Trans unpeak.

I don't think Paris Lee's is the archetypal trans woman. Yes I think she looks quite feminine but the things she says would not necessarily represent most trans women.

For some, the ability to have a GRC and to be legally recognised as their chosen gender means a lot. Maybe not to all trans people but to some.

Genuine question about GRCs: why do so few people get one? Paris Lees hasn't got one, and you can't really get more 'authentic transwoman' than them - in fact they sometimes talk about not having one like a bit of a badge of honour?

@Zero Privacy for the majority should be protected.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just pointing out how difficult it would be to scrap the Gender Recognition Act even if politicians were inclined to do so.

I'm increasingly seeing the label 'transphobia' being used to mean 'woman not putting the best interests of a trans person first

Gosh yes, this ^^

Women as always must be the champion of every cause, even when it doesn’t involve women.

Agreed we absolutely need to lobby to repeal the GRA (2004) altogether. There is no need to change legal sex. Same sex marriage is now legal. Names on passports and other ID can already be changed. We’re always told prison cases are looked at on an individual basis anyway. Hardly anyone actually applies for a Gender Recognition Certificate (only 4,500 since the Act).

But the European Court of Human decided that you need to have GRCs to protect trans people's right to privacy, so unless you want to ditch the Human Rights Act too...

It is not right to say a transwoman can't do certain jobs on your say so.

There are situations when the employment protections of trans women and very important rights of women to single sex services are seriously conflicted though...

www.ibtimes.co.uk/nhs-apologises-after-trans-nurse-facial-stubble-selected-do-cervical-smear-test-1653262

And fern.

Yes everything Cleg said

Violets they're protected under the Equality Act.

It is not right to say a transwoman can't do certain jobs on your say so.

As Archery says, if it involves me personally and my body, then yes, of course it is. If you're talking in more general terms, then the Equality Act says so, not me.

Could somebody point out the 'scaremongering' here please? I know it's currently very fashionable buzz word being flung around all over the place but I can't let go of this terribly old fashioned concept of words having actual meaning and this being necessary for communicating with shared meaning. Actual reality as opposed to aggrandisement and superlatives expressing feelings that women really just need to shut up.

For some, the ability to have a GRC and to be legally recognised as their chosen gender means a lot. Maybe not to all trans people but to some.

‘I have a degree in fashion contour Your Honour and i need to work’

Here's Supermatchgame back again giving us the beginners guide to Equality.

I suppose it was time we got a super slagging off again.

Ah, slow refresh. Great answer LangCleg

wherethevioletsgrow what specific rights do trans people need that aren't already catered for under other legislation? Honest question by the way.

Pratchet so would that be replaced with something preserving the rights of people who are transgender? Or would we go back to pre-2004 where there were no specific rights for them? Would you preserve their rights against discrimination under the Equality Act?

The GRA was mostly brought in because post-SRS transsexuals were treated in a discriminatory fashion vis a vis marriage and pensions. It was also brought in as is on the understanding that it would affect a miniscule number of people. You can read Hansard for the debates. They're really quite interesting!

We now have same sex marriage and an equal pension age. So the original need is no longer there. And the numbers are orders of magnitude higher. I think the genie is out of the bottle now, so opposing the GRA altogether is not going to fly - but the original intent of the Act is now redundant.

Gender expression/non-conformity within EqA is the rational area for legislative protection for trans people. And there again, the protected category should not be the nebulous inner feeling -"gender identity" - but a matter of practical and material reality - "gender expression" - so that it can be properly adjudicated in the courts. To the benefit of trans people.

Pratchet so would that be replaced with something preserving the rights of people who are transgender? Or would we go back to pre-2004 where there were no specific rights for them? Would you preserve their rights against discrimination under the Equality Act?

The GRA 2004 has really had its day. While we are fighting Self ID we should campaign for the GRA to be repealed. It's unnecessary.

This legislation has been in force for a long time though, without major issues that I have heard of.

It's not been that long in legal terms. There haven't been very many cases in the higher courts re trans issues (most are Employment Tribunal only and I suspect the vast majority are settled out of court in any event). I think there is only one case which has got to the Supreme Court and that was on the narrow issue of DWP record keeping for trans people, which is not really an area where there is conflict with women's rights.

If this is the first trans bra fitter then it's not surprising that this issue won't have arisen until now, although it's got a lot of similarities to that incident where the patient who requested a female nurse for a smear test and was unhappy that the nurse was a transwoman:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-shocked-transgender-nhs-nurse-11776953.amp
In both cases the employer has to treat their trans employee as a woman and keep their trans status confidential, so they can't ask the customer/patient 'Are you OK with a transwoman doing this?'

I also suspect that the vast majority of these kind of matters go unreported where they do arise, as some women like me won't care and others will either shut up even though their boundaries are being crossed or they won't want to make a fuss (especially at risk of being labelled as bigoted).

Personally I'm in favour of third spaces and allowing women to set their own boundaries (even if their boundaries differ from mine). I don't think there is an easy answer to these situations where you have a trans person wanting to do what I'm going to call an "intimate service" job, you cannot protect the trans person's confidentiality whilst giving the customer/patient the ability to give informed consent, and the law as things stand doesn't deal with such situations very well.

Oh I didn't refresh before posting that - I meant the posts from 8:08am onwards.

"It is not right to say a transwoman can't do certain jobs on your say so.
You don't know their background they may have completed a degree in fashion contour and need to work, they may be better qualified than the next applicant who knows"

They will not be better qualified than a female since most women, given the choice, would choose a female (based on this thread and common sense).

And needing a job is no reason one should get it if it will negatively impact women and girls.

The last few posts on this thread have been excellent.