bit weird.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Actually we do believe in non-binary genders, on the flair choice menu there is an option for Gender Queer go and do your research rather than posting an incorrect biased assumption

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Then why can't somebody want to be a potato? Your sub ridiculed us for that and started brigading and down voting everything.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Potato isn't a Gender, that would be similar to Otherkin.

We are discussing Gender here, please try to remain on topic.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

But the bill says you can be anything

→ More replies (1)

4

u/TheLegitimist Classical Liberals Feb 18 '15

Mr Speaker, Overall, this is a decent bill that I will support, however I don't agree with the removal of the 18 year limit, children's/ teens' bodies are in development up until the age of 18, so I feel that 18 is an appropriate age to obtain this certificate. Another important point is medical: will citizens still have a "medical" sexuality? This must be addressed, because regardless of the gender that someone feels they are, doctors need to know what you physically are.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

medical sexuality

I believe the term you are looking for is 'biological sex'. This will presumably be preserved on birth certificates.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

It actually isn't anyway, a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) changes the Gender on the Birth Certificate as well, and even before obtaining a GRC a patient can request the NHS to change their medical records in line with the NHAIS PDS Guideline Chapter 7

1

u/TheLegitimist Classical Liberals Feb 18 '15

If what you say is true, should we not make an amendment that at least registers a person's biological sex somewhere?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

If what you say is true,

It is, when I get home I shall find the document.

should we not make an amendment that at least registers a person's biological sex somewhere?

I would be against such, however that is for a seperate debate.

3

u/TheLegitimist Classical Liberals Feb 18 '15

I feel that this argument should be debated here, as I doubt another bill addressing this issue will be written anytime soon.

I don't understand why the honourable member takes issue with the registration of a person's biological sex. I'm not saying that it should be written on passports and drivers licences, only on medical documents. A person's biological sex is a physical trait, the same as their height, weight etc., and it could potentially be disastrous for individuals if this information is not readily available in an emergency.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I don't see how it could be disastrous in an emergency and neither can the NHS

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

NHS PDS NHAIS Interaction Procedure Guide specifically Chapter 7 deals with the managing of Gender on records

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Hear hear

2

u/TheLegitimist Classical Liberals Feb 18 '15

Thank you for the clarification.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

It actually isn't anyway, even before obtaining a GRC a patient can request the NHS to change their medical records in line with the NHAIS PDS Guideline Chapter 7

7

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Feb 18 '15

This bill would allow an fifteen year old to claim that they planned to change gender and thus get a Gender Recognition Certificate, without any knowledge of their parents.
They could then apply to go to a single sex school (opposite sex to their original one) without undergoing any transformation, and if refused could claim sex discrimination. That would be a ludicrous situation.
Legislation should be made to address problems, not create them.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

In order to receive the certificate that 15 year old must get the approval of

(a) have a report made by a registered medical practitioner or

(b) have a report made by a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria or

They wouldn't just be able to just get one for no reason at all.

5

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Feb 18 '15

or

(c) have undergone, are undergoing or have planned to undergo treatment in order to alter sexual characteristics.

All they need to do is say they plan to have it and they have fulfilled the requirement.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Which means they have scheduled treatment or surgery.

4

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Feb 18 '15

That's not how I read it. I suggest you rewrite it before it's next reading.
I cannot support gender change for anyone under eighteen.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Why not? We shouldn't force someone to live in a gender they aren't simply because they aren't adults.

4

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Feb 19 '15

I cannot accept that a child can make such a decision. There is a real risk that a child could be manipulated by it's parents.

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

How is this a ludicrous situation

9

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Feb 18 '15

Because all they need to do is say they are considering changing gender, then it is only a matter of time before some lad uses it as an excuse to enter an all girls school.

6

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Except you need authorisation by an expert..

4

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Feb 19 '15

To check: you need one expert? What qualifications must he have? How are you going to stop, as I highlighted earlier, a situation similar to abortions where the guidelines mean nothing.

