Help me be clear about the GRA/Equality Act Exemptions

[FreezerBird]

Sorry, I'm sure this has been done elsewhere but possibly mid-thread so I can't find a specific thread about it.

Discussing GRA issues with DH last night, and he is starting to see the issues (the turning point being that Millwall - MILLWALL! - were bullied out of hosting the meeting subsequently held at the HoC.) We're in Wales, in a Plaid constituency, and DH asked what Leanne Wood says about it, so I directed him to her tweets. She's someone we generally think pretty well of (we used to live in David Davies' constituency and detested him so the news that he hosted the HoC meeting, standing up for free speech, was also a pretty big deal).

So there's the tweet in which LW (who has worked with women's refuge organisations) says she doesn't consider the GRA to be a problem because exemptions under the Equality Act will still apply. I need to get my head round this; I know that there are plans to change the protected characteristic from 'having a grc' to 'gender identity' (is that right?).

So does this mean the exemptions become a nonsense, in that eg, a refuge might advertise a position for women only, and this male-bodied person applies, but the exemption can't be used because this person is legally female?

Or is it that the exemptions exist but are not used properly because of pressure from TRAs and organisations wanting to be progressive?

Or is it something else that I'm missing?

DH is aghast at the whole attempts to shut down debate (Millwall!) and has signed the petition because he totally gets that there is a debate to be had, but I'm a bit stuck on the Equality Act stuff, and throw myself upon the wisdom of you lot.

I've become very aware of late that not having a GRC is a deliberate act of defiance by TRAs

Yes very few of them, even the bona fide ones as it were, seem to have a GRC. What is their justification for not getting one?

Also, this changing the sex on your birth certificate. Doesn't it render the word 'birth' kind of meaningless if the sex on it isn't the sex you were when you were, um, born?

Not having a GRC literally means you are still in possession of a penis, correct?

I just read that Paris is 54 YEARS OLD! I reckon she's already been messing with her birth certificate because there is NO WAY that's true, surely?

Don't think there's any correlation Hakuna

YY Pratchet

Paris isn't 54. He's* maybe 34

*nb I am using male pronouns because Paris is legally a male. I will not honour him with female pronouns until he decides to apply for a GRC.

Hakuna
No. You don't need to prove you have had gender reassignment surgery in order to get a new birth certificate.

There is currently a certain level of gatekeeping, so you need to prove you have gender dysphoria for a start, and you need to have "lived as your chosen gender" for 2 years. But you never need to actually go through with any surgery.

Under updated laws, even these minimum requirements are removed, so any man with no dysphoria, no contemplation of reassignment surgery, can claim they are female.

I just looked online and I think Paris is 24, not 54! Won't be happy when she reads this article then www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5518957/amp/Matthew-Wright-embroiled-bitter-showdown.html?__twitter_impression=true.

or 26? Actually I'm just going to shut up

I'm a lawyer specialising in discrimination matters.

I will take a closer look at what is being proposed because I've not looked at it in detail for a while and also tend to focus on the employment provisions of the legislation but my understanding is that the equality act would not need to be changed.

The act currently protects those who have had reassignment surgery. It also protects against discrimination on the basis of sex.

Is the point not that with a system of self ID the male transwoman identifies as female and therefore is female for the purposes of this and any other legislation. Even if they only self ID'd at 10am this morning and are likely to self ID back this evening. No change to the Act is therefore necessary.

That is why it is so dangerous. If there was going to be a change to the Equality Act itself there would typically be lots of consultation with lawyers.

Patodp thanks
so presumably PL still has their meat and two veg.
hmm I thought only transexuals had access to women's spaces.

I don't think you can self identify in the morning and then self identify back cloud because you have to sign a declaration saying you plan to live in your new gender for the rest of your life .I read the application process online this morning.

The Scottish consultation explicitly asked about deciding to change gender up to 3 times. Pip Bunce from Credit Suisse says he's a woman on some days and a bloke on others.

