The New Equality Act (according to Betty) 2018 - what do y'all think?

PeakPants when I said some churches can choose to conduct gay marriages I mean unitarians, metropolitan community church, United Church of Christ. I know CoE don't.

I see what you mean though and agree there could be some services exclusively for natal women (I agree one could make EA exceptions mandatory in these cases) where other services can be mixed or assessed on a case by case basis.

daim as far as I am aware same sex couples can’t legally marry in church in England even if the vicar would be okay with it. So your example is actually proving the opposite. The issue is that sex segregation is a matter of safety for service users and therefore the wishes of service providers should not be relevant. It would apply only in narrow categories where necessary for safety and dignity and where there are alternative third spaces available to cater for trans women. So I do think making it mandatory is both possible and desirable.

As for the GRC I do agree with you. It’s fine to have as a goal, but I really cannot see any government daring to propose its removal altogether. However, mandatory sex segregation in some cases would get around that because women would retain protections while trans people would get legal recognition.

Daim, how can you compare the GRC with civil partnerships? What equal rights does the GRC confer?

Before civil partnerships gay people had no legal recognition of their relationship. Civil partnerships provide gay people with almost the same legal recognition as a straight marriage with a few exceptions.

Since 2014 gay people have been able to marry and now have identical rights to straight people. The only difference now is many churches will not marry gay people.

Similarly, before trans people were able to obtain a GRC they had no legal recognition of their acquired gender. Since 2004 trans women with a GRC have been legally recognised as women and trans men legally recognised as men. There are exceptions in the Equality Act which mean trans women and trans men do not have identical rights to natal women and natal men. For example single sex service providers can refuse to accept a trans woman, a bit like churches can refuse to marry a gay couple.

The OP's argument is to remove the GRC altogether for new cases but allow those who already have a GRC to keep it. I think this would be unworkable, a bit like removing civil partnership and gay marriage altogether and replacing them with a different type of union that doesn't offer equal rights for gay people.

As GRCs have been in place 14 years it would be very difficult to remove them entirely.

However strengthening the exceptions in the EA as per the OPs other suggestions could be workable. Making them mandatory is problematic though, it would be like instructing all churches not to marry gay people when many are happy to do so.

Snappitty if you are saying you think people might need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the case of longer sentences, that totally undermines your argument that all trans women are real women for all intents and purposes. You cannot sustain your argument without accepting that according to your logic, any male prisoner, including Ian Huntley, can at any time obtain a GRC and that person is then a woman (no question about it) and must be moved to the female estate unless there is exceptional risk (based on current behaviour, not past crimes).

Anyway, for me, the point is not whether these people are women. It is irrelevant because woman means different things to different people, clearly. The point is that the physical nature of their bodies makes it unsuitable for them to be housed with natal female bodies. One key reason is that the majority will have an intact penis. Nothing to do with gender identity and being a real woman. That is why I believe they should be segregated and should be housed in a special facility for trans prisoners. I find it difficult to see how you reason. You seem to say that someone with a penis must be accepted as a woman and that there are no legitimate reasons why that person should be sharing all spaces with those with female bodies. That is surely right- you keep saying they are real women etc. But how is a trans woman’s penis different to that of a natal-man? Why is it inappropriate for a natal man to share prison space or other intimate space with a woman but it’s not inappropriate for someone with a male body but a female gender identity? Is it the identity that makes the difference? Surely you can’t say that a gender identity removes the risk of criminality given we are discussing prisons? So it must come down to the body. Assaults and rapes are perpetrated by bodies, not minds.

That is before we even get on to rights of privacy and dignity. I presume your argument that trans women should not have to share facilities with men is based on privacy and dignity. Their bodies are different and they would not always feel comfortable. If that is so, why are you saying privacy and dignity is not relevant or important for women? Again, their bodies are different and they might not feel comfortable. Is it just that you think those rights are not important? What is it? I struggle to understand.

I still think that the present system could be improved by specifying within the revised statute that a spouse changing gender, whether or not they apply for a GRC, is grounds for divorce. That would both significantly improve the rights of spouses and remove the need for a spousal veto.

You are suggesting that in addition to the usual grounds for divorce that make up 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage':

• unreasonable behaviour
• adultery
• separation of 2 years / 5 years

... we should add 'change of gender'?

I agree.

However I don't understand why we should therefore get rid of the spousal veto when someone applies for a GRC.

Some people may be perfectly happy being married to a spouse with a trans identity (can I still say that?) and only object when they legally change sex.

If the GRA changes to self ID a spouse may have no clue what's going on until it's a done deal.

An interim GRC is grounds for anulling a marriage no questions asked, not divorce, with all that entails.

What are the actual practical problems for trans people with the spousal veto as it is? Why would a trans person want to remain married to someone who exercised their spousal veto?

Go and read the PSI and then explain how your idea for prisoners would work. What you are suggesting is either a two tier system or is taking away existing rights for those who currently have a GRC. Or it's making a special case to deny rights to trans people because they are prisoners.

Also please explain why women should only be concerned about long term prisoners.

The suggestion to discuss this on trans forums is nothing to do with whether you personally are trans or not. If 'the trans community' (whatever that means this week) don't agree with your ideas then they're a non-starter.

"If the spousal veto was removed, spouses (mostly women from what I have seen) would have to cite unreasonable behaviour to remove themselves from a marriage they did not consent to. That's never an easy option and it usually causes a lot of animosity. Or they would have to remain trapped for years until they could use separation as a ground for divorce."

I agree with the basic thrust of your argument about spousal veto but I still think that the present system could be improved by specifying within the revised statute that a spouse changing gender, whether or not they apply for a GRC, is grounds for divorce. That would both significantly improve the rights of spouses and remove the need for a spousal veto.

"Well all things are possible but nobody's proposing this except you. Are you imagining some sort of two tier system with one set of rights for people with a GRC based on the 2004 act and another set of rights for people with a GRC under whatever new law we end up with?"

Nothing I said suggested that.

" If it is decided that self-ID is the way to go and this is based on human rights and yogyakarta bla bla then you can't deny those rights to people just because they are in prison. That's the point of human rights - they even apply to arseholes."

Absolutely - Chelsea Manning is a good example - but before a long-term prisoner is transferred a psych eval is sensible and it makes sense to include within that an assessment for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The GRA has always had multiple pathways. My suggestion isn't radical.

" You need to discuss this suggestion on trans forums, not here. Let us know how that goes."

Since I am not trans I am not a member of a trans forum and most members here seem to see this as a women's issue even if you don't

Snappity: Hmmm.

Personally I am clear, trans women are women and should be treated as such; trans men are men and should be treated as such. However, they do not together comprise the entirety of the trans spectrum by any means. Indeed, they are a minority, and a minority which is qualitatively very different to the rest of trans spectrum.

While many of us here disagree with your statement that TWAW, TMAM, I am pleased you have acknowleged that there are lots of different groups under the umbrella and that they are qualitatively different.

While all those disparate identities may be fascinating to some people, women's main concern is with the group of people who have biologically and scientifically male bodies and who are apparently legally entitled to access fermale single-sex spaces, take jobs where there is a genuine occupational requirement to be female, and to take awards and benefit from affirmative actions aimed at female people.

We used to have a term for this incredibly diverse group of humans with male bodies but it's been banned.

Spousal veto. This would automatically disappear with the end of the current GRC anyway.

Would it? Where have you read this?

I gave this some thought because it was a question in the Scottish consultation. The current rules say that if your spouse disagrees with you legally changing sex you can get an interim GRC but not a full GRC. You can use your interim GRC to dissolve the marriage without having to cite unreasonable behaviour, or separating then waiting for 2 years (with permission) or 5 years (without). Once you have ended your marriage you can get a full GRC.

The spousal veto should absolutely be preserved because if a person legally changes sex that changes the marriage contract for their spouse. Their spouse may not want to be in a 'same sex' marriage. They may not see themselves as gay or lesbian. Now we have equal marriage this works both ways - a spouse may have entered into a same sex marriage and, because their partner legally transitions, may find themselves in a 'heterosexual' marriage without their consent.

Nobody should have to cite unreasonable behaviour or stay stuck in a marriage for years when their sexual orientation has been legally changed without their consent. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic. This is what the spousal veto is for - it's a quick, easy, no fault way for spouses to end a marriage they didn't sign up for.

If the spousal veto was removed, spouses (mostly women from what I have seen) would have to cite unreasonable behaviour to remove themselves from a marriage they did not consent to. That's never an easy option and it usually causes a lot of animosity. Or they would have to remain trapped for years until they could use separation as a ground for divorce.

That would be blatant institutional discrimination because of the protected characteristic 'sexual orientation'.

It needn't. States have a margin of appreciation. It might be possible, for instance, to say that prisoners serving sentences of over 2 years still require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being allowed to Self-ID.