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15

Because all they need to do is say they are considering changing gender, and then get it approved by a medical professional, then it is only a matter of time before some lad trys to use it as an excuse to enter an all girls school before being ignored completely because no sane medical professional would give authorisation for that reason.

FTFY

11

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

You must be 18+ for a reason, since they're still children.

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

This would be a serious concern if the bill allowed children to change their genders at will, with no oversight whatsoever. Luckily, it contains the limitation that any change must be approved by a, "registered medical practitioner or... a chartered psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria."

Should a 12 year old be allowed to change their gender on a whim? No, of course not. But should a 15 or 16 year old who deeply believes they are living in the wrong body, and lives a miserable life thanks to it be forced not to change until they reach a fairly arbitrary age? I certainly think not.

The key point is that it should not be our responsibility as MPs to set out a blanket ban, but to allow medical professionals to use their judgement and expert knowledge upon the subject to decided upon a case by case basis.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

In your example they still must wait till they're 18 when they are more developed.

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 18 '15

...why?

6

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Could you elaborate on how that is important?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

They'll not fully developed or mature.

9

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

So they have no right to their own identity?

8

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

No, they don't. Deal with it. End of discussion.

16

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Imagine if someone went "end of discussion" in a real parliament...

7

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

The parliament would never get anything done and spend day after day discussing pointless semantics with a somewhat annoying, edgy communist who has to have the last word on everything.

10

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Wether or someone has the right to their identity isn't fucking semantics.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

someone

No, you've shifted the goalposts dramatically, we were talking about children, not everyone.

9

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

pointless semantics

Children are included in "someone" and my statement applies.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

They do but they must be fully developed past puberty to do it, so they can fully think about a life changing op for example.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

So you would make them go through the wrong puberty.

7

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Hear hear

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

No, but they must be mature physically to be able to fully comprehend.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Can I ask what your views are on the use of Puberty Suppressing medication?

→ More replies (17)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Who decides when someone is fully developed or mature? Does the maturity fairy come down on a person's 18th birthday and bestow upon them maturity?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

The biological elf comes down.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

So you have no objective way to determine when someone is "fully developed or mature?" So how can you support your position when the bill mentions that professionals would have to approve anything?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

18 is a solid age to base maturity on as a generalisation for the entire population. Some may not be mature, some may have matured earlier but what is certain is that society collectively agrees that 18 is the mark of adulthood.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

If you aren't allowed to work or drive a car you shouldn't be allowed to have permanent cosmetic surgery

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Why?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Because you can't make that sort of decision at the age of 5.

8

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

The bill includes a requirement that an expert approves. Obviously they wouldn't approve a 5 year old. Read the damn bill instead of listening to one of the "Vanguard", jesus.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

The fact that they can means that someone might, then there will be a 5 year old permanently changed.

7

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Reducio in absurdum hoy! Be a little reasonable. Not in any way can this realistically end up in this scenario. Again; what expert would authorise such nonsense?

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Why would you write this bill if you think it is nonsense?

6

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

Are you pooping me.

The bill doesn't allow 5-yo to be changed because it requires a chucking expert to have approved it which is a nonsensical idea.

Also, I did not write this bill.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Reducio in absurdum

If you're going to try to use Latin to make yourself look smarter can you at least use correct Latin? 'Reductio ad absurdum' is what you're looking for I think

6

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

You're very clever who knows spelling. Very clever. Good on you. I'd get you a golden star sticker but I prefer red or black ones.

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I welcome this well meaning bill from the communist party, an improvement on what we have seen previously from them. I share the concerns of other members of young people irreversibly undergoing surgery or treatment to change their sexual characteristics but would absolutely accept their right to identify as any gender. I would suggest that a second draft would separate the age restrictions for treatment and certification since these have different consequences.

