# Transgender Legal Ruling (Europe) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 28, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933 "2018-06-28T17:23:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/1 "2018-06-28T17:23:32Z")
I’m curious as to whether this is legit and if so what the rationale might be. [UK wrong to deny transgender woman pension at 60, court rules: Woman told to wait until male pension age of 65 because she hadn’t annulled marriage](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/26/uk-wrong-to-deny-transgender-woman-pension-at-60-court-rules) > [@](#): > > The case involves an individual identified only as MB who was born in 1948 and married a woman in 1974, having two children. She began to live as a woman in 1991 and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1995. > > For religious reasons, the couple did not annul their marriage, which meant MB could not be granted a full gender recognition certificate. As a result she was refused the state pension at 60 and told she would have to wait until she reached the male pensionable age of 65. > > The European court of justice said “the UK legislation constitutes direct discrimination based on sex and is, for that reason, prohibited by the directive”. So best as I can figure from this, the policy of having a pensionable age that varies by gender, under which men have to wait 5 years longer to become eligible, is not “direct discrimination based on sex” and is A-OK. But treating this transgender person as a man instead of a woman is “direct discrimination based on sex”. Hard to figure, if this is for real. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/2 "2018-06-28T18:00:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m curious as to whether this is legit and if so what the rationale might be. > > [UK wrong to deny transgender woman pension at 60, court rules: Woman told to wait until male pension age of 65 because she hadn’t annulled marriage](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/26/uk-wrong-to-deny-transgender-woman-pension-at-60-court-rules)So best as I can figure from this, the policy of having a pensionable age that varies by gender, under which men have to wait 5 years longer to become eligible, is not “direct discrimination based on sex” and is A-OK. But treating this transgender person as a man instead of a woman is “direct discrimination based on sex”. Hard to figure, if this is for real. It seems more of a process problem based on your quote - had they annulled the marriage so that she could get the ‘certificate’, then she would be eligible now. Why she had to annul the marriage, etc in order to get the certificate is a bigger question, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/3 "2018-06-28T18:55:55Z")
The UK recognizes same-sex marriages, doesn’t it? So yeah, you’d think that you could go through all of the sex-change paperwork while still married. And I’m also puzzled by the pension age varying with gender. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/4 "2018-06-28T19:02:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So best as I can figure from this, the policy of having a pensionable age that varies by gender, under which men have to wait 5 years longer to become eligible, is not “direct discrimination based on sex” and is A-OK. But treating this transgender person as a man instead of a woman is “direct discrimination based on sex”. Hard to figure, if this is for real. IANAL nor British, but what I understand is “the policy itself is discriminatory, something which hadn’t been brought up to the attention of the Court before this particular case.” Assuming that my understanding is correct, if someone had gone to court with a case complaining about women’s pensioning age being earlier, that would have led to the same conclusion of “this is gender-based discrimination”. Which it sure looks like! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/5 "2018-06-28T19:19:13Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > IANAL nor British, but what I understand is “the policy itself is discriminatory, something which hadn’t been brought up to the attention of the Court before this particular case.” That doesn’t appear to be correct. [Here’s](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-government-wrong-to-deny-transgender-woman-state-pension-eu-european-court-of-justice-rules/) another take on it. > [@Politico](#): > > The court ruled that MB’s rejection constituted “direct discrimination based on sex,” arguing that a person who has changed gender should not be required to annul their marriage to gain access to a state pension at “the age provided for persons of the sex which he or she has acquired.” > > The court further said that the U.K. law treats transgender individuals who have transitioned after they marry “less favourably” than it treats those who keep their gender at birth and are married. So the ruling appears to be transgender-specific and does not say “regardless of whether this person is legally male or female they should get the same pension eligibility”. The court seemed fine with each gender getting a separate “age provided for persons of [that] sex”. The sex discrimination is specific to treating transgender people as being their birth sex. What’s weird about all this is that you would think this is glaring enough that articles on the story would address it. But I’ve not seen that. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/6 "2018-06-28T19:55:03Z")
The transgender thing isn’t an issue for me and it wouldn’t be an issue in this case if we changed the stupid rule about pension age differing by gender. It should be the same for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/7 "2018-06-28T20:18:55Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The transgender thing isn’t an issue for me and it wouldn’t be an issue in this case if we changed the stupid rule about pension age differing by gender. It should be the same for everyone. Or you could argue that it shoud be higher for women, since they live longer. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/8 "2018-06-28T20:24:20Z")
The UK actually appears to be in the process of equalizing the eligibility age for men and women, if my reading of some recent articles is correct. As near as I can tell, the earlier payout for women in past years reflected an understanding that women were more likely to be forced out of the working world earlier, what with child-rearing and other sexist expectations, and more likely to be left destitute if their spouses died early. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/9 "2018-06-28T21:54:10Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The transgender thing isn’t an issue for me and it wouldn’t be an issue in this case if we changed the stupid rule about pension age differing by gender. It should be the same for everyone. Which you’ll be glad to know is well underway! Very roughly speaking, the state pension age for women has been increasing by one month for every two months elapsed since 2010. It’s not been a straightforward process though, the original system was pretty much designed around the “man as sole bread-winner” model, and there’s been loads of women fallen through various safety-nets. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/transgender-legal-ruling-europe/816933/10 "2018-06-28T23:08:31Z")
My wife went through most of her working life expecting to retire and draw her state pension at 60, which would have been in 2017. She now has to wait until 2021. The retirement age for men is also going up; by 2028 everyone will have to wait until they are 67. No doubt that will be raised further in the future. A young person starting out now should probably expect to keep working until they are 70.