Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

OP posts:
FloraFox · 03/07/2014 22:26

It's important to know on forms if people are male or female to track access to services, discrimination and demographic and statistical analysis. We can't know whether women are getting adequate access to services unless we track sex. I think statistical analysis should be carved out of the GRA and the Equalities Act. We need the data to understand if we are making progress on equal pay, poverty levels, etc. and also to understand who is committing what crimes, being sentenced etc. We also need it for a multitude of health reasons, including participation of people in medical trials.

kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HercShipwright · 03/07/2014 22:30

You'd think it would be in the interests of transpeople to have discrimination information tracked for them too...and medical stuff.

FloraFox · 03/07/2014 22:30

I'm not sure if I'm missing your point almond. You need medical reports to get a GRC. You don't need medical reports to qualify for protected characteristics under the EA.

HercShipwright · 03/07/2014 22:31

Kim - that's for marketing purposes. Annoying. But probably innocuous.

kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

almondcakes · 03/07/2014 22:33

Flora, do you mean that under the EA, anybody who says they are transgender cannot be discriminated against for being transgender, but to be treated as a the opposite sex, they need a certificate?

FloraFox · 03/07/2014 22:39

Yes almond that's my interpretation of it.

almondcakes · 03/07/2014 22:41

Thanks flora. It might just be me being a bit stupid.

kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FloraFox · 03/07/2014 22:43

No almond it's a ridiculous mish-mash of the sort that gives the law and lawyers a bad name.

CoteDAzur · 03/07/2014 22:47

"Can't be discriminated against" is very hard to police. After an interview, the employer may give a totally unrelated reason for why the candidate was not chosen.

When I was looking to employ a babysitter/cleaner after DD's birth, I put an ad in the paper. I started off by saying "I'm looking for a French national/native speaker woman..." and was cut off with "Non madame! You can't just put an ad for a woman and you can't specify nationality. Those are discriminatory".

Yeah, well, I wasn't going to employ a man to care for my baby and hang around my house while I breastfeed DD in my pyjamas, and I wanted DD to learn French from a native speaker so I wasn't going to employ a Philippine or Portuguese lady and I didn't. All the discrimination laws did was waste my time and the time of the several men who replied, as well as the non-French applicants.

kim147 · 03/07/2014 22:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

almondcakes · 03/07/2014 23:03

I think it is very, very difficult. Even in very serious cases, people I know have been paid off to not bring a case.

Blistory · 03/07/2014 23:39

The law isn't as much as an ass as it seems.

The intention of the GRA was to protect transsexuals. If GRS wasn't such a brutal process, it's entirely possible that a GR certificate would not have been issued unless surgery was completed. Instead it was recognised that it simply wasn't humane to insist on GRS because some people physically wouldn't be able to tolerate the procedure.

But it was also recognised that biological sex just can't be changed which is why the law deliberately refers to gender and not sex. In a further balancing act, it was recognised that gender would need to effectively be given the status of sex for discrimination purposes.

And even then there are situations where a certificate is of no practical effect such as succession, peerage and gendered crimes.

The law does recognise that someone has to transition, it just doesn't insist that this is done physically.

Which is as it should be. Someone who goes through the gruelling process of actually trying to live their lives as a woman should be offered much more support than someone who simply states I want to be a woman therefore I am.

Discrimination law is entirely different - it's about protecting individuals, not groups, from unfair treatment which has no merit. Where discrimination is for accepted reasons, it's allowed as the principle is to do the lessor harm.

The problem with discrimination is that gender and sex are considered as major characteristics so a balancing act is very finely judged.

The standard example is that of an organisation that provides support to victims of rape. If the organisation feels that the women would suffer harm from a transwoman on the premises, it is appropriate to offer services to the transwomen off site. The greater harm is recognised to be to the vulnerable woman and the transwoman can still access support. Where it gets complicated is the stage of transitioning that the transwoman is at.

There is clearly merit that public bodies and employers should be organising their facilities to make them accessible to all which is where the EA comes in. The issue is that if no one is challenging them on that, nothing is going to be done. I think we all agree that a private accessible space is better than individual male/female/trans/accessible spaces which force people into conflicts of interest. Problem is that trans activists are shouting loudly about access to whatever space they like and failing to recognise the harm this does to every one else, including trans men and women.

mathanxiety · 04/07/2014 04:46

The entire process of hiring someone is a process of discrimination, if you look at it one way.
.................

Someone who goes through the gruelling process of actually trying to live their lives as a woman should be offered much more support than someone who simply states I want to be a woman therefore I am.

Are we suggesting more or the same amount of protection under the law for an individual who walks the walk (in heels perhaps) as someone gets if she is born a woman?

Problem is that trans activists are shouting loudly about access to whatever space they like and failing to recognise the harm this does to every one else, including trans men and women.

They harm all groups except men, whose genderised self concept goes unchallenged when men leave the fold rather than make those in the fold accept them.

ICanHearYou · 04/07/2014 09:41

Well yes math that is why we have been campaigning for years for policy change that supports women working and changes those status quos.

IceBeing · 04/07/2014 12:41

I just wanted to say a thank you to people who responded to me. I hear what you are saying.

I think I view "childcare is a womens rights issue" in the same way I viewed William Hagues "real men don't rape women".

Okay they are one way to spread the message and begin to build support and awareness....but both statements actual pander to/support a point of view that actually you would like to eradicate entirely.

So if the main problem is generating awareness of the issues themselves then it is appropriate to use a blunt force message capable of reaching most people. At some point you then need to finesse things and change the message to something that doesn't reinforce stereotypes.

ICanHearYou · 04/07/2014 12:57

We aren't at that point.

Women are still not equal and we still need the strength of many examples of that to change the status quo.

IceBeing · 04/07/2014 12:58

yep I am getting that, I guess I felt we were moving beyond, but fair enough if we aren't there yet.

ICanHearYou · 04/07/2014 13:00

I think that is a narrow view, girls are still mutilated for being girls, babies are still drowned for being girls. When girls in India are being raped and hanged in trees while the president says 'boys will be boys' when asked to install punitive measures, it is pretty bloody clear that we are not there yet.

IceBeing · 04/07/2014 13:03

well exactly the same things were said about the WH thing. In the UK the message "real men don't rape women" would be daft and more damaging than useful. In war zones in Africa it might be the best thing since sliced bread.

In the context of MN, a UK based forum I think we might move on from only womens voices being requested on certain topics...but clearly in India anything that raises the profile of womens issues is a good thing.

GarlicJulyKit · 04/07/2014 13:04

Blistory, I really appreciate your simplified clarification :) As you summarised, the big issue is the principle of greater harm that is aggressively disputed by transactivists.

When I first read an account of transwomen storming a women's conference, the image that stuck in my mind was a sadistic parent snarling "This hurts me more than it hurts you!" as he thrashes a screaming child. The concept of greater harm being turned on its head.

While one hopes this will never need to be seriously tested in law, a few commonsense judgements will help to clarify the point.

ICanHearYou · 04/07/2014 13:15

You think women in the UK are equal to men?

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 04/07/2014 13:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread