GRC and Toilets

To quote citizens' advice on "gender reassignment:"

-wants to change their gender, whether they go through with the medical treatment or not
-has had a gender reassignment
-is undergoing medical treatment to reassign their gender
-has started the medical process but has decided to stop it
-has decided to adopt the identity of their chosen gender without undergoing a medical gender reassignment
-wants to dress as their chosen gender, all the time or only occasionally.

But if you cross-dress for some other reason than because you want to adopt your chosen gender- for example, as a joke - this is not gender reassignment.

Gender reassignment is a personal process rather than a medical one. You don’t have to undergo medical treatment and you don’t have to be under medical supervision.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/gender-reassignment-discrimination/

We all know that there is no need to physically transition in order to be "trans" anymore. It's a spectrum, and current trans theory says that all you need is the declaration of the "trans" part to be valid. In fact, it's considered the height of rudeness to discriminate based on how well someone "passes." It does not matter whether you look like Danielle Muscato or Laverne Cox - everyone is "equally a woman." The very act of changing your name or even gender marker on documents is enough to firmly classify you as trans. Because it is completely subjective, all the trans person has to do is continue to claim to really really really identify (promise!) as the opposite sex. It is an unverifiable notion, so there is no way to really disprove someone's trans status, unless potentially you catch them on video saying they're only taking on trans status as a sick joke.

Additionally, with a GRC the law has to treat you as though you were actually born in the opposite sex, by default. Because undergoing the process allows people to create a legal fiction, complete with an altered birth certificate (the original goes somewhere super secret, not to be accessed by the public). It does bolster someone's legal claim to same-sex spaces, particularly in the case of prisons.

It is a shame that the discussion is not based on whether single sex loos are needed/wanted in our society, as this is what needs to be determined. If it is seen to be legitimate to segregate loos according to sex, and if the rationale for this decision was clearly articulated, then it would be easy to decide who should access which provision.

Great point Ms

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment relates to those who are considering reassignment through to those that have transitioned.
However, many are not sure about what someone is transitioning from/to is not clear. Sex is fixed and immutable so there is no sex transitioning.
It usually comes down to ‘living as’ a male/female/neither or both. I take exception to all notions of societal expectations on lifestyles based on sex.

Good questions.

The problem now with all this is that the blurring of lines and the idea any man can be a woman if they say so has led to the old ladies and gentlemen's agreement kept in place by the medical checks of the GRA and social norms to blow up:

Ms Sinnott, 68, gave examples that she said supported her case. “Women are socialised to put others first, to be nice, to not make a fuss, and women also fear for their safety,” she wrote. “In central Cambridge public toilets, a recognisable male in women’s clothing entered, the women present experienced varying degrees of emotional agitation. None objected. Another day, a man in male clothing aggressively asserted his right to be there to shocked women, who all turned silently away. I was present and did not make a complaint on either occasion.”

(From Times article today)

Does a transwoman actually need a GRC to use the women's toilet?

A GRC in itself gives no right for a trans women to use the women's toilet. If under some hypothetical legislation a trans women could obtain a GRC but did not have the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" she could be barred from the women's toilet with impunity.

This is why the GC debate about GRA reform is so misconceived,

Some people think that, due to cubicles, it isn’t proportionate or legitimate. Other people do. There hasn’t, to my knowledge, been any ruling on this

There have been cases. The Court of Appeal case of Croft v Royal Mail, which was concerned with employment law and the Sex Discrimination Act - a predecessor act to the EA. Also, see the County Court case of Brook v Tasker. Referring to this case barrister Claire McCann, who specialises in this area of law, notes that the exceptions were not argued in Brook v Tasker and speculates "Perhaps this was because it was so unlikely that providing separate toilets for men and women and not allowing the trans female customer to use the ladies toilets was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

Also see the EHRC statutory guidance. This gives a specific example where cubicles in a changing room provided sufficient privacy to mean the exceptions do not apply.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, this includes people considering transition.
The case for allowing all trans people into the loos they chose is that it is disproportionate not to.
The EA allows for trans people to be excluded from some facilities/provision but this has to be a proportionate step to achieve a legitimate aim.
Some people think that, due to cubicles, it isn’t proportionate or legitimate. Other people do. There hasn’t, to my knowledge, been any ruling on this.
It is a shame that the discussion is not based on whether single sex loos are needed/wanted in our society, as this is what needs to be determined. If it is seen to be legitimate to segregate loos according to sex, and if the rationale for this decision was clearly articulated, then it would be easy to decide who should access which provision.