Why do trans folk need 'extra' rights?

This is from a while ago on this thread, but life got in the way of my mumsnetting and I didn't want it to go uncorrected:

he 2010 Equality Act and 'gender reassignment' characteristic that states in legal terms trans women are regarded as female, and trans men as male, as the default position.

This is not what the EA says at all. This is what s. 7 of the EA says:

(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.

Section 11 is about the protected characteristic of sex:

In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

Whilst a man could, of course, claim sex discrimination as a man, overwhelmingly it is, as we know, women who experience sex discrimination.

It is the GRA which (at section 9) states:

(1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

With a GRC legal sex is changed and a person with a GRC could, for example, use the EA to invoke the protected characteristic of sex and claim sex discrimination in relation to their "new" sex. So a transwoman with a GRC could claim sex discrimination as a woman.

Without a GRC a claim to sex discrimination would be in relation to their natal sex so a transwoman would have to show discrimination because s/he is a man. Any claim made due to their being trans would be under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

At the moment there is gatekeeping as to who gets to change their sex (or is it gender? the GRA is so badly written) in the shape of the "bureaucracy" required by the GRA. The EA is nothing to do with that.

If the gatekeeping/bureaucracy is changed so that it is much easier to get a GRC, many more transwomen will be able to claim the protected characteristic of sex as a woman.

(NB I haven't gone into the exceptions, I think you'll all have had enough of the legal essay by now).

Yes, thank you HomefromtheHills for both the historical context and your personal commentary.

If around half access a GRC as transsexuals seem to have done then the number of birth certificates could indeed shoot up from three or four thousand to hundreds of thousands.

And unless the government clarifies the exemptions and how they apply with/without a GRC/birth certificate - as I think they ought to do - then to what extent they will be sought after for insurance gaining access to spaces is hard to say.

Thank you for this and your other keen points on this thread, homefromthehills.

P.s Ignore the grammar and spelling mistakes - typing with toddler around.

This is too complicated because the mantra of 'theyre women if they're say they're women' is being repeated like it's going out of fashion, just see the recent comments in parliament. People are falling over themselves to admire the emperor's shiny new suit. People pushing this don't care about any consulting or reasoning, ditto to getting their point across without insulting women.

They'll draw parallels to homophobia, they'll say we're the bigots from the 80s. They will also say women don't actually care about this, 'only a small minority of radicals feminists' we're just a extremists, easy to ignore and brush away.

10, 12 even 15 thousand of us is not enough when you look at the money and sheer number of young people who are so keen to be politically correct. How many people have really even heard of the petition? How many are really engaged with the issue? How many people still think this is about toilets and pearl clutching?

Dr Dawn on Ch5 today, pointed out that the NHS clinics offering emotional support are under funded.

I would be happy for the NHS to offer extra MH support to the trans community over physical changes NHS support like surgery.

Under funding of health services is not a trans issue. It's an everyone issue.

Notably mental health services of all kinds and women specific services or health care issues which affect women most (such as Alzheimer's) are already generally particularly under funded.

No-one is discriminating against trans people. And frankly I don't see why they should jump the queue for funding just because they are trans.

heresy, yes, on your last point, the 4900 are those with a GRC - about 3000 of them being transwomen. The others 1900 are transmen.

These do not all have altered birth certificates as there are other restrictions (the GRC holder does not need to be a UK citizen but they do to get a changed birth certificate).

The government seem to think there are between 200,000 and 500,000 transgender people as opposed to the 4900 transsexuals who have obtained one.

If around half access a GRC as transsexuals seem to have done then the number of birth certificates could indeed shoot up from three or four thousand to hundreds of thousands.

And unless the government clarifies the exemptions and how they apply with/without a GRC/birth certificate - as I think they ought to do - then to what extent they will be sought after for insurance gaining access to spaces is hard to say.

Will they be carry them around anyway? Who does? I never have and never have needed to. But if self ID comes in this may well be necessary.

Also important to remember that the BC is a copy for use as proof of age (as in the only time I used it). The original at birth is NOT destroyed and remains on record and can be accessed via the officer holding this data. for example by police investigating something where identifying the true status of the person matters.

I would think this could easily be extended to other things - such a refuges - as an easy way to establish any doubt over cases applying. A quick call to discover if the person has/has not altered birth certificates. And if they had lied to try to get access then I would think that could reasonably be argued as reasonable grounds for exclusion.

