If Self id isn't law then why?

The thing about a GRC and birth certificates is that alone, they arent particularly useful ids on a day to day basis. And single sex spaces arent traditionally id in the way age restricted places are.

The GRC was designed to let the holder gain the birth certificate, but i think it was assumed that a non passing man wouldnt use it for anything other than admin purposes? What would the point of having female id to gain access to female spaces when it was obvious they were male? Thats probably why men without grc continue to be allowed to change id.

So i can see that GRC would be a private document only relevant for tax codes and retirement dates.

But trans awareness has been promoted and women are taking testosterone. This means that the public have been told that the man with female id is a woman, and some woman do look very masculine because of gender treatment.

So there is confusion around SSE where there never was before. Are trans men classed as female because they are, even though they have male id, are men classed as female because they have female id. Does having a GRC make a difference? If it does, then it how can anyone change their passport? What happens to female detransitioners who have female id, maybe a male birth certificate, but look very masculine?

The government have watched a mess unfold, and still dont have a clue what to do.

It was entirely abusive.

Yes, but that doesn’t matter because it’s women that are being abused. This is entirely an anti-women, male supremacist movement.

Aren't they breaking the law by allowing Self ID?

In some areas they are acting unlawfully but until they get sued they will continue to follow what they have been advised is the law by activist DEI companies and groups like Stonewall.

I thought at the very least this required a GRC.

Surrey Police put out a statement this week saying it’s illegal to ask to see a GRC. This is clearly untrue. You have to wonder who is advising them.

It was government and weak legal teams in councils and nhs that just waved it all through . They had years of getting away with not applying the EqA correctly, in part because it was assumed that they were getting ahead of the law and self id was inevitable.

When May proposed changing the GRA, all parties were onside, it was only the public consultation that stopped it. Politicians were lobbied by stonewall, and then paying stonewall to train public and private sector service providers.

For a service to be single sex, the provider has to demonstrating “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Theres no way they can complete the analysis based on gender, because its not defined, and what factors determine that eddie izzard should be excluded from female service, but suzy izzard should be included?

The obviously determine proportionality based on sex, then switch to gender when when a man demands access.

they will probably weigh up who is likely to be most litigious if they dont get what they want.....

Hopefully, the many legal cases women have won will cause a reassessment of that.

I agree that it is the pesky “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” that muddies the water. Add in Stonewall spouting rubbish about what the law actually is and you get confusion - and of course you have to take into account that if there is any doubt they will probably weigh up who is likely to be most litigious if they dont get what they want.....

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5291237-nhs-policy-audit-working-party?reply=142987253

Relevant: how we got here.

You've heard of the Military Industrial Complex? This is a trans-specific EDI Industrial Complex in action. ...

Gah! Exceptions, not exemptions.

Rape crisis centres are specifically mentioned in the explanatory notes of the EA as a case when the SS exemption applies.
The exemptions cover exactly what you would expect, it's just Stonewall propaganda that the proportionality test is a high bar.

Nrtft so apologies if this is repeating someone else's post. I think the EA says businesses may offer SS services. It doesn't appear they're obliged to. This is possibly because a small cafe/dress shop, for example, may only have room for one toilet/changing cubicle. Then Stonewall, and their ilk, came along, got m&s, etc. to pay them so be misled and bamboozled. Having started down the trans pathway they're finding it humiliating to realise how wrong they were. I think it's a recognised thing that victims of scams will often double down rather than admit they've been fooled. Add trans allies in their HR departments, fear of tra influences, the unions, their blue-haired staff, twitter storms amplified by a compliant media and affected women too busy and/or afraid to complain. We've seen what happens to individuals who do make a stand.

I think there's a lady who is sueing Lloyd's gyms and it recently kicked off on GBNews regarding Virgin Active.

As I said it doesn't appear in the EA for SS spaces to be mandatory. Just the possibility that it's not illegal to have them if they want. The H&S regs don't appear to apply to customers only staff.

I'd love to be wrong though.

It did go for consultation, and everyone inclined to got carried away and behaved as if it were a done deal. Some with Stonewall advice that they could....

I think now they have done it they are too scared to undo it, because of the TRAs. Even where they know they are wrong and have overstepped.

And they either forgot women exist or knew they do and don't care. Tor they just assumed women would "be kind" and put up with it.
I saw an interview with a woman who was high up in coaching an American sport. She said (paraphrasing) that when she started challenging men being allowed in women sports the response from men higher up was "we can't risk them suing us". She said what about the women suing and got a "oh, they won't, women don't make the same fuss" response.

Thanks. That was a trip down memory lane.

But the law isn't clear. It says "proportionate means to a legitimate aim" and that is massively open to interpretation. Is it proportionate to restrict rape crisis centres to biological women only? Edinburgh rape crisis centre thought not - JKRowling's place thinks yes. Both could be challenged on the policy.

