Changeling Aspects
For Parents of Gender-Variant Young
For Parents of Gender-Variant Young
Links from Synopsis of Transsexualism
International Links from TranssexualRoadMap
GenderBridge -NZ A Great Site with a Vast Amount of Info.. See their "Resource" section.
Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Counsellors
Hair Removal & Facial Rejuvenation Etc
Queensland Police Service LGBTI Liaison
Australia's Internet Safety Advisory Body
|
Kathy's Komments This page will have regular comments from Kathy. |
"Conformity is the jailer of
freedom and the enemy of growth."
( John F. Kennedy - Address to the UN
General Assembly-(25 September 1961.) -http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
Legal Status
Legal Status
Kaz, I accept your argument that after receiving a Passport, Citizenship Certificate and Health Insurance Commission all altered to my female state (Name only) in Australia, why was it that the UK GRP continued to state “You are not legally recognised until a GRC is issued recognising your new gender/sex in your state of residency” They refused to recognise any of these items, as proof of my change of gender/sex. In light of what I have sent you from the passport office, I think that we are far from being recognised in Australia at either State or Federal level!
When I asked the Australian departments concerned to produce proof that I was in fact fully accepted, they could not, as there is nothing in the Federal legislation in order to do so!
As UK continually stated “These items are only issued to save embarrassment (Now proven in letter from passport office) and are totally unacceptable by us!” When Australian departments were told this, I was told verbally only “You are accepted 100%” However nothing was forthcoming in writing!
It was the same in Queensland, as again UK GRP insisted the same argument as per our Federal Government!
It would appear to me that if we were fully recognised via a Passport, Citizenship Certificate and Health Insurance Commission in Australia, then they would be able to supply detail concerning this recognition in writing! As this is not forthcoming, then it supports the UK approach that we are not fully recognised in Australia, but only in the UK, even after receiving a GRC and an amended BC from UK.
I understand any reticence to open a debate as to what constitutes a ‘Male or Female/ Man or Woman’ but it appears that with the exception of South Australia and Victoria, we are not recognised at either State and Territory levels, as well as at Federal level in our new gender/sex. This could mean that in the eyes of the law in both Australia and Queensland, I am still of the Male gender!
This to me really is in the same mould as the New Zealand statement by their BDM in regards to the Court Order “It is not ‘Evidence’ of anything else in terms of New Zealand law” It mat appear as shallow and lacking in sound argument, but it was stated in submission to the Court. As our laws are very similar, could it be that those thoughts apply here. In view of the letter from Passport Office, it would begin to appear so.
Kathy Anne Noble
President Changeling Aspects
05/05/2007
From: Karen Gurney
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 5:15 AM
To: Kathy Noble
Subject: Re: LEGAL STATUS.doc
Dear Kathy
LEGAL STATUS
Kaz, I accept your argument that after receiving a Passport, Citizenship Certificate and Health Insurance Commission all altered to my female state (Name only) in Australia, why was it that the UK GRP continued to state You are not legally recognised until a GRC is issued recognising your new gender/sex in your state of residency They refused to recognise any of these items, as proof of my change of gender/sex. In light of what I have sent you from the passport office, I think that we are far from being recognised in Australia at either State or Federal level!
The GRP is making a statement about your recognition in the UK under UK law. They only have jurisdiction over matters dealt with by UK law and their decisions have no effect here unless there is specific legislation in place that recognises them. So although your UK GRC means nothing to authorities in Australia, your birth certificate does (because of international conventions) and your SAS does (because of Australian common law)
When I asked the Australian departments concerned to produce proof that I was in fact fully accepted, they could not, as there is nothing in the Federal legislation in order to do so!
But you can provide proof sufficient to demonstrate your sex under the common law of Australia. I'm getting confused. Do you have your corrected BC now?
As UK continually stated These items are only issued to save embarrassment (Now proven in letter from passport office) and are totally unacceptable by us! When Australian departments were told this, I was told verbally only You are accepted 100% However nothing was forthcoming in writing!
It was the same in Queensland, as again UK GRP insisted the same argument as per our Federal Government!
It would appear to me that if we were fully recognised via a Passport, Citizenship Certificate and Health Insurance Commission in Australia, then they would be able to supply detail concerning this recognition in writing! As this is not forthcoming, then it supports the UK approach that we are not fully recognised in Australia, but only in the UK, even after receiving a GRC and an amended BC from UK.
As I said above, the UK Parliament does not make laws for Australia. The fact that the GRP refuses to understand and accept the effect of Re Kevin is a failing on their part. It is wrong, stupid and arrogant, but that seems par for the course in all dealings with them. It doesn't change the fact that you are a woman under the laws of Australia.
I understand any reticence to open a debate as to what constitutes a Male or Female/ Man or Woman but it appears that with the exception of South Australia and Victoria, we are not recognised at either State and Territory levels, as well as at Federal level in our new gender/sex. This could mean that in the eyes of the law in both Australia and Queensland, I am still of the Male gender!
No it couldn't... Australian law deals with sex, not gender. And it couldn't mean you are of the male SEX, either. If you want to justify amendments to the BDMA of all of the States and Territories so that they provide for the issue of a recognition certificate, then the arguments to use are: (1) that there is a number of citizens born overseas in jurisdictions that do not issue a corrected BC after SAS and these citizens need the protection of a provision that declares them to be members of their affirmed sex for all purposes of the law of the particular jurisdiction; (2) that some overseas jurisdictions require such a recognition certificate to negate the otherwise substantial procedural difficulties faced by expatriates seeking to correct their BC's; and (3) some citizens do not have a birth certificate at all and the records of their birth have either never existed or have been destroyed during internal conflicts.
This to me really is in the same mould as the New Zealand statement by their BDM in regards to the Court Order It is not Evidence of anything else in terms of New Zealand law It mat appear as shallow and lacking in sound argument, but it was stated in submission to the Court. As our laws are very similar, could it be that those thoughts apply here. In view of the letter from Passport Office, it would begin to appear so.
And the Court rejected it as shallow and lacking in proper argument. People state all sorts of things either through ignorance or deviousness and courts are very good at sorting them out. The APO is confused, at the very least, and it would be good to have their determination tested in court.
Kaz
HUGE QUESTION of LEGALITY
Wed 9/05/2007 4:21 PM
The UK Gender recognition Act 2004 requires all applicants applying for an amended Birth Certificate (BC) to first receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) of their preferred gender. Basically it is saying, if no GRC is forth coming, then there will be no BC issued.
I would therefore respectfully suggest that the GRC is of more importance than the BC in this instance. In fact, it could now be considered as the ‘Prima Facie” document under this law!
People who are married are expected to divorce or Annul their marriage in order to firstly receive a GRC. They can apply for an “Interim GRC” lasting 6 months, in which time they are expected by law, to divorce or annul their marriage. If they do in that period of time then the “Interim GRC” becomes permanent and they can then apply for an amended BC! If at a later date they divorce or annul their marriage, or their partner dies, they can re-apply for a GRC, as they are now single!
It appears that in all instances the GRC holds more precedence over the BC and has relegated the BC from its ‘prima facie’ position!
Does that now mean that a GRC should be issued to all in the community, not just the Trans people seeking to amend their BC, which now appears to be of secondary concern?
What affect will this have on Trans people born in UK but now residing in another Country? Are they more fully recognised, due to holding a GRC, than those born in that Country, who only have an amended BC?
Kathy Anne Noble
09/05/2007
***********************************************************
Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:59 PM
From: Kathy Noble
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:59 PM
To: 'janet.hawkes@dca.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: FW: Re GRC
Hi Janet,
I have been told to pass this on to you Janet, as Lola is away, and we would like an answer to the queries I sent.
Can you please take time to check up something to do with the GRC?
We are concerned that the GRC is really the Prima Facie document, as if no GRC is issued, then no BC would be forthcoming, as would the changes to the Pensions Office and the Tax Office.
In my case, after the GRC was issued everything else flowed on from there. We are now concerned that without the GRC we are not fully recognised in our preferred gender. In Australia and New Zealand the problems are even worse, as in Australia we have no formal recognition from the Federal Government, as all laws relating to the Trans Community are left to each State and Territory to enact.
As we were continually told by the GRP that we were “not legal, until a GRC was given us” This now seems to apply in my State of Queensland. There still is no offer of a GRC from that jurisdiction. More to the point, the Federal Government, although offering to change our Passport, citizenship Certificate and Health Insurance Records, do this really in name only.
Can you please verify what is the UK stance, for UK citizens both in UK and Abroad. Are we fully recognised in UK? Do we have to get recognition from the Country/State that we are now domiciled in, in order to be fully recognised in our preferred gender?
Finally, is the GRC the more important document, as appears to be?
