To ask about GRA

[HelmetHair1]

Hello all. Long-time lurker but first time poster. I know this isn't strictly an AIBU but I wanted to get people's views on GRA because I'm just filling out the consultation form now.

Like many people, I have some concerns about whether self-ID will enable men to access women's spaces with malicious intentions. I don't have any problem sharing a loo or changing room with a trans woman, but I don't want a man to be able to say 'I self ID as a woman so I should be allowed in' - that would seem obviously stupid and dangerous.

I've just seen that Q6 of the consultation doc asks whether it should be a requirement of self-ID that you make a statutory declaration that you intend to live as your acquired gender for the rest of your life. Knowingly lying when making a statutory declaration is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison.

I didn't really understand the nuances of this so I did some research. Organisations like Stonewall support this being a requirement, so long as it's the only requirement (e.g. no need to provide details of medical treatments or evidence of having lived as your acquired gender for a specified period of time).

I am trying to decide whether this will be enough. I'm inclined to think that this would help solve the problem of men trying to abuse women's spaces - if you have to make a statutory declaration, and falsely doing so is a criminal offence, that will presumably deter people from pretending to be trans in order to be abusive? And it would stop people from claiming to be women or men as and when it suits them - they would have to make a lifelong commitment.

On the other hand, we don't know how seriously any breach of this rule would be taken so it's hard to assess how much of a deterrent it would be. And it wouldn't stop men pretending to be trans over the long term in order to be able to access women's spaces (although I don't know how likely this eventuality actually is?)

What are others' thoughts? Is this a sufficient safeguard? I'm leaning towards thinking that as long as there is a requirement for a statutory declaration I am happy for self-ID to pass, but I still have some niggling uncertainties. Would be interested in hearing others' opinions!

(Sorry this ended up being so long)

Have you looked at the guidance on the fair play for women website? You don't have to agree with all their suggestions but they are very good and listing things I had never thought would be effected.

Have you also read the fawcett society’s statement? I’ll link to it later if I get a minute.

From what I understand you wouldn't be allowed to ask to see someone's GRC before allowing them access to a single sex provision though so really anyone could claim to have one without going through any checks or making a declaration.

I have, but I wasn't really very impressed with their reasoning. Their issue seems to be that you couldn't know if someone was lying about being trans if it's based on a 'feeling', but the self-declaration is about legally committing to living as your acquired gender until your death. It would be really easy to tell very quickly if someone wasn't living as their acquired gender and was just trying to take advantage of the possibility of accessing women-only spaces.

I still have a concern that this provision wouldn't prevent a man from pretending to be a woman and appearing to live as one in order to access women only spaces - but I've researched this and I can't see any evidence that it's actually something that's likely. I'm worried about it, but I also don't want to give too much credence to something that might not be a real risk iyswim.

Ahh AssignedNorthern I hadn't realised that - that is a worry.

Equally having a GRC currently hasn't stopped it being used by the likes of Karen White to access a female prison and assault female prisoners. For me the process needs tightening up not relaxing. I don't think we can discount the lengths some will go to access vulnerable people.

The issue is that unless you can actually define what living in your acquired gender means then there is nothing to stop someone signing the declaration and saying that they identify as a woman, want to be called pippa and are therefore living in their acquired gender by using female spaces without doing ANYTHING else (so still presenting in a stereotypical make way and keeping male genitals etc).

So it’s totally meaningless!

I didn't think Karen White had a GRC (yet)?

In reality, it's all been eroded anyway.

Loads of places are acting as if verbal self id which could change at any point is in place.

Top Shop changing room will let any man in with the teen girls if he says "he's a woman" in fact I doubt staff are allowed to challenge as that can be seen as "transphobia".

Swim England changed their guidance to self ID and Guides have moved from being a single sex org to a single "gender" org without consulting their volunteers or the parents. Their charter is single sex and they decided in a balance between admitting girls who couldn't otherwise go (some religions) and penis people, that penis people won. The girl guides! They wrote it in a letter to a parent / or guide leader who asked questions...

Hospital wards were always same gender not same sex with the commitment to single sex wards - the govt told the NHS to call the policy single sex so as not to "confuse" the public... This was 2010. Docs on anotehr thread showing this.

Prisons > plenty of issues not just KW.

And so on and so on.

I don;t know what to do really.

Schools are also acting against the law with mixed sex toilets and changing when they are legally supposed to separate from age 8.

The trans orgs have been everywhere saying gender reassignment is a protected characteristic so they must be accommodated however they want and there is NO NEED to consider other protected characteristics ie sex or religion are the ones that conflict most often.

Scottish prisons did an equality impact assessment and stated "no impact" on characteristic sex, when they were writing about putting transwomen in womens prisons

and etc and so on

If you are a sexual predator who intends to commit a crime of sexual violence then committing a crime by lying in a statutory declaration is not really going to be much of a deterrent, is it.

There is no different now from the proposed situation, so that should not be a consideration really

I assumed Karen white must have one otherwise on what basis were they placed in a female prison?

You won't deter evil doers from doing evil by whatever piece of legislation you pass. This is about the hundreds of thousands of trans people who find the difficulties in legal recognition of their gender incredibly stressful

I disagree. If it was meaningless trans people would not find such distress in the fact that they cannot get legal recognition of their gender. It's not just a record, it affects them in every day life. Every time you contact a public body you are referred to as Miss, Mrs or Mr contrary to what your gender is, your other gender is called out in waiting rooms, you have to put your old gender on application forms, etc. Gender dysphoria is bad enough, being reminded of your old gender all the time makes this many times worse.

