Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GRA and Equality Act

107 replies

Zhora · 15/09/2018 23:36

I'm not an expert on the two acts so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand it the Equality Act covers trans people's access to facilities and services unless there is a good reason that can be argued for them being excluded. They do not need a GRC and the majority do not have one. Therefore anyone who wants to can already use the facilities of the gender they identify with. Are changes to the GRA actually likely to make any significant changes to the numbers accessing services? Wouldn't they already be doing so?

OP posts:
Bespin · 15/09/2018 23:40

quick answer is no no difference to access facilities can still do the same.

BesmirchingMotherhood · 15/09/2018 23:43

Quick proper answer is that the bad implementation of the EA means we’re already up shit river, but change to GRA would mean we literally couldn’t keep them out under any circumstances.

So your smear could be done by a woman with a beard, penis and testicles and you couldn’t object.

Zhora · 15/09/2018 23:52

I thought you could still be excluded from certain facilities and situations if there was good reason, whether you have a GRC or not or is that wrong?

OP posts:
BesmirchingMotherhood · 15/09/2018 23:54

Not sure, but given that you’re not allowed to ask to see a GRC how would it matter?

wheretoevenbegin · 16/09/2018 00:24

Sex is specifically named as a protected characteristic in the Equality act, and you can exclude people on the basis of sex.

wheretoevenbegin · 16/09/2018 00:26

The GRA undermines the equality act by making exclusion on the basis of sex impossible to enforce.

PositivelyPERF · 16/09/2018 00:33

At the moment you can tell a bloke to get out of a female only area and security or management can tell them to leave, but if this misogynistic law comes in, then he can simply say he’s a woman and you will be the one told to leave, for objecting to his presence.

Zhora · 16/09/2018 00:57

If they identify as a woman they can do that at the moment anyway though. Any GRA alterations won't change that.

OP posts:
PositivelyPERF · 16/09/2018 01:01

Oh, I see. Shame we can’t post any recipes, on account of them being transphobic or something.

Have some pretty flowers, instead 💐🌹🌷🌺🌸🌼🌻🥑

Thistledew · 16/09/2018 01:44

At present, the Equality Act allows for the provision of single sex services and spaces where there is reason to do so. You are also right that at present, the Equality Act allows anyone claiming to be trans (whether or not they have a GRC) to be treated as their adopted gender. Where it is proportionate to do so, it is still permitted to exclude a transgender person from single-sex provisions. In practice, many organisations either don't understand or are fearful of maintaining the right to single sex provision over the request for inclusion of transgender people of the opposite sex.

If someone has a GRC, they have to be treated as if they are of the opposite sex, so they have to be accepted into single sex provision for their claimed sex regardless of whether there is good reason to exclude them.

As there is only a relatively small number of people with a GRC, and they have gone through a gatekeeping process to confirm that they suffer from a condition whereby they would suffer from severe distress if they were to be treated as being of their natal sex, rather than preferred gender, their inclusion in single sex provisions of the opposite sex causes few problems.

If the GRA is amended to self identification, then the right to be treated as if one is of the opposite sex will not be limited to those who would otherwise suffer significant mental distress, and there will be no form of gatekeeping to ensure that someone is requesting to be so treated for genuine as opposed to nefarious reasons. The "good reason" provisions for maintaining single sex services under the Equality Act will be circumvented as the trans person will have to be treated as if they are of the opposite sex. There will be no way of drawing a distinction between a man wishing to be treated as if he were a woman because it causes him severe mental distress to be treated as a man, and a man who wishes to be treated as if he is a woman because it will allow him easy access to abuse women.

Zhora · 16/09/2018 02:02

Thanks, they're lovely. Not fond of avocados though. Wink

Anyway, the legal situation from what I understand, and I'm happy to be corrected, is that the GRA and the Equality Act are separate. The trans person's rights to say they identify as male or female and access the services and facilities of their choice are governed by the EA. The GRA allows the obtaining of a GRC which is useful for legal documents such as passports etc but which is not required to access services. Therefore anyone telling people that so-called self-ID is going to allow any 'man' to access female facilities are not being accurate. Because a trans man or woman's right to access the facilities of their choice are governed by the EA non-trans people wanting to take advantage would already be doing so, they wouldn't be waiting for a piece of paper.

OP posts:
Zhora · 16/09/2018 02:11

Apologies. Last post made before I noticed this reply. We must have been typing at the same time.