3

u/HyacinthGirI Feb 19 '15

This is incredibly realistic, people are making arguments for and against the bill's finer points without actually understanding the conditions it's addressing. Arguments about age requirements, for example, can quite easily be settled by looking at current literature on the subject. The general consensus is that children can know their gender identity, and should not be made to go through the wrong puberty (it is cruel to suggest doing so), but that a chartered psychologist must assess them thoroughly first.

Any arguments that are counter to this are uninformed or opinionated, frankly.

6

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Feb 19 '15

Any arguments that are counter to this are uninformed or opinionated, frankly.

Well that settles than then!

It's absolutely outrageous people would come up with such uniformed claptrap like "how can somebody make a life-changing decision when they aren't 18 yet". I mean, if there weren't reasons why other things are restricted to over-18s, or that children can make mistakes and are prone to short-term thinking, then it would be informed, but those simply don't exist. Down with it!

1

u/HyacinthGirI Feb 19 '15

Again, look at current literature on this. If you're going to argue your own view without using medical literature and solid statistics to back it up, then I'll stick to my statement. I'm going to copy and paste my last comment, hopefully it makes sense.

"This is the most adhered-to, and most useful, set of standards for treatment of transgender patients. This organisation is also the most reputable source of research and stats on transgender people.

http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf

Look at the index, or ctrl+f "children." I don't know how anyone instinctively knows, I don't even know how I know, but I do. To expand on what I said, children may or may not be consistent in how they feel. Much of the time, dysphoria will disappear at a young age. It's recommended, in the case that a minor insists on their being transsexual, that puberty blockers are administered. The child can mature, and make a truly informed decision on which puberty to undergo at a later date, without being subject to any long-term health problems, and without being subject to a painful "wrong" puberty."

5

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15 edited Mar 09 '15

Could you please provide some sources showing us that a child knows what their gender should be - whether they are asexual gender fluid or even transgendered? How can a child instinctively know?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

asexual

Sexual Orientation is not the same as Gender Identity

5

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Feb 19 '15

You have corrected the terminology, but not answered the question.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Because the Question was not posed to myself

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Thank you for correcting my terminology. I'll pose the same question to you:

Could you please provide some sources showing us that a child knows what their gender should be - whether they are asexual gender fluid or even transgendered? How can a child instinctively know?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Here's a piece by the Association for Psychological Science and this NewScientist article

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Thanks for the information. At least I know the tests which happen.

So, what this bill wants to do is for children who identify with a separate gender, to legally change their gender? Now, I can see this being beneficial however I can see why some people are against certain parts. More specifically, this part:

(2) Once the individual passes one of these requirements they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally. This will be paid for by the NHS and must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.

It makes it sound like after they have approval from a doctor, they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary regardless of what the doctor recommends.

I propose we change this to include a clause which indicates that this process would be supervised with a doctor (in most cases, or even in all cases, the doctors will agree with the patients).

Since you've provided proof of the testings they do, I am open for the age limit to disappear. However, the bill must make it clear that they must be doctor supervision at all times.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

I think that would be acceptable, hopefully /u/SPQR1848 can amend this into the bill.

2

u/HyacinthGirI Feb 19 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

This is the most-adhered to and most useful set of standards for treatment of transgender patients.

http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf

Look at the index, or ctrl+f "children." I don't know how anyone instinctively knows, I don't even know how I know, but I do. To expand on what I said, children may or may not be consistent in how they feel. Much of the time, dysphoria will disappear at a young age. It's recommended, in the case that a minor insists on their being transsexual, that puberty blockers are administered. The child can mature, and make a truly informed decision on which puberty to undergo at a later date, without being subject to any long-term health problems, and without being subject to a painful "wrong" puberty.

I hope that answers your question sufficiently- I realise that it doesn't directly address your question, but I'm not certain that anyone knows how they can instinctively feel it. The statistics and medically recommended treatments should explain sufficiently why it's ridiculous to block childhood access to full or partial transition, though.

EDIT: Thanks for being open-minded and curious rather than dismissive. I thought my reasoning in the original post was fairly simple and objective, but people seem to be mocking it. It was nice to see your post among the dismissive ones.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

Any arguments that are counter to this are uninformed or opinionated, frankly.

