Forum » Gender Society Public Forums » UK Transgender Law » Uk Goverment discriminated agaisnt the Trandgendered

Uk Goverment discriminated agaisnt the Trandgendered

Tags : None
  • A transgender woman who was unable to access her pension was discriminated against by UK! Whatever next? A collection of complete Starngers that calls itself the GRC panal telling you how you feel?

    You coundnt make it up

    Want to know more?

    Read on


    So where does it leave us? Have those who have not/will not  been discriminated against for not applying for a grc?


    Does this now mean a GRC is not worth the paper its printed on?

    Is the expense of applying for a GRC refundable as you have done this because they told you you had to? but in reality it is just another piece of paper to add to your collection.

    Other than changing but another goverment oreintated piece of paper as in your birth certificate which in itself is still crown property and not owned by you has it any use in this day and age?


    Are we really free or just owned by the state?

    Boy or Girl? Who cares as long as im beautiful.
    This post was edited by Racheal Mills at June 27, 2018 9:49 AM BST
      June 27, 2018 9:47 AM BST
  • This report is so misleading,  She the complainant did not win, the CHR concluded it was a general sex discrimination against all men in general

    Because your birth certificate depicts your recognised gender in law, a fact true when registered,    If a person applies for a GRC when it's issued the birth certificate is then altered to reflect the new gender,  they are then entitled to their pension at an earlier age in line with a woman's right's, some transgendered married people do not wish to apply for a GRC because they are under the impression a divorce is required BUT under the 2010 marriage act revisions 2013 a person can apply for a new amended marriage certificate at the same time the new birth certificate is issued, with a change of gender, before one had to get an annulment or a divorce and then enter a civil type marriage, now it saves all that expense and heart ache of going through that process for those wishing to stay married.   When people start their transition, they should ensure that DWP and all agencies are informed, and original Change of name deed polls are sent.

    The definition of a legal original document (not a photo copy) so print of 10 or more copies, of the document get each one witnessed and signed then sign them all in front of the witness, now you have 10 original deed polls.   A person can't grumble if they don't want or can't be arsed to comply with a few simple lawful requirements.   Otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry will be taking advantage of the system,


    People go to the trouble of changing their gender on their passports, driving documents, bank accounts, bank accounts, doctors and medical records, to get the recognition the want , need, why not apply for the GRC to get the pension?


    Why do some people think this is discrimination,  Is having to pass a driving test, pay NI contributions, tax is that a form of general discrimination???? IF ANYTHING THE PENSION SYSTEM MEN  v WOMEN IS GENERALLY SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at October 27, 2019 7:30 PM GMT
      June 27, 2018 12:41 PM BST
  • Thats interesting! Do you mean Ammendments 68, 70 & 72 of the 2010 Marriage act which is only for those Married in Scotland? If not i would be grateful if you could post a link to the ammendments in English law as thats the only ammendment im aware of affecting this. I could be wrong hense i would like a link to it as im  sure many would have an interest including me Link here





    Boy or Girl? Who cares as long as im beautiful.
      June 27, 2018 9:08 PM BST



    The amendment to the 2010 marriage act, 2013, when applying for a GRC, by both parties signing a statutory declaration of mutual agreement to continue in the marriage a new status marriage certificate will be issued along with a new birth certificate. not to be confused with a civil partnership.

    Part 1 of Schedule 5 makes changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (the “Gender Recognition Act”). The Gender Recognition Act enables transsexual people to change their legal gender by applying for a gender recognition certificate under section 1 of that Act. The issue of a full gender recognition certificate enables recipients to be recognised for all legal purposes in their new gender (“the acquired gender”). Under the previous law, transsexual people who are married or in a civil partnership must end their marriage or civil partnership before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued. This is achieved by the Gender Recognition Panel issuing an interim gender recognition certificate to married applicants and applicants in civil partnerships, which causes the marriage or civil partnership to become voidable. Applicants then have six months from the date of issue of the interim gender recognition certificate to apply to the court to end their marriage or civil partnership. Once a marriage or civil partnership has been annulled (or a divorce or dissolution has occurred in Scotland) the court can issue a full gender recognition certificate.

    146.Part 1 of this Schedule amends the Gender Recognition Act to enable an existing marriage registered in England and Wales or outside the UK (“protected marriage” defined in paragraph 14 as a marriage under the law of England and Wales, or a marriage under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom) to continue where one or both parties change their legal gender and both parties wish to remain married. It also amends that Act to enable a civil partnership (“protected civil partnership” defined in paragraph 14 as a civil partnership under the law of England and Wales) to continue where both parties change their legal gender simultaneously and wish to remain in their civil partnership.