The "good reason" provisions for maintaining single sex services under the Equality Act will be circumvented as the trans person will have to be treated as if they are of the opposite sex. There will be no way of drawing a distinction between a man wishing to be treated as if he were a woman because it causes him severe mental distress to be treated as a man, and a man who wishes to be treated as if he is a woman because it will allow him easy access to abuse women.

But the Equality Act could be circumvented anyway if someone really wanted to gain access to female facilities for abusive reasons. All someone with dodgy intentions would have to do is dress up as a woman and claim that is how they identify. They don't need a GRC.

OP posts:
Thistledew · 16/09/2018 04:25

No

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 states that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. So a person can claim that they have this characteristic if they identify as transgender.

Section 29 says that a service provider must not discriminate against someone on the basis of their protected characteristic. So an organisation that wants to provide a single sex service for women can't (subject to what is said below) exclude a male person.

However, sections 26 and 27 of schedule 3 to the Act say that the provision single sex services is not discriminatory where there is good reason to provide them. Further, when providing single sex services, s28 to schedule 3 says it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment. So providing a service just for women is not discriminatory, neither is it discriminatory to exclude people claiming gender reassignment from your definition of women.

This is the law as it currently stands.

What overrides this is where someone has a GRC and has to be treated in law as if they were of the opposite sex. So a male with a GRC has to be treated to all intents and purposes as if they were female. This has been interpreted to trump the non discrimination provision on the basis of sex and gender reassignment.

Zhora · 16/09/2018 12:10

Just been looking at the Equality Act in more depth and noticed this which suggests that having a GRC doesn't suddenly trump reasons for exclusion in the EA:

127.The Explanatory Notes to the Act give the following illustration:
A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Link: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39007.htm

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 16/09/2018 13:14

The trans person's rights to say they identify as male or female and access the services and facilities of their choice are governed by the EA.

Are they? As far as I can see the EA just says that people can’t be discriminated against if they have the characteristic of gender reassignment.

So if, for instance, males were not allowed into a space then how would it be discriminatory to not allow a trans woman? They would not allowed in because of their sex (male), nothing to do with gender/ gender reassignment.

It would Of course be discriminatory if they said no trans people but that’s not what’s happening.

jellyfrizz · 16/09/2018 13:17

The GRA allows the obtaining of a GRC which is useful for legal documents such as passports etc

You don’t need a GRC to get a passport in a different sex, just a doctors’ letter.

Bronners78 · 16/09/2018 13:19

Zhora, you’re correct regardless of whether a trans person has a GRC, a provider can exclude a trans person if it’s a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

This is a key point that both sides tend to ignore or forget and the government has ruled out any changes to the EA for the present. So, those exemptions will still work in exactly the same way under a streamlined GRA.

Zhora · 16/09/2018 13:24

But basically, the argument that says GRA reforms are suddenly going to allow all these 'men' to access female spaces and facilities doesn't seem to be accurate. It's the Equality Act, which is not being amended, which already gives trans people access... with the aforementioned exemptions. The EA statement I quoted in the previous post shows that GRC holders are still subject to exclusion if necessary so people are not actually gaining anything extra in terms of access by holding one.

OP posts:
Zhora · 16/09/2018 13:25

Wrote the above before I noticed your post Bronners78

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 16/09/2018 13:28

It's the Equality Act, which is not being amended, which already gives trans people access..

Where in the EA does it say that?

jellyfrizz · 16/09/2018 13:31

The EA says people should not be discriminated against, not that they can identity into spaces of people with other protected characteristics.

OP posts:
SistersOfMercy · 16/09/2018 14:28

Yes, the EA 2010 says you can exclude trans people regardless of if they have a GRC. It makes no differences to those exclusions if you have a GRC or not. Pretty clearly in the explanatory notes when I read it and I see that has been confirmed here.

A lot of scaremongering over the GRA changes are based on a lack of understanding of how the EA 2010 works and will continue to work.

Zhora · 16/09/2018 15:11

Indeed and it actually means that the 'this will allow any man to...' information that anti GRA campaigners are giving out is false.

OP posts:
Bronners78 · 16/09/2018 19:11

It’s what happens today and will continue to happen with a streamlined GRA. Most service providers won’t find themselves in the position of having to exempt trans people from accessing their service. Those that do are well used to providing services in a different way or exempting on a case by case basis under the EA.