Current UK Law Another trans thread(8 Posts)
I am trying to understand how women are currently protected by equality laws in the UK.
Eg employers having to provide separate toilet facilities for women. Currently males have to have a GRC to use these, is that correct? We do not have self-identification (yet).
So why are males who don't have GRCs being let out of prison, being put in women's prisons, competing as women in sporting events. Employers are telling women they now have to share facilities with self identificating transwomen. Aren't they breaking the law?
Another example is Ada Well's attack on lesbians. Lesbian is a legally defined term, homosexuality is legally protected against discrimination. So isn't it a crime to attack lesbians for not wanting to have sex with males?
The reason this confuses me is that judges are complicit in these examples where current laws are being ignored.
This from the equality act:
To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one. You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it.
They go on to make the distinction that you can't just, say on a stag night, decide you are a woman and go to the woman's bathrooms. However, as there is no practical way to distinguish, it doesn't help.
It looks like, the main criteria is that you are serious about transitioning. But as this is purely subjective it's fairly meaningless.
Hopefully, someone with a more thorough knowledge of the law, will help to clarify this.
Oh I thought that this was just in the process of being discussed in parliament, I didn't realise the law was already so woolly.
I'm a little confused as well to be honest. Because as I understood it a gender reassignment certificate was still required. But as I believe it is also discriminatory to ask for credentials, again it seems to be rather meaningless. As you say - woolly.
I was asking to ensure I could argue about safeguarding my daughters and was hoping I had some legal backup. Eg does a school have to provide facilities for female students which only males with a GRC could infiltrate?
I am getting confused about the proposal by Maria Millar if anyone can already do whatever they like.
I think most organisations are scared of being called "transphobic" and are risk averse so they pretty much already interpret the law as if self-determination was the legal standard. It goes without saying that they don't give a fuck about discrimination against women.
I haven't googled it, but I think there are no current laws abut segregation in bathroom use. It's not actually illegal to use the loo of the opposite sex. This is about discrimination. And transgenderism being a protected characteristic. You can't tell a transwomen she can't use the ladies based on her transgenderism as it would be discriminatory.
Guidelines are in fact provided (via the government) explaining this and encouraging services to not discriminate and listing all the ways they might.
The protected characteristic isn't transgenderism currently. It's specifically people who are working towards getting or have a gender reassignment certificate. Because the law was originally intended to protect people with gender dysphoria. Which is a subtle difference but hard to interpret so organisations as you say don't want to discriminate.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.