Trans Women are Women for Equality Act 2010 purposes (Penny Mordaunt MP)

Excellent news, the soon they get rid of the 2010 exceptions (That are never used) and work in the way all good service providers work - safeguarding - the better

Can you tell which males are going to be peeping toms, rapists and abusers Sisters? Because if so you'd better train the police, prison services and all women and girls asap as no one else has worked out how to do it.

Let's all just remember that this particular governement does and says all manner of things that are later found in court to be illegal or discriminatory eg Universal Credit and disabled people, disability and sickness benefits etc.

If that is how they treat ill and disabled people, then why would they suddenly start treatng women any better than they have for decades/ all time?

All the gov support just proves that transwomen are men.

These guidelines open up our spaces to the Trans Umbrella - and this government has allowed it to happen since the guidelines were published in 2015.

The Miller Trans Enquiry was the tipping point. To say it's been the case since 2010 is bullshit.

This is what the government is saying about toilets and changing rooms:

Good Practice 4: Assume everyone selects the facilities
appropriate to their gender.
A trans person should be free to select the facilities
(such as toilets or changing rooms) appropriate to the gender in which they present. For example, when a trans person starts to live in
their acquired gender on a full-time basis they should be
afforded the right to use the facilities appropriate to their acquired gender.
Service providers must avoid discriminating against anyone with the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’

Now tell me something - isn't this EXACTLY what we are trying to prevent under GRA?

These guidelines open up our spaces to the Trans Umbrella - and this government has allowed it to happen since the guidelines were published in 2015.

At last! I have been banging on about the way self i/d is already a fact because of the Equality Act.

This is a flavour of the guidance issued by the Department for Equalities to service providers, charities and businesses:

‘Gender reassignment’ is when a person takes steps to alter the outward expression of their gender so that it better aligns with their sense of who they are or, in other words, their identity.
This means that if someone adopts a new gender role by changing their name, title and pronoun and/or by wearing different clothing, altering their body language, speech and hairstyle, they have reassigned their gender. As part of their gender reassignment some
people may choose to take hormones and/or have surgery, but medical intervention is not an essential part of gender reassignment".

In the introduction the government guidelines define transgender as

• transsexual, transgender, a crossdresser (transvestite), nonbinary and anyone else who may not conform to traditional gender roles. *

That's the government's definition, that is. I've taken the quotes from its official guidance: "Providing Services for Transgender Customers: a Guide" (gendered intelligence logo on the front cover).

I'll post another couple of extracts below. They show that the government has, effectively, thrown women under the bus without the GRA.

Sorry a term not a definition. Clearly there is no definition as the term is not used!

PS there is no definition of "trans woman" in that letter. It's not a definition used in the EA IIRC, so where does it come from?

Hetty Spoon really is good value. It's strange, OP that you appear to be contradicting yourself on Twitter, based on what you're saying here on this thread about the gov interpretation seeming wrong to you? Always best to be on the level with people, I think.

Excellent news, the soon they get rid of the 2010 exceptions (That are never used) and work in the way all good service providers work - safeguarding - the better.

They are used. Female only services exist. You don't hear about it because it isn't trumpeted from the roof tops because either it isn't seen as a big deal or the service provider doesn't want to draw attention to themselves for obvious reasons. You might hear about it if a case went to court, but it hasn't.

Wanderabout

"The GEO can't run a fair and open consultation on this basis. This is pretty clear from the wording of the consultation and Penny Mordaunt's comments."

Exactly so .. and it needs to be challenged legally ... I have passed a pic of the letter to someone in the hope that one of their lawyer colleagues can visit this.

twitter.com/Henriettaspoon/status/1037442290162298886

Picking on a minority such as trans people, muslims, whoever and deciding they are "dangerous" never works

Men arent that much of a minority, and their danger to women has been proven over and over again...

Excellent news, the soon they get rid of the 2010 exceptions (That are never used) and work in the way all good service providers work - safeguarding - the better.

Picking on a minority such as trans people, muslims, whoever and deciding they are "dangerous" never works. People should, as the EA 2010 partially lays out, be refused service or given alternative service on a case by case basis. Individual risk assessments and no assumption someone is "safe" because they have characteristics X,Y and Z.

This has nothing to do with loos and changing rooms, for which there has never and hopefully never will be, any law.

More to the point, why do we need the GRA review at all?

If the GEO's assessment is that all trans women already have the rights to access those spaces (save for exemptions, which apply with or without a GRC), and that GRA reform does not impact on women's rights, then why would they listen to women's concerns about losing rights that the GEO doesn't think they have?

The GEO can't run a fair and open consultation on this basis. This is pretty clear from the wording of the consultation and Penny Mordaunt's comments.

lead a measured and moderate debate

Think we have really. What are your thoughts on that, OP?

Public service announcement.

stephLDS18

Having sight of that letter is extremely useful. We need to copy it and reprint it as a pic and show it to the general public. Given that 82% of public don't accept sex self-ID, as evidenced by the Pink News / You Gov poll a month or so ago, I think public will be up in arms about such a response.

Both laws clearly need to be reformed to deliver very tight definitions and strict criteria.

It should never be left to service providers to interpret the law since this leaves all of them open to potentially very expensive legal challenge.

Does it matter?

If the GEO's assessment is that all trans women already have the rights to access those spaces (save for exemptions, which apply with or without a GRC), and that GRA reform does not impact on women's rights, then why would they listen to women's concerns about losing rights that the GEO doesn't think they have?

...its just some people on the internet speculating on the basis of the comments of someone who does not have the power to make that judgment.

This exactly.

Isn't part of the problem also that there is no clear definition of what 'gender reassignment' actually means?

steph when you say 'trans women' as per your thread title, how do you define that?

Isn't most of the discrimination that trans people face based on them being transgender rather than them being perceived as actual women? I don't know?

It is not tested in court.

Until it is...

...its just some people on the internet speculating on the basis of the comments of someone who does not have the power to make that judgment.