Almost 10,000 gender certificates granted amid rise in Gen Z applications
Some 1,169 GRCs were issued in the year to March 2025, more than three times the number in 2019/20, when it stood at just 364.
It is also the highest annual total since 2005/06, which was the first full year that the scheme – which allows a person's acquired gender to be recognised legally in the country – was in operation.
The surge is likely to reflect recent changes in the certification process, including a big cut in fees, combined with more applications from young people.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of certificates granted in the latest year were for people born since 2000 – loosely known as Generation Z – and 68% were for those born since 1990, up from 4% and 41% respectively in 2019/20.
The analysis has been compiled by the PA news agency using data published by the Ministry of Justice, which shows a total of 9,633 GRCs had been granted in the UK up to March 2025.
The findings come after the Supreme Court's ruling in April on the definition of sex, which followed a dispute centred on whether someone with a GRC recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the UK 2010 Equality Act.
In a long-awaited judgment, the court confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
This means transgender women with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
In the wake of the ruling the boss of Britain's equalities regulator suggested that while it does not mean GRCs are 'worthless', their 'efficacy' could be re-examined.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) told BBC Radio 4's Today programme in the days after the ruling: 'I think the next stage of litigation may well be tests as to the efficacy of the GRC, and or other areas.'
Asked about whether she thinks GRCs are now 'worthless', she replied: 'We don't believe they are. We think they're quite important.'
Government advice on how to apply for a GRC states that the Supreme Court ruling does not affect the application process, but advises people to contact the EHRC if they have questions.
The Gender Recognition Act came into effect on April 4 2005, giving adults the right legally to change the gender that was recorded on their birth certificate.
This is done by applying for a GRC, a document that shows a person has satisfied the criteria for changing their legal gender.
Applications are made to the Gender Recognition Panel, a body of legal and medical experts, who issue a certificate only if the application meets the necessary criteria.
GRC applications hit a record 1,517 in 2024/25, up from 1,397 the previous year and 443 in 2019/20.
The application fee for a certificate was cut in May 2021 from £140 to £5, while there was a switch to online applications in July 2022.
A GRC is granted if the applicant has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria; has lived in the acquired gender for at least two years, and intends to live in that gender for the rest of their life.
PA analysis shows the age of those receiving GRCs has changed considerably over the past decade.
Some 63% of certificates issued in 2014/15 went to people born before 1980 – but by 2024/25 this had dropped sharply to just 17%.
By contrast, people born from 1980 onwards accounted for 83% of certificates in the most recent year, up from 37% a decade earlier.
More recently, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of certificates going to people born since 2000, up from 4% in 2019/20 to 24% in 2024/25.
The age group currently responsible for the biggest proportion is people born in the 1990s, who accounted for 45% of the total in the year to March 2025.
The balance in applications between males and females has also changed over time.
In 2005/06, the first full year that certificates were available, more than three-quarters (77%) were granted to people whose sex at birth was male, with just under a quarter (23%) going to those who were female.
By 2015/16 the gap between these percentages had narrowed at 67% and 33%, and in 2023/24 the figures were almost equal, at 52% for males and 48% for females.
In the most recent year of 2024/25, the gap widened slightly with 55% of certificates granted to people whose sex at birth was male and 45% for those who were female.
Nearly one in 10 people receiving certificates in the year to March 2025 were part of a married couple – a proportion that has been relatively stable since the law was changed in 2014 to allow some applicants to remain married while obtaining gender recognition.
Of the 1,169 certificates granted in 2024/25, 109 (9%) were for married applicants with the vast majority – 1,033 (88%) – for people who were single, while 27 were recorded as 'other/unknown'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
30 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Winter fuel payment in Scotland to match UK benefit
Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed last week that the payment would be reinstated to the majority of pensioners. Following the initial decision to cut the universal benefit, the Scottish Government was forced to delay its plans for the pension age winter heating payment, but in December it announced pensioners north of the border would receive at least £100 every year. Speaking in Glasgow on Monday, the First Minister confirmed the Scottish Government's benefit would at least match that proposed by the UK Government. Pensioners south of the border who earn under £35,000 will receive either £200 or £300. 'I'm very happy to confirm today that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less than they would under the new UK scheme,' he said. Rachel Reeves confirmed the benefit would be reinstated for most pensioners (Owen Humphreys/PA) 'Details will be set out in due course by my Government, but the Scottish Government will always seek to do what is best for Scotland's pensioners.' The changes announced last week will result in further increases in funding for the Scottish Government, which the First Minister later told journalists is expected to be around £120 million. Speaking at an event on public sector reform on Monday, the First Minister hit out at the initial decision to cut the benefit. 'To be quite blunt about it, I don't believe cutting this winter lifeline was ever going to save a penny,' he said. 'Making millions of pensioners poorer makes them also colder and makes them also sicker, and that in turn puts up the bill for our social services and our NHS.' John Swinney said he would put Scotland's pensioners first (Liam McBurney/PA) He added: 'It's one of the reasons we were so quick to step in to protect pensioners in Scotland as best as we could from that wrong decision by the UK Government. 'But now that they've seen the error of their ways, my Government will once again to the right thing by Scotland's pensioners.' The power over the payment was devolved to Social Security Scotland in time for it to be paid out last winter. When asked if he regretted not offering it to older Scots, the First Minister said: 'I might have had the power, but I didn't have the money and I can't spend money I don't have. 'If the UK Government cuts a budget, I can't spend it, and what we've done is we've taken a series of hard decisions to allow us, before the Labour Government came anywhere near doing a U-turn on this, to restore winter fuel payments to pensioners because of other hard decisions that I've made. 'So the SNP has kept faith with pensioners in Scotland when the Labour Party has deserted them.'
