Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Important - The Equality Act guidance has just changed

159 replies

WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 17:06

I've just this minute been told by the EHRC that the Equality Act guidance has been changed, and the new version was published on Friday as promised to Fair Play for Woman.

It no longer states:

Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services.

It now states:

Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate (if they have one) as evidence of their legal sex. If a business requires proof of a person’s legal sex, then their birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

There will of course, now be a new Twitter war on what this actually means.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf

OP posts:
PencilsInSpace · 09/10/2018 00:18

Lots of people pointed out the issues. This twitter thread with bits of Hansard from 2003 is very informative:

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

AngryAttackKittens · 09/10/2018 00:13

It really does feel like everyone lost their minds. Something in the water? Brain eating virus? It just doesn't make any sense that nobody at the relevant meeting went "hang on a second, I see some potential issues here".

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 23:56

Indeed. That certainly body-swerved due dilligence. What were they thinking? I just don't know how anyone could pass such a thing and not realise there would be a Pandora's box of problems even in good faith declarations - let alone the bad ones...

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 08/10/2018 23:48

I hope you're right but fear that you're probably wrong.

Also agree with others that birth certificates should never be changed. They're a historical record of events, not an exercise in validation.

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 23:40

But Angry I think that may be the situation under this revised guidance.

The old guidance said that you could not exclude someone with a GRC.

It no longer says that.

  • and not being a lawyer (i.e. probably being wrong so don't follow this advice) but I think:

...that I would take the new guidance to mean that at "Potato Boil Spa" (1) I could choose to exclude biomales under Equality Act Explanatory Note 734 (2), and if they believe I'm wrong then it's up to them to bring in a birth certificate. If I'm still not satisfied, I could really stand my ground and simply refuse because I believe that they are transgender. In borderline cases, I would have to give the customer the benefit of the doubt, but in other cases not ("case-by-case" right?)

The thing is, the Equality Act states it's not about a characteristic someone necessarily has (such as being male), but is a characteristic the provider perceives that they have. In this specific example, I am asserting a sex-based exception and a gender-reassignment exception.

So the burden of proof lies with the customer to prove they are not transgender.

  • and if I was wrong... Well... I'd be a bit fucked, basically - but I think we're not talking about edge cases are we? We're talking about when you know that this person is going to freak the hell out of your regular customers.

Of course I would document such a policy formally and get a solicitor to give it the green-light before implementing it.

Notes:
(1) "Potato Boil Spa" does not exist Smile
(2) 734 b.p. 5 - "a woman might object to the presence of a man"

OP posts:
DuckingGoodPJs · 08/10/2018 23:09

Pencils is right:
It's very obvious to me that the GRA is not so much being reformed as repurposed and I believe the purpose is to render 'sex' as a legal category meaningless, not just in the EA, but in all contexts. It just wouldn't be recorded anywhere because if anybody can change their legal sex at any time with just a statutory declaration, what's the point?

No legal sex = no sex based rights

We have been hearing the 'drip drip drip' of the erosion of women's rights for some time - now it is sounding like the pipe has burst.

None of these changes sound comforting at all, quite the opposite.

AngryAttackKittens · 08/10/2018 23:07

It's like being in a Twilight Zone episode. Sex is not assigned, it's observed. The only case in which it may have been observed and recorded incorrectly is with children who have intersex conditions, and even then that's not likely now. Organizations should not have to jump through hoops to prove that they have a really good reason not to allow males into women's spaces - those spaces are for people who are female. Males should be excluded by default, and if for some reason a particular male thinks he's an exception the burden of proof should lie on him

(He's wrong though.)

Uncreative · 08/10/2018 23:04

Ok, ignore my previous post. I saw the answer on the government website.

UpstartCrow · 08/10/2018 23:03

This is fucking terrifying. No one actually changes sex. You cant encode that into any meaningful law.

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 23:01

I guess what I'm saying, is I hope it means 'natal sex' but I'm in no position to make that assertion...

OP posts:
Uncreative · 08/10/2018 23:00

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that (at the moment) having a gender recognition certificate would not allow you to get a new/amended birth certificate. I thought a birth certificate remained unchanged?

My source is Wikipedia (yes, I know) so please point me in the right direction if that information is wrong.

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 22:59

I think that falls down to a legal bun-fight over whether "sex recorded at birth" means birth certificate.

Surely "birth certificate" means "birth certificate", not "recorded at birth"?

Otherwise, why refer to it as "recorded at birth"?

OP posts:
Badstyley · 08/10/2018 22:41

So, we’re not really allowed to ask for a birth cert, although the birth cert is lies anyway, because to get a lying birth cert they only need to seek a GRC?

Just fuck off!

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 22:41

I think this gives service providers more wiggle-room, whilst at the same time highlighting that really, the whole thing needs an overhaul.

OP posts:
Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 22:37

Big thanks are due to Fair Play For Women for getting two paragraphs removed that have caused so much tension in these discussions:

Specifically...

(1) DELETED - "Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services."

(2) DELETED - "[A pub cannot refuse] them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present."

Personally I do believe that these are both significant changes which will influence the decisions that service providers make around single-sex spaces.

Of course, this in no way reduces the importance of getting as many people as possible to complete the GRA Consultation Survey as described here: fairplayforwomen.com/how-to/

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 08/10/2018 22:36

Wait - they are changing the definition so that "gender reassignment" now means the ability to CHANGE SEX?

Shock
Redkeyboard · 08/10/2018 22:28

Who has made the decision to revise it? Who advised them?

LemonJello · 08/10/2018 22:26

Really interesting thread. Thank you for all the info.

I agree the GRA should be repealed.

DereksSexyPyjamas · 08/10/2018 22:25

I’m off to bed now, but if anyone has a link to the self ID petition handy could they share it, please? Id like to check the government’s response and what promises were made regarding single sex spaces. Thanks

Littlemouseroar · 08/10/2018 22:08

(Would be saying something but yet again fear and self-preservation stop me)

ChattyLion · 08/10/2018 22:04

Agree with the repeal sentiment.
I think it’s helpful to state as much in GRA consultation responses.

Given that everyone knows that people can’t really change sex and these days, there aren’t any other rights that you can’t get as a transitioning person any more - cause the Equality Act ensures that people are protected - I can’t see what protections would be removed if the GRA was repealed. It’s not necessary now and the push for self ID GRC is being used to undermine safeguarding and women’s rights. Sad

Invisible1234 · 08/10/2018 21:59

Getting rid of the gender dysphoria provision means self id.

HermioneWeasley · 08/10/2018 21:48

I think it’s a step forward

GulagsMyArse · 08/10/2018 21:48

you are right pencils, if someone can get a new Birth Cert, and the only thing services are allowed to ask for is bc then it makes no difference.

Really the EA and GRA are very badly written law. I don't think they should re issue new bc, its not needed now, as pensions and marriage are no longer a problem.

God i feel fucking sick of this tonight. This is a men's problem that we have been lumbered with and our rights have been fucked. feeling ranty.

AyeRobot · 08/10/2018 21:44

Did someone after the EA came in go "oh fuck, this doesn't work. Better keep trying to fudge it and see who wins when it all kicks off"?