Best tweet ever on trans madness

[AssignedPerfectAtBirth]

twitter.com/half_half_lady/status/927434611923341312

Had to post it

I think that transgender male to female women are very likely to suffer discrimination and I'm glad that the law is trying to prevent that from happening.

From what I can see there is a defence that where single sex services can be shown to be required in a circumstance, that it then won't count as discrimination under the law.

I'm not generally too bothered about transgender people using changing rooms, toilets or refuges if they need them. I think there are plenty of laws governing behaviour so that if something untoward were to occur in for example a changing room, this would be covered by other legislation.

I'm happy to accept the assertion that gender can be a spectrum rather than two definite and separate boxes on a form.

"For workers who are transitioning,the employer and worker should agree the point at which the use of single sex facilities should change from one sex to the other. This will usually be the point at which the person begins to live permanently in the gender with which they identify. "

Also this clearly isn't law, the EA protects people from the moment they even begin THINKING about gender reassignment. So there wouldn't be any process of 'agreement' if it was not legal to exclude transgender people from the toilets - they would just be able to turn up one day and use the opposite toilets.

These are 'best practices' but very obviously do not constitute law.

If you have a GRC then you are recognised as your new sex. If you do not there is no process in law of recognition.

" The claim again and again was that it referred to "single-sex" and "sex based" - it doesn't. It simply says "men" and "women""

No, the Equality Act refers to sex-based exceptions. So it's completely and utterly wrong to say this is about 'men' and 'women' and that somehow including transmen and transwomen. The basis for exclusion is on the basis of sex.

And the law provides for GRCs as the procedure to change sex. There is no other statutory provision for this.

" as shown again and again by the law"

No, as above there has only been one non-binding case in a county court where the transperson was banned altogether from the pub.

"Like I repeat: please anyone reading this, actually talk to your union representatives and human resource departments and avoid getting yourselves into trouble at work."

No doubt this a minefield and it's easier to roll over, it still doesn't make it law.

I'm happy to accept the assertion that gender can be a spectrum rather than two definite and separate boxes on a form

I think everyone accepts that, but gender is not the same as sex.

I do think that there may be an argument in a workplace, that if Bob from accounts decides he is now Barbara, then it might NOT be reasonable to keep him out of the ladies toilets. You need to show that your sex distinctions are reasonable.

Obviously Bob who has been working for 30 years is a bit different in status to a public swimming pool with naked people getting changed.

And in a (almost certainly male) court then generic arguments about predators and whatever else may well fall down when put up against an actual transperson saying they need to use the ladies otherwise they will wet themselves etc.

You have to be able to show that your separate sex provision is reasonable.

I am very happy for you robin. Why do your views trump mine? I want female only refuges, prisons, changing facilities, sports I am not happy for people who have a penis to be in those places. Why are woman's views not important.

I'm glad that the law is trying to prevent that from happening.

How will changing to a system of self-identification prevent discrimination against trans people?

From what I can see there is a defence that where single sex services can be shown to be required in a circumstance, that it then won't count as discrimination under the law.

The trouble is almost everyone is already too afraid to use these exemptions and, as well as the current proposed changes to the GRA, Miller's report recommends removing the exemptions anyway for anyone with a GRC (which will soon be a simple matter of filling in a form).

I'm not generally too bothered about transgender people using changing rooms, toilets or refuges if they need them. I think there are plenty of laws governing behaviour so that if something untoward were to occur in for example a changing room, this would be covered by other legislation.

Why don't we just let all men in then?

I'm quite shocked that you're not bothered about who women in refuges have to share with. What about hospital wards? Prisons? It's not all to do with safety, either. Privacy and dignity matter too.

I'm happy to accept the assertion that gender can be a spectrum rather than two definite and separate boxes on a form.

There are two definite and separate sexes though.

birds you're saying "why aren't women's views important" as if all women hold your view. They don't.

"I think there are plenty of laws governing behaviour so that if something untoward were to occur in for example a changing room, this would be covered by other legislation."

