Almost 10,000 gender certificates granted amid rise in Gen Z applications
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
The Herald Scotland
39 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Jeff Bezos' wedding and the depthless billionaire photo op
The affair, which ended Saturday with its third official day of festivities, is estimated to have cost some $50 million. The depthless expense culminated a deluge of events facing many Americans: The country held its breath and doomscrolled in fear of war with Iran, endured record heat, witnessed charged protests over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, heard major Supreme Court decisions about reproductive health and saw Zohran Mamdani (who said on June 29, "I don't think we should have billionaires") win New York City's mayoral Democratic primary. Meanwhile, the city of Venice erupted in protests by locals and activists who saw the Bezos wedding as a sign of garish commodification of a fragile city. And that's a smattering of the news from last week. The atmosphere of whiplash could explain our numbness. When social media timelines showed the world's richest zooming across Venetian waters to the wedding venue on the island of San Giorgio, its lack of substantial meaning or cultural impact is likely why so many hated it. It's OK if you enjoyed gobbling up images of the richest people in the world in their fanciest attire. And we naturally seek fantasy in moments like these, according to culture journalist Louis Pisano (who was blocked on Instagram by Sanchez after posting his impressions about the wedding). But this wedding didn't provide sentimental escapism, he said - it was a chilly reminder there's a billionaire-dollar world we'll never dream of inhabiting. "It felt extremely exploitative, which turned off any audience from the get-go," Pisano says. "The public had no bandwidth." The Bezos wedding was an Italian melodrama we've seen before The Italian celebrity wedding is a formula we've already experienced, Pisano says. The wedding heavily sampled Ye (formerly Kanye West) and Kim Kardashian's pan-European nuptials in 2014, which saw Parisian pre-wedding events, a rehearsal dinner in Versailles and a Florence ceremony. The Bezos-Sanchez affair mapped itself along this Kardashian inspiration, mirroring Kim's highly-visible Parisian bachelorette party and featuring a performance at the main event by Mateo Bocelli, son of Andre Bocelli, who famously sang at both Kim and Kanye's and sister Kourtney Kardashian's weddings, Pisano points out. Reference spawns much creativity in the world of fashion and culture (Kim expressed approval of the event, calling it "magical"). But somehow the Italian drama didn't hit the same tone. While not everyone is a Kardashian-West fan, audiences engaged with their wedding because they feel they knew the bride and groom, Pisano says, from watching the reality star and her family on TV to listening to the rapper's music. "All of that created this worldbuilding around their wedding and their marriage ... to see how far both of them came," Pisano says. Their wedding was innovative for 2014, lifting worlds traditionally reserved for magazine pages onto social media. But this time, the parade felt vapid. The event seems to have desperately wanted a spot in the canon of celebrity weddings, says Discoursted newsletter writer Pisano. Fans approved as lifelong bachelor George Clooney finally (and romantically) tied the knot in Venice in 2014 to accomplished lawyer Amal Clooney. Or Nick Jonas and Priyanka Chopra's multiday party melding ritual with rich visuals. Or, most recently, the billionaire Ambani wedding in India that drew former U.S. officials, celebrities and, of course, Rihanna to its epicenter. They weren't just icing on the wedding cake, but cultural touchpoints realized through marriages. 'It turned my stomach': Rosie O'Donnell blasts Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez's Italy wedding But Bezos and Sanchez's wedding lacked a story to "root for," Pisano says. Rather, the couple invited a 200-person guest list that felt "random," if not transactional, Pisano says, with names like Sydney Sweeney, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Ellie Goulding and a solo Orlando Bloom. "It was all very strategic from everybody's side," he says. "Was it believable that all of these people were such good friends? Absolutely not." The guest list drew reactions across the internet. "Does she know them?" one TikToker mused of Sweeney's invite. Leonardo DiCaprio was called out for attending a "carbon-intensive billionaire's wedding" in apparent opposition to the actor's climate activism. Commentator Blakely Thornton even went as far as to call the guests "confirmed losers" seeking gratification and status. "I have a newly found disrespect for all of the celebrities who attended the Bezos wedding," one TikToker said. "Even if you don't think about the politics of it all, it's just an utterly swagless move. Now we all know who's tacky and tasteless." Bethenny Frankel pokes fun at Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez's wedding invitation And those guests didn't come cheap: The cost of this single affair could cover the cost about 1,515 weddings in the U.S. today. As couples weigh economic uncertainty while planning their own weddings, they couldn't relate. Pisano says the grandeur felt incongruent with current trends favoring smaller, more thoughtful weddings. And then there's the fact the pair waved and blew kisses as they boarded motorboats while protests raged across the city, decrying environmental and antitourist messages to the overcrowded city that is struggling with rising water levels. While the couple donated to local Venetian charities, Pisano says he's skeptical how much impact that holds. "For one of the richest men in the world, to go to one of the most troubled cities in the world, and contribute to that, doesn't help bring public goodwill toward them," he says. More: What to know about Jeff Bezos' first wife, MacKenzie Scott Jeff Bezos' bride and a fashion message not received The fashion is also a reason why the wedding was seemingly detached for people. Sanchez donned numerous looks over the multiday spectacle, but perhaps most notable was her wedding gown from Dolce & Gabbana, designers who've had their own controversies. The more conservative dress featured a high-neck, adorned with 180 silk chiffon-covered priest buttons paired with a tulle-and-lace veil, according to a Vogue magazine exclusive. The buttoned-up 1950s-inspired look was nod to Italian actress Sophia Loren. While the bride recognized the look was a "departure," for her, Pisano says the style was too jarring of a twist from the peekaboo lacy bra Sanchez wore to President Donald Trump's inauguration earlier this year. "It's such a jump that feels inauthentic to her," Pisano says, noting her "girl boss bombshell persona." Donatella Versace, who has been an outspoken LGBTQ+ advocate, also dressed the bride for one of the wedding party events, in spite of Amazon's rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion measures. To her credit, Sanchez wears a heavy mantle trying to fit in as such a visible figure, but people were left wondering who this woman is supposed to be to them, Pisano says. "She's looking for legitimacy ... She wants to switch into 'icon mode.'" But was it a fit? The couple desperately wanted to recreate an image from an outdated attention economy. The curation left the Bezos-Sanchez wedding feeling tired, working too hard to squeeze itself into a size it was starving for.
