Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

Labour will make it easier to change gender and is considering allowing a single family doctor to sign off on the decision under plans to “simplify” the process.

The party is considering how to make the legally binding certificate easier to obtain while still having guardrails to prevent mirroring controversial ­proposals in Scotland that would have ­removed doctors from the process ­altogether.

The plans include ditching a panel of doctors and lawyers that approve ­gender recognition certificates, the document allowing transgender people to have their affirmed gender legally recognised, and only requiring one doctor to be involved in the process.

The Times understands that one option under consideration is that the doctor could be a GP. Labour would ­also ­remove the ability of a spouse to object to the change. A source said the party wanted to make the process “less medicalised” but added that the plans would retain the involvement of a doctor and would not allow people to self-identify in order to obtain legal changes.

They said it had not yet been decided whether the medical professional would be a GP or a gender specialist, with the issue likely to go to consultation if the party wins the next election.

The discussions centre on concerns that if the single doctor was a specialist, a GP would still need to make the ­referral, therefore retaining the two-step process that Labour wants to drop.

There were also questions over ­whether GPs were qualified or had the capacity to make the decision. The Royal College of GPs said its ­members were already working under “considerable pressure”.

…

Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said she would be concerned about “shifting sole responsibility for signing gender recognition certificates to GPs”.

She said while the college supported improving care for patients with gender dysphoria “including tackling the long waits they face for treatment and ­services”, she added: “For most GPs, detailed management of gender dysphoria is outside of our area of expertise.”

Archive

sneak100,

with the amount of lying labour has done recently, I won’t believe it til I see it

ShimmeringKoi,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

I welcome the dehumanizing process put in place by our colleagues, but I encourage it to go further by being more efficient, streamlined, and capable of dehumanizing many more people on any given day

I didn’t read the article I just wanted to to a Keir

SharkEatingBreakfast,
@SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz avatar

This is wonderful!

A friend of mine is from Europe and frustratedly told me “imagine having to be diagnosed as ‘gender’.” I could not.

Trans folk have to put up with so much horseshit for just trying to exist.

adam_y,
@adam_y@lemmy.world avatar

Would be great if they could make it so that people could, y’know, get actual appointments with GPs too.

GreatAlbatross,
@GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk avatar

Why not both?

adam_y,
@adam_y@lemmy.world avatar

That’s why I ended my statement with “too”. It implicitly means both.

mannycalavera,
@mannycalavera@feddit.uk avatar

Labour would ­also ­remove the ability of a spouse to object to the change.

Wait, what? They can object at the moment? That doesn’t sound right. I understand they might like the change but does this suggest they’d be able to force their spouse to live as someone they’re not comfortable with living as? Surely just get a divorce if you feel that strongly against it.

HumanPenguin, (edited )
@HumanPenguin@feddit.uk avatar

Agreed. I had no idea. But then I’ve never actually been involved with anyone going through this.

But the whole idea is basically slavery. Sure I can understand. ( and honestly as a raging hetro, would likely feel it myself). If you married a set sex and are attracted to that sex. The person your with changing that. Would really feel disturbing.

But the idea i could actually prevent a partner is insane. It is basically returning to a time were men owned the wife. IE Mrs as in the property of Mr.

The one savior. Divorce is relatively easy. But still requires fault or long separation.

I don’t know the facts. But if a court refuses to see refusing a gender change as a fault to force a divorce. Then I can see trans partners having to live years separated from their spose to force a divorce to allow a change. So basically forced to live how the spose insists gender wise. For years weather they remain involved or not.

Under no circumstances should it be acceptable. For one human being to have that much control over the body of another non consenting human.

Its basically returning to the ideals where rape within marriage did not exist.

flamingos,
@flamingos@feddit.uk avatar

Given how shitty some GPs can be when referring you to a GIC, I’d prefer for GPs not to be involved at all.

HumanPenguin,
@HumanPenguin@feddit.uk avatar

Seems more logical to increase rather then reduce options.

Its crap because of lack of GPS atm. But you always have a right to see a second gp. Or change your GP.

So surely even if you have a prejudiced GP. Thay are not all that way. Also historically laws change procedures. Little comparative history.

Back in the 60s it was illegal to give the birth control pill to non married women. And lots and lots of GPS were very vocal about that being correct. With some being anti pill in general.

But when the law changed. The fact that people had the right ment few GPs refused. Because why bother to fight a losing battle. And the ones that did changed over a few years.

Basically even with religious objections. Once the NHS guidance changes. GPS and doctors tend to adapt even if slowly in limited cases.

flamingos,
@flamingos@feddit.uk avatar

I’m sure things will get better with time, but that doesn’t change the fact things suck now. GPs don’t need to tell you no to be obstinate. Unlike birth control where they have to hand you something, they can conviently ‘forget’ to file a form, putting you on the run about for weeks, potentially months.

I also don’t see why a doctor needs to be involved with this at all. It’s not like changing your legal gender is a medical procedure. It’s annoying that Labour walked back on self-ID because they wanted to avoid looking too ‘lax’ on trans people when the Scottish government tried to introduce it.

HumanPenguin,
@HumanPenguin@feddit.uk avatar

No expert here. But in most situations. It is impossible to see any specialist. Without a GP or ER etc for situations that have resulted in an emergency or hospital visit of some form.

The NHS has never had the option to see a consultant. Without a more genral doctors recommendation.

So this is not suggesting labour would just add GPS to the process. They are already there and able to do as you suggest. Although you have the right to see the data and file formal complaints if the were being obstinate.

What they are suggesting is allowing GP to start the process with out needing the multi member board to validate the patients need.

So given the numbers. A few prejudiced GPs is still a much much greater list of people you can turn to, most of them following the guidance. Then the current methods that currently still allows some GPS to be arseholes.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • uk_politics@feddit.uk
  • DreamBathrooms
  • everett
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Durango
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tacticalgear
  • JUstTest
  • osvaldo12
  • tester
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •