"It is illegal to ask to see a GRC"

I would certainly like to hear those trans people who say the above does not give them what they want explain why they believe full redefinition under the law without being willing to offer anything back is fair.

Yes, Debbie, I cannot see how human rights can insist upon handing over access to same sex spaces to anyone who simply says I want that access.

It makes no sense as it is prioritising ease of access to rights they already have via an established act of parliament versus those who would be asked to give up rights if that act were amended.

If there was no existing right of access I would agree that it might be arguable that we should create one. But this is about shifting the goal posts to allow in under the radar those currently unwilling to apply.

The best solution I can see is keep the GRA more or less as it is for the purpose it was designed and with the gatekeeping that without which I doubt it would have even passed in the first place. Certainly not without a fight.

And create a new Gender Identity Act that defines rights of access and protection against discrimination for those who want to just live their lives as they choose.

But without legally redefining them for all purposes of the law which should remain gatekept.

This takes no freedom of choice away from anyone.

Those wanting quick easy self ID for the right to live day to day get that via this new act.

Those who want to legally be redefined for all purposes have ti go the full way and through the checks and balances provided.

Personally I would add some physical transition requirement there too, but I suspect that would not be allowed by international law.

And, crucially for this forum, doing both of the above retains the rights for women of not having to face many more not really transitioned people into their spaces.

Seems by far the simplest way to go. And hard to see who could object. As it gives more or less what everybody wants.

Debbie
However international human rights best practice requires us to move to a system of self declaration.

Do you mean the Council of Europe Resolution 2048? I understood that this was just recommendations, not a directive.

The problem goes then goes away, doesn't it?

You can ask someone if they have a GRC but they are under no obligation to answer. (I don't, by the way). Neither a birth certificate nor a DBS check will identify a GRC-transitioner so it's unclear how any single sex exemptions could be applied once someone has a GRC.

So far this hasn't been a problem because the few people who have GRCs tend to have medically and surgically transitioned so it hasn't been necessary to apply single sex exemptions.

However international human rights best practice requires us to move to a system of self declaration. This is likely to increase the number of people with GRCs and draw in more people who make no body modifications at all.

Under these circumstances it's probable that womens groups would want to apply single sex exemptions but it's no clearer how they could work. It's not surprising therefore that the Women and Equalities Committee recommended abolishing them for anyone with a GRC.

The problem goes then goes away, doesn't it?

Debbie

I think those fighting for self ID know fine well that they could not get a diagnosis of sex dysphoria. And this is why they want all 'gatekeeping' gone.

Its not the cost, as its already means tested.

I think your last paragraph applies Speedy.

And is one of many reasons I do not want gatekeeping removed.

Let's face it there has to be a good reason why 595,000 trans people are not willing to apply under the current rules to get a GRC whereas 5000 have.

It is not because of lack of surgery or hormones. Neither of those are necessities. Though they do usually make access easier and quicker.

Is it the £140 fee? Okay, means test and fund it and if you can afford it and won't pay then it is hardly something you NEED to have is it?

Is it the need to wait 2 years first? Well it is going to be at least that long before any self ID law comes into focus so why are all these people not just applying anyway if it so urgent the delay needs removing?

My suspicion has to be it is the need to a see a doctor first and talk this through. And if it is just a matter of principle - I don't NEED a doctor so I am not going, then the urgency again cannot be there otherwise surely you would just swallow that as a means to an end.

So are there other reasons that make some one afraid to see a doctor?

If you're not allowed to ask whether someone is transgender, and the DBS check doesn't give you any relevant information then I can't see how the exceptions in the EA can be applied. Meaning that anyone with a GRC is their acquired sex for all purposes (no exceptions) and if self ID goes ahead any man can "become" a woman and be treated exactly as someone born female, with no exceptions.

Well I think that what the EHRC's guidance is saying is that if you are just trying to ascertain someone's legal sex (which is all most service providers and employers normally need to do) then you should just be asking for the birth certificate. You don't need ask for the GRC and to do so would be discriminatory as it would unnecessarily force trans people to reveal information they would presumably rather keep private.

However, it would be different in the case of eg a woman's refuge. There are exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 which basically say that refuges who are providing single sex services can do things which would normally be considered discriminatory against trans people if they have an objective justification for doing so. A refuge which is only open to and only employs biological females could ask transwomen if they are trans without it being discriminatory, as long as the refuge has a good enough reason for wanting to exclude transwomen from the service. Such a refuge would need to find out what a person's biological sex is, not just their current legal sex.

What I still remain unclear about though is the practicalities for single sex refuges. What happens in a situation where a transwoman applies for a job with a single biological sex refuge if the transwoman does not reveal their trans status?

• If the transwoman were non-passing, the refuge could ask them whether they were trans but if the trans person lied how would the refuge check? I suppose the refuge could exclude anyone they thought was trans as the Equality Act exemptions apply to discrimination by perception too (ie it would hypothetically be legal for a refuge to discriminate against someone who they thought was trans, even if it turns out they are not trans) but that's not very satisfactory. I suspect in the case of women's sport which is also subject to biological sex exemptions under the Equality Act 2010 the sport's governing body could ask a suspected transwoman to provide a blood sample for testing, but I can't imagine it being appropriate or practical for refuges to do the same!

• What happens if the transwoman passes? I don't know of any routine checks that the refuge could run which would reveal someone's trans status.

I would be delighted if anyone knows the answers to the above questions, as I remain unclear. I should say for the record that I don't think the situations above are particularly likely to happen but there ought to be something in place just in case as otherwise the biological sex based exemptions are a bit meaningless. Also, whilst I'm sure that at least 99.9% of transwomen with a GRC are lovely people who just want to get on with their lives and wouldn't want to apply for a job at a single sex women's refuge, there was that case of the male Canadian sex predator who pretended to be a transwoman to get a job at a women's shelter. I'm not clear whether he had the equivalent of a GRC or whether the shelter was just allowing him to work there as he identified as female, but I suspect the latter. I would hope that the current GRC process would weed out men with nefarious purposes so that they can't legally change sex and get a new birth certificate.

More attention is being directed toward finding out if perhaps more gatekeeping is necessary.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/11/nhs-launches-sexual-abuse-probe-amid-fears-dangers-mixed-sex/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. I think I got a bit confused after looking at loads of legal stuff.

I had assumed that the applicant had to disclose previous names. But I've just looked at the link posted by someone earlier in the thread, and they don't have to disclose those to the employer, only to the DBS.

If you're not allowed to ask whether someone is transgender, and the DBS check doesn't give you any relevant information then I can't see how the exceptions in the EA can be applied. Meaning that anyone with a GRC is their acquired sex for all purposes (no exceptions) and if self ID goes ahead any man can "become" a woman and be treated exactly as someone born female, with no exceptions.

The transgender status of the applicant should be disclosed through a DBS check. So as long as that was done properly, the employer/service provider should have the relevant information to exclude a transwoman in your example.

Really? DBS is only about criminal convictions and other recorded brushes with the law. From what I have read the DBS process goes out of its way to not disclose someone's trans status. I understand that if a trans person is honest and follows the correct procedure to register previous names then any previous convictions will show up but their trans status will still not be revealed to a prospective employer.

I can't see anything there that talks about people who get a GRC but don't get a new birth certificate (I am tired though so if I've missed something please do quote).

The guidance I linked to earlier seems to be saying that on being granted a GRC the registrar is automatically informed, they send a draft of how the new birth cert will look and if you're happy with the details you sign and return. A new, free, short birth certificate is then sent to you (with a paid option for a long certificate).

I can't see how it's possible that someone going through the process of getting a GRC is unaware that they can get a new birth certificate at the end of it. What else is a GRC for?

Pencils
What I'm not sure about is how this works with the sex based exceptions in the EA. For example if you're trying to hire only natal women to be rape counsellors in your women's org (which is legal), what do you do if a TW with a new birth certificate applies?

The transgender status of the applicant should be disclosed through a DBS check. So as long as that was done properly, the employer/service provider should have the relevant information to exclude a transwoman in your example.

If the exceptions are written into the legislation, I would hope there would be a way to apply them.

I googled and got them via

uktrans.info/grc-stats

Where are those figures from Jaycee?

Pencils I don't know how many of those with a GRC have a new birth certificate but it is not all of them surprisingly. It was under 1000 not that long ago and whilst it is several thousand now I believe it is still well under the total GRCs issued.

I do not understand why. Perhaps some just do not realise that you can.

The December 2014 figures for those with Gender Recognition Certificates who had a new birth certificate came to 3779 in total - 3485 from England and Wales, 239 from Scotland and 55 from Northern Ireland.

That is around two thirds or so of the total GRCs I think.

Of these 2866 were given a new female assignment and 913 a new male one.

Scotland has the highest percentage of trans men with a new assigned birth certificate at 36% to 64 % female assigned. The other countries are around 25% to 75%.

This needs clarifying - I'm assuming the Labour AWS crowdfunder has the potential to go some way to achieving this?

No, that exception works differently. AWS are open to anyone whose legal sex is female - i.e. women + TW with a grc/new birth certificate.

It appears quite clear that it is considered discriminatory in violation of the EA to ask for anything more than ID.

What I'm not sure about is how this works with the sex based exceptions in the EA. For example if you're trying to hire only natal women to be rape counsellors in your women's org (which is legal), what do you do if a TW with a new birth certificate applies?

This needs clarifying - I'm assuming the Labour AWS crowdfunder has the potential to go some way to achieving this?

Thanks for drilling down into the detail, Pencils. These things are important to thrash out.

It's frustrating for me when the "other side" reduces everything to toilets.

