Go Fund Me addiction part 2

The other thing they can do is allow a simple self-ID to generate a GRC?

Ie. tick a box, print off your own certificate, sort of process?

The TRAs complain that to have a diagnosis of dysphoria/have to answer intimate medical questions/wait 2yrs, is demeaning for transpeople.

Personally - and I hate to sound down about this - I think we're fucked. One way or another, they will get this self-ID through. I think it'll be my daughter, or even grandaughter's generation that will fight back on this, once a generation of women & girls has suffered and lived through the results of this.

LangCleg

Yes it does help. Thank you.

I'm finding it a minefield of what appear to be conflicting ideas and statements. But that's only because it's so unfamiliar to me.

AWS in this context relates to prospective parliamentary candidates only.

So Parliamentary candidate wouldn't cover women's officer? Or any of the posts they advertised as being for self identified women?

Say that Labour change the AWS to self identifying women. How much, if any, precedence does that give a government, when changing the terms of GRA to say "well this is already working in principle"?

I'm not of a legal persuasion but I have this feeling that they need to get these changes practically applied before they legally apply them to either desensitize the population to the idea that women are anybody who says they are women or there are some legal technicalities that it will assist. I could be wrong and tin foil hatty in that.

Datun

What you need to understand - and I know there are a gazillion things all going on at once! - is that AWS are different to anything else. In the normal run of things, AWS would be illegal on the grounds they discriminate against men. But, EA2010 made a very specific exemption in the case of AWS only because female representation in politics was so woeful.

*The AWS exemption is for a limited time period only - up to 2030.

*It allows for AWS on the protected characteristic of sex.

*A GRC changes legal sex so women and GRC holding TW are eligible.

*After 2030, the limited time for improving female political representation will be over and there will be no more AWS.

AWS in this context relates to prospective parliamentary candidates only*. All women shortlists for other things are not covered by this exemption.

*It is currently illegal to allow self-ID in AWS for this reason. But self-ID in other areas depends upon entities invoking the other, more general, single sex exemptions in EA2010. Two different things.

*This is a completely separate issue and has no bearing on self-ID in other areas or on other single sex exemptions in EA2010.

Hope that helps!

As people have said on other threads, obvious men in the women's loos get challenged usually. Penalties for disclosing individuals' GRCs are more draconian so I imagine people will be too scared to raise legitimate concerns.

The LP started saying self ID'd transwomen could apply - ie people who are not legally women. There is no exemption under the Equality Act for gender ID (YET!! That'll be their next step though) - therefore at the moment allowing self ID transwomen - not legally women - onto AWS could be legally challenged.

Interestingly the proposed amendments to the GRA not only include removing all three criteria, it also includes changing gender reassignment to gender identity under the equality act.

It seems, from the outside, to be fairly moot. Because gender reassignment does not actually have to involve anything. You can just say you are considering becoming a transwoman.

But, there is no way activists would have asked for it if it wasn't going to be beneficial.

I suspect it will mean that a very male presenting man who has no intention of transitioning can claim a female identity as a purely administrative tick box.

It's sort of like that now. But there are at least cultural protocols to defy.

This way, those cultural protocols will simply wear away over a few years.

If anyone says the word woman, an automatic response will be, which kind? No one will blink an eye, it will be entirely normal.

Then it will be, ooh one of the old fashioned kind! An actual, biological woman. We haven't had one of those for ages.

However, the way the LP is going at the moment, I'd expect them to pull AWS rather than back down and say "only trranswomen with a GRC are allowed on AWS".

That would get a hell of a lot more publicity than this niche issue, though. And this is ALL about public perception.

The thing about the law is, even if something is against the law (and this is arguable), you can still do it, until/unless someone complains and gets the Court or Parliament to decide one way or the other.

Exactly.

Hands up who thinks the only court action we'll see is when Big Steve, a man who identifies as a man, takes Labour to court over not putting him on an all-women shortlist?

And, given the precedent of Heather Peto (a man who identifies as a woman) who is already on an AWS, he'll probably bloody win.

Oh we live in interesting times.

Sorry - took ages typing that - xposted with loads of posters!

My understanding is that Ereshkigal is correct.

AWS are exempt from Equality Act on the basis that biological sex is a protected characteristic. Transwomen holding GRC are legally women so entitled to apply to AWS.

The LP started saying self ID'd transwomen could apply - ie people who are not legally women. There is no exemption under the Equality Act for gender ID (YET!! That'll be their next step though) - therefore at the moment allowing self ID transwomen - not legally women - onto AWS could be legally challenged.

(However, the way the LP is going at the moment, I'd expect them to pull AWS rather than back down and say "only trranswomen with a GRC are allowed on AWS". Because they've totally gone down the "anyone who says they are a woman is a woman" rabbit hole.)

I would like to see the fund used to challenge this - however if it was, and was successful, the TRAs will go for getting self-ID added to the Equality Act as a protected characteristic, I imagine - then there would be nothing we can do to challenge it.

Which leaves me wondering how on earth Labour are going to wriggle out of it, since this is what is rumoured.

They're calling our bluff. It will need to go to court to challenge it.

That's also my understanding Datun, but I'm not a lawyer either!

I've been in touch with JJ regarding the changing of terms for donation. With her permission to share here's what she sent to me.

Thanks for getting in touch, point taken. Hopefully the party will confirm our position is correct and everybody will get a refund. We are more than happy to refund people, whatever happens.

I will update everyone tonight.

She also suggests that Mumsnet Labour members get involved in their CLPs and stand as delegates for the Labour conference. Deadline is in June.

Thank you ChemistryGeek

And I'm sorry to have subjected you to my tortured thought processes as and when they happened.

I've now got my head around it.

Which leaves me wondering how on earth Labour are going to wriggle out of it, since this is what is rumoured.

Abandoning all women shortlist seems like a remarkably suicidal tactic.

If that argument is correct of course, there are 2 options - limit AWS to "women" as per the exemption OR get rid of AWS...

YY. Might open a can of worms there.

OK. Women get to have an all women shortlist on the basis that although discriminatory to men, there is an exemption place under the EA based on sex.

The Labour Party said that their all women shortlist open only to self identifying women.

Not women. Self identifying women.

Because, they want to open it to TIMs either invoking the EA, or invoking the GRA.

Which, from what I can gather now, misses the point.

I think it's because I always mistakenly see the equalities act backwards. I see it is giving rights to people, rather than providing exemptions.

So AWS, are exempt from being discriminatory to men under EA law on the basis of sex.

Ok. That makes more sense. And explains why the other protected characteristic does not come into play.

Except where the TIM holds a GRC, which gives them the same legal status as other women.

Have I got that right?

In practice though this argument may serve to undermine the concept of AWS entirely.

As far as I am aware AWS and excluding men would be illegal if it weren't for invoking the EA exemption. Which is on the grounds of sex, not "gender identity".

I don't think you need a definition Datun. You only need a definition of sex=female in the legal sense (which exists). That then make AWS legal discrimination. Anything outside of this is illegal. You don't need to define anything outside of this, just know that it doesn't meet the sex=female definition which is allowable under proportionate means.

AWS are invoking an exemption on the grounds of sex, not gender reassignment. Self ID is not directly the law. Self ided TIMs have not had a legal gender change. Only those with GRC.

Actually I'm assuming it means someone who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment. So meaningless.

I could be wrong, but the original notice didn't actually say women, it said self identified women. It didn't say women and self identified women.

But I'm just going to check that.

Although all they would have to do is include both?

In which case, what was Jennifer James basing her challenge on?

Thank you ChemistryGeek

I know these are a lot of questions.