    147.Paragraph 2 inserts new subsections (6A), (6B) and (6C) which amend the evidence requirements in section 3 of the Gender Recognition Act. At present, section 3(6)(a) of that Act requires transsexual people who apply to the Gender Recognition Panel for a gender recognition certificate to submit a statutory declaration as to whether they are married or in a civil partnership. This enables the Gender Recognition Panel to determine whether to issue a full gender recognition certificate (for people who are not married or in a civil partnership) or an interim certificate (for people who are married or in a civil partnership).

    148.New subsection (6A) requires married applicants to include in their statutory declaration an additional declaration as to where their marriage was registered. This will enable the Gender Recognition Panel to determine whether the marriage is a protected marriage. Where the marriage is a protected marriage, new subsection (6B) requires an application to contain a declaration by the applicant’s spouse that he or she consents to the marriage continuing after the issue of a full gender recognition certificate (a “statutory declaration of consent”), or a statutory declaration by the applicant that his or her spouse has not made such a declaration. If the application contains a statutory declaration of consent by the applicant’s spouse, new subsection (6C) requires the Gender Recognition Panel to inform the spouse that an application has been made.

    149.Paragraph 3 replaces existing subsections (2) and (3) of section 4 of the Gender Recognition Act (which provides for the issue of interim and full gender recognition certificates following an application) and inserts new subsections (3A) and (3B) into that section. The effect of these amendments is to enable a full gender recognition certificate to be issued:  


    F311AChange in gender of party to marriage

    (1)This section applies in relation to a protected marriage if (by virtue of section 4(2)(b) or 4A) a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a party to the marriage.

    (2)The continuity of the protected marriage is not affected by the relevant change in gender.

    (3)If the protected marriage is a foreign marriage—

    (a)the continuity of the marriage continues by virtue of subsection (2) notwithstanding any impediment under the proper law of the marriage;


    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at June 30, 2018 10:40 PM BST
      June 27, 2018 9:48 PM BST
  • The ECJ found that the UK's marriage annulment condition (designed to avoid marriage between persons of the same sex) is "unrelated" to the retirement pension scheme.

    And so it concluded that UK legislation "constitutes direct discrimination based on sex''  and is therefore in breach of European law

    In my considered opinion, put simply this was not a win for the trangendered woman, as it stands legally she is still male, the win was against  discrimination regardig men in general, the emphasis of the judgement was discrimination based on sex under the equality and opportunities act.



    The EHRC ruling is rather confusing, stating that pensions are not related to the GRA, and that it is a gender issue, does that mean now that men can apply for their pension on the same terms that women get an earlier payment.    So throughout the EU it will cost billions.   Technically until someone is lawfully recognised in their new gender hence the GRP authorising the issue of a new birth certificate.   Until 2013 same sex marriage was not recognised, which in my considered opinion now means throughout the EU countries will have to amend their gender recognition acts, acts that at the time of introduction were ratified by the European Courts of Human rights.   Vatican City a separate state within the EU is exempt from complying in the main with various laws especially same sex marriage based on religious grounds,    As is The Irish republic, Spain and Portugal.    we have seen that some states have been forced to drop enforced medical procedures to qualify for a GRC, but the EU does not enforce those countries that have not dropped these procedures.

    Which basically means that someone in each member state will have to  take up issues with their own legal systems and then appeal to Strasbourg for a ruling, EU Human rights laws, are lacking continuance, once a judgement has been made an edict should be issued ordering all member states to amend and add to their own acts similar to our UK Judicial Precedent.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at October 27, 2019 7:52 PM GMT
      June 28, 2018 10:45 PM BST
  • Angharrad, thank you for the thank you, No further comments from Racheal, some times I think I am wasting my time here, someone initiating a thread, ask a question and then nothing.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at July 1, 2018 12:13 PM BST
      July 1, 2018 11:29 AM BST
  • Not wasted at all Cristine. Your insight is there for others to read as well. It will be interesting to see how whether the gender discrimination in GMP is upheld in the Lloyds case and if so, whether this ECJ ruling will be mentioned. Thanks again,
      July 1, 2018 9:32 PM BST
  •  An extract from the ruling and summation



    delivered on 5 December 2017(1)

    Case C‑451/16   

    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Refusal to award a State retirement pension at the age of 60 to a transgender person who has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment surgery — Conditions for recognition of gender reassignment — Condition related to the obligation to annul a previous marriage)

      EU law

    5.        According to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7:

    ‘The principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on ground of sex either directly, or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status, in particular as concerns:

    –        the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access thereto,

    –        the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions,

    –        the calculation of benefits including increases due in respect of a spouse and for dependants and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits.’

    6.        Article 7(1) of Directive 79/7 provides that:

    ‘This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to exclude from its scope:

    (a)      the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits;


    B.      UK law

    1.      Retirement age

    7.        The United Kingdom has made use of the derogation allowed by Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7.

    8.        As stated in the order for reference, the combined effect of (i) section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 with the definition of ‘pensionable age’ in section 122 of that act, and (ii) Schedule 4(1) of the Pensions Act 1995, is that women born before 6 April 1950 are eligible for a State retirement pension at the age of 60, whereas men born before 6 December 1953 become eligible at the age of 65. 

