Skip to content or view screen version

GenderRecognitionAct 2004 - Holes & Poles and all things to all men

Pandora | 06.01.2006 12:59 | Analysis | Gender | Social Struggles

Commentary on the Gender Recognition Act …and why it fails us.

GRA 2004 - Holes & Poles and all things to all men (Pandora)
Commentary on the Gender Recognition Act …and why it fails us.


The long awaited UK Gender Recognition Act has been in existence for over a year now and we are beginning to see how this legislation affects transsexual men and women. It’s time to ask: Does it provide the much needed reforms in equality for those it was intended for? It's also an opportunity to take a look at what has changed, good or bad.
First off, writing as a woman born transsexual, is the Gender Recognition Act legislation going to make much difference to transsexual people like me in practical everyday terms? No it's not, and the fact that a certificate recognising your gender exists in the first place, and you may have to show it at some point defeats the whole purpose, does it not? Neither my mother nor my sister has a gender recognition certificate! So, we as transsexual women are immediately singled out as different. The basic premise of the legislation has gender apartheid at its core. It spells out there are men, women and transsexuals. We have become a third rate third gender category unequal to the others in terms of privacy, marriage, religion, sport and other areas, inc. equality in the provision of goods & services.
This is surely not what the European Court of Human Rights intended when they instructed the UK government to provide us with recognition of our gender and equality with other women. But there is a reason behind this insidious creation of a third gender, some of us 'gender recognised women' will indeed be different. Some of us will have not actually have undergone surgery and will be physically male. This is the glaring fundamental flaw in the whole Act; there is no surgery requirement. But more of that later.


The passport and/or driving licence we could obtain already were just as useful as what the GRA gives us. But, the GRA also has the frightening drawback of requiring transsexual people to be *registered* on the transsexual register. That's scary! Why this third gender category? Do we have official forms that give you the option of ticking the male, female or TS box? I know that this register is at present not going to be available to public viewing. But, what of the future? Who's to say what box you will be required to tick ten years from now, depending on which flavour of government is in charge? The registered transsexual box maybe. ... Alongside the registered paedophile box and the registered drug addict box? We know all too well how Governments tend to try to erode the citizen’s privacy in the name of security, efficiency, etc. This legislation could unfortunately be used to make us a more easily identifiable target group for extremists. Now we are all supposed to be registered we are much easier to find as a group. And what of those who dislike the idea of being registered, will they in future be denied medical treatment, passports and even protection of the law?


This legislation was supposed to be in response to transsexual peoples right to privacy among other things. But, what privacy have we gained from this legislation? None, from the Government offices, armed forces, churches, police, prison service, education establishments, etc. These are just some of the bodies that will have access to our status. And let’s be blunt; thanks to the clause that states surgical correction of genitals is not a requirement for gender recognition, we are to be registered as the women who can possibly have a penis and the men who can perhaps have babies! What on earth will the public think of that one when they fully understand it?
There are also employment issues to be considered. Employers in the future are going to become very much aware of the kind of people who are possibly in possession of a GRC. To avoid any unpleasantness they may find it easier to disregard all GRC holders when they apply for a job. After all, who needs the hassle of employing some gender-recognised woman who may have a functioning penis? That could be a source of hassle and unrest from other employees, especially in child sensitive employment areas. Would it not have been more practical for the government to simply change the existing records on completion of surgery and not have any special certificates or registers? I mean, to most ordinary folk transsexuals are exotic enough, but to add to the confusion and misunderstanding about us we are going to ask them to accept us in our legally recognised gender, but still give no guarantees about what’s lurking in our pants!


The GRA is too complicated, and too many opt outs are allowed. Take the penal system, the Prison Service have a right to exercise exemption to the GRA when it comes to what prison a transsexual person may be sent to in future. As it stands the GRA means nothing to them. This is entirely due to the ‘no surgical requirement’ clause prior to official recognition. If you allow a transwoman who has a penis to gain a GRC's (and we know some have already) then of what use are the certificates in practical terms, and what signal does this they send out about all of us?
It’s a mess even when it comes to the area of marriage, another of the supposed reasons for the legislation in the first place. Churches have been allowed to opt out when it comes to our right to privacy and in providing church weddings to transsexual people. Is that equality? What uproar there would be if churches took it upon themselves to discriminate against another section of the population born with a medical condition, like…blind people for example? Again we see the gender apartheid, we are to be treated differently, and it's enshrined in law that it's ok to do that.