This whole fuss is being stirred up by transphobes, and believed and supported by the uninformed.
How utterly patronising. If trans rights activists made the effort to understand what women are actually saying instead of writing them off as either bigots or confused, we might actually get somewhere.

Trans people are literally just removing some bureaucratic barrier

It seems to me that a GRC effectively legally "moves" a male into the protected group "female".

I think it is entirely reasonable that there should be some gatekeeping as there are in many areas of life as people have listed above. The potential negative impact of males declaring they are women in bad faith, surely means gatekeeping is a reasonable check to have in the system?

waddle, I can only guess why they would like you. Or ask the ones on here. From my own perspective it was a pleasant surprise to be offered it and just said yes because it was. After 33 years without any legal status and no experience as yet of what the GRA would mean in day to day life I just felt it was a wise safeguard. It was not about validation (though likely a bit subconsciously I suppose). And I have only ever used it once for proof of age.

In practical terms not once has it made any difference to me day to day, but then I don't go looking for trouble and would not presume access to things like women's short lists or refuges even with one.

It is not really something to live or die over. But as I said before the principle of moving from a doctor having the say over what a BC says and the person themselves just seems to me a line we should not cross willingly. As who knows what unexpected consequences it will have years from now.

With things like this they tend to work in the limited cases they are designed to do and only long afterwards does society change and the old rule is used in unpredicted ways with unintended consequences

Welcome back garam!
Thanks for your response.
In the meantime I have digested homefromthehills points about wanting to keep medical gatekeeping, and I agree with a lot of them. I also subscribe to the belief that there is a difference between someone who is transsexual, and someone who is under the trans umbrella because they cross-dress occasionally. I do believe medical gatekeeping helps distinguish between such categories. Whilst philosophically I have problems with changing a birth certificate, as I view this as a medico-legal document, I think if such a process is available, then some outside/medical checks and balances at the very least is necessary.

amazing, your experience is the polar opposite of every bathroom, changing room and hospital ward I have ever been on

What can I say. It's the truth that I've always witnessed some form of policing of access to these spaces, whether informal or formal. And I've been grateful for that, whether as a kid changing in front of my peers for the first time, being in the female bay of a hospital ward, or sleeping in a female dormitory in a hostel. It's always made me feel safer and more at ease. I know those doors aren't magical, but the psychological and social conventions that keep spaces single-sex are important to me.

Trans people want to relieve the bureaucracy of getting a new birth certificate

And I am asking, if you're on the one hand saying that the birth certificate means very little practically - as you claim to already have all sorts of access to single-sex spaces - then why do you need to change your birth certificate more easily? And look, as far as I understand it, if you're campaigning to change the Gender Recognition Act, then you are campaigning to change a piece of legislation, i.e. the law. And I wish to know the impact of changing such a law before it is rushed through.

Because only people who have never understood or have digested misinformation about GRA, EA 2010, and 'gender reassignment characteristic' think it is in any way gatekeeping who has access to these spaces.

I think if I'm as confused about it, as you claim I am, then perhaps society at large will be as well? Perhaps it is a bigger discussion we all need to have, so we're all clear. So that sex is clearly defined and same-sex spaces upheld. Because I do believe there is a real risk that single-sex exemptions would be much more difficult to defend if the person in question has an amended birth certificate. At the moment, as homefromthehills mentioned, only about 5 000 people have gone through the process. It would not surprise me if that number would increase exponentially should the process be made as simple as self-ID, and I want to know what the potential effects of this on society, especially women's rights, would be. And I would want to know how such a system would be kept safe from abuse. Because there's always someone who will try and exploit a loophole.

Transsexuals had altered their birth certificates long before 2004. Up to the early 70s most of the first few cases did, such as April Ashley, who used it to get married.

The right was removed by a court decision. Several cases went to court over the next 30 years - up to the European Courts.

These ultimately found that a person diagnosed as transsexual and who had undergone reassignment surgery should have their birth certificate changed on approval of a doctor.

The GRA did consider applying the surgery rule in the UK but decided against it on medical advice and given low estimated numbers (ie the ones we actually have now).

So really the birth certificate was a change that the government made in 2004 in very specific cases with medical reasoning and in expectation of being forced to do this anyhow.

