GRA and Equality Act

The exemptions in the EQA could be applied to exclude GRC holders so long as proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

However in practice the GRC makes it very difficult to use them.

I endorse the below brief explanation of case law in this area.

manfridayuk.org/2018/08/22/is-everyone-really-wrong/

The other thing to consider is that governments only last a few years. The 'reassurances' from this government that there will be no changes to the EA are not worth much.

As well as changing the GRA to self-ID, Miller's trans equality report also recommended removing the sex based exceptions where a trans person has a GRC. We know that trans orgs are campaigning hard for this. I have heard this is a Labour policy but don't have the links to hand.

There have been some eloquent posts here recently about the 'swiss cheese' model of safeguarding. Every time we remove a layer of protection, the holes in the remaining layers have more chance of all lining up and rendering the whole thing useless.

So no to self-ID.

And just add, the GRC, is not the instrument that makes a trans person their new sex, and does not give any “sex based” protections.

I’m worried that the beliefs expressed about the EA and GRA on Mumsnet are going to get people sacked or their company sued.
The EA builds on a number of U.K. and ECHR decisions that say very firmly that those having undergone gender reassignment should be treated as being their new gender.
The GRA removed some inconsistencies, eg trans people were their new sex for employment law, but their birth certificates still said the old sex. It also introduces protection for trans people from having their gender history revealed.
The EA protects people undergoing gender reassignment. I think earlier judgements had already established that trans people were to be considered their new gender by the law.
Please don’t take my word on this. I’m not a lawyer. I’ve attended some workshops that covered the subject . Talk this over with someone fully qualified. I don’t want to see women on this forum getting into or causing trouble , and the way some people are going on, that is what’s going to happen.
Be careful.

The problem is that self ID makes the sex based exemptions much harder to use because when a person has changed their legal sex and gets all the privacy protections that come with a GRC, applying the sex based exemptions would usually have to depend on a trans person saying they are trans. (Think of a girls group that has female only staff, they are legally female so apply to volunteer, yet may be fully male bodied. This can't happen with transwomen without GRC's.)

And the considerations re discrimination are effected as well, for example the comparator class of a transwomen who has changed their legal sex to female becomes female and not male, and this can impactson how discrimination is understood, for example if a transwoman with a GRC has their request to be moved to a female prison refused, and they claim unfair discrimination, in judging the case their comparator class is female, and thus their lawyer only has to argue that they are being treated less favourably than female prisoners. Without a GRC, their comparator class would be male, and they'd have to argue they were somehow being treated less favourably than male prisoners. A lawyer recently wrote a blog about it. Although with that said, the exemptions are still applicable to transwomen with GRC's, so this would still factor in, however it may factor in differently.

So the EA sex based exemptions can be applied to all trans people, with or without GRC's, but with a GRC they are harder to apply due to what comes with a legal sex change, and their legal sex change may also affect the question of what is proportionate and legitimate.

All of this is already a problem. Self ID turns that into a huge problem because it's gives all of this to anyone who identifies as a woman, or at least say they do.

It's not 'streamlining' it's opening up legal sex change to an entirely different and much larger group of people (everyone who fancies it in fact).

There are two situations where having a GRC makes a direct difference:

1. prison placements
   A TW with a GRC will be treated as female. A TW without a GRC may be treated as female at the discretion of the transgender case board (Karen White style clusterfucks notwithstanding). Changing the GRA to self-ID will allow any male prisoner to move to a women's prison.

2. all women shortlists
   These are only legal on the grounds of the protected characteristic of sex. That means that legally they are open to women + TW with a GRC. TW with no GRC do not share the PC of sex with women. Labour (and probably other parties?) are breaking the law by allowing self-ID TW with no GRC to be on AWS, hence the impending legal action. If they get away with this it creates a precedent and renders any mention of 'sex' in the EA as effectively meaningless. Changing the GRA to self-ID will allow any male to stand on an AWS.

Fair Play for Women have identified another direct effect, relevant to DV refuges, rape crisis etc, which I believe would also apply to genuine occupational requirements. Because it is illegal under the GRA for anyone to disclose someone's trans status if they came by that knowledge in a professional capacity, and because a GRC entitles the bearer to a new birth certificate in their acquired legal sex, there may be no way to exclude a male person with a GRC if they say they are not trans, even if it's completely obvious. They have a birth cert that says F and nobody is legally allowed to say they were born M. This is the situation at the moment, however only 4910 people currently have a GRC and every single one of them has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. According to the ICD to get that diagnosis (or the modern equivalent of 'gender incongruence' ), certain dangerous fetishes have to be ruled out first (not sure how well this works in practice in this age of stunning and brave affirmation but it's better than nothing).

