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.

Initially some of the strongest critics of the GRA when introduced in 2004 were insistent on voting it out unless surgery was written in.

The parliamentary accounts of the debate show that.

They were won over by the argument that this act would only be for a small number of people (as seems true from the figures) and that insisting on it would unfairly prejudice against those who were older for whom existing medical conditions might preclude surgery.

So it was a concession based on the presumption that most would (which in terms of GRA applicants seemingly is) and few wouldn't.

That likely would continue to apply with the law as now and numbers as occurring. But absolutely would not be if self ID is grafted onto the act which it should not be as it is shoehorning into a carefully craft act people never designed to fit that act.

I think the act could be tightened to insist on physical transition if medically acceptable to the state of the person involved. But I know that is not going to be popular with most who think that is an unreasonable imposition and almost tantamount to forced sterilisation.

The wording and clauses would need careful thought and we might have to compromise on what in effect would be chemical castration by way of hormone therapy. Which protects and is much more widespread than surgery, even amongst self identifiers.

We should at least have a debate on this and I accept that it is a very difficult thing to impose and might even get the European court f human rights involved.

At least there should be something about physical transition in the act if it goes forward. Exactly what though is for those more skilled in what is reasonable and feasible and protective of both sides without being denial of rights to the other.

Jayceedove

FairPlayForWomen explains here why that won't be possible. The second Chapter 4 footnote explains more. Reading the court ruling mentioned, it seems likely that forcing somebody to sterilize themselves through whatever means to gain recognition of their gender would also constitute an Article 8 breach.