Love and Peace, Kathy Anne Noble
***********************************************************
Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:59 PM
From:
Hawkes, Janet
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:59 PM
To: knoble@iinet.net.au
Subject: FW: Email enquiry ~ Kathy Anne Noble re Queensland GRC
Dear Kathy
Thank you for your enquiry. You asked whether the Gender Recognition Certificate was 'the Prima Facie document' needed before a new birth certificate can be issued or the acquired gender be registered with the tax and pensions authorities. In the UK, the answer is yes, in the sense that the full GRC is the fundamental evidence and the primary document issued when someone's legal gender has been changed. A new UK birth certificate can follow only when there is a UK birth register entry in respect of the person to whom the full GRC is issued.
People who apply for gender recognition in the UK on the basis of having changed gender under another country's law must send the Gender Recognition Panel evidence that they have legally changed gender under the law of an approved country or territory, of which the State of Queensland is one. The precise evidence required by the Panel is set out in the table on the GRP website. Provided this can be supplied, no medical evidence is required. Anyone unable to furnish the specified evidence would have to make an application supported by medical evidence in the usual way.
I understand that you have obtained a full Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. You are therefore fully recognised as female in the UK, but, with regret, I cannot advise you as to whether the Certificate is recognised as valid in Queensland or on the State of Queensland's criteria for legal recognition. Any questions about these matters should be addressed to the State authorities.
I hope this answers your enquiry.
Yours sincerely
Janet Hawkes
Human
Rights Division
Ministry of Justice
6th
floor (6.06, Post Point 5B), Selborne House,
54-60
Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QW
Tel:
020 7210 8893 Fax: 020 7210 1393
E-mail:
janet.hawkes@justice.gsi.gov.uk
At 14:03 18/05/2007, you wrote:
Hi Kaz,
I see that the Victoria legislation states :- A completed application for
Alteration of Sex in Birth Register or a Recognised Details Certificate form.
It later
states a recognition certificate (issued in SA or WA) no mention of other States
or Territories, or for from abroad.
Does this mean what it says, that they are the only 2 States that they will
recognise a Certificate from?
Kathy
***********************************************************
From:
Karen Gurney
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:32 AM
To: Kathy Noble
Subject: Re: GRC
Hi Kathy
The definition you have looked at goes on, however, to also include a
certificate issued under any other law prescribed by the regulations. Because
the legislation provides for a recognised details certificate to be issued to
anyone born outside of, but resident in Victoria who has had SAS, regardless of
what their country of origin says or does, and the only proof is a simple
medical certification, the Registrar has thus far been of the view there is no
need to open a can of worms by recognising all certificates issued elsewhere
including overseas. There is certainly no need to do so for people born in UK
because the person can obtain a birth certificate recognising the fact of their
contemporaneous sex and no other documentation is then necessary.
So, it is not your UK issued GRC that gets you (Kathy) recognised in your
affirmed sex here, it is your UK birth certificate. A birth certificate is
always a primary document of identity. Your UK GRC really means little here. It
is a creature of UK law, not of Australian law. The fact that a recognition
certificate issued here in Victoria is a sufficient proof for a person born in
UK to be granted a new birth certificate from the UK is a separate issue and is
one covered in the UK, not the Australian, Acts. If you hadn't been able to get
your correct UK birth certificate and you lived in Victoria, then you would have
been able to receive a recognised details certificate here and this would have
granted you female legal status, instead.
Putting the shoe on the other foot. If an Australian girl from Victoria was
living in London and had SAS, she would be able to get her Victorian birth
certificate corrected purely on the basis of the evidence of two doctors in the
UK because, unlike what the UK did to you in the GRA, the legislation here makes
provision for evidence to be received by doctors registered elsewhere. That is
not necessarily true of the legislation in the other States, however.
Kaz
***********************************************************
Monday, May 21, 2007 3:24 PM
From:
Kathy Noble
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:24 PM
To: Karen Gurney
Subject: Recognition
Hi Kaz,
Have today spoken with the 2IC of BDM in QLD about the points I raised concerning recognition after receiving my GRC/BC from UK.
He is very interested, as he said that they only recognise recognition certificates from SA, WA and Victoria, nothing outside of those 3 states. He also believes that that is how it works in other States in Australia. I mentioned my situation, and he said that it would have to be as an amendment for any alteration in recognition, so that UK and whoever else was mentioned in the Act. He recommends that I fetch this up at my meeting next Month with our A-G. This will concern both the GRC and the BC!
It becomes interesting, when you see that the WA legislation allows for a TS person to serve on their Board for reviewing TS cases. I will ask if we can have a TS person on the A-Gs advisory committee.
I am finding it very illuminating looking at the different legislations that are here concerning TS people.
Kathy