Well all things are possible but nobody's proposing this except you. Are you imagining some sort of two tier system with one set of rights for people with a GRC based on the 2004 act and another set of rights for people with a GRC under whatever new law we end up with?

Or are you suggesting we remove rights from those who already have a GRC?

If it is decided that self-ID is the way to go and this is based on human rights and yogyakarta bla bla then you can't deny those rights to people just because they are in prison. That's the point of human rights - they even apply to arseholes.

You need to discuss this suggestion on trans forums, not here. Let us know how that goes.

What about prisoners serving sentences of less than two years? Can they just sign the form and get transferred? Why would women be happy with that?

@Snappity If you are so clear that '... trans women are women and should be treated as such; trans men are men and should be treated as such.' then why do you want to consider 'It might be possible, for instance, to say that prisoners serving sentences of over 2 years still require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being allowed to Self-ID.'

Is there somewhere in you, maybe, a thought that violent males who are saying they are women might not actually be saying the truth! Because the rest of us have had that thought a long time ago.

The fact self id is even being considered shouts loudly how little society values women and girls.

@PencilsInSpace your words on Sat 23-Jun-18 23:08:44 were very chilling, and of course, we know this is true because males are already in female prisons.

So we definitely do not want any self id which could be conflated from gender to sex and lead to any more males being housed with females in prisons.

"Changing the GRA to a self-ID process would allow all of them to be treated as female. The vast majority would have to be moved to the female estate, with only the few exceptionally dangerous ones remaining in the male estate, but housed there as female prisoners."

It needn't. States have a margin of appreciation. It might be possible, for instance, to say that prisoners serving sentences of over 2 years still require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being allowed to Self-ID.

"The Beaumont Society opposes atempts by some sub-groups to claim that the term transgender applies only to themselves. To us the term includes people labelled as transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, bi-gender, ambi-gender, gender-queer and other groups."

Hmmm.

Personally I am clear, trans women are women and should be treated as such; trans men are men and should be treated as such. However, they do not together comprise the entirety of the trans spectrum by any means. Indeed, they are a minority, and a minority which is qualitatively very different to the rest of trans spectrum.

At first glance I like your list OP. I need to spend some time digesting it tho...

Daim, how can you compare the GRC with civil partnerships? What equal rights does the GRC confer?

@BettyDuMonde you have lots of good ideas here.

It's worth noting that for most of their history Beaumont has been an organisation for transvestite / cross-dressing men who never believed they were women. I knew a few men in the 90's who were members and they were very clear Beaumont was for TV only, not for TS (although I believe there were some internal fights about this). Only in the last few years have they decided to wholeheartedly shelter under the big lovely trans umbrella. They haven't abandoned their original members though. From their submission to the trans equality report:

The Beaumont Society opposes atempts by some sub-groups to claim that the term transgender applies only to themselves. To us the term includes people labelled as transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, bi-gender, ambi-gender, gender-queer and other groups.

and also: The 2010 Equalities Act had a major impact on the way in which trans people were treated ... This raised the bar, but also had the effect of raising expectations. We believe that the country is now ready to make another major step forward in the acceptance of trans people. It needs leadership at the highest level to do so.

This is pushy, 'boiled frog' language. Accept this small thing. Now accept this next small thing. Now accept ...

I've read right to the last page of green eggs and ham and I still don't like them Sam I Am.
-----

The situation with prisons has moved on since Beaumont submitted their statement to Miller's Inquiry in 2015. New prison instructions for trans prisoners were implemented in 2016 and can be downloaded here - scroll down to '17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders'.

The prison service now go by legal sex, first and foremost. They're not allowed to ask to see a GRC but they can ask for a birth certificate (the sole remaining thing a GRC is good for). If a prisoner has a female birth cert (original or obtained via a GRC) they will be housed in the female estate unless they present an exceptional risk, in which case they may be moved to a men's prison, purely because this is where the facilities are. They will still be housed separately from men and will be accommodated in line with PSI for female prisoners. TW prisoners with a GRC are treated as female in all circumstances.

There is case law directly referenced in the prison rules linked above that says that even if a tw is in prison for attempted rape, if they have a grc and hence a bc that says 'female', they must be sent to a women's prison. The bar is very low as we have seen in various cases that have made mainstream media.

Only for trans prisoners without a GRC - i.e. those who are legally male - are decisions made on a case by case basis. And the Transgender Case Board are no fools, which is why all those self ID trans sex offenders are still treated as male prisoners in the male estate.

Changing the GRA to a self-ID process would allow all of them to be treated as female. The vast majority would have to be moved to the female estate, with only the few exceptionally dangerous ones remaining in the male estate, but housed there as female prisoners.

