Trans women ban in single sex spaces

According to the wiki, though, Forbes claimed to have a dsd, although it's not clear at all which one, and the suggestion seems to be that Forbes lied in order to get a male birth certificate (and obviously there was the matter of the big fat inheritance to consider, because Forbes couldn't have it otherwise).

Ashley didn't claim a dsd. Corbett met Ashley in a sex club in paris that catered specifically for men who were sexually interested in men pretending to be women.

I feel very strongly that birth certificates are a public record and, apart from trivial clerical errors, there should be a very high bar for getting them changed. It's not up to adults to change their birth records decades later to affirm some identity they've developed in the meantime.

If you do genealogy you come across oddities from time to time. I found a relative who I was sure was called James, known colloquially as Jim, and it turned out his birth cert actually did give his name as Jim. Maybe the registrar was having a dress down Friday.

The funny thing is that as an adult Jim converted to Mormonism and all his LDS church records refer to him as James. But he never got the original birth cert changed, nor do I think he should have been able to.

Ewan Forbes had certainly done so, with a doctor's letter, so that she could marry a woman.

On reflection, maybe it was the only one ever and she lied. But it's become part of the TRA narrative 🙄

My understanding is that Ashley hadn't changed his birth certificate but he and Corbett got married abroad. When they came back to the UK and Corbett decided he wanted a divorce, his legal team used the argument that the marriage wasn't valid because they were both male so no divorce was needed (and therefore no payout for Ashley).

I haven't heard anything about transexuals being able to change their birth cert before that.

I wrote this post on another thread that describes what happens if you correct an error in a birth registration, or apply for a new registration in the GRR (different processes):

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5313803-womens-rights-to-be-prioritised-in-equality-law-revamp?reply=143517327&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

The couple in the news story were upset because they couldn't get a clean certificate, not because the error was uncorrectable.

That concept was resisted by the judiciary until quite late in the day but by the 1970s (I think) the idea that your sex was at least partly about how you "felt", was seriously entertained.

I think it was the other way around. From about the 20s to the 60s, transsexuals were able to get their birth registrations 'corrected' with a doctor's letter, analagously to DSDs.

That system got broken when April Ashley's husband sued for nullification, and a judicial test (karyotype, gonads etc) for sex was created. This kicked off 'trans liberation'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CorbettvCorbett

I see I previously attributed trans liberation to the Ewan Forbes case! Well, it was all going on in the sixties.

Incidentally, this all started with creating a mechanism for people with DSDs who had been mis-sexed at birth, to correct their birth certificate. Sex was decided on the basis of physical characteristics, but not only the apparent genitals. Transsexuals - ie people who had not been mis-sexed but who wanted to live as if they were the opposite sex and probably had had, or were planning to have, GRS to some degree, pushed the idea of psychological sex as one factor in determining sex. That concept was resisted by the judiciary until quite late in the day but by the 1970s (I think) the idea that your sex was at least partly about how you "felt", was seriously entertained.

We can see how elements of a perfectly reasonable move to help people with an actual medical condition were subverted to the GII cause. One salient example being the "correction" of a birth certificate, which now actually means "falsification". How psychological sex became GI/gender and so on. The GI movement completely took over.

ETA: Partly in answer to BundleBoogie and Mumteedum

Exactly. There should be absolutely no way a birth certificate can be amended except in extremely rare cases where necessary. I read an article with new parents whose baby had somehow been incorrectly registered (I can’t remember how) but weren’t allowed to have the birth cert corrected to reflect the baby’s actual sex.

Whereas men who have paid a fiver, got a doctors note and waited two years can change it on demand. In Australia they can change it every year as far as I understand. What an utterly ridiculous situation.

Along with all other official id that can be changed on a self id basis, it makes a mockery of whole concept of id and gives the general public a false sense of security.

One of the cases that kicked off 'trans liberation' in the '60s was of a woman who managed to claim a baronetcy with some jiggery-pokery involving some bits of testicular matter she found down the back of a drawer in her groin. (She was a doctor, and she didn't want the baronetcy, just to keep her marriage legal and valid.)

They wouldn't want that happening again, would they?

Yes it’s a start
Let’s hope it goes through

But not all purposes - primogeniture was specifically excluded, because it might have benefitted women if they were the eldest child, and heaven forfend any of this were to benefit women!

Fingers crossed.

I think the original aim was to turn men into women for all purposes, and the lobbyists didn't even want to give us the concessions that we did get (and which don't get used because of their constant misinformation and threats). Lesbian clubs, the lot.

I hope we win, because it would give a jolt to the system. But it would open up a conversation about whether women's associations should be allowed to exclude legal females if there's no safety angle. We might find there are lots of people who think not.