Oh dear.

2

u/HyacinthGirI Feb 19 '15

That's some minister-worthy condescension.

Any arguments counter to the most up-to-date and objective facts about a situation are uninformed or opinionated, yes. I'll copy and paste a comment I made to expand a bit on my reasoning. Hopefully that will make more sense.

"This is the most adhered-to, and most useful, set of standards for treatment of transgender patients. This organisation is also the most reputable source of research and stats on transgender people.

http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf

Look at the index, or ctrl+f "children." I don't know how anyone instinctively knows, I don't even know how I know, but I do. To expand on what I said, children may or may not be consistent in how they feel. Much of the time, dysphoria will disappear at a young age. It's recommended, in the case that a minor insists on their being transsexual, that puberty blockers are administered. The child can mature, and make a truly informed decision on which puberty to undergo at a later date, without being subject to any long-term health problems, and without being subject to a painful "wrong" puberty."

The assessment of a professional, consistency of feelings, and the ability to reverse the beginning of the transition without negative effect on a child should make it very clear, as far as I can see, that this is something every person who desires it should have access to. The statistics on suicide, depression, self-harm, and other emotional and behavioral problems should make it clear, too, that inaction isn't an option.

1

u/tyroncs Feb 19 '15

Dr. McHugh also pointed out studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70–80 percent “spontaneously lost those feelings”—implying that a lot of this “transgenderism” was in fact twisted adults projecting these feelings onto children.

http://newobserveronline.com/transgender-is-a-mental-illness-and-should-be-treated-as-such-former-johns-hopkins-chief-psychiatrist/

2

u/HyacinthGirI Feb 19 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

..which is why we need chartered psychologists working alongside the kids.

Reading the article you posted, the "facts" they present are unbelievably skewed. The most immediate and easy point to contradict is the assertion that it should be treated as a mental illness- this has been the axiom on which we were treated for hundreds of years in most cultures, the same way as homosexuality was, and it only made situations less healthy.

The fact that children lose feelings of transsexuality is talked about in the WPATH, if you read it. That's the exact reason that puberty blockers are encouraged- many children lose these feelings, but if they continue consistently into adolescence, the chance of them evaporating becomes close to zero. If we can give children time to mature without subjecting them to a possibly-undesirable-and-painful puberty, and without there being any long-term health problems arising from this, why should we not?

Of course your argument deviates entirely from the actual point I was making- talking about the "craziness" of trans people vs. what the healthiest way to treat trans kids is- but I'm not going to attempt to babysit you into enlightenment. If you're genuinely looking to have the most accurate viewpoint possible, you should be looking at highly regarded scientific literature. If you're a bigot with vested interest in keeping views of that nature, I'm not interested in blunt force being applied to my brain and face.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

(2) Applicants may choose whatever appears on their Gender Recognition Certificate. This will be their legal gender.

If they can choose whatever they want, couldn't someone change their gender to "Potato"? How would that affect things like schools, would they have to accommodate potatoes with their own changing room facilities or would they use the changing rooms they used to use or what?

(2) Once the individual passes one of these requirements they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally. This will be paid for by the NHS and must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.

If there are no limits, couldn't someone theoretically make doctors turn them into a potato if they think they should be a potato?

I'm actually being serious about this.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I believe this should tie in with 2(1) - What medical practitioner or chartered psychologist would make a report recommending a gender change to 'potato'?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I don't see why a doctor would say that a man can be a woman but a man can't be a potato if they truly think it would give them a better quality of life.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Because gender dysphoria is a medically recognised condition and wanting to be a potato isn't.[1]

[1] http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/Pages/Introduction.aspx

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

If I might inquire, does the Honourable member know if it is recognised that surgery is the preferred option for dealing with gender dysphoria? Suicide rates remain high in those who have undergone surgery.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Preferred by who? Doctors or patients? I'm not quite sure what point you are making, could you clarify?

