Major (positive) change to EA/trans advice

gcscience if getting a GRC becomes simple self ID then surely it will mean hee-haw on whether a man has become a woman or what 'effort' a TW has put into transitioning.

They are trying to get us to take our eyes off the ball and it won't work with all of us.

"Wow!" what?

Several learned solicitors have speculated about the EA etc. and come to different conclusions as there is so much ambiguity.

I repeat: the GRC will be so easy to get if the GRA goes through that even those who haven't got one will be presumed to have one.

Direct quote from Twitter

The law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.

mobile.twitter.com/2010Equality/status/1079059984300806144

Wow!

And with GRC in hand it would be up to women to demonstrate on an individual basis for each of those tens of thousands of Stonewall umbrella relevant persons that there is a proportionate...

But the changes are mainly to do with those without a GRC. A GRC will be a done deal so where's the gain? It is almost encouraging transwomen to get a GRC - why wouldnt you?

But the Twitter Thread is good news in revealing the changes to the EHRC guidelines which before were wrong and not in line with the EA.

That was what caught my eye: the change in the EHRC guidelines.

And the whole point is that getting a GRC would be easy for all under the Stonewall umbrella - should the GRA go through. You would still need to demonstrate a proportionate... etc on an individual basis. They are just trying to pacify us.

when we are talking about sex segregated activities/places etc, the segregation is occurring on grounds of the protected characteristic of sex, and therefore using trans/gender reassignment/religion/age as an argument against sex segregated space is null and void, because none of those factored into the original reason for segregation?

This is the point that I continually scream from the rafters. If sex segregation is considered proportionate and legitimate, it is proportionate and legitimate for access to be determined by sex and for exemptions to be applied.

In terms of the GRC distinction, as a pp has stated, seeing as it is illegal to ask for a GRC, how on earth can appropriate access be monitored/checked upon.? Whilst I don't buy the argument that it is impossible to 'police' access (after all, people drive cars everyday without proving they have passed their test/have tax, insurance and an MOT) if people cannot be asked to prove their sex, any attempts to protect sex based rights are meaningless.

I don’t trust the account.

But either way, is the argument that being trans is neither here nor there because when we are talking about sex segregated activities/places etc, the segregation is occurring on grounds of the protected characteristic of sex, and therefore using trans/gender reassignment/religion/age as an argument against sex segregated space is null and void, because none of those factored into the original reason for segregation?

And precisely because it looks like an official account but may not be makes me more suspicious than if it was clearly unofficial.

I think they've just done their header too well. Their bio is pretty clear:

Clarifying what the Equality Act 2010 says about the rights of women and of transgender people in relation to single sex spaces #IANAL

Not connected to @ehrc**

Aspie, If the GRC process says they can [change sex] it is a lie and it invalidates sex based rights

The EA2010 states that someone who has a GRC should be treated as if they are of their chosen gender with exemptions, but not that they have changed sex.

The clash is with the GRA itself which says it's illegal to ask to see someone's GRC and that their (new/false) birth should suffice. So if you can't know someone has a GRC you can't use the exemptions.

The problem is the GRA Gender Recognition Act not the EA2010 Equality Act.

But the Twitter Thread is good news in revealing the changes to the EHRC guidelines which before were wrong and not in line with the EA.

Some interesting examples in the government guide I linked above:

A women’s sexual abuse crisis centre receives a request for support from Alice, a transsexual woman. The centre usually provides group support sessions, but Alice is still in the early stages of gender reassignment and the centre is concerned that other female service
users might feel that her presence affects the benefit of the group sessions for them. The centre decides to offer one-to-one support to Alice at home. This different treatment is likely to be lawful because it enables the crisis centre to fulfil its legitimate objective of providing all service users with a safe and supportive counselling environment
in a fair and reasonable way.

Jenny is a talented athlete who has undergone gender reassignment from male to female. She trains with her local women’s athletics club and she wants to compete in an upcoming national athletics event. With Jenny’s permission, her coach approaches the national governing body for the competition to clarify the gender reassignment related rules for entry as a female competitor. The governing body must decide whether Jenny’s participation would place other female competitors at a disadvantage due to her physical
strength, stamina or physique that come from her previously being a man. They will need to assess whether excluding her is necessary in order to secure a fair competition for the other competitors.

It looks like an official account but the use of slang words like ‘cos’ instead of ‘because’ make me doubt it. And precisely because it looks like an official account but may not be makes me more suspicious than if it was clearly unofficial. Maybe I’m just getting too skeptical...

we'd be better of without the GRC legislation. Then we could all simply use the EA protected characteristics to ensure the rights of vulnerable groups.

This is why suggestions that the proposed new GRA is merely a small administrative change, with no effects on women's rights, are so disingenuous.

Even though single sex provision is still theoretically perfectly legal, it's being hugely eroded in practice by the way the GRA interacts with the EA. The practical effects of self-ID would be huge.

Is there a link to the official EHRC document with the new advice? Another one who is somewhat in the dark about who’s behind this account.

is this definitely true?

Well, that image is not the wording the EHRC use. I think this is the really important change from the June 30th statement:

This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

There is certainly a strong argument to defend single sex provision that could be put forward by organisations like Girl Guides, but the problem is that it isn't clear cut.

This change from the EHRC is certainly very welcome, but I don't think the law itself has ever been what caused organisations like Topshop and GG to remove single sex provision. It's the threat of bad publicity, harassment and expensive legal action. These tactics are effective because the law is unclear.

I should add that IANAL, so this is just my musings on the subject.

The RHRC guidance is here:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf

Slightly more specific government guidance is here:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85052/vcs-gender-reassignment.pdf

Agree with Aspie. And, even if the GRC process was really psychologically supported and well regulated and even if it was reserved for those dysphoric enough to have genital surgery... How is this supposed to work practically in the current climate? Few women would feel safe enough to ask to see a GRC in a gym changing room and would they even be allowed to do so? I fear the damage has already been done to the relationship between women and transexuals.

I think this is the most important bit

A man/transwoman with no GRC is a man.
A man/transwoman with a GRC should be treated as their preferred gender BUT exemptions apply so they can still be excluded.
Which we all knew anyway. BUT now the EHRC formally recognise this where before it was all a bit obscure.

Aspie yes I agree, very confused language here. However you could read it to mean that a GRC is a legal fiction and thus a man can be treated legally as a woman in some circumstances- BUT - with exemptions. Exemptions that are protecting females. Because you can’t change sex. It is the exemptions re sex that are key to the EA.

I can’t see how sex based rights can ever be compatible with the GRC process. I can see that GRC makes it more difficult for opportunists but the very existence of GRC makes sex based rights impossible to maintain.

The Equality Act is really, really clear that having the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" does not mean a person has changed sex. This is the first place where people can get confused. The law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.

I still don’t get this.

Gender reassignment doesn’t mean someone has changed sex. I get that. That makes sense.

But then ‘the law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.’

That implies a man who has gone through the GRC process is a woman, otherwise why mention the GRC process at all?

People can’t change sex. If the GRC process says they can it is a lie and it invalidates sex based rights.