MNHQ transphobia guidelines part 2

[QueenStromba]

First thread here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2120841-MNHQ-are-going-to-decide-what-constitutes-transphobia-on-MN-What-advice-guidelines-would-you-give-them?

Sitestuff thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2117350-MNHQ-now-email-posters-with-how-to-get-around-the-talk-guidelines?

The thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2107862-Following-on-from-the-TERF-thread?

As Cote says, the Equality Act does not mean that transwomen need to be treated as women. It means they can't be discriminated against because they are trans. This won't necessarily mean there can be no women's spaces as men are currently discriminated against in the creation of women's spaces. Sex and gender reassignment are two separate protected characteristics. Sex refers to a man or a woman. The Act does not say that transwomen are women for the purposes of sex discrimination. Someone with a GRC however would be considered the acquired gender because of the GRA. Someone who is trans but doesn't have a GRC is protected as trans but not as a woman. Not sure if there have been any decisions on this but I expect it will come up at some point.

kim it is so odd that you can't change your name/title on your car and life insurance. That is seriously bizarre and surely it is against legislation? As you have the right to live as a 'woman' with or without your GRC. Have you contested it?

Kim, what I am confused by is this. For people who are not going to see a doctor, how do they go about getting a GRC? Do they go to a solicitor? How do they go about starting the process legally?

And if they were discriminated against, how would they demonstrate that they were in the process of permanently changing their gender?

I don't think it can be that they just say, well I have just decided today I am. Surely a tribunal or similar would require them to have some evidence they have told someone.

I don't really understand the term 'medical supervision.' Could a person tell their GP (which would then count as evidence) but that not be 'under medical supervision' as they were not seeing a specialist.

I get the old rules, which I think you fall under, not these new ones.

Thanks!

ICan it doesn't work that way. The EA does not override the GRA. There is no discrimination here.

Flora, I thought gender was a protected characteristic under the equality act, quite separate from transgender. Is it not gender but sex?

I don't understand the insurance thing. Especially in the light of the Gender Directive (on premiums) a couple of years back or whenever it was.

That's just them being arseholes. I'm sorry about that Kim.

If someone is not under medical supervision (which in itself sounds like a nightmare in terms of proving yourself to someone) who would they even prove that they were living as a woman to? Turn up at a solicitors with 365 selfies?

I don't think I am making any actual point. I am just confused.

That is really shit, kim.

That actually makes me furious. I use Ms, Mrs, Miss and Dr. I have now got ID in all of those (Miss from when I was about 10, admittedly, but I still have the bank account I opened with my mum and dad and I never closed it).

Yet you have to be Mr?!

What a load of shite.

Kim, I have questions although you may not know the answers and might not want to answer - which is fine, they are sort of nosy questions. You said that insurance providers will not recognise you as a woman, is this because of the stats they use which are different for women and men and which determine your premiums? You mentioned life insurance and car insurance, the stats for these take different projections for women and men (life expectancy, likelihood of accidents). What about your buildings and contents insurance - have those provides recognized that you are a woman or do they persist in regarding you as male? I don't know, but I'm guessing that sex or gender make no difference to the calculations relating to those types of insurance. What about annuities - if you got a GRC would you be able/forced to buy an annuity for a woman not a man?

Ah. I see we cross posted. Sorry.

being called something other than your name is something a lot of women are familiar with, unfortunately.

It's one of those little things that just kind of puts you in your place. Look at all the threads on here with women being randomly called all sorts. Just infuriating and/or upsetting.

What those companies are doing is just petty fuckery Kim. There is no reason that I can think of not to change it. They're just being arseholes.

Kim, Well, yes. But I was thinking about it also from the perspective of somebody who has very serious intentions of wanting a GRC and there being no clear pathway for that person and no clear explanations of how to act appropriately for employers and colleagues.

And I can imagine employers not employing trans people on the basis that somebody in the workplace might mess up and lead to a tribunal because the employer is unsure about what guidance to give based on the law or anything whatsoever on the process or what trans meant (which I think people were clear on when it meant transsexual).

I feel like the lack of clear explanations from the government could lead to discrimination. It feels like section 28 (sort of in reverse), no clear explanation of what is and is allowed, so just avoid the whole issue by not mentioning it at all at work and not employing any trans people.

It's incredibly stupid, though.

It's this sort of thing that confuses me utterly. I must admit my kneejerk reaction is 'and how is it we're the ones who're being horrible bigots here?'. At least we're not saying 'let's be randomly vindictive in the way the law is applied, for the sake of it'.

Almond you can't get a GRC without going to a doctor. The process requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria which the GRA specifies as a disorder. It also requires the doctor to specify whether there has been surgery or any other medical intervention. I believe Kim has said previously that without surgery or a very good explanation of why surgery is not being carried out, they will not issue a GRC.

The EA has sex and gender reassignment as two separate protected characteristics. Sex is specified as a man or a woman. Gender reassignment is a separate protected characteristic. I don't agree with the interpretation on the leaflet that everyone now has to treat all trans people as their chosen sex. I think it means that you can't discriminate against people who are undergoing gender transition (e.g. sack them when they announce they are beginning) but you don't need to treat them as women until they have a GRC. I don't know when or why passports and drivers licences started being issued without a GRC.

I think the whole thing is a muddle and should be given proper consideration in parliament with an opportunity to consider all the implications. I expect at some point a case will arise where there is a clash between protection of women on the basis of sex and discrimination against a trans person. Currently, men are being discriminated against in women only spaces. It remains to be seen what will happen to a transwomen without a GRC.

With the premiums though - they do change randomly, it's a really good idea to play around with details on the online site, and see what it is that makes a big difference. I moved all of half a mile one time, and my premium went up by nearly half as much again. And didn't Jeremy Clarkson do this on Top Gear one time and found he got a better result for being 'Dr' not 'Mr'?

Kim gender directive a couple of years back means that insurers are no longer allowed to charge different amounts due to male/female. It was brought by some men who were pissed off about having to pay more for insurance than women. Because they were men and men are good drivers and women can't drive for toffee or something.

Anyone in an unexpected move they WON and insurers has to equalise all their rates.

Despite the fact that statistically men should have higher premiums than women for car insurance. And the men may be laughing all the way to the bank with their car insurance but they shot themselves in the foot with their annuities.

Anyway I digress.

That was one time where I thought it was an excellent example of a law to protect people with less privilege, being used by the people with privilege, to shit on the people without it. And also casually throw away a long standing and pretty key part of statistical analysis into the bargain.

So statistically men should pay more, but they don't have to cos SNOFFAIR. Male privilege in perfect action there.

Anyway, I disgress

I digress TWICE!

It was a big digression

Hotels (I'm staying in a hotel tonight! as it happens) almost always call me Mr my surname (you know, on the welcome message on the Telly when you get I to your room). It pisses me right off. I have a female Christian name. Ok, it's not a name you get outside of the UK (and it's not very common in the UK either, it had a couple of years of popularity in the 60s and Perhaps one or two years in the 20s (there's a chalet school girl with my name) but other than that - nah). But it's a girl name. It's not a boy name. I suspect the supposition is that someone staying on their own in a goodish business level hotel is going to be a man. Which is annoying.

Flora, so if you have to be seeing a doctor, what does 'not under medical supervision' mean?