If these laws were effective, we wouldn't need single sex spaces in the first place.

I think the laws against assault, indecent exposure etc are effective enough. There is cctv in most of these places e.g. Changing rooms.

I just don't think that these laws are going to mean that any old bloke is going to exposure himself in topshop changing rooms, any more than they usually would.

I think it's more likely to mean that trans people are protected from discrimination and violence, which seems to be a good thing to me.

I think it's more likely to mean that trans people are protected from discrimination and violence

How?

I think a trans person in female clothes would be likely subjected to harassment and violence from men because they're "different". I think they're likely to suffer discrimination at work for the same reason

So how does changing the GRA so that people can self-identify help with that exactly?

I think perhaps robin is forgetting that with self-identification there is no way to tell a TIM from a predatory male pretending to be a TIM.

I think robin is probably very well-meaning but simply hasn't kept up with what's going on or thought much about the implications.

Yeah. But it sounds like fizzywater may have just peak-transed...

And if the person has a GRC, then you can't exclude them at all, they are legally of the acquired sex.

Not quite true. The EA specifically mentions that even TW with GRC can be excluded from work as a rape counsellor. So they recognise that legal sex is different to actual sex. That's the example they give of when it may be legitimate to do so. Of course these exemptions aren't being used, which allows people like Puresummer to claim it's all done and dusted. We need to get the exemptions strengthened and resist TAs' efforts to get rid of them. Public pressure for women's rights, like the A Woman's Place campaign, could achieve this. That is specifically one of the aims.

If we don't keep and strengthen the exemptions in the EA we might as well just give up. Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic is so vague as to include virtually everyone, whether trans or not.

The Equality Act says:

"This paragraph replicates the effect of exceptions for occupational requirements in current discrimination legislation, and creates new exceptions in relation to disability and to replace the existing exceptions for occupational qualifications in relation to sex, gender reassignment, colour and nationality. It differs from the existing exceptions for occupational requirements in that it makes clear that the requirement must pursue a legitimate aim and that the burden of showing that the exception applies rests on those seeking to rely on it."

"Examples

The need for authenticity or realism might require someone of a particular race, sex or age for acting roles (for example, a black man to play the part of Othello) or modelling jobs.

Considerations of privacy or decency might require a public changing room or lavatory attendant to be of the same sex as those using the facilities.

An organisation for deaf people might legitimately employ a deaf person who uses British Sign Language to work as a counsellor to other deaf people whose first or preferred language is BSL.

Unemployed Muslim women might not take advantage of the services of an outreach worker to help them find employment if they were provided by a man.

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress."

These examples appear to relate both to sex and gender reassignment, i.e. it is clear that you can exclude a transwoman from a rape counselling job, but it is not clear that you can exclude them from a women's toilet attendant job (the example appears to refer to sex rather than gender reassignment).

These are just examples and the Equality Act doesn't really say any particular job is reserved, it's all subject to reasonableness.

These are just examples and the Equality Act doesn't really say any particular job is reserved, it's all subject to reasonableness.

Exactly. And what is considered reasonable is subjective.

It's a bit of a brainfuck TBH. If you can show that a Muslim woman doesn't want employment services from a man, then it's ok to make it a job for a woman, but if you then say that person cannot be a transwoman, then the same Muslim woman is being a hateful bigot for not wanting to deal with them?

Or to put it another way, it's ok for a Muslim woman not to want to do something with a man because of her religion, but is it ok for an atheist woman not to want do something with a man because her lifelong experience of rape and sexual harassment?

Nonsensical TBH.

Totally agree.

Or to put it another way, to the extent that sex separating is ever justifiable, transgender people must also be excluded. It is the body that is the issue not the meaningless 'ladybrain'.

Or do you have to have a 'rape recognition certificate' to have any rights as a woman?

That wouldn't even do it. They don't care about rape victims. As you say, religion is the only grounds I think they would currently think twice about.

Well one particular religion at least.