Impact of self-id on equality act

[MaverickSnoopy]

First post on the feminism board and I'm fairly new to feminism, having never really considered myself as a feminist I now realise with the proposals for self id I'm a pretty big one!

I was talking to a friend and she was asking me about the impact to the equality act. I know I've seen something on here about it but I can't find any details and I've looked online and have come up with nothing.

My vague recollection tells me that once the gender reform act comes in, women won't have the same status under the equality act, but I was looking for something a bit more detailed than that.

Anyone know a bit more about it?

Oh I'm interested too! Hope you don't mind me placemarking.

I think simply that gender identity and sex protections cannot exist side by side. There will be pressure to replace sex with "gender" as a supposedly more progressive term. I believe that if Labour get in as it currently stands they will get rid of the exemptions.

Maria Miller's original Transgender Equality Report recommended changing the GRA to self-ID and changing the Equality Act:

22. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)

This would mean it would be illegal to offer single sex services.

The current position of the two main parties is this:

Labour - implement report*
Conservative - reconsult on self-ID and do not amend EA.

So there is a big difference.

*Labour haven't said this explicitly but their various announcements on the issue (including that for AWS) imply it with pretty much 100% certainty.

(Because, for the AWS to be legal for self-IDd TIMs, the EA would have to be amended. And other stuff said by prominent Labourites.)

Lang thanks for the explanation of where the two parties stand. Looks like I might actually be voting Conservative, then .

Thanks all this is really helpful. So do you think there could end up being an impact to the things surrounding maternity? Sounds unlikely from what you've said.

You'll likely end up having conversations about "pregnant people" and "chestfeeding" rather than y'know. .. women and breasts surrounding maternity.

Thanks all this is really helpful. So do you think there could end up being an impact to the things surrounding maternity? Sounds unlikely from what you've said.

Well in Canada the idea that men can lactate so it wasn't sex discrimination to discriminate against breastfeeding women has already been upheld in a legal case. And amazingly this was men, not trans identified females in that case. The idea that "men" can get pregnant, give birth and breastfeed only makes that type of specious justification more likely.

Just to add to LangCleg’s posts, I’ve read a number of pro-selfID pieces that also call for changes to th EA. Presumably because the EA makes it clear that transwomen and biological women are not ‘the same’. The guidance notes for the EA explicitly differentiate between the two. For some TRAs this is unacceptable.

Yes I believe Maria Millers original proposals would virtually have got rid of that distinction.

I've just been going through the EHRC statutory guidance on the equality act and have posted some stuff on the girlguides thread starting here.

Basically, the current position is that someone with a GRC 'must be treated according to their acquired gender' aside from a few very narrow exceptions. A trans person without a GRC should be treated 'according to the gender role in which they present'. They should normally be treated according to their acquired gender where they are 'visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable' from a non-transsexual person of that gender. And again, if there are 'strong reasons' an exception can be used if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

So if we take a hypothetical translady - let's call her 'Danielle' - who presents in a rather masculine way and cannot remotely be said to be visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a woman:

Danielle with GRC = must be treated as female, aside from narrow exceptions.
Danielle without GRC = nah mate.

Obviously this is the theoretical way the law is supposed to currently work. It's not being applied like this because everybody has gone insane.

The proposed amendments to the GRA don't change the EA at all, they just change the process of getting a GRC. Whereas currently, Danielle might find it very hard to get a GRC, what with the whole living as a woman for 2 years + diagnosis of gender dysphoria requirements, under the new proposals Danielle can just download and sign a form. Once her GRC comes through, she then shares, for almost all purposes, the protected characteristic of sex with women and girls and can only be excluded in very narrow circumstances.

As others have said, there are also people campaigning to change the EA:

• to get rid of the sex based exceptions, at least where someone has a GRC
• to change the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' to 'gender identity'

There is a separate protected characteristic of 'pregnancy and maternity' which covers you from when you announce you are pregnant up to 6 months after the birth. If you are treated unfairly because you are BF an older baby, that comes under sex discrimination.

*@Ereshkigal * Jeez I hadn't heard of the breastfeeding case, do you have a link? Seems like I'm hearing something new ( and crazy ) everyday on this topic.

@MaverickSnoopy the Fair Play For Women website is probably a good starting point for you. It has lots of factsheets that have really helped me understand the basics and links to further sources.

fairplayforwomen.com/gender-recognition-act-2004-explained/

I'd be interested to read the Canadian case too
There was a US case where the trial court referred to the fact that men could lactate but afaik it was just obiter www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/labor-employment-top-blogs/archive/2015/02/11/the-supreme-court-and-the-men-who-lactate.aspx

I'm guessing it would be something like this current ad for a job with Sacro. They are looking for someone to do sexual health outreach with women in prostitution: www.sacro.org.uk/organisation/recruitment/another-way-womens-worker
And they say this about the position "*For the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 it is an occupational requirement that this post is filled by a woman. Applications are invited from women only, which includes trans women (self-declaration)."

In theory the Equality Act protects single sex services that can be restricted to biological women if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But service providers are not required to invoke them, and nobody wants to be a bigot. So it seems that they are not being used.

In practice women's spaces have always been protected by social norms and taboos. Men should not be in those spaces, thoughy transwomen are generally welcome (or have been in my experience as a transwoman).

But how do women distinguish between a transwoman and a man? At the moment under the Gender Recognition Act they can expect to see a meaningful transition (so some effort is needed). Under self-ID the idea of a meaningful transition is not required so the fear is that any Tom Dick or Harry could just wander in as a self identifying woman.

When I've questioned this I've been told that "they wouldn't do that, would they?"

I don't find that particularly reassuring.