The @Lawscot comments on GRA reform are a bit like Lisa Nandy
They talk about waiting times for healthcare attention, and then say that GRA should be reformed because it is "too medicalised" and it "does not properly take account of the emotional consequences of the procedure"
They talk about waiting times for healthcare attention, and then say that GRA should be reformed because it is "too medicalised" and it "does not properly take account of the emotional consequences of the procedure"
As if removing the administrative requirement for medical & mental health attention removes the need for this for people who need it. Or that the emotional issues are to do w the piece of paper & not the dysphoria
(why are lawyers commenting on 'emotional consequences'? 🙄)
(why are lawyers commenting on 'emotional consequences'? 🙄)
They also say "some aspects of identity, such as driving licences & passports, are reserved matters [i.e. not devolved] If a person is to have a consistent gender identity these aspects require to be addressed."
Which is odd, since these things can already be changed w/out a GRC
Which is odd, since these things can already be changed w/out a GRC
Like everyone else they are a bit coy about the interaction with the Equality Act, saying 'a balance is struck'....
(this is the bit it where the lawyers informed and robust thinking is needed).
(this is the bit it where the lawyers informed and robust thinking is needed).
Is 'a balance struck'? (and what does that mean?)
Or is it more properly that the EqA allows single sex services & neither having a GRC nor the broader self identified category of 'gender reassignment' overrides sex in relation to other people's bodily privacy & consent.
Or is it more properly that the EqA allows single sex services & neither having a GRC nor the broader self identified category of 'gender reassignment' overrides sex in relation to other people's bodily privacy & consent.
