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:
Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 19:15

Far from clear, littlemouse...

OP posts:
Littlemouseroar · 08/10/2018 19:13

Excuse me for being a little bit muddle-headed. Does this mean we have already lost the fight?

howlsmovingcastle84 · 08/10/2018 19:12

So: The phrase "refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present." has now been deleted.

Oooh-Mr Howl will be interested in that. Will brief him when he gets home for legal opinion.

Redkeyboard · 08/10/2018 19:10

It's not just daft student ideas. Here is a research project run by the Dickson Poon School of Law at Kings College London. They've been given half a million to research the feasibility of doing away with sex as a legal category. One of the expected outcomes is a draft bill. The icing on the cake is that their advisory board is EHRC, Stonewall and Equality & Diversity Forum (don't know much about EDF).

Remove the entire legal existent and ability to articulate a group with a characteristic protected under the EA and discriminated against, harmed, raped and murdered solely due to that characteristic.

Fuck off.

Not on my watch.

PencilsInSpace · 08/10/2018 19:05

That is interesting.

Ereshkigal · 08/10/2018 19:05

So: The phrase "refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present." has now been deleted.

That is indeed interesting. Any GC legal analysis of these changes yet?

That is what basically happened in the Kirklees case, no?

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 19:04

I am not a lawyer, but I would think this may have implications for the case where a pub landlord in Halifax was prosecuted for doing exactly that:

www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

OP posts:
vaginafetishist · 08/10/2018 19:03

Pencils I think you are right, this is the end game.

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 19:01

(page 46)

OP posts:
Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 19:01

Page 42 gets the same standard cleanup, changing "as opposed to the physical sex they were born with" to "as opposed to the sex recorded at their birth" and the deletion of "Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes."

But here's an interesting change on page :

"A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person. Nor should the transsexual person be given a worse standard of service, for example, by allowing other customers to make hostile remarks or refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present. "

Becomes:

"A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person. Nor should the transsexual person be given a worse standard of service, for example, by allowing other customers to make hostile remarks. "

So: The phrase "refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present." has now been deleted.

OP posts:
DebbieInBirmingham · 08/10/2018 19:00

"The sex in which they present"

What does this mean?

BoreOfWhabylon · 08/10/2018 18:57

Hang on, the quotes refer to 'transexual' throughout. Not transgender. Can someone cleverer than me tease out what that means please?

Ereshkigal · 08/10/2018 18:53

TRAs will tell you that it's to avoid being 'outed' but we all have eyes anyway

Yes. They all think they "pass". They don't.

PencilsInSpace · 08/10/2018 18:53

You are missing nothing. There is nothing positive about this.

happydappy2 · 08/10/2018 18:50

Am I missing something, this doesn’t seem a positive step at all....no protection for women’s sex based rights.

ChrysanthemumsAreMums · 08/10/2018 18:45

TRAs will tell you that it's to avoid being 'outed' but we all have eyes anyway

Yes

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 18:45

I'd say the crucial question is: What is "sex recorded at their birth"?

This may be an impractical consideration on-the-spot but in court it is important. People assume it is their birth certificate but I don't take that as a given.

As a parent, you're not given a birth certificate when you check out at the hospital. You have other paperwork that has the sex recorded on it.

You get the baby registered and collect a birth certificate at a later date.

OP posts:
ohello · 08/10/2018 18:44

From a brief skim, I think the new wording is even more confusing and contains even more weasel phrases. I suspect some of you are being too optimistic. Change is not always improvement.

Could be wrong, will have a look later.

PencilsInSpace · 08/10/2018 18:41

You've missed nothing Interviewee1001

They've removed a bit of text that blatantly contradicts the EA (because they had to once this was pointed out) and replaced it with a bit of text that is a loophole around the EA.

Same outcome.

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 18:41

That change has also been made on page 39.

This:

"You must not restrict the participation of a transsexual person in such competitions unless this is strictly necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise. In other words, treat a transsexual person as belonging to the sex in which they present (as opposed to the physical sex they were born with) unless there is evidence that they have an unfair advantage or there would be a risk to the safety of competitors which might occur in some close contact sports."

Becomes:

"You must not restrict the participation of a transsexual person in such competitions unless this is strictly necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise. In other words, treat a transsexual person as belonging to the sex in which they present (as opposed to the sex recorded at their birth) unless there is evidence that they have an unfair advantage or there would be a risk to the safety of competitors which might occur in some close contact sports."

OP posts:
PencilsInSpace · 08/10/2018 18:37
  • as opposed to the physical sex they were born with
  • as opposed to the sex recorded at birth

At first this looks like a really minor change but I don't think it is. 'Sex' isn't described as physical any more, it's just admin - something that's 'recorded' not a property of your body.

It's obvious from reading the old Hansard records that the GRA was meant to solve some real practical problems for a tiny number of people who were suffering greatly.

They predicted about 5000 applicants and there have been 4910 so they got it about right, but we are now told there are up to 500,000 trans people and the reason they haven't applied is because it's too difficult, expensive, intrusive bla bla (it's really not)

All the practical problems the GRA was meant to solve have now been dealt with by other legislation. We have same sex marriage. We have equal pension age (from next month IIRC). TRAs will tell you that it's to avoid being 'outed' but we all have eyes anyway.

We are now told that 'trans is not an illness' so the idea this is something kind we are doing for a group of people who are suffering has also gone.

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

This is from the NUS guide to filling in the consultation:

Whilst we have responded to this consultation in good faith and believe that reforms would have a positive impact on trans people, NUS are nonetheless committed to achieving an end to gender as a characteristic regulated by the state in the long term.

It's not just daft student ideas. Here is a research project run by the Dickson Poon School of Law at Kings College London. They've been given half a million to research the feasibility of doing away with sex as a legal category. One of the expected outcomes is a draft bill. The icing on the cake is that their advisory board is EHRC, Stonewall and Equality & Diversity Forum (don't know much about EDF).

Interviewee1001 · 08/10/2018 18:30

Ok, I’m confused. This looks like a really bad change to me.

I thought that the EA permitted single sex spaces (ie allowed the exclusion of all trans people whether with a GRC or not) if reasonable/proportionate etc.

But no one can ask to see a GRC and the max anyone can request is a birth certificate re ‘proof of sex’. But birth certificates can be changed on request.

So the single sex exemptions in the EA are still meaningless. What have I missed?

Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 18:25

Another Change:

Section: "Access to changing rooms and other facilities"

"Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes."

The above paragraph (Page 38) has now been deleted.

OP posts:
Original poster
WatchThePotatoesBoil · 08/10/2018 18:21

This is incorrect. An adopted person does NOT get a new full birth certificate

It's Wikipedia - it may be a US example.

OP posts:
ChrysanthemumsAreMums · 08/10/2018 18:19

I agree. The GRA is the problem

They snuck it in; now it must go