31 Jan 15:15 Women & Equalities Committee - Scottish GRR Bill

About those DBS checks....

'The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to those who change their gender when changing their identity. These are exceptional rights that are only granted to individuals in this group. The result is that identify verification is compromised, meaning there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete'.

(KPSS report, September 2022)

I seem to remember a thread from a Mumsnetter who was trying to get to the bottom of this a few years back. IIRC the answer was pretty much 'we rely on people to be honest about their former names / identity when they apply for a DBS certificate'

Seems fair to me - what could possibly go wrong?

Yes, there really isn’t a need for it now that you have gay marriage.

You don’t need it to change your passport or drivers licence. How often do you need to show you birth certificate for anything? Almost never.

I think the only advantage to having one now is the privacy clause - for people who really have something to hide.

If we have de facto self-ID already, then there is the "why would I bother". But there's also the possibility that some people wouldn't qualify if they applied for a GRC. So if you don't or don't think you will but it's your wish, de facto self-ID must seem a good option.

Do you think after all the bleating about the difficulty of getting a GRC, some people just can’t be bothered to get it?

About those DBS checks....

'The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to those who change their gender when changing their identity. These are exceptional rights that are only granted to individuals in this group. The result is that identify verification is compromised, meaning there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete'.

(KPSS report, September 2022)

Absolutely, @Boiledbeetle . Listening to those self-important men discussing how many of them are just going to waltz into OUR spaces, is something straight out of Gilead 😡

Another thing. The only way you can verify a person’s sex 100%, apart from by looking down their pants, or getting them to do a chromosome test, (prior to 2004) has been to look at their ID documents.

If you are setting up some sort of service or membership, for women, and you invoke the single sex exemption - because it’s aim is proportional and legitimate to discriminate.

What if someone male applies to your service and membership, who has a GRC?

Their identity documents, even their birth certificate will have been falsified, there is no way you are allowed to check to know it they are false, because it would unlawfully breech their privacy, if anyone disclosed their actual sex to you.

What could that service or membership do to keep that male person, that man, out of their legitimate/proportional single sex service?

How would it work?

Should proportional/legitimate single sex services and membership orgs have additional legal powers to demand to have a person’s sex verified via DBS or something?

Should they have powers to conduct a medical examination to know what is in their pants isn’t an in tact or inverted penis?

Should they have powers to do a chromosome test?

How can you exclude a person of the opposite sex, with a GRC, from a single sex service, without these additional powers?

Can someone please explain?

I know I'm so sick of how many?

None. I want Fucking none in my spaces.

They have to be surely. That's the whole point. You are a man until you are legally a woman!

God that is a ridiculous sentence.

🤔🙄🤐

Just listening to as much of the debate as my blood pressure could stand 😡
I see what posters (up thread) mean about certain people going on about the numbers, as if this was a 'gotcha'.
But Naomi is right, it really doesn't matter.
Even just one fetishizing, voyeuristic, agp male in my space, or the spaces of our daughters, is one too many.
It's not just being assaulted, it is our privacy and dignity, too. We do not consent to this. The GRA must go.

On the topic of self-ID. It's serious if we do already have self-ID. Do we? It removes our capacity to consent. It's not safe. And that is wrong. I am reminded of this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/22/britain-becoming-sick-trans-debate-facts-can-cure/

"Lord Falconer, Lord Chancellor under Tony Blair, dismissed the complaints of those concerned about the privacy and safety of women, saying, “The vast majority of [applicants] are likely to be genuine.”
How large a minority Lord Falconer believes might not be genuine was left unsaid. He was, after all, just guessing. But this is not an issue about which we can be blithe. For the consequences for the privacy and safety of women – and indeed the very sense of self felt by women as women – is at stake.
...

With no meaningful safeguards stopping men acquiring the necessary certificates, and with them the right to enter women-only spaces, the scope for abuse is clear.
To deny this – or to minimise the danger, as Lord Falconer did – is to deny reality itself.
...

There are other dangers, too. The legislation is part of a trend in which transgenderism and gender fluidity are normalised and made mainstream in culture... It is how nobody stops to ask how many such men are moved to act in these ways through their own sexual desire. Autogynephilia, the feeling of sexual arousal some men feel as they pretend to be women, is according to some researchers behind many or even most cases of gender dysphoria among those born as men. It is legitimate to ask whether non-consenting women ought to be participants in such sexual fantasies."

Separate post because it’s unseemly to speculate on a specific individual so I’m switching to general mode…

The big differences between the old GRC rules and the proposed new ones are:

Length of time living ‘in acquired gender’
Dysphoria diagnosis requirement
Spousal exit clause

A stray pronoun snuck in.

Huh?

RMW transitioned in 2011 - this Times article was published just before RMW first appeared in court as RMW instead of just RW.

And Theresa May wasn’t PM until 2016 and didn’t say anything about a new system until 2017.

RMW could’ve applied for a GRC in 2013. Why the 4 year delay? Was RMW involved in some back room chats before May made her plans public or what?

So, are men without a GRC legally regarded as men, without exception? One man without a GRC being the same as any other man without a GRC?

Now don't get me wrong, no one can actually change their sex, even if they are clutching a bit of paper saying they are the other sex. But, there seems to be pressure to collude with the falsehood that one is the other sex when someone has a GRC. Repeat the lie, so to speak, even when you know it is a falsehood.

I was looking thinking what's missing? But yeah better than deletion. Thank you mods

Ooh editing rather than deletion. Hmm

I can't even remember what it was. Can't have been that bad

I think so. My post has just been edited to remove a naughty word! Although I suppose that's better than a deletion :D

Monitors watching..?

Yeah, I mean the GRA had always worked on this mythical 5000 figure. We know from the census it's much higher that under self ID would qualify. So are all those others using the 5000 to do what the hell they like because no one can ask them if they are one of the 5000 that have got a bloody GRC

Regarding that point, Robin slightly shot themselves in the foot admitting no grc; earlier discussion had centred around numbers and projected numbers after this bill passed, if it does. When clearly actual numbers could be higher.

Yes we do.

I'm just speechless. Surely this proves we have self ID? Already