To not fully understand the outrage of the gender recognition reform?

[iamop]

Leaving my views at the door on this subject....I am just hoping to gain some clarification on one main point for my own information.

Opponents of the gender reform bill claim that this will effect single sex spaces. I was appalled hearing this but I've done some reading. And it would seem (unless I'm getting this wrong) that due to the equality act 2010, a man claiming to be a female or vice versa can already use single sex spaces due to gender identity being a protected characteristic under this act. And as the equality act is a UK wide legislation implemented under labour, this has nothing to do with the Scottish gov. So am I correct in saying, that actually the gender reform bill won't actually affect single sex spaces any more so than the equality act already does?

I completely disagree with rapists etc being able to change genders and therefore force their victims and the courts to call them by a different pronoun. I think the age of 16 to be able to do this is bonkers, and I think the SNP have lost my vote moving forward.

I was just looking for some clarification to my main point above to be explained by people smarter than myself

Thanks

Yeah we should stop letting people change passports and driving licences as well.

At least it's not a criminal offence to share info about these documents having been altered in this way (as long as GDPR is complied with).

S.22 of the GRA prohibits disclosure of 'protected information' of anyone applying for, or who has been granted, a GRC. If someone has a GRC and you acquire this info in an official capacity, you are not allowed to disclose any information which 'concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender' to any other person, including colleagues or service users. It's a criminal offence.

There are a tiny few exceptions, mostly to do with criminal proceedings and courts. None of the exceptions are to do with safeguards for women and girls such as single sex services, same sex carers etc.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

As far as I know, the GRR bill has left S.22 untouched.

But now, instead of 5-6K people across the UK having this privilege, anyone at all in Scotland can apply to have this level of extreme secrecy around their personal data and past identities, including all the people who were previously (theoretically) screened out at the diagnosis stage for having paraphilic disorders.

icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f90875286

It's a safeguarding nightmare.

Making it possible for a man to 'become' a woman just by saying 'I'm a woman' is a dramatic change to our culture. This makes it much harder for services to continue to offer the single-sex spaces which evidence proves women need.

So it does make it easier for males to violate women's boundaries.

There was a recent ruling in Scotland, by Judge Haldane, which concluded that a GRC affected your legal sex ‘across all areas’. So does that mean a GRC holder (in Scotland) can in fact access all areas where currently providers are allowed to maintain single sex spaces? I’m confused on that issue.

Yes, the direction of travel and the overall effect on culture should be talked about more.

The GRR bill is yet another example of Schrödinger's trans.

It's so insignificant, it's just a tiny administrative change that doesn't affect anything really.

But also, it's so important that it must be rushed through before christmas in the face of huge popular opposition.

Everyone is confused on this issue.

It's demonstrated really why the GRA has to go and this 'legal fiction' business must end.

Women can see men. We have eyes.

Section 22 has a chilling effect. It means that if a man with a GRC comes into our services, as an employee or as a service user, we are prohibited from sharing the information that he is a man.

'Ha ha ha we already changed all our other docs anyway so you can't do anything' is not the convincing argument you think it is. All you are doing is highlighting other gaps in safeguarding that need closing, in addition to repealing the GRA.

So thanks for that.

Everyone is confused, this is part of the problem with rushing this bill through.

The Equality Act is not devolved legislation. It's not up to the Scottish parliament to decide how it works.

EHRC have recently released some quite good guidance on single sex services:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

But this is non-statutory guidance and not statutory code of practice, which has a much higher status in law.

EHRC said recently that they would also produce new statutory code but nothing has happened so far. The Scottish government should have at least waited for the new statutory code. The current version still says things like this:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

Nobody gives a shit about women and girls.

For contrast, note the clarity of the exception for religion:

@LangClegsInSpace you are brilliant - excellent posts spelling it out clearly and succinctly for the sealions.

The exceptions for insurance go by legal sex, so a GRC makes a material difference (but I don't think insurance companies are allowed to take sex into account any more anyway, even though women present much lower risk).

It's made very clear though. No unworkable 'case by case' requirements.