It could have been so much better. The UK Government was under a legal obligation to provide a solution to a long-standing problem. But instead of getting a simple surgery based solution everyone would have understood and vast majority of the public and transsexual people would have accepted, PFC and the Government cobbled together an unwieldy piece of legislation that is unsatisfactory to most and will no doubt have to be revisited again and revised. I think it was a wasted opportunity after all these years of campaigning.


But, why have we ended up with such an Act that is unworkable and unfavourable to transwomen in particular? There was an opportunity to literally have a simple 'cut off' point where you qualified for recognition as female, post genital reconstruction surgery. Well, it seems likely the Government chose to appease the non-op transmen by not having any surgical requirement. There are relatively few transmen in the transsexual population as a whole, but they are disproportionately more vocal in their demands. But, sadly I believe the Act will eventually prove unsatisfactory to transmen too. The F to M’s will eventually pay a price for insisting on the non-op clause because they missed a trick here. It is a fact their surgery is more complicated and expensive than M to F’s surgery, and I think one of the reasons the Gov agreed with the transmen and took this non op option was because they were worried about the financial implications of treating those pre op transmen on the very slow NHS waiting lists. What if they were denied recognition because of non-op status and sued or went back to the European courts? The GRA could have been a very powerful encouragement to force the Government to provide proper funding and treatment for all transsexual people on the NHS if it had been based on a surgical requirement to qualify for recognition, another opportunity wasted. This has devalued the whole Act for everyone.


Another important point. Here in the UK, because we won't have the simple binary definition in the Act of: man = penis, woman = no penis. All transsexual people, whether pre or post op, with or without a certificate, will be treated as 'transsexuals' rather than men or women. This could affect not only our social status here, but also our legal status abroad. What if a UK transwoman were to marry a male United States citizen for example? Will our marriages be recognised by the U.S authorities that in recent years have been very homophobic? It's a valid question, especially if a gender-recognised woman from the UK may still have a penis! The U.S conditions of legal recognition like most other countries demand a surgical commitment. We are out of step with other countries that have recognised transsexual’s gender.


It was said during the formation of the GR Act, that to define gender by surgery would be unfair on some individuals (non ops, cant have ops, can't afford ops). But for the benefit of the majority you have to have a workable solution that satisfies most of us and makes sense to the public. Sadly in an effort to make it seem equal the Government have actually created a new gender category - Transgender. This, in my view, makes it unfair to everyone. And is the least satisfactory solution. Much as some of us may hate it we have to be realistic, society in general defines people by their sexual organs. In fact we as transsexuals do as well to some extent otherwise none of us would feel the need for surgery at all.
But getting back to ‘the public’ and after all it is the public as well as the law we want to recognise our gender. If you asked most non-trans folk whether they agree that transsexual people should be allowed to legally change their gender on all paperwork and in law, the overwhelming majority would say yes. If you then ask them if that should still apply whether they have had surgery or not? It's a different story! I know this because I've asked.
The fact is most non-trans folk who are aware of the legislation in the UK; assume it only applies to post ops. When people become generally aware in the coming years that this isn't the case, it may well bring down on all of us a brand new wave of discrimination. I know there is no perfect solution but this one we got with the GRA is the least favourable to most of us. I think it was a wasted opportunity.


Comments on this article are invited and will be posted (if requested) on a linked page. Permission to reproduce this article or any part of it can be had by emailing  TranssexualCured@aol.com Please ask first and make sure the link to the original source is maintained, thank you, (Pandora)

Pandora
- e-mail: transsexualcured@aol.com
- Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/transsexualcured/index.html

Comments