Confused - Need Clarification

Applying for jobs for a start, you have to prove your right to work in the Uk, which means showing a birth certificate.

and what, exactly, does it "put a hold on"?

The original question. I don’t know, but, I’m a transsexual woman. I’ve had relevant surgery, I started living as me in 1999. As far as I’m aware, there is no law stating which toilets anyone can and can’t use, why? Again I don’t know, possibly for the same reason it was illegal to be a gay man but not a gay woman, because no one thought they “needed” to put it into law would be my guess.

Now, I’ve used female loos and changing facilities since 1999. When I was a carer for my ex, we tended to use the disabled toilets, which wasn’t the best option, but was pretty much our only option at the time. Now, I didn’t want to see what I had in my underwear before o had surgery, I didn’t want anyone else seeing what was there either, so when there wasn’t cubicles I either didn’t use the facilities, or I found a way around the situation. Fast forward to how, I still don’t want random strangers seeing me in the nude, but, if they did, they’re not going to see anything out of place as it were.

There’s a lot of confusion over the grc and the requirements to get one. The initial form is massive and extremely complicated. Yes you have to have lived “in role” as it were for 2 years prior, and have evidence of such, but how do you go about doing that? Also, you have to have 2 reports from gender Identity professionals. Now, that maybe relatively simple if you’re currently being seen by a gender identity clinic, but if like me, you finished with all that over ten years previous, you have to get back into the system to get the reports, and the current waiting time for an initial appointment is 2 years, that’s 104 weeks. Imagine being told that for any other medical issue you have?
Then, a panel who you never meet or know who they are, decide if you’re genuine or not, how do they decide who is and who isn’t genuine? Me personally, I just want to get on with my life but having 1 piece of paper that doesn’t reflect who I am is putting a hold on things. Why should anyone have to put up with that?

ManFriday, isn’t a man, is trying to make a point by saying they’re a man on Fridays, when clearly they’re just out to try to make a point.

Which is probably harder to justify in the males case

yes, it probably should be. And yet so far it's the blokes that don't seem to be having the problem keeping females out. i wonder why that is....

I think I Mam repeating myself, sorry!

Yes you can Insist on a sex only even if someone is one of the 5000 or fewer people who actually have gender reassignment. However if it is one of those very few persons they have a right to ask/expect and the refusal needs to Be proportionate. Which is probably harder to justify in the males case. Although not being a man and not being of any particular religion I may be making an incorrect statement there

men can have a single sex space as sex is the protected characteristic not femaleness

Yes, and if they exclude males who are trans (ie transwomen) then they are discriminating based on gender reassignment, which isn't an allowed exception.

I believe that this is similar to the all women shortlist challenge - if you're allowing men onto the list, you need to add all men - having the characteristic of gender re-assignment doesn't give you a get out clause for the sex based exemption.

men can have a single sex space as sex is the protected characteristic not femaleness

What kind of expectations re. discrimination can a person who has the characteristic of gender transition have?

Not being hired because their trans, not being allowed into a club because their trans, being targeted for harrassment because they're trans, being refused housing because they're trans.

So for example, if a transwoman wasn't allowed into the men's gay sauna, I believe they'd have a case here - they're male, this is a male exclusive space, and so if the transwoman was refused access that would be discrimination based on gender reassignment (or proposed reassignment - you get protection from the moment you propose it).

It would not be discrimination to refuse access to a female exclusive spa, because the spa will be using the protected characteristic of sex, and they are not of the right sex (this would hold true even given a GRC if the spa wished to exercise that legal option)

Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic, and it is currently a strongly gate-keepered characteristic. Just saying you are a women does not give you anything. You do not today get the protected characteristic by say so. You need to live as a woman for years, you need a medical diagnosis that suggests your health depends on the transistion

WPUK 5 Demands:
Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.

The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act (which allow for single sex services, or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

*to

ManFriday proved that women who attended the men-only swimming ponds while identifying as men at Hampstead Heath were breaking a by law and they were swiftly escorted away.

