Victoria Derbyshire today and Girlguides

For anyone confused about the equality law and the exemptions, guess what? it is confusing

Because it's conflates gender with sex, it doesn't define certain words, and it was never meant to be exploited in the way it is.

Thankfully some bright spark put exemptions in. But, even they, could not have envisaged quite how the law would be twisted to suit an agenda.

For instance, I'm sure they never meant that men could compete in sport as women, or work in rape refuges, or this boy/girl overnight accommodation, or grown men demanding to change amongst teen girls.

And I'm sure, they didn't see burly men, with beards, presenting as entirely masculine, demanding they be treated 'as women'.

In short, this was for effeminate transsexuals, who are not political, just trying to get on with it under the radar.

It has now been exploited by transvestites. They, more than anyone else, thrive on the validation of been thought of as women. Which is why they target everything women.

And explanation of the exemptions, which is specific, is here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175666-Want-to-know-why-women-are-livid-trans-thread

@loveyouradvice

The term transsexual is used because that is the language used in s7. of the Equality Act:

Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

So ss1. states that somebody gains the protected characteristic of gender reassignment the moment they make the choice to undergo. . .a process, etc; and the process itself isn't deemed to be necessarily medical, it could just be a social transition.

ss2. then is used to declare that any use of the term 'transsexual' refers to any person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (so a transsexual in the terms of the Act is somebody who may or may not have had any medical treatment)

ss3. is then mostly legalese for the purposes of the Act, but also contains the the definition that somebody who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is a reference to a transsexual person for the purposes of the Act.

So under the terms of the Act children qualify for s7. protection as long as they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone, etc.

If you go on FPFW website you can find the Hansard transcripts for when the GRA 2004 was passed into law (who'd have thought I'd be reading them thinking, OMG I agree with Norman Tebbit!)

The argument was it was such a TINY number of transsexuals (about 90 a year) that it'd have virtually no impact. If you read the FPFW reports on 'how did we get here' you'll see the wriggle room you are now highlighting is how TRAs are now driving a coach and horses through bad law. It was only ever meant to protect your 'old money' transssexuals, not cross dressers and drag queens and all the rest now 'under the umbrella'.

Another soapbox of mine, those pushing this gender ID through are almost always NOT transsexuals, and also NOT dysphoric, they are adult men with a fetish. The FPFW report on the prison consultation would make your hair curl, some data in there that left me speechless. I suggest everyone read it.

it seems to me that this is a Men's Sexual Rights Movement masquerading as civil rights, using kids as collateral or a battering ram. Problem is they are extremely effective at lobbying (well they would be, they are rich, powerful white men)

Did you read these reports, it's all here: fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

No that is correct crone. Self ID is pretty much already here and those people have protections - even if the only person they told ws their mum over breakfast. However without a GRC you remain your birth sex. So for women and girls, EXEMPTIONS is our ace up the sleeve.

So changing rooms and loos - it's not illegal for a man to go in the ladies, but Topshop could and SHOULD invoke the exemption. The pressure is on them not to, but that's what we have to change. Even with a GRC, shops, loos, clubs, changing rooms, sports teams, colleges etc, just need to invoke the exemptions, they are entitled to.

Self ID massively effects prisons, which is why FPFW have done some much work on prisons, some great reports on the website and they've made waves in the press, and with the MoJ etc.

Also, in some places self ID is being used as if it was law, hospital wards, that woman getting a TiM nurse for a smear despite asking for a female etc, imho those exemptions should be mandatory - remember you can exclude a legal female (a transwoman) even if they have a GRC if you can show it's legitimate, and nearly always it is. Ditto data collection, some forces are now collecting data by gender not sex. We have to shout loud enough til they stop.

And short of repeal of the sloppy bit of law that is GRA 2004, then extension of exemptions with some of them becoming mandatory is my wish.

All GGA need to do is invoke the exemption. There'd probably be a very loud amount of shouting, but they would not be breaking the law.

@loveyouradvice

From the Equality Act 2010
7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So proposing to undergo gender reassignment could just be deciding to do so one morning and telling your mates, and you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

In fact, with that in mind, self-id changes very little apart from being able to get a GRC under the above circumstances.

I'm now hoping that someone with a better understanding of the law will come along and tell me I'm wrong.

People are recognised as their preferred gender under gender reassignment on their say so already by 'proposing to undergo' so they do have legal protection, just for being trans. However some rights for trans people are only conferred by a legal change e.g. standing on a women's only short list - this is open to LEGAL females so would include natal women and transwomen with a GRC.

In some instances you could exclude a transwoman even with a GRC - say a rape crisis centre.