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Winter fuel payment in Scotland to match UK benefit
Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed last week that the payment would be reinstated to the majority of pensioners. Following the initial decision to cut the universal benefit, the Scottish Government was forced to delay its plans for the pension age winter heating payment, but in December it announced pensioners north of the border would receive at least £100 every year. Speaking in Glasgow on Monday, the First Minister confirmed the Scottish Government's benefit would at least match that proposed by the UK Government. Pensioners south of the border who earn under £35,000 will receive either £200 or £300. 'I'm very happy to confirm today that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less than they would under the new UK scheme,' he said. Rachel Reeves confirmed the benefit would be reinstated for most pensioners (Owen Humphreys/PA) 'Details will be set out in due course by my Government, but the Scottish Government will always seek to do what is best for Scotland's pensioners.' The changes announced last week will result in further increases in funding for the Scottish Government, which the First Minister later told journalists is expected to be around £120 million. Speaking at an event on public sector reform on Monday, the First Minister hit out at the initial decision to cut the benefit. 'To be quite blunt about it, I don't believe cutting this winter lifeline was ever going to save a penny,' he said. 'Making millions of pensioners poorer makes them also colder and makes them also sicker, and that in turn puts up the bill for our social services and our NHS.' John Swinney said he would put Scotland's pensioners first (Liam McBurney/PA) He added: 'It's one of the reasons we were so quick to step in to protect pensioners in Scotland as best as we could from that wrong decision by the UK Government. 'But now that they've seen the error of their ways, my Government will once again to the right thing by Scotland's pensioners.' The power over the payment was devolved to Social Security Scotland in time for it to be paid out last winter. When asked if he regretted not offering it to older Scots, the First Minister said: 'I might have had the power, but I didn't have the money and I can't spend money I don't have. 'If the UK Government cuts a budget, I can't spend it, and what we've done is we've taken a series of hard decisions to allow us, before the Labour Government came anywhere near doing a U-turn on this, to restore winter fuel payments to pensioners because of other hard decisions that I've made. 'So the SNP has kept faith with pensioners in Scotland when the Labour Party has deserted them.'
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Poll: Americans overwhelmingly want Trump to obey court rulings, but MAGA Republicans are split
The vast majority of American adults believe the Trump administration must comply with federal court orders, though the president's strongest supporters are split over the issue, according to a new NBC News Decision Desk Poll powered by SurveyMonkey. In the poll, 81% of U.S. adults say that if a federal court rules that an administration action is illegal, then the administration has to follow its ruling, while 19% say the administration can ignore the ruling and continue its action. But among people who consider themselves supporters of the MAGA movement, there's a sharper divide. According to the poll, supporters of President Donald Trump are split, 50%-50%, over whether he should comply with federal court orders. Democrats are almost unanimous on the issue, with 96% saying the administration has to follow court orders. Among independents, 87% say the administration must obey court orders, while 13% say Trump can ignore them. The issue of whether the White House can ignore rulings from federal courts has come to the fore as the administration carries out executive actions, including its deportation program, at rapid speed. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller argued last month that 'Marxist judges' were conducting a 'judicial coup' by constraining the president's authority when a judge ordered the release of a Tufts University student in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. Several federal judges, meanwhile, have considered whether to hold executive branch officials in contempt for what one called "willful disregard" of judicial orders. The issue has also arisen in the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He was deported to an El Salvadoran prison in what the government initially called an " administrative error." The case rose to the Supreme Court, which ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" his return. The Trump administration held out against pushing for that for nearly two months before Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States early this month to face federal charges alleging human smuggling. Views of the Supreme Court The poll found that 55% of Americans have favorable opinions of the Supreme Court, while 45% view it unfavorably. Republicans are more supportive of the court than Democrats: 75% view it favorably, compared with 34% with favorable views among Democrats. Yet one key finding is that Americans generally don't hold strong views of the Supreme Court right now: 11% have strongly favorable opinions, while 12% are strongly unfavorable. The large remainder rates the court "somewhat" favorably or unfavorably. The poll was conducted ahead of the Supreme Court's traditional season for its highest-profile rulings, and it has yet to rule this year on contentious cases like one concerning birthright citizenship, which could affect public opinion of the court. The court isn't expected to rule on the merits of whether Trump can end birthright citizenship, which has long been considered a clear right under the 14th Amendment, via executive order. Rather, the current case focuses on the power of judges to block presidential policies through nationwide injunctions. If the court rules in Trump's favor, district judges would be limited from using nationwide injunctions to temporarily block an administration policy. There have been at least 39 such rulings during Trump's second term. Trump said in an interview with NBC News' 'Meet the Press' last month that he has 'great respect' for the Supreme Court.