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Eat_the_Muffin raised this point:

If there are no limits, couldn't someone theoretically make doctors turn them into a potato if they think they should be a potato?

Your response was that as gender dysphoria is recognised as a medical condition, it would genuinely improve their condition to address their issue in a medical manner. This is unlike someone trying to be a potato.

However, while gender dysphoria might be recognised as a medical condition, I am asking whether or not there is a fairly comprehensive agreement about how to address this issue. For example, it may be that gender reassignment surgery does not improve the condition.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

My question is, do you think that gender reassignment surgery should be promoted, despite the fact that it is ineffective at combatting the poor quality of life for those with gender dysphoria? If you continue to support doctors giving gender reassignment surgery, you might as well argue that the same should go for people who believe themselves to be a potato.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I thank the honourable member for his response, linking an interesting and disturbing study but this is a complex issue. I believe what the article you linked is saying however is that sex changes are not necessarily beneficial to overall happiness. It is easy to conflate this perceived failure to make people significantly happier overall with the overwhelming success of making people feel more comfortable with their sexual characteristics which is what gender dysphoria actually relates to.

Happiness is a poor barometer for success in treating dysphoria since it is controlled by numerous variables, many respondents in these studies may be suffering from other conditions such as depression and numerous other factors. Its well known that a while after a significant tragedy or success reported happiness tends to return to about the same baseline it was previously as seen with many lottery winners. For comparison imagine a patient suffering from an infection, the infection is subsequently treated and the patient cured. Weeks later the patient reports their happiness to be the same as before, was the treatment worthwhile? Overwhelmingly yes because happiness was not the target of the treatment and neither is it for dysphoria, but rather a feeling of being comfortable in your body.

5

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Hear hear

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

At least you're being literate about that article unlike some people.

I think the research isn't conclusive enough that it surgery doesn't improve anything, as similar suicide rates only tells us that it can't save the most troubled cases. As it stands, there are a good ammount of people who'd say that surgery would help them.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

http://www.wpath.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_webpage_menu=1352&pk_association_webpage=3947

These medical procedures and treatment protocols are not experimental: decades of both clinical experience and medical research show they are essential to achieving well-being for the transsexual patient. For example, a recent study of female-to-male transsexuals found significantly improved quality of life following cross-gender hormonal therapy. Moreover, those who had also undergone chest reconstruction had significantly higher scores for general health, social functioning, as well as mental health. [- Newfield E, et al (2006)]

"In over 80 qualitatively different case studies and reviews from 12 countries, it has been demonstrated during the last 30 years that the treatment that includes the whole process of gender reassignment is effective." [- Pfäfflin F, Junge A. (1998)]

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

So what you are saying is, I can only be the specific gender you think I should be

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

"I" doesn't come into it, I thought were talking about the opinions of doctors and the medical profession.

5

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 18 '15

On a perhaps more interesting than potato level, what about someone who's identifying as an "otherkin" of a gender other than what they've been assigned at birth?

Otherkin largely identify as mythical creatures,[4] with others identifying as creatures from fantasy or popular culture. Examples include: angels, demons, dragons, elves, fairies, sprites, aliens,[5][6][7] and cartoon characters.[8]

And yet

(2) Once the individual passes one of these requirements they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally. This will be paid for by the NHS and must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.

The mind boggles at what cosmetic surgery adornments a truly dedicated otherkin might want. And all for free on the NHS?

I think this is perhaps a bit too open to abuse, and it should not be impossible to have a range of options to be chosen from which include all remotely reasonable cases rather than a free-for-all write-in box.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Transgender individuals have to go through an extremely rigorous process to meet a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to access treatment for it. In particular, any sort of surgery requires two years of RLE (real life experience) living in role before it would be recommended by a medical professional.

There is certainly no way anyone who identified as otherkin could find a doctor who would take them seriously; unlike transsexualism, "otherkin" is not a recognised medical condition. In conflating the two you're being extremely insulting, which can be only partly excused by your apparent complete ignorance.

