Labour’s trans guidance ‘poses danger to women’

It is not only the service provider's best judgment, the process is started by a complaint or complaints from facility users.

For example - "this person has been toweling off his 'gentleman sausage' in the facilities meant for women, please would you ask him to leave"
If the response is - "..but I am woman and clearly not a robot, therefore I am a biological woman and allowed to use these facilities" - then the member of staff has to weigh up who they feel the company most wants to be sued by.

There is no requirement to show ID, so the accuracy of those documents is not relevant. (also no need to show medical records, birth certificates, genitals, DNA et al)

I think that a bigger issue than GRC holders being able to change their birth certificate is that the sex marker can be falsified on driving licences and passports without a GRC.

No evidence is required at the 'point of complaint'

I know but that is not the service providers fault. The mistake was made in 2004 when it became legal for people to change the sex on their ID. Until that is fixed, all services providers can reasonably do is go off their best judgement.

What you wrote was they can't rely on it being accurate. Does this have some meaning other than what it says, fairly unambiguously?

Most forms of ID are not reliable. Original birth certificates are but the guidance doesn't say that service providers have to request to see that (it tells them to simply ask). Realistically, no one is walking around with an original birth certificate, 99% if someone is asked to show ID it will be something like a drivers license (which is not reliable).

The guidance is not bad it is just that people on here have unrealistic expectations. They expect service providers to run full backgrounds checks, calling local registry offices, asking to see medical records, asking to see original birth certificates, asking for baby photos, asking to conduct medical exams. So ridiculous

At this point there is no requirement for any form of evidence - if there has been a complaint and the member of staff thinks it is warranted then the person gets asked to use the gender neutral facilities and if they don't they get asked to leave.

If the person thinks that they have been excluded incorrectly then they can sue the service provider.

If they are not asked to leave then the complainant has the option to sue the service provider.

No evidence is required at the 'point of complaint'

Sounds like you don't think an original birth certificate is 100% accurate.
Sounds like you didnt read what i wrote.

What you wrote was they can't rely on it being accurate. Does this have some meaning other than what it says, fairly unambiguously?

Or he could abseil in through a skylight, Mission Impossible style.

Or perhaps make his presence known with a jet-pack entrance

transmen mostly don't pass

I think quite a few transmen pass (definitely a lot more than transwomen).

The guidance is not bad it is just that people on here have unrealistic expectations. They expect service providers to run full backgrounds checks, calling local registry offices, asking to see medical records, asking to see original birth certificates, asking for baby photos, asking to conduct medical exams. So ridiculous

Service providers are not there to police the toilet. They are there to respond to claims that someone has seen a possible transwoman enter the woman's bathroom. They are expected to look into the issue and make a judgement based on the information in front of them, that is all.

Until the government says that service providers must ask to see an original birth certificate, then they are not expected to do so.

Sounds like you don't think an original birth certificate is 100% accurate.

Sounds like you didnt read what i wrote.

They can insist on it but they can't rely on it being accurate. At the moment there is no way for them to reliably verify someone's sex through ID.

Sounds like you don't think an original birth certificate is 100% accurate.

And no, providers don't have to transvestigate. They can just eject anyone who looks male, putting the onus on the user to prove otherwise.

I suppose a cunning transwoman could dress as a man, bring a fake original birth certificate, and claim to be a transman relying on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Or he could abseil in through a skylight, Mission Impossible style.

Interesting point - the pile on and associated boycott would likely mean that more trans-identifying customers would stop using facilities intended for the other biological sex.

ETA. If I was a service provider, the people protesting outside my business would also be prime candidates for my ban list

Fake ID is relatively simple to produce when there's no photo involved like, for instance, with a birth certificate.

How are premises going to check if it's genuine; phone the local registry office at 10pm on a Saturday evening?

What makes you think it isn’t?

I never said it isn't accurate. It is 100% accurate.

The guidance however does not require service providers to ask to see someone's original birth certificate. Their duty of care, according to the law, does not require them to verify someone's original birth certificate in order to let someone use the toilet.

They have to exercise caution but they are not expected to go to extremes to find out someone's true sex (checking original birth certificates, genital checks, ringing the registry office).

An original birth certificate, issued before eighteen years old (typically within weeks of birth) is an accurate record of sex. What makes you think it isn’t?