I don't think that was quite the case - they'd confirmed that they should be allowed, had that permission in writing, but in order not to cause excessive trouble, they agreed to leave when asked by the police. Because they're reasonable people who were demonstrating a point, not entitled arses out to cause upset.

I think they're confusing the protected characteristic of gender transition, which could reasonably be considered self-id, and the protected characteristic of sex.

Just because you're saying you want to be a woman, doesn't give you the protected characteristic of 'woman' it does give you the protected characteristic of gender transition. Having the characteristic of gender transition gives you no more right to access opposite sex spaces than any other person.

Having a GRC gives you the right to be treated as the opposite sex in law, but, exclusions are still allowed, for example changing rooms, because it's a legal fiction, and the law is fully aware of that.

ManFriday proved that women who attended the men-only swimming ponds while identifying as men at Hampstead Heath were breaking a by law and they were swiftly escorted away.

It is perfectly legal to enforce same-sex spaces regardless of someone's "gender identity"

Sorry if not clear the oral evidence I refer to was to the Maria Miller Women and Equalities Trans Inquiry. And the Gendered Intelligence guidelines were a response to that Inquiry.

I do understand Julian Norman's analysis (i think i do) that discusses gatekeeping as a social taboo.

As Julian points out, having a GRC is relevant as the comparator in a discrimination case should be legally male, not female. A GRC holder is considered female for most purposes.

As PP have pointed out trans lobbying groups are being allowed to write guidelines. Gendered Intelligence wrote the government guidelines for employers and service providers. It's striking when you watch the oral evidence how there was acknowledgement that women's spaces were a "tricky issue" even in 2015, although TRAs lie that it's been a fait accompli since 2010.

This thread might help
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175666-Want-to-know-why-women-are-livid-trans-thread

I think that in the UK, there hasn't been a solid court case to give a definitive answer to the naked Dicketta in the changing room question.

The situation is that the Equality Act exemptions should be applied on a case by case basis, so there is no law that says "all changing rooms must be single sex". The gym could conduct an assessment and come to the conclusion that they, as a business offering services to men and women, wish to provide single sex changing rooms, and a judge would need to determine whether that was sufficient to enable them to use the E Act exemption.

I'd guess most places haven't ever really thought about why they provide single sex facilities, and whether they should continue to do so. Therefore, I would also guess that they would be vulnerable if taken to court because there's no paper trail to support and justify their situation

Schools in England (and I think the rest of the UK, but not 100% sure) are different, in that the regulations covering school provision are explicit that toilets and changing facilities should be single sex except in very specific circumstances. But we have still seen this being flouted by schools, either in re-designed facilities aimed at reducing bullying (for example) or in individual cases where boys have been allowed to use female facilities (often on the advice of groups like Mermaids)

The other clear exception to the Equality Act is All Women Shortlists, where the primary legislation is clear that only women and transwomen with a GRC are eligible for inclusion when political parties chose to use the route to increase female representation. This is why it's so curious that individuals like Madigan were allowed to stand as women's officer, and it will be interesting to see how the court case being brought agains the Labour Party by JJ comes out

I've been contemplating what action I might take were I to find Dicketta stark naked in my gym changing room. If the management state (as we all suspect they will) that there's nothing they can do, etc, I shall be forced to write to them telling them I can no longer use the changing rooms (and requesting a rebate on my membership fees, as I shall not be using full facilities for my own privacy and safety) and (b) contact my local MP to inform him of this. I shall probably also contact the press.

I live in quite a small town, which is also relatively remote and had imagined the scenario was unlikely. On Friday, I saw my first transwoman in town, so it's more likely than I had thought.

If Dicketta were tell staff she is trans, legally should/could she be left to it?

The problem is the law is opaque enough on this that your gym will probably have been advised by a lobby group that Dicketta must be treated as a woman in every way.

Legally, they could be excluded but there is a massive and successful push to get organisations to act "ahead of the law" on this.