Then there is the issue of who counts as a woman.

I think law relating to equality is complex. The EA covers a lot of different characteristics and sometimes discrimination is allowed, in certain circumstances.

For example, the single sex exemptions allow discrimination on the grounds of sex in some circumstances, but what those circumstances are is not clearly stated, but relies on the description that discrimination can only be applied on a case by case basis, as well as being a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

My understanding is that the intention was that men and women should usually be using mixed sex facilities, or not discriminate between male and female for jobs (for example) in the majority of cases. But where a case could be made (case by case) for services to be single sex (where people were undressing or sleeping in the same room, for example) discrimination on the basis of sex was allowed.

Stonewall’s master stroke was based on the idea that the gender identify meant that “trans people” must be considered to be the sex they weren’t. They then pushed the line that “case by case” meant that you could only decide which individual man you could exclude from women’s spaces on a case by case basis.

Companies and public bodies were then left with an impossible task of deciding which men to exclude from women’s spaces, which required drawing impossible lines as presumably that meant you could exclude some men, but not all, and then you’d have to defend your actions if challenged. Obviously that’s much more difficult than making a case for excluding all male people.

It was a massive help to them that single sex was allowed, but not required. Therefore if it was too complicated to defend on a case by case basis which particular men to exclude, it was easier (and not illegal) to let them in as they wished and hope for the best.

They must have decided on this plan at a time when the EA was not fully embedded or understood, and it was pushed, I suspect on companies through HR and ever expanding DEI departments, which paid Stonewall a lot to teach them about this rather complex law and how the intersection between sex and gender reassignment was handled.

Those taught by Stonewall naively assumed Stonewall were experts on DEI. Companies and organizations which were afraid of being sued covered themselves by employing Stonewall…. Who then sold them all a massive lie. It’s shocking to see how successful this has been as many educated people now seem to believe Stonewall’s version is true as it has become so embedded.

I think that it might ultimately need some massive legal changes to the law to clarify what was originally meant, but it will be a huge job to disentangle it.

In the Sandie Peggie case though, the law the hospital can (hopefully) use is the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which are generally much clearer and do actually require single sex provisions. Unfortunately transactivism is ahead of that too, in some ways, as it uses “men” and “women” as the divider rather than “male” and “females” and Stonewall et al have been pushing the idea that male and female could retain their original meanings (sex) but man and woman referred instead to “gender identity”, to the point where some of those things have even been changed in dictionaries.

It truly is a shitshow and is going to take a huge effort to untangle, by politicians who (broadly) are not really invested in doing so.

Itbtr

But anyone can look up what the law is - it's all on the Net, and everyone has a smartphone/laptop/pc etc. Nobody needed Stonewall to tell them the law - least of all solicitors.

I’ve been trying to find info about how the GRC was introduced relating to same sex marriage. Does anyone know? It might help explain the use of the GRC and why most don’t have one.

XXylophonic · Today 20:14

My point is though that it's not the law - yet.
So how can they act as though it is?
Aren't they breaking the law by allowing Self ID?

Yes, they have been breeching the law as it stands currently, in the hope that they could bulldoze it into law. For some reason, they seem to have assumed that, if the law changed in future, that they would have a free pass for breaching it at present.

In historic cases, guilty offenders are punished to the standard of the law at the time of the offence. They probably hoped for some sort of pardon, or amnesty, such in the case of Alan Turing.

Only if it's a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim". This is open to question - my understanding is that business have been scared to being accused of restricting access to same sex as not being proportionate and being sued. No company wanted to risk it - the costs, the bad publicity - so they took what they thought was the safe route.

Meanwhile the focus was on "inclusion" anyway, so many businesses positioned themselves as inclusive tovtrans people as a marketing ploy.

Look at the FA for example. It's submission re the EqualityAct, like just about every other sporting org, was that single sex exemptions were crucial for the safety and fairness and develop the women's game. The Gov granted the exemptions but the FA decided later on to prioritise inclusion even though they don't have to.

Er, no.

Why on earth would we do that?

We need equality law as it relates to women's rights to be upheld. Rolling over and making self ID into law is the precise opposite of what we want.

We are now winning, and fighting back for our rights. Fucked if I'm gonna give in to misogynist activists now.

I suppose the companies concerned could try to sue Stonewall for the misinformation and for the losses they incurred as a result. A great many are doubling down though. See the Open University. They're not getting it.

As others have said, it's the ideology that's entrenched among the people now which needs unpicking. Getting sued for not knowing the law is one thing, but it only goes so far in changing minds and understanding.

My feeling is that they are scared of transactivists. Or maybe they want to be progressive, but primarily they are scared of them and they aren't scared of us.