OldCrone - It doesn't actually say it's illegal to ask for it, though.

I was just looking at that. It's statutory code. It's not legally binding but it must be taken into account in any court case or tribunal. More info here.

So it's pretty much illegal to ask for a GRC but anyone with a GRC will almost certainly have a new birth certificate anyway.

What I'm not sure about is how this works with the sex based exceptions in the EA. For example if you're trying to hire only natal women to be rape counsellors in your women's org (which is legal), what do you do if a TW with a new birth certificate applies?

The feminist angle is that I see a lot of posts on MN saying it is illegal even to ask for a GRC. The implication is that it is difficult practically or legally to block predatory men or alternatively transwomen at the start of their transition from women's spaces.

Gotcha. Thanks. However, I think you are conflating two things, aren't you?

The "illegal to ask for a GRC" conversation arose over the Labour AWS issue. To whit: if only male-born GRC holders are eligible in law, how can this be ascertained if it is not lawful to ask for a GRC? Answer: ask for a birth certificate from everyone on an AWS, including born females.

On toilets and changing rooms, the feminist conversation is about self-ID meaning that women will be unable to challenge any males in their spaces, since they would simply be able to claim a trans identity with nobody able to contradict that. On this issue, it is transactivists who claim this means feminists are suggesting documentation should be required to enter women's spaces such as toilets. Feminists aren't doing that - it is clearly ridiculous and unworkable - feminists are saying that they don't want intact males in their spaces regardless of trans identities.

It seems to me that your OP is somewhat of a straw man in that it misrepresents what women are saying here by conflating two different concerns: a) how to maintain integrity of eligibility to women only programmes/jobs etc to women and GRC holders, b) protecting the integrity of single sex spaces to ensure women's safety. The GRC issue applies only to a).

Prison service instructions say Staff must not ask to see a GRC but can request sight of a birth certificate. Where an offender does offer a GRC as form of evidence and identity, they must be treated in the gender identified on the certificate. (from here, scroll down to download the word doc - 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders. Para 4.1)

The government guidance for GRC applicants has this to say:

7.3 New Birth, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates

• If your birth has a UK birth entry on receipt of a full GRC, the relevant Registrar General will send you a draft of the information to be recorded in the Gender Recognition Register (GRR) to clarify what the entry will look like and to resolve any queries before the registration goes ahead. The draft will contain all the details about date and place of birth and parentage that are included in your original birth record

• In the case of an adopted person, the draft will show the adoptive parents rather than the birth parents unless the adoption order has been quashed.

• If your birth was registered in England and Wales or Scotland, the format of your certificate will match that of your original birth certificate, other than it will show your new name and acquired gender.

• On receipt of your confirmation that the draft contains the correct information, the Registrar General will create a new record in the GRR. Your current contact details will not be recorded in the register. (The purpose of a GRR is simply to create a new record from which the Registrar General may produce a new birth certificate. It is not a record of all known transsexual people, nor will it be ever be used as such. The register does not record current address details or any other information which could be used to locate a transsexual person. The Register is held in the same way as the other central registers maintained by the Registrar General, such as those for adopted children and those for whom the courts have issued a parental order, and is not be open for public scrutiny.)

• A free short birth certificate will be sent to you by post together with any additional full birth certificates you have purchased. Information about purchasing a new birth certificate will be sent to you with the draft entry.

I would be amazed if there were many people who went throught the whole GRC process and then decided not to bother getting the new birth certificate when the process is pretty much automatic.

On the question of name changes, the birth certificate that can be issued to someone with a GRC - though only a couple of thousand have been - is a copy for use as proof of ID in day to day situations.

But the original birth certificate is not altered or removed from record. It will not be released to anyone on request unless there are specific needs - terrorism, police investigation etc. But in circumstances such as a prisoner changing name it ought to be easy to do to find all records regardless.

I thought the problem with Ian Huntly was that he gave a new name and there were no systems in place either to check his other names and that was why he passed the DBS checks and was able to get the job in the school, despite his history of being a serial rapist of underage girls.

Apparently according to this www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/17/soham.ukcrime2
there were 2 issues with Huntley:
A) the vetting officer knew they should have checked against both his names (Nixon and Huntley) but failed to do so, due to human error; and
B) there are issues about how crimes which are not charged are recorded, which are an issue whether someone has changed their name or not.

So human error is always an issue but I don't see it being a particular trans issue. If someone just wants to try and make things as difficult as possible they could just change their name via deed poll and hope that the vetting officer makes a mistake.

I imagine DBS must have systems in place to deal with situations where people fail to disclose their old names, as otherwise any criminal could just change their name by deed poll and live a new life.

I thought the problem with Ian Huntly was that he gave a new name and there were no systems in place either to check his other names and that was why he passed the DBS checks and was able to get the job in the school, despite his history of being a serial rapist of underage girls.

So that doesn't fill me with confidence if the DBS are relying on people giving all previous names.