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.

Something I've just posted on another thread in response to transactivists trying to persuade people that self ID is irrelevant to women's rights:

The one thing we do have to remember is that allowing self ID for the GRA massively legitimises the concept of "gender identity" and validates the ideology of transgenderism. It renders irrelevant the need to have medical gatekeeping, or that the basis for men to enter women's spaces is because of sex dysphoria. It also will normalise the idea of male bodied people in women's spaces.

These things are a big deal. They WILL make it much harder to unpick the Equality Act if the idea of "gender identity" is written into law. Transactivists know this. Don't believe a word they say.

Transactivists have done a good job convincing governments and organisations that this has nothing to do with anyone other than trans people. I wouldn't have so much faith they won't pass it. I think they definitely would have done if women hadn't started this backlash.

No cloud, I'm sure that's not right, the exemptions are based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignement in the equality act, nothing to do with having a grc. So you can still discriminate against people who have changed gender using the exemptions even if they are legally a woman.

I don't know why they would want to get rid of the medical gate keeping ereshkigal, it seems stupid, surely they want the support! But I don't think they'll pass it because the Tories hate drama.

Thank you @cloudtree.

My objection to this whole thing is mainly on the slippery slope issue / if anyone can self-determine their gender/sex (which is being used interchangeably now in the discourse) then it’s certainly not a leap to assume that the EA will come under pressure and exemptions will go.

Paris Lees is factually correct in those tweets. But extremely disingenuous. If it’s “just about making it easier to change our birth certificates” then why is there such outrage at the idea of consultation on the issue? It’s about doing away with the medical evidence required.

And as gender dysphoria is the reason people wish to “transition”, what’s wrong with asking those individuals to have written medical opinions?

Unless it’s because we’re broadening the spectrum of “trans” so far that it’s not genuine dysphoria at all. Which is the counter argument that is so desperately transphobic, apparently.

That lots of prominent trans activists don’t have a GRC is interesting because they shout so loudly on the subject of how vital this whole process is to change, yet don’t actually seem to value or need the GRC themselves. As Paris Lees and others keep saying, they already have access to our female spaces without one.

So why is it simultaneously so important and so unimportant?

To my mind, it’s only the slippery slope and the opening of gateways to challenging the EA.

No cloud, I'm sure that's not right, the exemptions are based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignement in the equality act, nothing to do with having a grc.

Yes, this is what I understand. Also, the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' refers to transsexuals but includes anyone:

"proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

(www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7)

so basically anyone even thinking about it. And can anyone help with what "other attributes of sex other than physiological" could possibly mean?

I think it's hormones isn't it jellyfrizz?

cloudtree the link I posted upthread has lots of interesting legal stuff in it. I will try to post the v quick summary document...

fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EA2010_womensrights_-factsheet.pdf

Too tiny?

Prob too tiny for phones but ok on tablets? The link above is for the same thing.

Hi all

My understanding is that the exemptions can exclude trans people no matter if they are legally women (trans person with GRC)

But organisations are not invoking the exemptions.

My take is that failure to invoke an exemption is a policy which disproportionately negatively affects women and therefore discriminates against women.

The tricky bit is proving it.

I think we need a test case which is sufficiently high profile (and expensive...so I’m thinking multi-party) that it would scare organisations into changing their attitudes to invoking the exemptions.

Heard of Stefan Cross? This might be right up his street

I don't know why they would want to get rid of the medical gate keeping ereshkigal, it seems stupid, surely they want the support!

That's the thing. Cross dressing fetishists and people identified as "non binary" or "gender fluid" (see Phil Bunce) don't need or want medical support. And only a minority of people considered "transgender" have sex (gender) dysphoria.

Well aware of how the exemptions work at present but my concern is that the exemptions become irrelevant.

I don't think those wanting to change the law to allow self ID would necessarily be interested in claiming discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The big issue is if they are simply legally male/female as decided by self ID. Then they don't need the gender reassignment protected characteristic. They rely on their legally defined sex (as per their self ID).

As I said, I would need to look at it properly but I see far more issues arising out of claims based on self IDd "sex" than the gender reassignment protected characteristic, and the terminology used eg "I am a woman" points to a move in that direction.

Otherwise all you are looking at is a situation where you don't have to have transitioned or be proposing to transition to get protection under the gender reassignment characteristic. Not nearly as worrying to me from a legal perspective. The exemptions would then still apply.

Just some figures. There are supposedly 600,000 trans identifiers in the UK. Of these only a few thousand (seems to be between about 4500 and 7000) have obtained a GRC. Mostly these are ones who transitioned years ago (45 years ago in my case) and have had full GRS surgery (42 years ago).

