Go Fund Me addiction part 2

[SophoclesTheFox]

The conversation is far from over on this...

link

OK. So on what basis would challenging all women shortlist be made?

By opening up AWS to "self-identifying", AWS are discriminatory, as before, but no longer discriminating on the basis of one of the permitted characteristics. So its no longer permitted discrimination

Can you explain that differently? It's discriminatory, but not on the basis of one the protected characteristics? So who is it discriminating against?

People who don't identify as women?

So despite being a woman, unless I identified as one I don't get on the list. But 'not identifying as a woman' is not a protected characteristic so I'm fucked?

Just to let you know that I have been in touch with Jennifer James and they are still very much committed to the original aim of the fundraising. If the decision goes the right way this afternoon and AWS are to be limited to women and transwomen with a GRC they will refund the money - but also look into how to support the 10 (to date) women that are at the receiving end of harassment from the TRAs directly as a result of the fundraising (I have told her that I would be happy for them to use my donation for this purpose instead if indeed the decision goes the right way).

They are holding off updating the GoFundMe page until the decision has been made, but basically, I think the message is, don't worry - we won't be using your money for anything other than the original purpose unless you agree otherwise.

She also asked me to apologise to the amazing Mumsnet people for the state of flux.

(will post on other relevant threads so apologies if you read this repeatedly!)

No, I see I've got that wrong. They are still discriminating in favour of women, but they are not excluding self identified women, so it is allowed.

Do you not have to have a definition of what self identified woman means?

I agree. I think it could be argued that AWS are now discriminatory against non trans identified males, as they are not solely open to women, as per sex as protected category. Though it's complicated by the fact that "discrimination by perception" is illegal and not being able to ask about GRC means that self ID happens in practice. All this stupid patchwork of legislation is basically unworkable to protect women's rights or indeed those of legal trans identified males with GRC.

Actually I'm assuming it means someone who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment. So meaningless.

I could be wrong, but the original notice didn't actually say women, it said self identified women. It didn't say women and self identified women.

But I'm just going to check that.

Although all they would have to do is include both?

In which case, what was Jennifer James basing her challenge on?

Thank you ChemistryGeek

I know these are a lot of questions.

AWS are invoking an exemption on the grounds of sex, not gender reassignment. Self ID is not directly the law. Self ided TIMs have not had a legal gender change. Only those with GRC.

I don't think you need a definition Datun. You only need a definition of sex=female in the legal sense (which exists). That then make AWS legal discrimination. Anything outside of this is illegal. You don't need to define anything outside of this, just know that it doesn't meet the sex=female definition which is allowable under proportionate means.

As far as I am aware AWS and excluding men would be illegal if it weren't for invoking the EA exemption. Which is on the grounds of sex, not "gender identity".

In practice though this argument may serve to undermine the concept of AWS entirely.

OK. Women get to have an all women shortlist on the basis that although discriminatory to men, there is an exemption place under the EA based on sex.

The Labour Party said that their all women shortlist open only to self identifying women.

Not women. Self identifying women.

Because, they want to open it to TIMs either invoking the EA, or invoking the GRA.

Which, from what I can gather now, misses the point.

I think it's because I always mistakenly see the equalities act backwards. I see it is giving rights to people, rather than providing exemptions.

So AWS, are exempt from being discriminatory to men under EA law on the basis of sex.

Ok. That makes more sense. And explains why the other protected characteristic does not come into play.

Except where the TIM holds a GRC, which gives them the same legal status as other women.

Have I got that right?

If that argument is correct of course, there are 2 options - limit AWS to "women" as per the exemption OR get rid of AWS...

YY. Might open a can of worms there.

Thank you ChemistryGeek

And I'm sorry to have subjected you to my tortured thought processes as and when they happened.

I've now got my head around it.

Which leaves me wondering how on earth Labour are going to wriggle out of it, since this is what is rumoured.

Abandoning all women shortlist seems like a remarkably suicidal tactic.

I've been in touch with JJ regarding the changing of terms for donation. With her permission to share here's what she sent to me.

Thanks for getting in touch, point taken. Hopefully the party will confirm our position is correct and everybody will get a refund. We are more than happy to refund people, whatever happens.

I will update everyone tonight.

She also suggests that Mumsnet Labour members get involved in their CLPs and stand as delegates for the Labour conference. Deadline is in June.

That's also my understanding Datun, but I'm not a lawyer either!

Which leaves me wondering how on earth Labour are going to wriggle out of it, since this is what is rumoured.

They're calling our bluff. It will need to go to court to challenge it.

My understanding is that Ereshkigal is correct.

AWS are exempt from Equality Act on the basis that biological sex is a protected characteristic. Transwomen holding GRC are legally women so entitled to apply to AWS.

The LP started saying self ID'd transwomen could apply - ie people who are not legally women. There is no exemption under the Equality Act for gender ID (YET!! That'll be their next step though) - therefore at the moment allowing self ID transwomen - not legally women - onto AWS could be legally challenged.

(However, the way the LP is going at the moment, I'd expect them to pull AWS rather than back down and say "only trranswomen with a GRC are allowed on AWS". Because they've totally gone down the "anyone who says they are a woman is a woman" rabbit hole.)

I would like to see the fund used to challenge this - however if it was, and was successful, the TRAs will go for getting self-ID added to the Equality Act as a protected characteristic, I imagine - then there would be nothing we can do to challenge it.

Sorry - took ages typing that - xposted with loads of posters!

Hands up who thinks the only court action we'll see is when Big Steve, a man who identifies as a man, takes Labour to court over not putting him on an all-women shortlist?

And, given the precedent of Heather Peto (a man who identifies as a woman) who is already on an AWS, he'll probably bloody win.

Oh we live in interesting times.

The thing about the law is, even if something is against the law (and this is arguable), you can still do it, until/unless someone complains and gets the Court or Parliament to decide one way or the other.

Exactly.

However, the way the LP is going at the moment, I'd expect them to pull AWS rather than back down and say "only trranswomen with a GRC are allowed on AWS".

That would get a hell of a lot more publicity than this niche issue, though. And this is ALL about public perception.

The LP started saying self ID'd transwomen could apply - ie people who are not legally women. There is no exemption under the Equality Act for gender ID (YET!! That'll be their next step though) - therefore at the moment allowing self ID transwomen - not legally women - onto AWS could be legally challenged.

Interestingly the proposed amendments to the GRA not only include removing all three criteria, it also includes changing gender reassignment to gender identity under the equality act.

It seems, from the outside, to be fairly moot. Because gender reassignment does not actually have to involve anything. You can just say you are considering becoming a transwoman.

But, there is no way activists would have asked for it if it wasn't going to be beneficial.

I suspect it will mean that a very male presenting man who has no intention of transitioning can claim a female identity as a purely administrative tick box.

It's sort of like that now. But there are at least cultural protocols to defy.

This way, those cultural protocols will simply wear away over a few years.

If anyone says the word woman, an automatic response will be, which kind? No one will blink an eye, it will be entirely normal.

Then it will be, ooh one of the old fashioned kind! An actual, biological woman. We haven't had one of those for ages.