Widening the bandwidth of women means whenever a bloke feels like wearing a dress he's a woman

cloud maybe you can help me then, do you know if there are any consequences for lying about a declaration like that then? If someone was found out?

I don't think you can self identify in the morning and then self identify back cloud because you have to sign a declaration saying you plan to live in your new gender for the rest of your life .I read the application process online this morning.

This made me think about Pips Bunce, who identifies as either Phil or Pippa, literally depending on how they feel that day. They have won awards for Women in Business etc. even though they made it to the higher echelons of their industry solely as a man.

I wonder how it works with them?

Is PIP Bunce in England with a GRC? It might be different in other places?

I haven't looked at the process itself (and was being a little facetious ) but will look at it and what is proposed.

I don't know, perhaps they don't have a GRC either! I found what I was reading here www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate you definitely have to say you're going to stay in your new gender for the rest of your life.

I suspect the proposal is for a lot more flexibility in the system as a whole since it wouldn't otherwise cover children for example who are unlikely to be able to show they've lived as the opposite sex for two years and therefore these people wouldn't have protection.

I also suspect that the proposal will ultimately be to do away with certification. If TRAs are deliberately not getting certificates (presumably because they'd like to keep their genitalia) then clearly certificates are already not needed to be able to 'insist' on rights.

wanting to keep your genitalia must be a barrier to the second requirement ie that you have either had surgery or have gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria but wanting to keep your bits seem contradictory.

Gender dysphoria but wanting to keep your bits seem contradictory

Yes, even considering the horrific major surgery involved, if you have gender dysphoria, I can't see how you would want to keep the organ which mostly obviously defines you as the sex you absolutely do not want to be? Let alone beards which can just be shaved off?

Although isn't talking about gender dysphoria transphobic now anyway?

Looking like "a lady" doesn't make you a woman. It's pretty sad that anyone thinks it does.

I've just had a look and can't find any official proposals, certainly no consultations directly on the point and all I can find is a lot of waffly vote winning stuff eg Teresa May saying "we will do away with a medical requirement since being trans isn't an illness". As such, it's hard to give an answer to the OP's question.

I think the issue works like this:

Currently you need a GRC to be legally recognised as the opposite sex.

This requires various hoops to be jumped through, one of which is that you have had surgery or that you have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, others require evidence of living as the opposite sex for two years and a declaration that you intend to be this way forever after.

There is already evidence that this isn't happening and organisations are accepting the legal myth (at present) that trans people are the opposite sex just because they say so. I doubt many organisations have ever asked to see a GRC.

The non surgical trans population would like this enshrined in the law and so effectively the requirement for a certificate becomes "I say so therefore I am". Or the requirement for a certificate disappears entirely.

This makes the non surgical trans person the opposite sex because they now have a certificate through self ID or because the law simply becomes "I say so and therefore I am and I don't even need a certificate anymore"

They have full protection under the equality act because legally they are now male/female according to their own declaration of their sex. EqA Exemptions no longer relevant.

I don't think that's right cloud, the exemptions still apply to people with a GRC, they definitely do, I'm sure. That's why it isn't discrimination to make someone have blood tests to compete in sports just because they're transgender, because non transgender people don't have to.

Yes some exemptions apply to trans people even with a GRC. Rape counsellor to women is specifically given in the guidance as something which can legally be restricted to females only provided a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" legal test is met.

The example is for if the GRC disappears. I don't know what the proposals are so its impossible to say, but if there is no requirement for a GRC then there can't be exemptions based on a GRC.

I think the GRC system works at present and the exemptions are sensible and workable.

To be honest as long as there is consultation on this (and its highly unlikely there wouldn't be ultimately) I don't think the changes will go through. The legal community would be looking at it in detail (far more than the five minutes I've dedicated to it whilst helping DS with his homework ) and will put forward the numerous legal problems.