Liz Truss WILL make a statement today

I think the mention of biological and legal sex is actually quite a good outcome. Yes there's a load of feelz jargon worked in but the crux of stopping this is clear definitions.

The BBC is still mangling it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53154286
"Under the Equality Act 2010, no-one should be discriminated against because they are transgender."

This says you need a GRC or doctors letter to change gender on a passport, so not self-ID? assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251703/Applying_for_a_passport_additional_information.PDF

Lol.

If trans people can already do all the things demanded, then what is the problem? Seems like a tacit admission that the only thing they really wanted was to torpedo single sex provision for women. 🤔

From Mermaids Twitter feed
^We'll await the official announcement on GRA reform before commenting. Meanwhile it's worth repeating: 📣 trans people can already self-id for passports, driving licences and yes, access to single sex spaces. That isn't changing. Take heart.
#uktransrights t.co/sVrm3zX1bt^

TalkingToLangClegInTheDark

Am sat in the corner doing my best not to be an Eeyore!

Multiple repetitions of the refrain that TW have always been in women's spaces and no one's noticed and it's never mattered and nothing will change etc etc, with no reality check included

They must know this is completely disingenuous. When the GRA was formed in 2004 they estimated around 5000 people would apply for one. So assuming some of those were transmen then perhaps 4000 ish transwomen might have used some female spaces at that point.

It's not very many out of a population of about 60 million people so actually no the vast majority of women will not have been used to sharing spaces with people born male.

Since then with the widening of the umbrella to include cross dressers, gender fluid, non binary and various other identities who lay claim to female spaces current estimates put the number somewhere north of 500,000 and probably a lot more.

Anne Sinnott's case will do much more than this statement. This is basically saying - the law/act stays the same but we're being nice by reducing cost/opening more gender clinics.

Anne's case will look into the interpretation of said laws/act though and clarify them.

It's still great news that self ID is no longer on the table though.

I think it is a good statement in the current social context. I don't read the Equality Act as ambiguous really. Although the guideance that has been given on what it says has been widely incorrect. This statement means biological sex is recognised. Gender reassignment is recognised. Both are protected in law. Gender reassignment is something serious that you sign up to under some scrutiny. So it is no longer a legal free for all right of access to women's space. The government cannot and must not simply deny rights, freedoms and recognition to trans people. If we can't accept that then there is no moving forward. I would agree that for most of my life trans people have lived happily alongside women without issue. It is only the TRAs demands that introduced difficulty. This statement gives no cause for complaint, since all of the reasonable requests in support of trans people have been met, but the ability to become a woman by saying so is still off the cards. Thank goodness!!

and some of the commenters on Twitter are bringing out the declarations of war and wishing people would fall off bridges etc. Thus proving, again, the need for safe single sex female spaces.

I am still struggling to understand the objections being brought for medical confirmation of any surgery/treatment sought - surely this should all be clearly attached to medical records to ensure appropriate treatment based on sex and medical history? Otherwise it leaves doctors in an impossible situation of trying to treat a patient with extremely important information being withheld.

I can't fathom what the BMA are thinking to support any aspect of self-id/concealing birth sex/medical history as it puts their members at huge risk of killing someone accidentally - it is not fair on the trans people and not fair on the doctors.

There was a very angry person on Twitter recently complaining that the doctor wanted written verification of their sex before commencing treatment. They were trans and apparently not prepared to confirm their birth sex.

I think it was in America and with their highly litigious society I can well imagine that the doctor wanted some backup to protect him from being sued in event of a problem that could be caused by him being given incorrect information.

From a conspiracy minded perspective I'm interested in the timing. It's one of the best "a good day to bury bad news" of the year with it well down the news headlines below today's significant Coronavirus announcements while it throws a curveball into the Labour Party conference as a lively thing to discuss and fall out over.

I think this is very fair and balanced. I am surprised that Benjamin Cohen is happy about it. As Janice Turner pointed out JKR could have written it.

Liz Truss is smart. She has left it open for the upcoming court cases which will be resolved over the next few months. Kiera Bell is in a few weeks time.