I don't want that gatekeeping removed. I don't want just any man to be able to get a GRC and a female birth certificate. This is dangerous for women and girls. It will be abused. It's already being abused in situations where organisations, from the prison service to political parties to top shop have decided to get 'ahead of the law' and allow male people to self-ID into women's spaces and positions. While this is still not law we have a hope of rolling this back.

If the GRA changes to self-ID we are truly fucked. The protected characteristic of sex will become meaningless. We will have sex based rights on paper only.

TL;DR: no to self-ID.

Those that do are well used to providing services in a different way or exempting on a case by case basis under the EA

If everything is so hunky dory, why are we seeing rapists and paedophiles sent to women's prisons?

It’s what happens today and will continue to happen with a streamlined GRA. Most service providers won’t find themselves in the position of having to exempt trans people from accessing their service. Those that do are well used to providing services in a different way or exempting on a case by case basis under the EA.

Yes, the EA 2010 says you can exclude trans people regardless of if they have a GRC. It makes no differences to those exclusions if you have a GRC or not. Pretty clearly in the explanatory notes when I read it and I see that has been confirmed here.

A lot of scaremongering over the GRA changes are based on a lack of understanding of how the EA 2010 works and will continue to work.

The EA says people should not be discriminated against, not that they can identity into spaces of people with other protected characteristics.

It's the Equality Act, which is not being amended, which already gives trans people access..

Where in the EA does it say that?

Zhora, you’re correct regardless of whether a trans person has a GRC, a provider can exclude a trans person if it’s a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

This is a key point that both sides tend to ignore or forget and the government has ruled out any changes to the EA for the present. So, those exemptions will still work in exactly the same way under a streamlined GRA.

The GRA allows the obtaining of a GRC which is useful for legal documents such as passports etc

You don’t need a GRC to get a passport in a different sex, just a doctors’ letter.

The trans person's rights to say they identify as male or female and access the services and facilities of their choice are governed by the EA.

Are they? As far as I can see the EA just says that people can’t be discriminated against if they have the characteristic of gender reassignment.

So if, for instance, males were not allowed into a space then how would it be discriminatory to not allow a trans woman? They would not allowed in because of their sex (male), nothing to do with gender/ gender reassignment.

It would Of course be discriminatory if they said no trans people but that’s not what’s happening.

No

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 states that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. So a person can claim that they have this characteristic if they identify as transgender.

Section 29 says that a service provider must not discriminate against someone on the basis of their protected characteristic. So an organisation that wants to provide a single sex service for women can't (subject to what is said below) exclude a male person.

However, sections 26 and 27 of schedule 3 to the Act say that the provision single sex services is not discriminatory where there is good reason to provide them. Further, when providing single sex services, s28 to schedule 3 says it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment. So providing a service just for women is not discriminatory, neither is it discriminatory to exclude people claiming gender reassignment from your definition of women.

This is the law as it currently stands.

What overrides this is where someone has a GRC and has to be treated in law as if they were of the opposite sex. So a male with a GRC has to be treated to all intents and purposes as if they were female. This has been interpreted to trump the non discrimination provision on the basis of sex and gender reassignment.

At present, the Equality Act allows for the provision of single sex services and spaces where there is reason to do so. You are also right that at present, the Equality Act allows anyone claiming to be trans (whether or not they have a GRC) to be treated as their adopted gender. Where it is proportionate to do so, it is still permitted to exclude a transgender person from single-sex provisions. In practice, many organisations either don't understand or are fearful of maintaining the right to single sex provision over the request for inclusion of transgender people of the opposite sex.

If someone has a GRC, they have to be treated as if they are of the opposite sex, so they have to be accepted into single sex provision for their claimed sex regardless of whether there is good reason to exclude them.

As there is only a relatively small number of people with a GRC, and they have gone through a gatekeeping process to confirm that they suffer from a condition whereby they would suffer from severe distress if they were to be treated as being of their natal sex, rather than preferred gender, their inclusion in single sex provisions of the opposite sex causes few problems.

If the GRA is amended to self identification, then the right to be treated as if one is of the opposite sex will not be limited to those who would otherwise suffer significant mental distress, and there will be no form of gatekeeping to ensure that someone is requesting to be so treated for genuine as opposed to nefarious reasons. The "good reason" provisions for maintaining single sex services under the Equality Act will be circumvented as the trans person will have to be treated as if they are of the opposite sex. There will be no way of drawing a distinction between a man wishing to be treated as if he were a woman because it causes him severe mental distress to be treated as a man, and a man who wishes to be treated as if he is a woman because it will allow him easy access to abuse women.

Oh, I see. Shame we can’t post any recipes, on account of them being transphobic or something.

Have some pretty flowers, instead 💐🌹🌷🌺🌸🌼🌻🥑