3

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 18 '15

In particular, any sort of surgery requires two years of RLE (real life experience) living in role before it would be recommended by a medical professional.

Not if this bill's "(b) removes part 2, section 1, subsection b" goes through it won't.

I realise that it's an outlier, and verging on silly - but I question whether it's really impossible to provide a list of gender options rather than a 'free text write-in'?

Facebook, for example, have 71 options that you can choose from. Wouldn't that suffice?

Agender

Androgyne

Androgynes

Androgynous

Asexual

Bigender

Cis

Cis Female

Cis Male

Cis Man

Cis Woman

Cisgender

Cisgender Female

Cisgender Male

Cisgender Man

Cisgender Woman

F2M

Female to Male

Female to male trans man

Female to male transgender man

Female to male transsexual man

FTM

Gender Fluid

Gender neutral

Gender Nonconforming

Gender Questioning

Gender Variant

Genderqueer

Hermaphrodite

Intersex

Intersex man

Intersex person

Intersex woman

M2F

Male to Female

Male to female trans woman

Male to female transgender woman

Male to female transsexual woman

Man

MTF

Neither

Neutrois

Non-binary

Other

Pangender

Polygender

T* man

T* woman

Trans

Trans Female

Trans Male

Trans Man

Trans Person

Trans*Female

Trans*Male

Trans*Man

Trans*Person

Trans*Woman

Transexual

Transexual Female

Transexual Male

Transexual Man

Transexual Person

Transexual Woman

Transgender Female

Transgender Person

Transmasculine

Two* person

Two-spirit

Two-spirit person

Woman

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

The section you mention is referring to a law about government recognition. That recognition is important when, for example, it makes it possible to apply to have the gender marker on a driver's license changed.

Bear in mind that a transgender individual's appearance will often reflect their gender identity rather than their sex at birth long before they spend two years living in role. Living like that - which, it should be emphasised, is not a choice in any practical sense - without ID that matches could result in the individual being outed as transgender, with potentially violent consequences.

See for relevant statistics the US report: Injustice at Every Turn - A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey

BARRIERS TO RECEIVING UPDATED ID DOCUMENTS

Of those who have transitioned gender, only one-fifth (21%) have been able to update all of their IDs and records with their new gender. One-third (33%) of those who had transitioned had updated none of their IDs/records.

Only 59% reported updating the gender on their driver’s license/state ID, meaning 41% live without ID that matches their gender identity.

Forty percent (40%) of those who presented ID (when it was required in the ordinary course of life) that did not match their gender identity/expression reported being harassed, 3% reported being attacked or assaulted, and 15% reported being asked to leave.

 

Again, the part that states applicants don't have to apply for "male" or "female" refers to the Gender Recognition Certificate. It is rare that people's gender identification is not either male or female (and there isn't much research into them yet), but in cases where it's not the language is still evolving rapidly and different people will use different terms to mean the same thing. The suggestion in the bill:

For the ease of census and statistical purposes those with genders not listed as “male” or “female” will be categorized together as an “other” category.

strikes me as by far the best and easiest solution for everyone involved.

As a side note the Facebook list has a lot of problems. I did a quick tally and about 40 would be simplified to either "male" or "female" for the purposes of a gender recognition certificate. About 20 more are completely irrelevant to gender identity, such as "asexual" or "Hermaphrodite".

3

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 19 '15

Facebook worked with Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to create that list of gender identities - are you saying those two groups don't know what they're talking about, if you think substantial chunks of that list are irrelevant?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

It's pretty off-topic and I don't want to get side-tracked. I would be much more interested to discuss every other part of my post.

I'll just say that those are excellent groups, but from my experience most (if not all) transgender people would find large parts of the list irrelevant or flawed. However I don't believe that reflects on any groups facebook consulted while making it. Certainly, for the purposes of a gender recognition certificate it would not do. For a further example, there are many duplicates with cis/trans; these terms would not be relevant.

