Gender Recognition Act letter - response from Justine Greening

That's true for public facilities Ereshkigal but not (yet) places like prisons and hospital wards.

Pencils
Thanks for pointing this out
EA exemption for single sex services to exclude trans people be removed altogether where someone has a GRC. This would mean that by law, a transwoman with a GRC could not be excluded from female only services at all, ever. If a GRC becomes a simple paper exercise the implications of that are alarming.
I agree - very worrying. Just dont know what action to take next. Have written very detailed letters to mps without any satifactory responses. It feels very much to me that women dont matter.

Agree, Pencils. Though currently EA legislation is broad enough to cover everyone in reality as you cannot discriminate by perception.

We also recognise that the provision of changing rooms and other single-sex or communal facilities is a particularly sensitive issue. That is why we have issued guidance for service providers to help them create comfortable, welcoming environments for all their customers.

I've looked at that guidance and am not reassured. At the moment, excluding a trans person from single sex facilities that correspond to their chosen gender has to be done on a case by case basis (per trans person, not per facility) and the starting assumption is that they should be included. Already protection is there not only for people who have a GRC, but for those who have simply indicated they intend to go through the process of gender reassignment. For those who have a GRC there needs to be a very strong argument for excluding them.

13.60
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances. Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice. Also, the provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available.

I think service providers need to be quite brave to use this exemption even now and also need to be very clued up in order to argue their case. If getting a GRC moves anywhere close to being a simple administrative exercise, service providers will have to jump through these hoops for a much greater number of people, many of whom would not have got a GRC under the current system, with good reason.

I think it's dangerous to consider the proposed changes to the GRA in isolation as well.

We've already seen Miller's bill that ran out of time last year. I predict it will be back again. That was to do with changes to the EA to replace gender reassignment with gender identity. It would mean service providers having to make those tricky case-by-case decisions for all the non-binary and gender fluid people who feel female that afternoon.

We need to look at the trans equality report itself to see the full range of recommendations that might end up as consultations, bills or quiet changes to statutory guidance in the near future.

One of the recommendations is that the EA exemption for single sex services to exclude trans people be removed altogether where someone has a GRC. This would mean that by law, a transwoman with a GRC could not be excluded from female only services at all, ever. If a GRC becomes a simple paper exercise the implications of that are alarming.

I was at a family event a couple of weeks ago with a wide cross section of people of all ages (teen to 90!) and education levels and all of them were in agreement about this bill but no-one felt able to be vocal about it in a public space. I thought it was really interesting and suggests to me that the majority of people feel like this but are being silenced over fears of being labelled a bigot. People had different reasons for being against the bill though, whereas I am coming at it from a feminist point of view.

I got the exact same response from Greenings office.Didnt answer any of the questions I asked. Very annoyed. Still it was better than my local mps one sentence response which was '* thanks you for your letter. * has noted the contents'
Iow eff off. I despair.

There are more recent stats that say similar. You're only discussing referrals which is misleading.

Also what does this mean?
"I also think there is potentially a large difference between somebody identifying with the dominant gender (rather than fighting against how they are perceived as a woman), as opposed to identifying as a woman."

Also, I am concerned that if it is made simple to self-identify, we will see many of those teenage girls self-identifying as male when in fact they may benefit from proper counselling and time to reflect.

Manclife - but isn't the link you posted referring to out of date stats and dealing with a slightly different issue? My concern is specifically with teenage girls being referred with gender identity issues in the UK in recent years, who amount to more than 70% of total referrals. I am seriously concerned at the message being sent to girls that they must be trans when in fact they may just be confused about how their identity fits in with society's ideas of how a woman should behave, or they may simply be gay. As the article I linked to identifies, it is only fairly recently that girls have overtaken boys in being referred to gender identity clinics. I also think there is potentially a large difference between somebody identifying with the dominant gender (rather than fighting against how they are perceived as a woman), as opposed to identifying as a woman.

Yeah, I've worries about it too. Changing your sex by deed poll has the potential for disaster. I would be willing to accept it with a 'gender dysmorphia' diagnosis.

This is infuriating. The only people that need a fast track GRC are people who are intersex. And I dont see why they should have to pay a fee at all.

For trans people, it is imperative they have a process that is guided by a disinterested professional, and a cooling off period.
What is the problem with the current process? All it asks people to does live as the sex they identify with for 2 years. Which presumably they were going to anyway.

It cannot possibly be a good idea to let serious, violent offenders change sex, identity or their name. But nothing is being done to address that problem.

The stats on that site are just for referrals. Try the stats here: more like 2.5 MtF to 1 FtM ratio.

tgmentalhealth.com/tag/prevalence/

I posted this link in a recent AIBU thread but it got a bit lost in all the responses. It really concerns me that 70% of referrals of teenagers are now girls. I would like to see any consultation addressing why so many potentially vulnerable girls now feel they identify with the dominant gender, and for people to realise that we need to move away from the current focus on MtT:

www.transgendertrend.com/from-adult-males-to-teenage-girls-the-movement-from-etiology-to-ideology/

Attaining quick, accessible and transparent legal gender recognition helps transgender people live more comfortably and free from stigma and discrimination.

Does it though? How does a gender recognition certificate stop stigma and discrimination? It's not as though anyone would even know you had one.

I think that is actually a reasonably positive response. At least it looks as though there will be opportunities for further consultation, although I would hope that it is wider than selected "women's groups".