Just under 2000 people in the UK have an amended birth certificate.

But note this is just a copy amendment to use in cases - such as getting a bus pass with proof of age (only time in 14 years I have used it). The original birth certificate is NOT altered or removed.

Activists like Paris Lees seem to be not getting a GRC as part of the fight to bring in self declaration. This will dispense with all medical assessment - dangerous for the person and for women they will be allowed to be part of with no check or balance - any need at all for any type of medical intervention, even hormone 'castration' - removal of the two year live and integrate successfully into society rule that tests mental welfare as a consequence of transition.

Myself and quite a few of the ones who have willingly put ourselves through all of the above (indeed would not have transitioned physically without these checks and balances and delays that were deliberately put there for that reason 50 years ago) do not agree with self ID and the removal of these necessary requirements.

In fact I personally favour tightening the rules to get a GRC to include some kind of physical transition as a necessity.

There is no immediate likelihood that self ID will be debated as the government tested the water with it and seem to have pulled back after seeing the response.

But the situation needs monitoring.

Someone told me the other day it was 3200 GRC.

According to the Labour Party’s website:

A Labour government will reform the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010 to ensure they protect Trans people by changing the protected characteristic of ‘gender assignment’ to ‘gender identity’ and remove other outdated language such as ‘transsexual’.

What does this mean, exactly? Would real women and self ID women be treated the same?

labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-more-equal-society/#third

Thanks Jaycee, that's really interesting.

The problem I have realised is not people picking their own genders.
The problem is pretending sex and gender are the same - and erasing sex for gender.

That is my precise problem with the whole issue. The erasing sex for gender and pretending it doesn't exist. It DOES.

Thanks everybody; it's interesting reading.

I think part of the answer is that no-one knows exactly how the proposed changes might work because we're not currently 'allowed' to talk about it. Which brings us back to the aspect which has really stunned dh, which is the prevention of freedom of speech (and freedom of assembly).

And there's also the 'slippery slope' issue which is much harder to present without sounding a bit paranoid....

Dh is a decent, lovely guy. He gets that women, as a class, are threatened by men, as a class, but he (so far) doesn't get what it's like for a woman to live that. (Not sure if that makes sense; am several to the good.)

Disclaimer: I have only skim read the thread. I understand that, theoretically, organisations can use the exemptions in the EA to exclude even TIMs with a GRC from particular female sex segregated spaces.

BUT, I still don't understand how this can possibly work in practice. If you want to invoke the EA exemptions (for example, employing only female staff to work in a refuge), you could exclude self ided TIMs by simply asking all applicants to provide a birth certificate. But what if, at this point, a TIM with a GRC applies. What does the organisation do at this point? The birth certificate says female. The organisation struggling strongly suspects that the applicant is a TIM with a GRC. How do they actually establish this? There doesn't seem to be a suitable mechanism for doing it.

Erishkigal, the stats for GRCs are hard to find as they 'lost' ones for 2004 when many older transsexuals like me probably applied as we had all the qualifications already.

Here are the stats for 2005 - 2016 With W (Trans Women) M (Trans Men)

2005 W 912 M 269

2006 W 417 M 115

2007 W 300 M 92

2008 W 191 M 50

2009 W 190 M 49

2010 W 186 M 74

2011 W 205 M 58

2012 W 179 M 57

2013 W 220 M 98

2014 W 147 M 97

2015 W 223 M 109

2016 W 219 M 99

As you can see that alone is over 3200 and the 2004 figure will be the highest and there is 2017 missing

Some also may have been removed or the person died.

Either way we are talking about 4000 - 6000 or there about

A tiny fraction of the 600,000 who say they self identify.

Also notice that whilst there are more trans women trans men are much larger in umbers than you might expect.

And the gap has been closing.

You will also know that the figures are pretty consistent at 200 - 300 or so per year.

Compare that with transsexuals who had Gender Reassignment 40 years ago. About 100 per year in the UK.

So in this regard - those who transition furthest and get legal recognition - there is not a major explosion in numbers over such a long time of what is a very rare event.

The huge rise in numbers and publicity and protests and activism has come from those not going through the above process and wanting to remove all the hurdles to do so in order just to fill out a form on line.

I think it's hormones isn't it jellyfrizz?

That was my first thought but then I looked up physiological “relating to the branch of biology that deals with the normal functions of living organisms and their parts.” Basically anything to do with biology. So how can there be “other attributes of sex” that are not to do with biology?

Call me a Neanderthal but I am struggling to get how self-ID is any different to being a transvestite. You want to be a transvestite, that's fine with me as long as you don't expect me to give up women's safety to indulge you.