Current rules re gender identity

[TheSecretMole]

So I think I've got myself confused - I'm googling what the current rules are about self-identification I came across this article, published in July 2017

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40713645

"At present, the guidance issued to service providers - women's refuges, for example - by the Equality and Human Rights Commission states: "Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so."

Those with a GRC "should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes".

That means that anyone who identifies themselves as a woman - whether that is their legal status or not - can already use separate-sex facilities such as changing rooms, toilets or single-sex gyms.

The proposed changes to the gender recognition act does not change that."

So transwomen can already use all-women facilities eg women only swimming sessions etc? What will the changes actually do in practice?

It also says there are separate rules in sports and the sporting bodies make their own rules for gender identification - so I guess any change in law wouldn't affect that?

That's how I understand it - a transperson with a GRC already has those rights, but self ID would open up those right to a much greater number of people.

I believe the current system involves a few hurdles to jump through to get a GRC, which makes it harder for Dave with a beard to just sign a form saying he is a woman. I don't know what the hurdles are.

I think the changes were meant to help vulnerable people access the things they were going to be able to use with the GRC more quickly as it was causing them distress whilst they went through the process.

"Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so."
This would keep the Danielle Muscato types out, since they are far from "indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender". I think it could also be used to keep penises out of changing rooms for the same reason. It would be harder to keep a transwoman with a GRC and a penis out, which is one reason why making getting a GRC a matter of self-id would be a problem.

secret, I admit to finding it confusing hence don't often wade in to the debate, but I find Dr Nic's fairplayforwomen.com has the legal ins and outs of the date put clearly.

Case, not date once. I hope even I grasp the date!

The first statement doesn't seem to me to match the third.

It's a very big leap from 'if nobody can tell you're male, you can use women's facilities' to 'if you say you're a woman, however much you look like the average bloke, you can use women's facilities'.

I think that the GRC currently requires you have a diagnosis and live as your acquired gender for a period of time

so I don't think its such a leap - its just they might have only just started hormones or be waiting for surgery

it think it would be hard to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria just because you say so.

It is confusing. I the relevant parts of the Equality Act last year and I still remain confused. My understanding is that the act says that people can't be discriminated against on the basis of gender reassignment. Those undergoing gender reassignment are to be treated like those who have already undergone gender reassignment. They must, in most circumstances, be treated as though they are actually the sex they desire to be. Oh but also, no-one is allowed to ask a person if they have a GRC or if they are undergoing gender reassignment, so really, all men who present as female have to be treated as female, no questions asked. So, we're already shafted. Self-id will mean more people can more easily take advantage of this loophole.

But, I could be wrong in my interpretation and will welcome being set straight.

There are exemptions available within the Equality Act that acknowledge the difference between transwomen and natal women. The specific example given in the guidance is a rape counsellor, where it would be appropriate to exclude a transwoman regardless of whether they had a GRC.

There seem to be a couple of problems. Firstly the exemptions aren't being used - which is largely I think what Man Friday addresses. Secondly there seems to be confusion between the categories of sex and gender reassignment in the act. So you can't, quite rightly, discriminate against someone because they have or are transitioning (as I understand the Act). However this is not the same as saying that a transwoman should be subject to those protections that are in place in relation to their sex.

I'm sure someone can put that much more clearly :)