I agree the guidance is poor. Service providers can exclude solely based on appearance if they want to. Provided they are careful about excluding transmen.

Fortunately transmen mostly don't pass, still have their original birth certificate, don't have a GRC, don't want to access women's services, don't look anything like transwomen, and aren't dickheads.

The SC made it clear that certificated sex was not biological sex, and if a 'Trans' IDing male was barred from entering the female toilets they couldn't bring a case for discrimination. They could of course instigate a pile-on by the Alphabetty Mafia which might generate bad feelings in the 'Trans' community, but if they're going to make that much trouble, who would want them as customers anyway.

A moot point how? If providers insist on proof, this is the proof they can insist on.

They can insist on it but they can't rely on it being accurate. At the moment there is no way for them to reliably verify someone's sex through ID.

They'll get sued by female users if they let men in.

I think they can't be sued if they have done their due diligence in trying to keep out men. Obviously you can check IDs and ask, but some may still get in even with your best efforts.

original female birth certificate

The guidance didn't tell service providers they need to request an original birth certificate (who carries their birth certificate into a loo?). It would be great for them to do this but i can't imagine this is realistic.

They'll get sued by female users if they let men in. Lowest risk approach is to exclude all apparent males unless they can produce an original female birth certificate or FtM GRC, in which case, they're in. Job done. The question is whether they know that, or are still stuck on 😱what about the poor menz in dresses?

I'm not talking about the success or failure of a lawsuit, I'm talking about the negative publicity, cost and stress you would incur as a service provider should you mistakingly turn away a woman who then wants to pursue the issue.

Pandering to trans people by making fitting rooms mixed sex earned Primark such bad publicity that the chain changed its policy.

Not a business but an institution, Sunderland Minster, has just found out about bad publicity when its dreadful policy on supposedly women's toilets became known
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5534815-sunderland-minster-refusing-to-comply-with-supreme-court-ruling?page=1

And so on and so on

Businesses are businesses, they are going to do whatever reduces the likelihood of them getting sued. They generally don't want to wade into this issue nor fight it out in court. Hence I think they will tread carefully

As I said, I think that providers will let in transmen as a default. If, exceptionally (and rather improbably, given her male self-identity) Buck Angel tries to join a rape support group, is turned away, and sues, the court photographs will be worth their weight in gold to the GC side of the argument. Remember, the TRAs' position is that she should never be let in!

There is no law that compelling someone to use their original birth certificate as sex verification so this is a moot point. As the laws currently stand, we can't verify sex.

A moot point how? If providers insist on proof, this is the proof they can insist on.

Again a lawsuit is costly/stressful even if you win it. Getting legal advice because someone is threatening to sue you is costly. Having people go to the press to complain that your business turned away a woman from a women's only service is costly. The cost of getting it wrong it not just the verdict of the court case and its not just monetary.

As I've said several times, an original birth certificate (issued before age eighteen) is a reliable record of sex.

There is no law that compelling someone to use their original birth certificate as sex verification so this is a moot point. As the laws currently stand, we can't verify sex.

As I've said several times, an original birth certificate (issued before age eighteen) is a reliable record of sex.

And even if no ID are shown, providers have a discretion to turn away anyone they like, and it's only ever going to be illegal discrimination in certain very specific instances involving transmen.

I imagine they would only risk turning away a woman if they were very, very sure it was a man.

I think it would technically be low risk to turn away someone who looks male but is dressed as a woman. The only person with legal recourse in this situation would be a transman, and they don't dress as women. Only transwomen do#. And a suit from a transman could be defended by showing that her exclusion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

#And women with DSDs. But they wouldn't have any legal recourse.

The only reliable ID is a birth certificate issued to a minor: a transwoman will not have that/will only have one with a male sex marker.

I would rather talk about things as they are, not as I would like them to be. At this point in time there is no way to verify someone's sex. Unless that changes (which it probably won't anytime soon) we have to deal with the fact the ID is effectively irrelevant when it comes to sex.

I'm not talking about the success or failure of a lawsuit, I'm talking about the negative publicity, cost and stress you would incur as a service provider should you mistakingly turn away a woman who then wants to pursue the issue. Nevermind the prospect of having to go to court to fight it (and potentially lose which is always a risk).

I imagine they would only risk turning away a woman if they were very, very sure it was a man.