If you are a sexual predator changing your gender is not going to make a blind bit of difference; you'll get your fix one way or the other. We should be careful not to let trans people suffer because of the malicious intent of some very bad individuals. That would be like punishing all Muslims for the behaviour of a tiny minority of terrorists

The thing is no one is going to be happy to define who is ‘pretending to be trans’ vs genuine trans. Even with Karen White - the most the court would say was ‘she appeared to be using a trans persona’ how on earth could anyone make that judgement without being able to see into people’s innermost thoughts and intentions?

Agreed I don't want to see trans people suffer. Equally I don't want to see women suffer through the erosion of sex based provisions and I believe the proposals to amend to GRA will do this so I can't support it. Nor can I support the position of Stonewall who are unwilling to recognise that there is potential for problems. It needs scrapping and starting again.

A declaration is very much insufficient as it would be impossible to ever prosecute someone for making a false declaration. The declaration is only a statement of the current thoughts of the person making the declaration. Even if they reverted next day, that would not be proof that they didn't mean it when they made the declaration.

Combined with the fact that the privacy provision means that no one except the police and courts are even allowed to know about the existence of a GRC this means that in every day-to-day situation, anyone could claim to be a woman, with no requirement for how they "present" (which obviously we wouldn't want as there are plenty of real women who present in a masculine way) - and no organisation will be able to refuse because they would risk prosecution if the person does have a certificate and no one will want to take that gamble. So the existence of a self-ID route doesn't have to be widely used for it to be widely abused. If self-ID exists then all-female areas will all become open to anyone who wants to enter, regardless of whether or not they have the paperwork.

@Myriad I totally agree, which is why I'm trying to get my head around where the line should be. I want trans people to be able to get legal recognition of their gender and I don't think it should require them to have had particular treatments first - medical treatment is a private matter for an individual, not something that should have to be broadcast to others. And I don't think it should require a diagnosis of body dysphoria, which is a separate issue (and I worry that people who do have body dysphoria but who aren't trans will end up misunderstood and have their treatment suffer as a result).

But equally, I don't want predatory men to be able to say 'I'm a woman today' and enter a changing room. It seems to me the legal declaration will help with that. I'm not totally put at ease, but I do think it will prevent the worst-case scenario of men just walking into loos or whatever.

I also absolutely agree that sexual predators will find a way one way or another. The vast, vast majority of sexual predators are biological males identifying as men. Sexual assault and rape are already horrifically prevalent as it is - and most often committed by men known to the victims, not from random attacks from strangers. So basically I don't think the GRA will suddenly enable loads of sexual predators who haven't attacked women before simply because they've never had an easy way into a changing room.

So yeah, against that background I think the risk is probably small compared to the benefits it would bring for the vast majority of trans people who would never attack anyone and just want to live in peace. And I'm really uncomfortable with any argument which says all trans people should be denied the right to self-ID in case a few of them are predators, because that's the same argument that was used to justify Jim Crow laws. It has to be proportionate to the risks and rights that are in conflict.

Argh. It's complicated. I don't think I know what the perfect solution is. But I think the legal declaration part has reassured me somewhat and I think that other provisions for safety can be worked out in the detail - I expect there will be lots of helpful responses to the consultation from organisations which use single sex spaces on exactly what they need.

Sex based provision are, and will remain, exempt where this is justifiable and proportionate. There is a description of exceptions in the documents accompanying the consultation. These include, for instance, women's refuges, single sex wards, etc. This is quite comprehensive and some of them make me cringe to be honest (e.g. fathers' parents group at a school; I'd feel rather awkward if I could not attend that group as the trans father of my child in the class!), so I don;t think any of that is at risk

This is not correct; you are painting a very leading picture here. Self ID is not the same as legal recognition and does not mean that you can go to any place saying you're a woman and get in on your word. Instead, self ID is a prerequisite to obtaining legal recognition of your gender. So you can use self ID to get, for instance, a passport showing your gender and that will serve as proof of gender. This is very different from the picture you paint here.

Sorry, it's not my intention at all to be misleading - it's from ignorance, not malice! More research needed on my part

I agree with you. Don't forget, by the way, that trans works both ways. Any changes to the GRA affect both men transitioning to women and women transitioning to men - in many ways they are in a faar worse predicament in the current world of legal matters, stereotypical roles and vulnerability! It is all very well talking about women's rights and of course I think they should be protected. Who wouldn't. But the protection and promotion of women's rights should never be at the expense of the rights of other groups.
Of course, that, too, works both ways, so I am very happy that the debate takes place; the advancement of trans rights should never be at the expense of women's rights either. Personally I do not believe that Self ID does that, though. It makes it easier for trans people to get the legal recognition of their gender. It is not a "free for all" that allows them to be a woman one day and a man the next and have equal rights and freedoms for any of those in all circumstances.

My comment about the misleading content was to the message by @tenorladybreaker

"I want trans people to be able to get legal recognition of their gender and I don't think it should require them to have had particular treatments first "

So you think women have penises?

Sex based provision are, and will remain, exempt where this is justifiable and proportionate. There is a description of exceptions in the documents accompanying the consultation. These include, for instance, women's refuges, single sex wards, etc

Is this true Myriad? I was under the impression that refuges and rape crisis centers would be accessible based on gender, not sex, which is worrying.

I think where it becomes problematic is around children's spaces e.g. NSPCC have said they see no safeguarding issues with allowing boys who identify as girls to be allowed to join girl guides, and men who identify as women to be leaders of girl-guides, and there is no requirement for the parents of these girls to be warned ahead of things like camping trips. How that is acceptable I don't know.