It doesn't help that the msm that are on 'our' side, mix up the two situations, so readers think it's all about safety etc, including Wednesday's decision. It's not.

Originally the stated aim was to stop transexuals having to "out" themselves to officialdom by having to show documentation that said male (or female, but let's face it, we know who this was for) when their appearance was so entirely feminine that nobody would ever guess. But that perfectly passing TS was a unicorn even then and now that body modifications have been (rightly) divorced from the concept of claiming a cross-sex identity, even that situation will never arise.
So yeah, I also struggle to see the point of a GRC.

My understanding is that, with a GRC, the birth certificate is updated? Therefore, males with a GRC and females without a GRC would both have a birth certificate that states female. Self identified transwomen (I.e. without a GRC) might have a passport or driving licence that states female, it their birth certificate still states male.

That means that you can ask to see a birth certificate, instead of a GRC to exclude self identified transwomen

It was originally to allow two people of the same sex to get married (back when same sex marriage was still illegal) by making one of them legally the opposite sex, in other words pretending two gay men were a heterosexual couple.

What it's for now is a question no one seems keen to answer.

No, RCCs, communal changing rooms, strip searches etc engage women's human rights to dignity, privacy and safety and that is specifically covered by the SSEs.
It's rights of association and lesbian rights especially which would be affected. That's all quite bad enough.
Apart from the sheer outrage of women being deemed not to be a biological sex class in all and any circumstances.
IANAL, just passing on what I have read.

Anyway, I'm sure the implications of the judgement will be spelled out to us by Wednesday afternoon.

I disagree, the original aim was not to make heterosexual MCWs with a GRC into lesbians.

The onus is on the MCW to prove it. The provider just has to say no, women only. The new guidance also says that if they do have a GRC, you can ask to see it. Otherwise, no is sufficient.

If we win, those with a GRC can be barred both from the changing room and from the lesbian club. I don't think we'll win, because it was clearly the intention of the legislature that they be allowed in the lesbian club, and the concessions for safety, fairness and decency (changing rooms, sport) were clearly made grudgingly.

From the article:

"The change would prevent those who rely on self-ID from being able to access women-only care homes or domestic abuse refuges without an exceptional reason. Those with a GRC may still be allowed because that is the present position in law."

I don't think this is correct. Transwomen - with or without a GRC - can be excluded from such spaces under existing law, and that will not change.

The problem is institutions not availing themselves of the law and thus disadvantaging women. Telling them they can't call it single-sex unless they at least keep out all the legal males is a start, but only a start.

It's a massive step forward.

Remember the number of males this applies to and which males in this group who have been vocal and caused various legal problems.

It still doesn't solve the problem - especially if the intention is to make getting a GRC easier.

Then there's the paradox of the GRC - the certificate you can't ask to see.... Which ISN'T resolved by this.

There are a number of individuals who make a point of not saying what their legal status is and whether they have a GRC on principle for this reason.

And if we lose - men with GRCs cannot be denied access to anything for women at all by law - this will demonstrate clearly that men have been awarded a legal, sex based right over women (a born woman cannot have one of these certificates of power or use it in the same way and that one man with his bit of paper will outweigh every single woman in that service and her needs/characteristics) and men can strip search, use and abuse women's hospital wards and prisons and changing rooms, invade women's health groups and lesbian groups and women can either submit or surrender their access .

Getting changed in front of a man who wants to be there when you take your clothes off for your job for example will be a legal demand to make of a woman.

If that's proven to be the law as it stands, and the government can no longer deny it, then strap in.

That's where the single sex exemption will come in and it won't be a case by case assessment but entire service assessment, if the ruling on Wednesday goes in favour of the Scottish government. However if we win even those who have a grc will be barred entry🤞

This is true, there will be men who will fuss and kick off and try to intimidate women's boundaries away - plus ca change - and those who will come out with the truly stupid line (usually while being 6 foot plus with stubble) that unless you do the 'genital check' you 'can't tell'.

Men behaving very badly and having no respect for women is no more reason to give up on protecting women in law than burglars having no respect for property being a reason to give up on prosecuting it in law. It would have been much easier to turn around if we had an establishment - and a male sex class - that didn't see women as things for men to use and no right to say no to men, and to have protected women's spaces years ago. It would have been nice if women didn't have to continually defend their own existing legal protections in law from men when it's very clear that it's law existing only on paper for the look of it and not in actual practice until women spend thousands of pounds and years of their life in a court room.

But the situation is now a total mess, and hopefully those legal cases are now forcing a phenomenally misogynistic and male dominated establishment to realise they have to do something about these men. The cases will just keep on coming.

I guess we'll see on Wednesday what the first step looks like.