Written evidence submitted by Mr Nathan Hutchinson (GRA0281)
While the proposed changes are a large step in the write direction it is my belief that the reform could do more for trans and nonbinary people, firstly while simplifying the process and allowing for online application will make it significantly easier for applicants having no other method (ie mail in forms) may prove prohibitive to people of lower income, in the same vein a reduction of the fee is a good first step but removing it all together would ensure the maximum amount of people have access to a GRC.
The continuing need for medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not only prohibitive to many but can also be a deeply humiliating and invalidating experience for many trans folk, not to mention that not all trans/ nonbinary folk experience gender dysphoria and this fact should not be a prohibiting factor for obtaining legal recognition or medical transition. The current need for proof that an individual has lived as their gender for 2 years is not only prohibitive to those in a place where they are not able to do so, for instance passports and drivers licences do not have non binary gender options, but also potentially dangerous to the safety and lives of individuals who may face discrimination by peers, work and family, up to and including physical violence.
The current need for a statutory declaration in an unnecessary step that ignores that people’s identities can and do change, whether this is because new information comes to light or the person comes to a identity that better represents themselves.
The need for spousal consent is a gross breach of personal freedom, while a spouse/ civil partner is not uninvolved in the life of the person applying for a GRC the idea that they should have a say in whether or not said person can live their life in a way that they identify is ridiculous.
While I stand by my criticisms it is worth noting that the reform is still a huge step forward for the rights and protections of trans persons. It seems however that the Scottish government’s proposed bill far more clearly and thoroughly changes the act with clearer goals, however it to fails to extend the certificate to non-binary individuals.
Section 2
It seems that the low number of trans people applying for the certificate is an indication that the current requirements are at least seen as prohibitive. I see that there could be potential issues with the current language in both the gender recognition act and the equality act 2010 that may pose a challenge to trans individuals, in particular the seeming emphasis on medical transition may be prohibitive to those who feel no real immediate need for medical steps in their transition. Allowing single sex/ separate sex space to exclude trans folk based on birth sex not only prohibits many people from those services who need them but also opens these spaces to people who would be unwelcome/ uncomfortable within these spaces.
Finally, I would reiterate that it is imperative for these protections and the GRC be extended to those individuals who do not identify withing the gender binary, to fail to do so would be a declaration to these people that their government, their country does not recognise their right to live in a way that aligns with their identity.