Have I got this right?(8 Posts)
Been following for a long time, but first time posting, so please bear with me.
The Equality Act 2010 allows some exemptions in terms of sex segregation. This (theoretically) allows the exclusion of trans identified males.
Does it also allow the exclusion of TIMs with a GRC? If so, how is this policed in practice (given that a GRC leads to a change in the sex recorded on the birth certificate)?
Thanks for your help, I'm struggling to understand everything.
This is why it is a nonsense and the GRA should be scrapped.
If you allow biological exemptions then having a GRC makes no difference - you are still biologically male, always will be, can never change this.
So really they are pointless.
I think new law should be brought in to say this - to clarify you can identify how you wish and should not be in any way discriminated against because of how you identify.
However, you cannot change your biological sex and in areas such as sports, prisons, DV shelters which can be controlled that the sexes should be segregated by biology.
If they want to make all changing rooms and toilets etc fully lockable and unisex then so be it.
Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women wrote a good post about this on another thread
The problem we have here is that the GRA2004 (the law that sets out how to legally change gender through a GRC) and the Equality Act 2010 (anti-discrimination laws) make no reference to each other.
So although the GRA2004 means someone can become the opposite sex FOR ALL PURPOSES. It is the EA2010 that has legal exemptions to exclude based on gender reassignment.
So in the case of a male they can be legally discriminated against based on their sex and excluded from a female-only space. If that male gets a GRC and is then legally female they can't be excluded based on their sex (they are female now) but they CAN be legally discriminated against because they have undergone gender reassignment and excluded from the female-only space for that reason.
The principle of excluding people because they are trans existed way before the Equality Act became law. (For example, the idea that someone can be excluded from a specific occupation because they are trans was established in anti-discrimination employment law). In 2010 lots of different equality laws were amalgamated and these exemptions got carried through into the new law (thank goodness). However, the new bits added into the Equality Act like All women shortlists did not have the trans exemptions added. So I don't think the trans exemptions were missed off the AWS for a specific reason - its more about the political atmosphere at the time a bit of law was written. We have the trans exemptions because 20 years ago public opinion agreed it was necessary to have them because biological sex mattered to people back then.
As well as trans activists (so far successfully) lobbying to change procedures in the GRA2004 moving into a self-ID system with no gatekeeping, they are also lobbying to scrap the wording of the EA2010 replacing sex with gender identity.
Thanks very much for your replies. Another question:
We have the trans exemptions because 20 years ago public opinion agreed it was necessary to have them because biological sex mattered to people back then.
Why was this necessary 20 yrs ago? Because pre 2004 GRA act, a TIM couldn't legally change sex so would have remained male, is that right?
And also, are the trans exemptions that have been carried through into the 2010 Equality Act actually workable? How can organisations establish that a TIM with a GRA is indeed a TIM, not a female? I still don't understand if this can even work in practice....
Thanks for your patience.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.