UK Government confirms it will block Scottish GRR

LIve in parliament right noooo!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-64294059

So whilst Alistair Jack is dropping the GRR Bill thing the government sneak out draft legislation on conversion therapy to include everyone!

Conversion therapy. Gvt to publish draft legislating on news just

Being debated in Parliament right now.

I hope that people who were of the opinion that it's just to help a few tortured souls, will see it for what it actually is, a charter for extremists and abusers.

'Sactly @SinnerBoy

What I really want to hear is a journalist doing their job and grilling Sturgeon, or a TRA, forcing them to explain why the proposed law excludes first born daughers becoming legally men and inheriting dukedoms, whilst allowing convicted sex offenders to become legally women.

Well said @Beowulfa Also I think private members' clubs such as The Garrick in London can, and do, exclude women from becoming members. But transwomen who joined as men can remain members; transmen cannot join. So I think Beira's Place is safe as it's private and private clubs can include or exclude whoever they wish.

As others here have said I very much welcome this intervention. It forces it out into the open. Now we get the debate we've been told for years we cannot have. Now it has to be discussed. Now no one can duck the issue. We have sunlight we wanted. For many of us that's pretty much all we wanted because once people realise what self ID actually means they understand why we fear it.

PennysRevenge

Full frontal attack...Poor word choice Nicola. Poor! She make care about pronouns, but she certainly doesn’t care about possessive pronouns — “it’s”, tsk, tsk.

Damn your eyes! I was going to point that out!

Anyway, it's very good news to see this result, it'll drag the festering pile of maggots out into the open. In recent months, reportage on the subject has begun to shift, with even the Guardian acknowledging that it's not as simple as the first made out.

I hope that people who were of the opinion that it's just to help a few tortured souls, will see it for what it actually is, a charter for extremists and abusers.

As others have said, this is forcing the issue into mainstream discussion.

What I really want to hear is a journalist doing their job and grilling Sturgeon, or a TRA, forcing them to explain why the proposed law excludes first born daughers becoming legally men and inheriting dukedoms, whilst allowing convicted sex offenders to become legally women.

The exemption for aristocrats shows they "know" a transman isn't really a man. I want to hear an explanation of how that is legally consistent. Obviously we all know why this exemption exists, but I want to hear their responses.

I think Beira's Place have said that all the other centres are trans-inclusive so they will refer any transwoman to them. They do accept transmen though, on the grounds that they are biologically female.

As it is a service to the public which might be affected by a person of the opposite sex being present then the exemptions do apply and they can lawfully exclude someone with a GRC with the appropriate justification.

However, this provision is of no help if your funding providers withdraw funding if you are not transinclusive. Hence the need for private funding.

I think Beira's place is ok because it's permitted to exclude even GRC holders from a service where appropriate.

Qere told we CAN exclude, but that often means the funding is withdrawn.
As far as I know, Beiras Place is a private business, not a charity, so they can exclude whoever they want.
I run my own business. I declined to make adult nappies for a male who told me it was for "scat play". Actually, I'm afraid my first instinct was to laugh out loud, he slammed the phone down on me and that was that. But I could not be forced to make anything for him. I'd like to see someone try....its my business. I'll sew what I fucking well want to.

Which is exactly why JKR put her private money into Beiras Place. No gov funding, so they can keep out who they damn well need to.

Except Beira's Place still needs to adhere to equality law. So if the law says they must admit trans women with a GRC, then they will have to do that.

But while I'm grateful for people's explanations, I'm still not entirely clear whether it's possible to exclude trans women with a GRC from a single-sex space. I think it is, but I'm not sure.

The howls of outrage from the TRAs tells you everything you need to know about the chances any organisation has at keeping their funding AND their ability to exclude on biological sex basis. It's so fucking obvious.

it is. And it needs addressing.

Which is exactly why JKR put her private money into Beiras Place. No gov funding, so they can keep out who they damn well need to.
The howls of outrage from the TRAs tells you everything you need to know about the chances any organisation has at keeping their funding AND their ability to exclude on biological sex basis. It's so fucking obvious.

We're back to funding our single sex spaces ourselves, ladies.
Second class citizens indeed. Feels grrrrreat.

Dammit, should be
and [he] SAID that people can take it up with their MSPs

He's actually being a bit more balanced than I expected. I listen to his show every day and generally strongly disagree with him on this subject but at least he is (more than once) acknowledging the concerns of women about predators abusing the system.

Having said that, he's just dismissed polls showing clear opposition and saying that people can take it up with their MSPs at the next election if it's so important to them.

Part of the problem is that these places only get scotgov funding if they are trans inclusive. So there is no incentive to protect single sex spaces.

And that would impact single sex schools in rUK too, as you could easily have border hopping.

Ignoring (as far as possible) feelings about whether the GRR is right or not, it does seem like Westminster have a valid case that this has an impact outside Scotland and an impact on the EA. Haldane has served to make that very clear.

It is. There is a whole section in the report about the impact on single-sex schools. Nobody needed to consider that before because the minimum age for a GRC automatically solved the problem. And yet the Scottish Government apparently had full legal advice on the GRR and were confident it didn't impact the operation of the Equality Act 2010.

Oh wow. That’s incredible. I guess atm it won’t apply to schools but if they manage to lower the age to 16 or below that’s going to create a major headache for single sex schools isn’t it?

It appears to be even more complicated than that. The exemptions apply to services but not to single sex associations or schools.

From the Policy Exchange document
"Section 101 of the Equality Act sets out provisions for membership within associations. Section 101(1) prohibits discrimination in the admission or terms of admission of members. Schedule 16 sets out certain exceptions to this prohibition of discrimination. Most notably, sch.16 para.1(1) states that:
An association does not contravene section 101(1) by
restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.
This means that single-sex associations are free to discriminate on the
basis of sex but not on the basis of any other protected characteristic,
including gender reassignment. Drawing upon the analysis set out above,
if Lady Haldane is correct, we can conclude that female-only associations
can exclude all legal males, be they biological males or GRC holding
biological females, subject to justification texts. But they cannot exclude a
GRC holding biological male."

So a public swimming pool could restrict it's changing rooms to biological sex if it was proportionate etc.
If I set up the MN Women Only Swimming Club and there were more than 25 members. The club would not be able to exclude a GRC holding male from membership. So if we hired the same swimming pool we wouldn't be able to prevent a biological male with a GRC from joining us but we could exclude a transman with a GRC"

Very logical...

In case anyone is interested, James O’Brien just starting a phone in on LBC on this topic

I just caught the last 5 mins of the 5 Live programme. My god the trans person was useless, and had to be asked to keep to the actual issues rather than detailing their trans journey. They actually did admit there was an issue with prisons “if the trans person had not had any surgery”.

So is the situation now that women can exclude the majority of men on the basis of sex but the remaining men must be excluded (under the exceptions) on the basis of gender reassignment? So all men can still be excluded but you have to use 2 separate mechanisms to do so?

I’m still struggling to wrap my head around the meaning of that judgment.