The UK government enacts section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to prevent the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
The Bill’s reforms remain the Scottish Government’s policy.
The Scottish Government passes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which would enable individuals in Scotland to legally change their gender without the current requirement for applicants to provide medical evidence of their diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and would extend the new system of self-identification to 16 and 17-year-olds for the first time.
The Women and Equalities parliamentary Committee publishes a further report examining the gender recognition process. The report highlights the government’s failure to implement the committee’s earlier reform proposals.
In response to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the government concludes that the current provisions allow for those that wish to legally change their sex to do so, and it will not be changing the GRA requirements. However, it will introduce improvements to the process and experience of transgender applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The application fee is to be reduced to a nominal one and the process of application will be moved online. Also, government guidance on the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 will not change.
In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Limited, the Birmingham employment tribunal finds that non-binary and gender-fluid individuals are included in the Equality Act definition of gender reassignment.
In the case of TT, R v The Registrar General for England and Wales, the president of the high court’s family division rules that a transman who gave birth to his child, is correctly registered as “mother” on his child’s birth certificate.
In the case of MB V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS, the European Court of Justice holds that the UK requirement for trans persons to be unmarried to qualify for a state pension at the retirement age of their current gender, violates EU law.
The Government Equalities Office launches a consultation on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It concludes that “for many trans people, and organisations that support trans people [...] the legal recognition process is no longer delivering.”
In the case of Souza v. Primark Stores Ltd, a trans woman brings claims of discrimination against her employer. The Employment tribunal rules that Primark has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination against Ms de Souza and she is awarded compensation.
The House of Commons ‘Women and Equalities Committee’ publishes The Transgender Equality report noting that “across the board, government departments are struggling to support trans people effectively” and makes 30 recommendations including: urgently updating the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to enable gender self-declaration, amending the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 to that of “gender identity”, and creating a legal category for those people with a gender identity outside that which is binary.
In the case of Grant v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights holds that denying a transgender woman her state pension at the age of 60 amounted to a violation of her right to respect for private life and contrary under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights.
The Gender Recognition Act is passed allowing trans people to apply for legal recognition in their acquired gender.
The 2004 Act allowed for trans people to apply to a Gender Recognition Panel to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). If granted, a GRC entitles the applicant to “all the rights appropriate to a person of your acquired gender”.
Anybody who wants to obtain a GRC must meet four specific conditions: applicants have to be 18 or over, they have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they need to prove that they have lived in the ‘new’ gender for two years prior to the application, and lastly, they need to swear that they will remain in that gender for the rest of their lives.
The House of Lords upholds the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Bellinger v. Bellinger. But for the first time, the House of Lords makes a declaration to the effect that U.K. law on marriage is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and hands the matter back to Parliament for review.
In the case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously upholds allegations of violations of Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR in respect of the UK’s failure to recognise the legal status of trans people in the spheres of employment, social security, pensions, and marriage.
In the case of Bellinger v. Bellinger, a trans woman unsuccessfully appeals against the refusal of the High Court to grant her a declaration that her marriage to Mr Bellinger is valid.
In the case of North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D and G, the Court rules in favour of the three transgender women, calling the health authority’s decision not to fund gender reassignment surgery unlawful and irrational.
The Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations extend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to cover discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment in employment and vocational training.
At no other point in human history have the definitions of "woman" and "man," "male" and "female," "masculine" and "feminine," been more contentious than now. This book advances a pragmatic approach to the act of defining that acknowledges the important ethical dimensions of our definitional practices.
Increased transgender rights and visibility has been met with increased opposition, controversy, and even violence. Who should have the power to define the meanings of sex and gender? What values and interests are advanced by competing definitions? Should an all-boys’ college or high school allow transgender boys to apply? Should transgender women be allowed to use the women’s bathroom? How has growing recognition of intersex conditions challenged our definitions of sex/gender? In this timely intervention, Edward Schiappa examines the key sites of debate including schools, bathrooms, the military, sports, prisons, and feminism, drawing attention to the political, practical, and ethical dimensions of the act of defining itself.
This book maps various national legal responses to gender mobility, including sex and name registration, access to gender modification interventions, and anti-discrimination protection (or lack thereof) and regulations. The importance of the underlying legislation and history is underlined in order to understand the law’s functions concerning discrimination, exclusion, and violence, as well as the problematic nature of introducing biology into the regulation of human relations, and using it to justify pain and suffering. The respective chapters also highlight how various governmental authorities, as well as civil society, have been integral in fostering or impeding the welfare of trans persons, from judges and legislators, to medical commissions and law students.
A collective effort of scholars scattered around the globe, this book recognizes the international trend toward self-determination in sex classification and a generous guarantee of rights for individuals expressing diverse gender identities. The book advocates the dissemination of a model for the protection of rights that not only focuses on formal equality, but also addresses the administrative obstacles that trans persons face in their daily lives. In addition, it underscores the importance of courts in either advancing or obstructing the realization of individual rights.
