Talk:Gender Recognition Act 2004/Archive 1

Untitled
This article needs an editing pass to change it from speaking of a Bill to speaking of an Act. It should also be renamed "Gender Recognition Act 2004". 195.167.169.36 14:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note; how is it now?
 * James F. (talk) 16:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gender Recognition Certificate vs Birth Certificate, Privacy Implications, and ammendments via a Statutory Order
Howdo.

Nicely written article. :) A few points that may be worth considering...

Firstly; I think there may be an error in the description of the Gender Recognition Certificate vs birth certificates? As far as I can tell the Gender Recognition Certificate itself not itself really an equivalent of a Birth Certificate and as such not actually "indistinguishable from a birth certificate" at all?

However, if you have such a full gender recognition certificate and your birth was registered in the UK, then the relevant Registrar General will add an entry to the Gender Recognition Register. In the same way that a regular birth certificate is a certified copy of an entry on a birth register, similarly a certified copy of an entry from the Gender Reconition Register can be issued, and it is these alternative birth certificates issued from the Gender Recognition Register that are actually indistinguishable from any other birth certificates (at least, they are now after some changes to procedure as I think originally the date of birth on these certificates was being given as the date of entry on the Gender Recognition Register rather than the original date of birth, this has been correct now though.)

For a plain-English but fairly authorititive source of info see-

Gender Recognition Panel's "Explanatory Leaflet – A Guide for Users" http://www.grp.gov.uk/forms/explanatory_leaflet_05.pdf

"5.3 What the panel does

..

- For applicants whose births were registered in the UK, the panel will send a copy of the full Gender Recognition Certificate to the relevant Registrar General as soon as it is issued.

...

5.4 What the Registrar General does

...

- On receipt of your confirmation that the draft contains the correct information, together with any additional registration details you have supplied, the Registrar General will create a new record in the Gender Recognition Register. Your current contact details will not be recorded in the register.

- A free short birth certificate will be sent to you by post together with any additional full birth certificates you have purchased. Information about purchasing a new Birth Certificate will be sent to you with the draft entry.

- Your original birth record will remain in existance and you can obtain original birth certificates at any time. However, it will not be apparent that these have been taken from that Register.

... "

Or for the really authoratitive source... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40007--f.htm#sch3

" Certified copies of entries in Gender Recognition Register

5    (1) Anyone who may have a certified copy of the UK birth register entry of a person issued with a full gender recognition certificate may have a certified copy of the entry made in relation to the person in the Gender Recognition Register. ...

(4) A certified copy of an entry in the Gender Recognition Register must not disclose the fact that the entry is contained in the Gender Recognition Register.

...

Short certificates of birth compiled from Gender Recognition Register 6    Where a short certificate of birth under section 33 of the 1953 Act is compiled from the Gender Recognition Register, the certificate must not disclose that fact. "

Secondly, might it not be worth giving some mention to the fairly substantial privacy rights/obligations that go with the awarding of a gender recognition certificate?

In particular Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act indicates that people in an organisation who are presented with someone's Gender Recognition Certificate in an offical capacity are oblidged (with certain exceptions) NOT to disclose this 'protected information'. Here 'protected information' means the knowledge aquired in an official capacity about the existance of this person's gender recognition certificate and their previous gender. In fact a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £5000. Subsequent to the Gender Recognition Act, the "Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2005" allows for more cases in which the this 'protected information' may be legally disclosed. At this time, it would seem many organisations have yet to update or implement any appropriate policies, leaving them potentially wide open for legal action from any particularly litigious individuals.

Thirdly, a small grammatical point, the enterim period until the 3rd October 2005 whereby only people who have transitioned more than six years ago may apply for a certificate has now passed. May be worth changing the tense of this sentence?

Lastly, as there's a link to the act of the Gender Recognition Act, perhaps add a link to the text of the The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) Order 2005 which ammends it in some important areas relating to privacy? http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050916.htm

[Hope I've got all this right, this is my first comment on an article on wikipedia -- sorry if I've done something wrong!]

Gentheanon 03:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

GRA(2004) birth certs.
Someone wrote: A Birth Certificate drawn from the Gender Recognition Register is indistinguishable from any other birth certificate, and will indicate the new legal gender and name.

However - indistinguishable - is disputed, it is proposed that, on the contrary, they are readily distinguishable to people who know what to look for.

Also, someone wrote: Thirdly, a small grammatical point, the enterim period until the 3rd October 2005 whereby only people who have transitioned more than six years ago may apply for a certificate has now passed. May be worth changing the tense of this sentence?

But - the period for fast track (6 year rules) applications ends on 3rd April 2007.

Civil partnership - going the other way?
If I read this right, the law allows a married couple to become civil partners after recognition. Is it possible to go the other way -ie if one of a legally same-sex couple changes their legal gender, can they then marry? 81.153.111.37 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Yes.

Language
For some unknown reason, and for a second time, giving no rationale, somebody has chosen to americanize the language of the article. This stands against Wikipedia Manual of Style points 14.9.1 through 14.9.3. The article belongs in it's already consistant and original British English, being an article on an Act of parliament (ie British statutory law,) of greatest relevance to Britons.

Please refrain from further unwarranted and unnessecary conversions to the American national dialect against the recommendations of the WP:MOS. It may only be a guideline, but it's one that needs concensus, and thust needs a pretty convincing argument to go against it, other than "I think it should be American". Crimsone (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits
I have had a go at editing this article, to do three things:


 * 1. Add further detail to the 'Legislative progress' section, including fully referenced details of support and opposition from (and within) the various parties.
 * 2. Break the 'Legislative progress' section up into three sections - Background (dealing with the previous legal rulings), Legislative progress and Concerns regarding Marriages and Civil Partnerships. That way each issue can get the attention it deserves, rather than being lost in one long section.
 * 3. Make the 'Concerns regarding Marriages and Civil Partnerships' section conform to WP:NPOV without losing too much well-researched material in the process. As much as I agree with the objections to the Act detailed here, the article must be written from a neutral point of view. A lot more work still needs to be done on this.

I would also like to replace the bare Hansard references with hyperlinked ones usimg the citeweb tool. I may return to this later. Alboran (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Usage of "transgender" or simply "trans" over "transsexual"
Many trans people consider the term "transsexual" to be medicalising and inappropriate in most contexts, and favour "transgender" as the word used for them (or just "trans", for short). The article also flip-flops between "transsexual" and "transgender":

"The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people to apply to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)."

"Although the Civil Partnership Act 2004 allows the creation of civil partnerships between same sex couples, a married couple that includes a transgender partner cannot simply re-register their new status."

Personally I would be in favour of changing all references of "transsexual" to "transgender", however I'd appreciate other people's input. --Skrubbadubdub (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I know a few trans people still use the term, but it seems very dated to me and I think it's dying out in favor of "transgender" and "trans". I would argue for changing all "transsexual" and "transgender" to simply "trans". Possibly include "transgender" once in the lede for clarity. --Wickedterrier (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this has been discussed before, on a different page. Anyway, the Act does not use the term "transgender" at all, and uses "transsexual" only once, in the form of the word "transsexualism" in Section 25. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)