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
The welfare reform vote: All you need to know
Below, the PA news agency looks at what happened, what it means for personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit, and what might come next. – What have MPs agreed to? MPs voted on Tuesday to allow the Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to advance to the next stage in becoming law. Some 126 Labour backbenchers had previously threatened to vote against the legislation, enough to block its passage through the Commons, but in the end only 49 did so. But ministers were forced to offer a series of concessions to persuade the rebels to back the Government. – What concessions did the Government make? Last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced a partial U-turn aimed at heading off the rebellion that included three key points. Firstly, changes to Pip eligibility would only come into effect in November 2026, and anyone claiming the benefit before that date would not be subject to the new rules, instead of imposing the changes on everyone. Secondly, people claiming the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would see their incomes protected in real terms. Thirdly, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would conduct a review of the Pip assessment, 'co-produced' with disabled people. But during Tuesday's debate, Sir Stephen offered a further concession, saying any changes to Pip eligibility would only be introduced after his review had concluded, further delaying them. – What do the concessions mean for the Government's proposals? The decision to push back Pip changes to an unspecified date, and leave uncertain the details of what those changes will be, removes a major part of the Government's reform plans. The proposed changes to universal credit remain, raising the standard allowance while halving the health element for most new claimants from April 2026. But the concessions will also pose a problem for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will need to find extra money now the expected savings from welfare reform are no longer expected to materialise. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation think tank suggested the concessions meant there would now be no 'net savings' from the reform by 2029/30, a key year for Ms Reeves' fiscal targets. – What happens next? The Government has pledged to make the necessary amendments to remove the Pip changes from the Bill when it returns to the Commons next week. It is then likely to continue through Parliament, becoming law after it has been approved by both MPs and peers. But wider questions remain for the Government. Not only does Ms Reeves face a fiscal headache, but the Prime Minister could face a political one too as he seeks to repair fractured relations with his backbenchers. And uncertainty will continue to surround the Government's plans for welfare reform. Ministers will still want to reduce the cost of the welfare bill and get more people back into work, while Sir Stephen's Pip review could result in another row depending on what it recommends.
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
The welfare reform vote: All you need to know
Below, the PA news agency looks at what happened, what it means for personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit, and what might come next. – What have MPs agreed to? MPs voted on Tuesday to allow the Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to advance to the next stage in becoming law. Some 126 Labour backbenchers had previously threatened to vote against the legislation, enough to block its passage through the Commons, but in the end only 49 did so. But ministers were forced to offer a series of concessions to persuade the rebels to back the Government. – What concessions did the Government make? Last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced a partial U-turn aimed at heading off the rebellion that included three key points. Firstly, changes to Pip eligibility would only come into effect in November 2026, and anyone claiming the benefit before that date would not be subject to the new rules, instead of imposing the changes on everyone. Secondly, people claiming the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would see their incomes protected in real terms. Thirdly, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would conduct a review of the Pip assessment, 'co-produced' with disabled people. But during Tuesday's debate, Sir Stephen offered a further concession, saying any changes to Pip eligibility would only be introduced after his review had concluded, further delaying them. – What do the concessions mean for the Government's proposals? The decision to push back Pip changes to an unspecified date, and leave uncertain the details of what those changes will be, removes a major part of the Government's reform plans. The proposed changes to universal credit remain, raising the standard allowance while halving the health element for most new claimants from April 2026. But the concessions will also pose a problem for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will need to find extra money now the expected savings from welfare reform are no longer expected to materialise. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation think tank suggested the concessions meant there would now be no 'net savings' from the reform by 2029/30, a key year for Ms Reeves' fiscal targets. – What happens next? The Government has pledged to make the necessary amendments to remove the Pip changes from the Bill when it returns to the Commons next week. It is then likely to continue through Parliament, becoming law after it has been approved by both MPs and peers. But wider questions remain for the Government. Not only does Ms Reeves face a fiscal headache, but the Prime Minister could face a political one too as he seeks to repair fractured relations with his backbenchers. And uncertainty will continue to surround the Government's plans for welfare reform. Ministers will still want to reduce the cost of the welfare bill and get more people back into work, while Sir Stephen's Pip review could result in another row depending on what it recommends.
