Response received from Minister via MP

PeakPants
But in practice it's unworkable. The Scottish Transgender Alliance want the exceptions to be removed, because:
as well as violating trans people’s article 8 human right to privacy [under the ECHR] about their gender reassignment history, [it] is generally unworkable because the only way anyone could prove beyond doubt that they had not undergone gender reassignment would be to submit to an unacceptably intrusive medical examination.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

I'm sure we've had this discussion before...

OldCrone, trust me, you can and domestic violence shelters tend to do this. They will be able to do so even if self-ID comes in.

PeakPants
After self-ID, a male to female trans person with a GRC will also have a female ID. They can also still be excluded under the EA if it is necessary to have single sex services.
How? If they have a female birth certificate, and say they were born female, how would you be able to exclude them?

I agree with a bit of everything posted above

If the government genuinely intends to distinguish between sex and gender, then the assurance on retaining the current sex-based exemptions is good news (and everyone with that written on an official piece of paper needs to hold onto it for future reference)

But, as we have seen with AWS and various organisations, there can be a disconnect between legislation vs policy vs practice. At a really basic level, the receptionist at a council run leisure centre needs to know very clearly whether it is OK to sell a ticket to an obvious transwoman who is asking to attend a women's only session or if she will get sued if she refuses. Unless the law is crystal clear on how the exemptions work, and organisations interpret them in accordance with the law (and not how TRAs have told them it should work), it doesn't matter where this all ends up because women's sex-based exemptions will be rendered meaningless.

As a bit of an aside, has anyone heard of any women's organisations that have been contacted as part of the pre-consultation stakeholder engagement exercise?

No Suited but I believe that the argument needs to be made on the basis of retaining and strengthening protections under the EA.

I think there is a lack of information and guidelines as to when they can provide single sex services

No no no. There is plenty of guidance. There is deliberate misleading by trans advocates, unless it suits them to argue otherwise.

So, PeakPants, all this fuss and aggro is for nothing. All SF, LM and their pals want is a bit of paper saying they are women. They aren't expecting access to women's spaces, rights, sports, etc and they want nothing whatsoever to change?

They are happy with that?

And less intrusive and unnecessary questions about date of birth, etc - when all you are doing is a bit of internet shopping.

My feeling is that GRCs need to be scrapped and there should be limits as to who can ask you to disclose your sex.

Instead of having to tick male or female on every bloody form - how about, only businesses and services where sex is relevant can ask?

That might actually benefit women since we're less likely to be stereotyped.

I think there is a lack of information and guidelines as to when they can provide single sex services. The Labour thing just shows complete and utter confusion and misunderstanding by the party leadership.

The fact that many businesses choose not to use the EA exemptions is a different matter obviously.

Yes, why do you think that might be?

Yes, the Labour Party's stance is not in accordance with the law. But most of these people don't even have a GRC and self-ID refers specifically to getting a GRC. Labour's self-ID is a different kind to what is being proposed. I believe there will be a legal challenge against Labour and that might clarify matters.

The Labour party is a case in point. All women shortlists are a form of discrimination. They have legally been allowed only on the basis of sex, because women are underrepresented and the courts have accepted this is a legal means to increase participation by women.

That's what the (time limited) ruling on the AWS specified. By allowing men who merely self-identify as trans but do not have a GRC to be listed on AWS, Labour is actually violating the ruling. Hence the crowdfunder for a legal challenge.

So Labour is not only breaking the rules, it does so without self-id actually having been enshrined in law. Which is why all the arm waving about how harmless self-id is and how it won't change a thing is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately untruthful.

The request for ID has been the method previously used to screen entry to sex segregated spaces. I suspect you know that.

Yes and a male to female trans person with a GRC will have a female ID. They can still be excluded under the Equality Act if it is necessary to have single sex services.

After self-ID, a male to female trans person with a GRC will also have a female ID. They can also still be excluded under the EA if it is necessary to have single sex services. A random man who wakes up and wants to be a woman today will not have female ID and can be excluded regardless.

Self-ID refers to the process of getting a GRC, it does not mean that people can decide on the day to identify as a woman because they feel like it.

The request for ID has been the method previously used to screen entry to sex segregated spaces. I suspect you know that.

Oh and if you are a Swim Team manager you could at present say that your female changing room was restricted to natal females. You could also do that if self-ID comes in. You wouldn’t be prevented from doing so because the Equality Act states that you can restrict your services to biological females. So if someone looks male, they can’t come in.

The fact that many businesses choose not to use the EA exemptions is a different matter obviously.

Suited in what way does the current law require a trans person to prove their femaleness?

PeakPants.

How can they be excluded?

Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it.

Lets try a real world situation. I am a Swim Team manager. Our changing rooms don't have cubicles. If a Transwoman rocks up, how EXACTLY can I stop them entering, given that they don't have to prove their "femaleness", or rather lack of it?

Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it. As such, the single sex exemptions will be rendered meaningless by GRA reforms.

No, this is someone's spin on what they think will happen. The law currently allows exemptions and will continue to do so. Even a fully operated trans woman with a GRC and amended birth certificate can be excluded from a refuge at present. That will continue even if self-ID comes in.

Peakpants, sadly you are wrong.

For example, the Labour party including men who "identify" as women on women-only shortlists. The girl guides including boys who "identify" as girls in guides (and letting them sleep with the girls). Prisons are meant to be single sex, but loads of men are managing to be transferred to women's prisons just because they "identify" as women. Men are competing in women's sports.

That's the issue. No-one hates transwomen. We just don't want to get rid of single sex spaces.

If the law says "single sex spaces will, in future, be based on biology" then yippee, we can all go home.

Suited that is incorrect. At present, single-sex services can exclude trans people even with a GRC. After self-ID they will be able to continue to do so. The only process that will change is the one for obtaining a GRC. But whichever route is used- doctor's cert or self-ID, single sex services will continue to be able to exclude them.

if any male can obtain a GRC and a female birth certificate on demand this method will no longer distinguish between these two groups. Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it. As such, the single sex exemptions will be rendered meaningless by GRA reforms.

Exactly my thoughts - bloody trojan horse.

PeakPants
No, they won't.
There will not be a legal way to enforce it.

From fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/#a4.3

5.3 Sex-based exemptions will become impossible to use in practice
Even if a male gets a GRC and switches legal sex class to female they can still be legally excluded from some female-only spaces if sex-based exemptions are invoked in full. These exemptions allow the lawful exclusion of males and also trans people to reserve a space specifically for female-born women. However, in practice it will be impossible to prove someone has switched their legal sex to female because people are not obliged to show their GRC and it is a criminal offence for officials to reveal the trans status of an individual once they have a GRC.

At the moment, most (99%) of trans-identified males do not have a GRC and so do not have a female birth certificate. As such, asking to see a female birth certificate is a way to officially distinguish between natal women and self-identified women. However, if any male can obtain a GRC and a female birth certificate on demand this method will no longer distinguish between these two groups. Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it. As such, the single sex exemptions will be rendered meaningless by GRA reforms.

Single sex spaces mean ones based on natal sex. Therefore trans women would be excluded from these.

The exemptions include transwomen with a GRC as women.

If self-id comes in (or if everyone eg the Labour Party, Girl Guides, schools) continues to behave as though it has already come in) then exemptions are meaningless.