Sometimes NOT treating everyone the same is the fairest thing to do. The law completely allows for this.

However kids cannot legally change sex, you're right. So a boy who identifies as a girl is protected by 'gender reassignment' he does not, afaik, also get to piggy back 'sex' as a girl, he remains of the male sex. So a single sex organisation, like GG, which says it's invoking a female only exemption, could exclude him. And in fact could exclude a legal transwoman for the same reason, as long as it's a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. I think the GGA can more than demonstrate this and have in fact demonstrated this for more than 100 years.

There was a big hoo ha a few years ago when a boy tried to join (before all the gender nonsense) - after the EA2010 came into effect Im pretty sure, and he was excluded and the GGA defended their decision for all the reasons we've discussed on this thread. That was not unlawful.

Just as famous boy's school Eton will accept boys who identify as girls - there they are protecting their single (male) sex exemption, AND protecting the pupil's 'gender reassignment' characteristic. Trans inclusive and single sex. It's legal.

They would have a good argument for excluding girls who indentify as boys as they are a single SEX school.

The thing to get your head around is exemptions, women have them to address the imbalance of sexism: fairplayforwomen.com/legal-rights-transgender-people-biological-women/

So GGA are either confused about or choosing not to invoke their single sex exemption (despite saying on their website that they do, their website makes my head hurt, it's a mess). Where I think they'd have a harder time is excluding FEMALES who identify as boys or non binary. And actually including TiFs would be a way for GGA to keep everyone happy, remain female only, AND be trans inclusive. As I said above, surely being in a positive female environment where you can be free of gendered expectations would be a balm for dysphoria and the choppy waters of adolescence that girls go through. Most dysphoric kids grow out of it, most trans identified girls turn out to be lesbians, GGA could do a wonderful thing by embracing these female children and offering them a safe space to work it all out.

I'm hoping Dr Williams of FPFW will be along soon to double check I'm correct, I'm 99.99% sure I am!

Love under the current legislation, you'd be right. Under Self-ID, the only thing a person needs to be recognised as the opposite sex is their own say so.

It's beyond bizarre.

wondering if Im being dumb.... the law quoted above discusses transsexuals ... i.e. those post op..... and others have flagged up physiological change being end point....

Surely children under 18, and especially under 16, don't qualify????

I see debate has moved on a bit here. My dd was in Rainbows/Brownies and GG for about 6 or 7 years.

Just wanted to share what I put on the OP's other thread I'm AIBU...

My daughter left Girl Guides because she was bored. I'm relieved. I feel very sad GG is buying into this stuff and not challenging sex stereotypes dressed up as innate identity.

Most of all I am angry that young girls are being subjected to massive gaslighting that says a boy is a girl because he says so.

Gender Recognition Certificates are for adults (correct me, please, if I am wrong).

So IMHO youngsters who are experiencing gender dysforia should be allowed to be as gender non-conforming as they like and grow up keeping their options open.

There are many unisex youth organisations to choose from. Very few for single sex.

I was part of a unisex youth organisation. It was great.

I sadly predict this will kill of support for GG. And it is there own fault!

They jumped into self Id for children and adults before anything was set in UK law for anyone (and I REALLY hope self id will not for just this sort of problem!).

They have put the desires or expectations of a tiny percentage of natal boys and men over the interests of girls.

Very sad and disappointing.

And their stance on girls who do not feel like girls/ 'trans boys' shows they are not, in fact, inclusive.

Haru

yes I understood that, but you are incorrect I'm almost certain. the law allows exactly for this, they can exclude on gender reassignment and they can exclude people of the male sex (kids can't legally change sex til they are 18). They can also exclude transwomen with a GRC (males who are legally female).

The way they COULD be trans inclusive is to include girls who are NB or identify as boys and not ask them to leave (be a good environment for them imho, if they dropped all the self ID bobbins imho)

Eton for example, will not allow in girls who identify as boys, but will allow in boys who identify as girls. Invoking their single SEX exemption, whilst also protecting kids under gender reassignment. Same thing.

Oh and aristocratic titles. A TIM can still inherit, but his older sister who decides she's a man, guess what, not getting her hands on the family pile.

Exactly. But from everything I've read, even if GGA wanted to say, for over 100 years we've been female only, and we wish to continue to be so (which they kinda say on their word salad website) they are perfectly entitled to do so.

They can easily demonstrate the negative impact on girls of admitting males, and they have huge amounts of evidence on their website to demostrate how girls benefit from female only space, and are detrimentally affected by sexism. It's a slam dunk.

