Equality Commission on Sex

It is a requirement that only exists because of the conflation of sex with gender.

Also, I vehemently disagree with all the ‘living in the role’ requirements for granting of legal rights to transpeople. This is, IMO, sexist and transphobic because it reinforces oppressive gender stereotypes and is a way of forcing non-conforming people to conform in order to access rights.

...someone with a GRC manifestly has more legal rights than someone without one.

More legal rights? Nice skirting around that issue...

You know full well that they are granted pre-existing sex based rights....

This is the whole point because it makes every person in the country into an interested group who should be consulted on any changes...

It is not sustainable therefore to continue pretending that transgender people are the only interested group.

However, in practice we have slipped from "transwomen with a GRC can access female only spaces" (the India Willoughbys of the world, I believe) to "transwomen who have had surgery can access female only spaces" (the Paris Lees of the world) to "anyone who says that they are a woman can access female only spaces (the Lily Madigans of the world). And even to "anyone who says they are a woman can access female only spaces, even if they are female today and male tomorrow" (the Travis Alabanzas of the world)

I agree with this, but has IW a GRC and has PL had any surgery?

That bargaining isn't going so well, eh?

...for legal purposes. People cannot actually change their sex.
Forcing women to continually use qualifiers such as 'biological sex' is not helping the case of trans campaigners.

Whether they are right or wrong that must be the case in that the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are intended to increase the number of GRCs issued and someone with a GRC manifestly has more legal rights than someone without one.

I agree that the intention must surely be to grant more GRCs (because the narrative is that there are lots of people out there who would apply but the process is too cumbersome so they don't)

I also agree that a GRC brings legal rights and protections - most of the conversations on here are around where the rights of a GRC holder butt up against the rights of a woman (or, to a much lesser degree, a man). It's also why I would love to see the legal advice obtained by the Labour Party regarding AWS, given that the legislation is explicit that there is a distinction between a) women and transwomen with a GRC; and b) transwomen without a GRC and men

This ended up being long. Sorry.

You are aware that case law doesn't change statute I am assuming?

It merely adds a layer of interpretation under the circumstances of that particular case. Not to all cases I hasten to add. Only ones that might share similarities.

At present the GRA says that if you hold a GRC you are entitled to access the services of the gender on that GRC. It doesn't change your sex. It changes your gender. Hence the EA exclusions still apply. Which is why it's so grey at present.

The general public don't support trans issues overall. The political landscape is not currently conducive to significant legislative moves against public opinion. Particularly given a general election is very likely within the next 12 months. And given we have a very weak government being propped up by the DUP.

This will get kicked into the long grass and reviewed again at some point. Seen it happen a million times with other potentially controversial legislation. The government isn't going to want to be fighting simultaneous multiple controversial issues at the same time. Not when one happens to be brexit. It's too divisive. Adding another divisive issue to the legislative agenda is not happening.

If changes are made they are likely to be along the lines of other similar legal protections for beliefs I.e. for religious beliefs. The right to believe them but not for those beliefs to override anything else. So pretty much what is in place now. It will be left to the courts to arbitrate the details. That will take years.

Don't forget that as soon as this starts to progress all the other minority groups such as the disabled who potentially stand to be the ones to lose some access to their toilets etc will start to shout. As well as those who want single sex only facilities for religious reasons. And they will shout loudly.

The equalities commission are likely to be awaiting the government's decisions on what happens after the consultation closes in October.

So can someone confirm: if you have a GRC your sex is counted as the acquired one and, legally, you connot be refused admission to sex-segregated spaces eg a safe house for women?

Or would a safe house for women be able to send you away as long as it was a proportionate...whatever

The intention behind the exemption in the legislation was that in most circumstances a transwoman with a GRC is to be treated as female, but there are situations where it can be proportionate to exclude them even with a GRC, but the onus is on the service provider to demonstrate that proportionality

However, in practice we have slipped from "transwomen with a GRC can access female only spaces" (the India Willoughbys of the world, I believe) to "transwomen who have had surgery can access female only spaces" (the Paris Lees of the world) to "anyone who says that they are a woman can access female only spaces (the Lily Madigans of the world). And even to "anyone who says they are a woman can access female only spaces, even if they are female today and male tomorrow" (the Travis Alabanzas of the world)

Practice is out of step with legislation

Or would a safe house for women be able to send you away as long as it was a proportionate

I think this is the case.

any answers?

Self-ID needn't mean no gatekeeping. For instance it can still require evidence of living in the acquired gender for several years and that's what I will fight for - Self-ID as a slow backstop

You realise the whole point in self id is the you don't have to conform to the gender. You can have a beard and wear mens clothes but say 'I am a woman on the inside' and you are one. It's a self declaration it has nothing to do with how you look, present or live your life.

I think what you mean is the commission is right re the current situation with the law but you are not happy about it TBH...

I think the commission is right too and I think it makes it clear that sex based protections are affected by the GRA without any changes to the EA...

I am conceding nothing - the Commission is wrong.

Ah just goading then...

The Equality Commission don't have the power to change how human biology works, so no.

Exactly. We need commonly agreed names for different things that exist in the world including biological sex differences. Doesn't matter what the EHRC is currently saying, there are real differences that need clear language and law around them.

Also lol that you are simultaneously saying they are wrong in one point but that we should change our entire perspective on reality because of some other legal definition they have randomly come to.

Maybe Snappity is going through the stages of grief over the realization that the majority of people will never accept gender theory, and is currently stuck in the bargaining phase.

I love the way some people seem to think they can stamp out the concept of biological sex if they just redefine it and compel everyone to use the new definition.

It's kind of like thinking you can make gravity go away if you deny its existence loudly enough

What's oddest about this is that Snappity seems to think this will make us pipe down, rather than lead us to go "ok so we need to address that loophole and get it closed too".

So can someone confirm: if you have a GRC your sex is counted as the acquired one and, legally, you connot be refused admission to sex-segregated spaces eg a safe house for women?

Or would a safe house for women be able to send you away as long as it was a proportionate...whatever

But will gender critical feminists also stop saying that sex is biological sex?

No. A GRC does not change a persons biology, and its very strange that you think you can make people say that it does.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is wrong? About the definition of sex for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010?