    B.      The narrow question

    30.      It is not disputed that the benefit at issue in this case, a State retirement pension, falls within the scope of Directive 79/7. That directive prohibits any discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex concerning the conditions of access to social security schemes providing protection, inter alia, against the risk of old age. (6)

    31.      Is there a prohibited discrimination in the present case? According to the standard line of case-law of this Court, (7) for there to be direct discrimination, there must be an unequal treatment of a comparable group of persons to the detriment of the protected group. This must occur on the basis of one of the protected grounds, without any possible objective justification for such a difference in treatment.

    32.      For presentational purposes, in this section, I first assess whether there is a protected ground (1). I shall then turn to the comparability of transgender (8) and cisgender(9) persons (2), and the existence of unequal treatment (3). I shall conclude this section by looking at the impossibility of justifying direct discrimination in the legislative context of Directive 79/7 (4).


    A coda

    101. I wish to add five concluding remarks.

    102. First, from the discussion in previous parts of this Opinion, it became (hopefully) clear that this case is not about same-sex marriage. As recalled above, according to the case-law of the Court, Member States remain free as to whether or not they wish to recognise same-sex marriages. The problem in this particular case is, simply put, that a number of various conditions, if bundled up together, end up creating a rather peculiar (and from the point of view of EU law, problematic) configuration.

    103. Second, the answer provided only affects the benefits covered by Directive 79/7. It only applies to benefits unrelated to marital status.

    104. Third, this case concerns a unique and singular reality, which fits with difficulty into the traditionally binary divisions on which the prohibition of sex discrimination relies. The circumstances of the case must be placed in that perspective. It concerns a rather limited number of individuals facing profound challenges often in situations of vulnerability. It has to do with a complex human reality with which individual legal orders have struggled to catch up over time, and in which individuals often see their personal situation profoundly affected by constant legislative changes.

    105. Fourth, at the cross-section between the first and third point is also the nature of the requirement in question. Much has been said in this Opinion about comparability. But that, at times rather technical, discussion should not obfuscate the profound impact that the necessity to have one’s marriage annulled, in order to be recognised in a new situation that was hardly of one’s free will and choice, is likely to have on one’s privacy and personality, already probably shaken as the consequence of those changes.

    106. Fifth and lastly, but perhaps for the future the most important, the difficult issues of the present case arise precisely because, in the particular field at hand, namely that of retirement pensions, a derogation from the equal treatment principle persists, according to Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7. This is not only exceptional because it entails derogation from one of the most fundamental principles of EU law, allowing for direct discrimination based on sex, but also because it had already been expected to progressively disappear 38 years ago, through the convergence of the retirement ages for men and woman.

    107. As the referring court has stated, in the United Kingdom, the retirement age for men and women will gradually converge and be the same. Thus, there as well as in other Member States, the root of the problem is bound to disappear as well.

    V.      Conclusion

    108. As a result of the foregoing, I propose that the question referred by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom be answered as follows:

    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, must be interpreted as precluding the application of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender be unmarried in order to qualify for a State retirement pension.


    Cristine say's

    Basically the court has ruled that each individual state has the right to impose restrictions rules in relation to what is termed a legal marriage and the conditions imposed within the scope of it's own GRA, in aspects of the marriage, but in this case the overriding factor is the unequal differential as to at what age men and women can apply for and receive their pensions.


    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at July 2, 2018 11:38 PM BST
      July 2, 2018 7:56 PM BST
  •  Hi there.

    Whecrossdresn I finally admitted to myself that I was transgender and not just a crossdr

      September 9, 2018 7:49 AM BST
  • One of the most important revisions of law for trans people, the 2013 amendment to the marriage act.

    Revised marriage certificate.    This post has not been overwhelmed by comments and views.

    Incidentally the birth certificate is a true copy in law of the entry in the register of births, the register being the property 

    of the crown,   The actual copy of the entry (the birth certificate) is the sole property of the person who registers the birth a ( receipt) of registration, it becomes the property of named born person upon their 18th birthday or earlier if the person registering the birth dies or gifts it to the born person.

    Cristine Jennifer Shye.  B/L.  B/Acc
    This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at October 27, 2019 7:40 PM GMT
      October 27, 2019 10:30 AM GMT
  • Christine your information I don't think ever goes unnoticed, I have always enjoyed your articles, very informative and thought provoking.

    I just wished you were in the states to give such accurate content, but then under this current administration and political conflict I think you might find it quite egregious,

    There was a time in the states when we were moving in a very positive direction, sadly we have faltered and at best stagnated our trans direction.

    Huggs Tammy


    <p>A life without purpose, is a life without reason!</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>
    This post was edited by Tammy Brianne at May 4, 2020 8:55 AM BST
      October 27, 2019 6:15 PM GMT