Obviously to extend this to self ID changes all of that basis. But will be coming from the precedents set on this in other countries.

garam are you new to MN? The convention here is to bold the text you are quoting, you seem to be doing the opposite.

homefromthehills why you think this extra group of people who do not want medical assessment/diagnosis want to be able to change their birth certificates?

Garam, but you just don’t understand only works if you’re making an effort to understand the views of the other side.
Please can you answer the questions I’ve asked in this thread?
Why is changing birth cert so important? What actual material difference does it make to anyone’s life? If it’s such an inconsequential thing, why all the effort and resources, no debate and behind closed doors political charm offensive necessary?
If you want me to understand things you need to answer questions, otherwise how can I understand?

Yes. Bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards that I have been on have all had people looking out whether members of the opposite ex are trying to get in. I've been stopped when I accidentally went into the men's room. They are policed, informally and by security if needed.

amazing, your experience is the polar opposite of every bathroom, changing room and hospital ward I have ever been on

Then why do you want to change the legal process?

Trans people want to relieve the bureaucracy of getting a new birth certificate

Trans people have always had access to the sex-segregated spaces that match their identity, there has never been a law on the uk books saying otherwise, however that was clarified and strengthened byt he 2010 Equality Act and 'gender reassignment' characteristic that states in legal terms trans women are regarded as female, and trans men as male, as the default position.

Then why do you want to change the law? What is the benefit to it?

Trans people aren't asking to change the law, they are campaigning for GRA reform, I think you misunderstand the difference.

Allowing some exemptions in very restricted circumstances on a case by case basis.

This is what I am worried about, as I do think legal documentation bolsters someone's claim to single-sex spaces. I do not think prisons should ever become unisex spaces, for example.

But trans people already have access to single-sex spaces that match their identity on a self-id basis, that underpins the 'gender reassignment' characteristic

Trans people are literally just removing some bureaucratic barrier.

You just said it made no difference? So why change it? What about just keeping some kind of gate-keeping process if only to minimize potential impacts on sex-based exemptions?

Because only people who have never understood or have digested misinformation about GRA, EA 2010, and 'gender reassignment characteristic' think it is in any way gatekeeping who has access to these spaces.

This whole fuss is being stirred up by transphobes, and believed and supported by the uninformed.

Sorry you feel that way. I personally don't believe in gender ideology, but am a supporter of sex-based rights.

I'm more interested in helping and lift up women across the board in a positive way, than spend my time on a fools errand attacking a minority group that relies on total misunderstandings of current laws

I have a birth certificate, it’s somewhere in my cupboard stuffed into the bag where I keep my important documents. The last time it’s saw the light of day was when I took it to the solicitor for my divorce proceedings. Apart from that, I can’t think of a single occasion where I’ve actually needed it. It can be used for ID purposes in conjunction with other things, such as gas bills or DWP documents, if the person doesn’t have a passport or driving license, but all this does is confirm the name and address. You can change your name quite easily for about £40, then change all your documents on the strength of your deed poll certificate, so why does anyone need their birth certificate to be changed?
Like I keep banging on, why would so many people go to so much effort to change something so inconsequential?

Yes, birth certificates matter. For accurate, factual record reasons. Not personal identity validation.

The flip : if birth certificates are irrelevant abolish them for everyone. If you don't want that then obviously birth certificates do matter.

Oh yes, I have just thought of a right that protects males from females. The one that protects inherited titles. Says it all, really.

I have seen people policing who enters toilets actually. I’VE seen women complain and kick up a fuss when a clearly male person tried to enter, and I’ve been told I had to walk to the other side of a building to use the ladys’ when the single gents cubicle was free and easily accessible. Amazingly, I didn’t have a massive hissy fit. I did have a jolly good moan however, about the ladys’ being in an inaccessible place and more difficult for disabled women, like myself, to get to. What I didn’t do, is insist I used the gents, because I’m not a man, so the facility was not put there for my use.
This was in the days before the EA by the way, so there was no accessible disabled toilet, but the key point here I think is that my first reaction was to point out how people of my own sex, and disabled people were put at a disadvantage, not to assert my belief that I should force my way into other peoples private spaces.

No idea. They already have either male or female rights which, for the most part, are the same. Those that are in place to protect females (are there any in place to protect males from females?) are there for a reason. Sound, biological reasons which everyone knows.