Glad to see Self-ID kicked into the long grass (at least for now) and the reiteration that's the EA provides for single sex spaces but definitely concerning language there particularly about trans people already using facilities that align with their "gender".

Have just read through the full doc.

Very kid gloves, with lots of signalling of compassion and having heard in a way that in the report is not ever extended equally to women. The language etc is wholly on the political lobby's terms without mention of there being other aspects to this.

Fair Play for Women appear to have successfully and thoroughly ticked off the writers, who are not managing to conceal this.

They have managed to avoid recording - although it was in the responses, I put it in myself - that some women cannot share facilities with male people regardless of their identity, and that this HAS left women without access to services, provisions or resources, which is an issue with the equality they keep banging on about being important. You'd think reading that that women with concerns are just being a bit prissy instead of having actual reasons that need engaging with.

Multiple repetitions of the refrain that TW have always been in women's spaces and no one's noticed and it's never mattered and nothing will change etc etc, with no reality check included

Stonewall et al have repeatedly banged on that the EqAct is not changing and this being the reason there's no harm to women etc. Mentioned over and over throughout the report, directly attributed often to those from the political lobby and done somewhat strategically, so it's made clear that Stonewall themselves believe the exemptions for female people are what make the rest of it manageable. So Stonewall have somewhat spiked their own guns on the exemptions.

Mention at the end of no proper impact assessment on women or viewing women as stakeholders - which the report demonstrates and verifies over and over throughout. Not the slightest attempt to address this.

On the other hand, the fact women get mentioned at all - even in the terms of the report - and the concerns are recorded and have controlled the response, is a major step from what I think this would have said a year ago.

Just heard a one liner on radio 5 so have come here to get the full story! Thank you all for keeping me up to speed and informed. A good result/start.

It seems to be a move in the right direction. And clearly uses sex and gender as separate terms. But yes, a long way to go. And frankly, if labour gets in it will probably immediately start Again. But for now ... keep pulling.

I’m fascinated by Benjamin Cohen’s reaction.

He thinks it’s very reasonable.

How will he react when he sees that transactivists wholeheartedly disagree?

Will he change his tune? Or might this open his eyes to the unreasonableness of the demands?

I'm very pleased to see language used which makes it clear that biological sex, legal sex and gender identification are different things, that biological sex and legal sex are the protected characteristics, and even more that biological sex "trumps" legal sex where there is a need for single-sex provision.

Agree with pp that comprehension skills seem to be in short supply with some Twitter commentators re: spousal exit clause, even though many people have explained in respectful, factual terms what it really means.

@Esc

The first responses I saw were all ''Not good enough''.

They have what they asked for, but it's not good enough. Nothing ever will be.

'Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man...'

Really glad to hear about the spousal clause. A good day for Tinsel and other transwidows.

Like others I think this is a start, not perfect by any means, some of the language is vague and not as well defined as I'd like. It's a significant victory though and ends the notion of self ID as a legal concept.

There's still a lot of work to be done and clearly a lot of the detail will have to be battled via the courts. It's possible the outcome of those battles will lead to the government firming up their initial statement.

As an interesting aside the concessions and focus on investment in better trans healthcare is remarkably similar to what Labour offered in their 2019 manifesto. That was roundly rejected because the campaigning interests lay in removing women's sex based rights as a top priority.

I'd like to think the activists would be somewhat pleased by today's support for trans healthcare but somehow I suspect not.

Well done to everyone who has tirelessly worked for women on a grassroots level and to the journalists who spoke out highlighting the problems of Self ID.

I am pleased the Tavistock stranglehold will be broken. Resignations, scandals, publicity: none of it resulted in culture change there. Hopefully whole new clinics can be set up with a different culture from the start, maybe hiring some of those who resigned or were whistleblowers.

I do hope they start with a culture that seeks to help people presenting with gender dysphoria rather than promoting a single political pseudo-religious ideology.

That was...anticlimactic

A small but significant battle won. Well done to all who made it happen.