So this isn't true then>:-
So you don't need a GRC to be Trans, nor a diagnosis. So if you decide to be Martha and not Arthur, the logical conclusion is that you can, and should be recognised as such.
Liberty human rights agrees:
I cannot find any contradiction between that and what I've said.
Self ID as proposed in Scotland and, under the May government for rest of UK too, is purely and narrowly about the mechanics of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The main purpose of a GRC is so that one can:
(a) have birth certificate showing one's adopted gender and then;
(b) marry someone of what is then one's opposite sex;
(c) have one's death certified in your adopted gender.
There are a few other issues to do with pensions and such like but they're in the private domain; they've no real relevance to anyone else except immediate relatives etc.
The current law, per the Gender Recognition Act, is no longer in step with medical understanding of the issues facing trans people. That's why it need changing.
What Liberty say is right. Shock horror but self ID for practical purposes has been around for decades. Perhaps even over a century.
If our notional Arthur/Martha persona behaves modestly and discreetly as Martha using the female loos and changing areas and otherwise 'looking the part' most of us probably wouldn't notice.
Arthur on the other hand, doing the opposite in the female spaces, peeping under doors and waving his willy around for all to see is committing offences.