The only reason GGA aren't invoking the exemption in full, is they've been bamboozled by a bunch of snake oil salesmen masquerading as civil rights advocates. Or, even worse, they don't really care about the girls in their charge, and have decided to prioritise the feelings of boys instead.

@GirlScout72

Sorry, I meant solely in terms of the Guides as a single-sex service provider and Association. I mean, for things like Communal Accommodation, I can't immediately see a problem if the Guides wanted to invoke the exemption, although I don't know if the law around Communal Accommodation extends to temporary structures like tents, or is only applicable to permanent structures.

Plus there's a difference with a transgirl being able to join the guides, and a transgirl sharing overnight accommodation with girls, without their parents' knowledge.

No it's not on women only clubs, Nic has spent months painstakingly going through the law, all of it on all the exemptions. Hopefully she'll be along soon, but meanwhile I suggest you read all the guidance on the website.

GGA are perfectly entitled to be female only. They have a MASSIVE historical precedent of over 100 years for starters.

@GirlScout72

I'm assuming it's the section on Women-Only Clubs. The only problem I can see there with the interpretation is how it meshes with the requirements set out in 13.60 of the Services, Public Functions and Associations Statutory Guidance which would cover Women-Only Clubs:

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.

What's ringing my alarm bells there are (highlighted areas are of particular concern):

"...any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible..."

"... 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..."

When this gets coupled with the example of what constitutes lawful discrimination within the statute itself I can see why the Guides aren't going to take the risk of trying to invoke the exemption.

Sorry, here: fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EA2010_womensrights_-factsheet.pdf

Haru

Nicola Williams wrote this up for FPFW website, I don't think you're right, GGA can lawfully exclude.

fairplayforwomen.com/legal-rights-transgender-people-biological-women/

But you are right, there is no case law, which is why, I think, it'll boil down to a legal challenge somewhere.

FPFW also did a factsheet:

I've seen a lot of WomansPlaceUK support on my social media today - having had a look at their website would it be worth contacting them about this?

I hadn't come across them before, but they are gender critical women's libbers.

@OldCrone

"[T]he law needs updating"

Bit of a genie in a bottle that one. It's a risk because imagine the situation where it is decided to revise the Equality Act and the consultation stage comes back: Conflation of Gender Reassignment and Sex into a new protected characteristic of Gender Identity; yes: repealing GRA2004 and incorporating Self-ID into the Equality Bill; yes. Or Parliament amends the Bill to incorporate this. Or the House of Lords amends the Bill to incorporate this.

My friend's daughter got a place at a girl's secondary, decided to self-ID as a boy aged 11, and couldn't go to that school (not entirely sure if it was her decision or the school).
She was in home ed for a year and then decided she was a girl again. I think she went to another school (but she's back in school anyway).
She also has ASD.

Does anyone know how single-sex schools are handling this issue? What I've heard in the past is that they do the opposite of the guides, so if a girl decides to identify as a boy, she is allowed to stay on at her girls' school, but they will not admit boys who identify as girls.

As I was typing that I had this feeling of having entered a strange parallel universe. How have we ever got to the stage where people can just identify as something they are not and everyone is supposed to accept it?

@SemaMjinga

"But what does 'live life as a woman mean'"

From the wording of the example given in Explanatory Notes -> Part 2 -> Chapter 1 -> Section 7, it appears to be a subjective decision made by an individual, and therefore any legal test of the term would itself be subjective.

"'[a] woman' is defined as 'a female of any age "

s212. General interpretation. This section is there mostly to ensure that the legislation can be interpreted by courts and relevant bodies in a consistent matter. So in this case it ensures that every use of the word woman in the act also applies to those cases which involve girls, or where the term female is used (courts are required to read statute as literally as possible whenever possible, so by adding this it makes it clear that when the term 'woman' is used in the statute it is to cover all women, and it stops people trying to be clever by saying, 'Oh I haven't discriminated against them, because they are girls, and the Act only refers to women', or saying, 'I haven't discriminated against any of my female employees because they are all listed as being female and the Act only references women). If, big if, but if my reasoning on the previous post is sound that means that 'woman' would then also cover anybody who has acquired that identity as a result of the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment when being applied to the provisioning or use of services, including single-sex services, employment, and the use of facilities, except where exceptions apply and exemptions have been legally made.

". . .there are no attributes of sex, other than Anatomical and Physiological"

That is something you would have to take up with the framers of the statute. "Attributes of sex" is quite literally the term used:

• A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. (EA2010.s7.ss1)

Legal work can only ever be undertaken within the body of existing law (which is basically common law, statutes, and case law) and legal arguments have to be framed within that context, constraints, and wording.