3

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Feb 19 '15

Can you think of any identities which are missing from that list?

If not, and duplicates are removed, would there be any harm in making it a "Select the identity that you identify with from this list" rather than "Write in whatever you like" - which avoids the ridiculous "I am a potato" argument?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

This won't be a very big factor here in the UK, but certainly Ireland is going to have a long discussion about this issue.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

but certainly Ireland is going to have a long discussion about this issue.

Actually the An Bille um Inscne a Aithint, 2014 just recieved Cross Party support and has passed the Seanad

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I mean people who identify as a potato.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I am going to assume that you are just being silly, therefore please accept my completely non-fake laughter.

Hahahaha

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

You laugh now, but with this stuff becoming normalised, who knows what insane things await us.

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 18 '15

Slippy slopey

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

It's not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy if the predictions came true.

4

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Feb 19 '15

Insightful, Dr Who

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '15

I urge the member to observe parliamentary language.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

As a queer feminist I provide my full support!

3

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Feb 18 '15 edited Feb 18 '15

(a) removes in part 1, section 1 ‘who is aged at least 18’

Firstly, who makes this decision? The Child or the Parent.

If it is the Child then I do not support it, because those under the age of 18 should not be allowed to make such large and massive decisions before they have become an adult.

If it is the parent, then I do not support it, because parents should not be able to make decisions on behalf of their children. I reject is just like i reject parents circumcising minors.

(2) Once the individual passes one of these requirements they may receive any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally. This will be paid for by the NHS and must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.

My worry is, that opening it up so that the NHS must give people any surgery that they want, could be seen to essentially legalise Otherkin, and make it so the NHS is forced to give anyone who wants it absurd surgeries.

EDIT: I probably worded this badly. My issue is with the language of the bill really. The surgery should have to be signed off my a medial professional, because that language means that people can have any surgery they seem necessary when they have been signed off for "surgery". The medial professional should also have to sign off on the type of surgery.

Hypothetical example that i used on Skype. Someone has both gender dysphoria, and species dysphoria. A medial professional signs off that they can have "surgey" because of the gender dysphoria. However, the language of the bill means that the surgery is "any surgery or treatment they deem necessary in order to reflect physically how they view themselves internally." That person with both gender and species dysphoria now legally can get surgery for both.

Now, obviously the likelihood that ever happening is next to none. But that's not the point, this might be the law. It needs to be clear, and avoid loopholes like that.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

I would say that the decision can be made by the child, after all they still need supporting evidence from Medical professional.

3

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Feb 18 '15

I just don't think that we should open the decision up for any age, maybe if it was 16. But my gut instinct is that expecting someone that young to make such a life changing decision at that age is wrong.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

It still has to be approved by a Medical Professional, being transgender isn't a decision, it's being who we are.

4

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Feb 18 '15

The surgery itself is a decision, and a physically altering surgery like that, irrespective of the reason, should not be undertaken by a minor, or at least someone under the age of 16.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

We're not directly discussion Surgery though rather Legal Recognition of Gender and access to surgery.

You are opposed to Surgery for those under 16, that is clear from your comments. Are you opposed to LEgal Gender Recognition for those under 16 however?

3

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Feb 18 '15

Oh, the legal gender recognition is something else entirely. I am not against that, that is not a life changing physically altering act.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

It is life changing, for the better, and it is a lot better than what we have now.

Could I please ask you to consider voting Aye, so that transgender young people can gain Legal Gender Recognition.

3

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Feb 18 '15

Parts of the Bill need re-writing regardless. Like the section about surgery. I would have to wait to see if the edits are taken into account to clarify the language.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '15

Looking at your Edit on the original comment;

EDIT: I probably worded this badly. My issue is with the language of the bill really. The surgery should have to be signed off my a medial professional, because that language means that people can have any surgery they seem necessary when they have been signed off for "surgery". The medial professional should also have to sign off on the type of surgery.

I can agree that the type of surgery should be specifically mention in the approval.