@Snappity I know a lot of girls and young women are presenting at Gender services and are genuinely unhappy in their female bodies. I know that is real.

Are all these girls and young women somehow born in the wrong body etc?

I think that is the bit I do not believe. Although I recognise being a trans man is a genuine thing.

Because if society valued girls as much as boys, and women as much as men, being a girl would not be seen as such a bad thing, IMHO.

twitter.com/bbc/status/1005842545069428741

I like this list OP, you have obviously put a lot of thought into the thread.

The bit I am unsure about is this:

Current Gender Recognition Certificate holders could choose to retain their current legal status for life or transfer to the new protected characteristic of adopted gender, depending on their personal preference. No more GRCs to be issued.

This is a pretty radical change to the law. If you compare the GRC to civil partnerships which came in around the same time it would be like having 14 years of (almost) equal rights and then a radical shift to something completely different.

I think the fact the GRA has been the law for so long doesn't make removing GRCs workable but I actually think a lot of trans and non binary folk would like your other suggestions. Your alternative would mean people who actually wanted full on gender reassignment would be very minimal. There's about 72 genders now or something!

And Clare thanks for your response. I also think we have things in common and I have great sympathy for the plight of trans people. In the case of trans women, I don't think it's appropriate for them to be in all-male spaces either, for their own sense of privacy and dignity (after all, if women have a right to privacy and dignity, so do trans people). I accept that their bodies are no longer the same as those of natal men BUT nor are they those of natal women. Therefore, the only solution that appeases everyone must be third spaces. Otherwise, this fight will continue because it cannot be won while there are only two forms of spaces, without one group feeling that their rights have been seriously violated.

I would urge any trans people reading on here to spread that message wider in the trans community. If you feel that it would be wrong and a violation for you to be forced to use male spaces despite a female gender identity, that violation is also felt by women having to share spaces with trans women. The feelings you have around the issue are no different in value or strength to those of women. If you gain access to female spaces, that will have been at the expense of women's feelings and personally, I would not want to carry that burden of achieving my own right to privacy and dignity at the direct expense of someone else's.

I know plenty of perfectly nice men, including one of my best friends. I would still not want to share a changing room or a dormitory with him.

Yeah, I guess this is what is always skirted over and never directly addressed. Trans people have never explained what precisely it is about transitioning that suddenly makes it appropriate for them to share intimate spaces with women but it remains inappropriate for women to share spaces with non-trans men. Is it surgery, is it hormones, is it a feeling, a sense of identity? When does it happen? Is it as soon as someone realises they are trans or does it happen after a period of time?

Trans people say that its prejudicial to suggest that they would be a risk. But couldn't a man say the same? We accept without question that men and women should have some separate facilities, but in doing so we are not saying that all men are violent rapists at all. So why, when women say that some spaces need to be single sex, is that interpreted as them saying that all trans women are dangerous? It doesn't mean that at all. It's about privacy and dignity as well as safety. I know many men who would never attack or hurt me but I still don't want to get changed with them.

I think if trans people say that there is no reason for single biological sex spaces, they must then accept that there is no reason for sex segregation of any sort at all. If they are saying there is something special about trans women that means that their presence does not impact on the dignity of natal women, they need to clarify what that is. And if the answer is a sense of gender identity, they need to explain how that works when you usually don't speak to the person you are getting changed next to so you would not know what their identity is.

That's one of the problems, to accept male transpeople into women and girls spaces, we have to pretend to not see male violence, and we have to pretend not to see that male transpeople are male. An individual male transperson may not be violent or any threat to women and girls, but nobody has come up with a solution that allows the safe males in and keeps the bad ones out.

Betty knows all these nice trans women, but perceives trans women are nasty from the internet. The answer is to know more trans women as friends.

I know some perfectly nice transwomen. I think up to just a few years ago or less, many of us - me definitely - simply wouldn't have seen what the problem was with trans inclusion.

Then I started to hear things that made me uncomfortable. Didn't seem quite right. But I didn't want to think about it because I liked my trans friends.

Then Tara Hudson happened and I couldn't unsee it all any more. It's not about us seeing how nice transwomen are. I'm sorry. Quite apart from the attacks on Maria Mac, Magdalen Berns etc, & having the pleasure of protestors outside shouting "BURN IT DOWN!" when I was at the first We Need To Talk Meeting, I know plenty of perfectly nice men, including one of my best friends. I would still not want to share a changing room or a dormitory with him.