Nowhere in the stat code are these exceptions intended to ensure the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls.

These parts of the current Statutory Codes of Practice for the Equality Act were written by TRAs: a:gender (civil service TRA org), GIRES and Press for Change.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

So @aseriesofstillimages posts just remind me of the olden days when the accusation was, 'Aha! you pretend you just have a problem with the gra, but here you are talking about the EA', or sometimes vice versa, as if we didn't care about the whole thing.

It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.

Women are capable of joined up thinking. We are capable of working out how different laws interact and where the gaps in safeguarding occur. And we won't wheesht about any of those gaps.

As a mother of young daughters I have nothing to say which would be printable on this subject or suitable for this forum.

The GRA 2004 was an extremely homophobic act. It secured same sex marriage for transsexuals about a decade before lesbians and gay men were given the same rights.

Remember this if you are lesbian or gay and you are told that you owe your rights to trans people. They threw you under a bus for a decade in order to secure marriage rights for themselves by arguing that they are not like you.

The only other reason the GRA passed in 2004 was because it was believed to apply to approx 5000 people.

Lots of good arguments were made in parliament about why it was a terrible idea to allow people to change their legal sex but the only response was that it was just a tiny few people, around 5K, so we could be kind and we would cope (for 'we' read 'women' ).

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

That estimate proved to be entirely accurate. In 2022 there are approx 5-6K people with a GRC. But now anyone in Scotland can change their legal sex just on their own say so.

We can't even call it an experiment because all the amendments calling for collection of data and monitoring were voted down.

Over in FWR we often talk about Chesterton's Fence, i.e. the idea that if you don't understand what something is for then you should not get rid of it. That's a very sound principle but I would like to propose a corollary:

Once you do understand what something is for, and once you can see that it's obsolete, and once you can see that it's being repurposed and causing harm, then you have a duty to get rid of it.

It's less like a fence, more like a written-off abandoned car, attracting vandals and leaking oil all over the road, or a broken fridge dumped in the woods, providing a dangerous hiding place for a child and leaking refrigerant into the atmosphere.

The GRA is both obsolete and dangerous. Repeal the GRA.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4688427-repeal-the-gra

So @aseriesofstillimages posts just remind me of the olden days when the accusation was, 'Aha! you pretend you just have a problem with the gra, but here you are talking about the EA', or sometimes vice versa, as if we didn't care about the whole thing.

It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.

Women are capable of joined up thinking. We are capable of working out how different laws interact and where the gaps in safeguarding occur. And we won't wheesht about any of those gaps.

This.

Making it possible for a man to 'become' a woman just by saying 'I'm a woman' is a dramatic change to our culture. This makes it much harder for services to continue to offer the single-sex spaces which evidence proves women need.

So it does make it easier for males to violate women's boundaries.

Exactly. As @LangClegsInSpace said, we know what we're talking about over on FWR and we've been having these conversations since pre-GRA consultation times, so at least 4/5 years.

The GRA was only ever expected to apply to 5k people of both sexes.

So making it easier to get a GRC will not make it harder for single sex services which choose to exclude TW to do so.

Yes, it does. It undermines the whole meaning of what a "single sex service" is.

Further, can I self Id as both a pensioner to collect my pension and as a young person to get free schooling.
I'd like to do something creative but sadly my local college wants to charge me money I dont have to do the courses I want, free to under 18s though.

spoiler its already happened (trans age). I'm sure you can see why it could be a very bad idea to let anyone legally pretend to be 8 years old?

As an aside, the places we used to have like rape crisis centres will eventually close. As women will self exclude, and some people won't get the same validation in empty rooms.
Of course our sports will go underground and will need decades to come back to mainstream. I think I read more than half of the previously women only groups have now disbanded, possibly gone underground already.
Prisons, well I suggest every single woman does her standout best to prevent themselves and their female relatives getting a prison sentence, Or Requiring healthcare that means a prolonged stay in a hospital. I'd say go private even but that's no guarantee. Theres a thread somewhere.

Just one thread on men in womens hospital wards.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4676567-scottish-hospitals-warned-over-isolating-transwomen