I think self ID is law already..

[yetanothertranswoman]

If you are defining it as saying you are under going gender reassignment and no medical supervision is needed, then that's already happened.

I never realised this - I never read this key bit.

www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance

Equality Act provisions which came into force on 1 October 2010

changing the definition of gender reassignment, by removing the requirement for medical supervision

Which basically means you don't need any medical supervision to say you are protected under gender reassignment as a protected characteristic.

Isn't that self ID?

That is why we are having the discussion about changing the GRA to comport with what is already in the 2010 EA.
It seems that signing the GRC means you cannot be excluded from sex specific spaces as provided for in the EA exceptions.
It will probably need to be hashed out in court since two protected categories are in conflict.

I am really surprised that no medical supervision was required to get the protection of under going gender reassignment due to the EA.

I see where you are coming from but the EA soley protects from discrimination. So if you self id as trans even if you have had no treatment you are protected from discrimination. As you should be.

But without a GRC you cannot legally change your sex so you are still legally male and whilst you are protected from discrimination you don't have legal rights under the sex you ID as - eg All Women's Shortlist, rights to enter female only space etc. So that is the difference

I agree with catgirl. The rights given under the Equality Act are fairly limited and apply as soon as one announces an intention to transition. As discussed on the other thread, it is only once a GRC is obtained that there are legal rights to be treated as the opposite sex (and even then, there are some situations where it is legal to treat trans people differently).

The real reason why we effectively already have self ID is because A) nobody seems to understand the legislation and think that self ID is already here, B) there are many situations where it's not practical to check whether someone has a GRC or not and C) some people want to actively 'get ahead of the law' (eg Labour Party with self ID AWS).

In practice, yes. Except scenarios that rely on the birth cert like prisons, refuges, pensions, previously marriage though thats now equalised. From what I know everything else can be self id as long they all are, you can't be a man or woman as suits on official docs.

you can't be a man or woman as suits on official docs

Passport
Driving licence
Census

Actually - with a passport, you need a doctor's letter.
With a driving license, you don't.

The Equality Act maintains sex based provisions for people who meet that characteristic only (women, and those with a GRC).

Transitioning is a protected characteristic, but so are marital status, sexuality etc (there are nine in total). The people who have the protected characteristic of 'transitioning' are no more able to access the provisions reserved by 'sex', than anyone who has any of the other characteristics.

People will try to tell you differently, but they are misinterpreting the legislation.

yetanothertranswoman I was under the impression you have to have all official docs (except birth cert) the same name and gender, so you couldn't switch back and forth, like 'identify as a woman just for today'. Its the most tenuous cases that go by the birth cert and even then there are exceptions and its this document the new laws would change. No wonder its causing such hoo-ha.

I always thought you could be discriminated against in contravention of the equality act if you were perceived to have a protected characteristic, even if you didn't?

Birth certificate changes have been very few to date. Maybe half those with a GRC have a new copy birth certificate (the original is not destroyed however). And only about 6000 people have a GRC in the UK.

So if self ID opens up the floodgates that will be the most significant change. Unless, as might happen, changing a birth certificate will even with self ID still require medical support as it does now.

Not sure that has not been stated in the ideas about self ID.

Changing all major documents such as passport has been possible long before the GRA. I changed mine 45 years ago.

My passport had Ms on it not Mr in the 1990s and an F sex marker as soon as the new form passports came out. But that was after the GRA in 2004 in my case so I don't know if you needed a GRC to get that marker. I am guessing so.

I always thought you could be discriminated against in contravention of the equality act if you were perceived to have a protected characteristic, even if you didn't?

That's right. It means that if, for example, an adrogynous woman gets fired because her new boss thinks she's a transwoman and they don't like transwomen, the employee can sue for discrimination. It wouldn't matter that they were not actually a transwoman.

I'm not sure if I have understood how this relates to self ID though? I am probably missing the point.

Speedy does it make a difference to self ID regarding the law that the birth certificate change (which currently requires medical evidence via the GRC) alters sex on the copy - not gender - or are these words interchangeable?

Speedy does it make a difference to self ID regarding the law that the birth certificate change (which currently requires medical evidence via the GRC) alters sex on the copy - not gender - or are these words interchangeable?

Most laws treat them as interchangeable. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 says at s9:
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."
(And then goes on to say that there are some limited situations where a trans person won't be treated as their new sex/gender).

So it's s9 of the GRA above that gives trans people the right to be treated as their new gender, rather than the birth certificate itself if that makes sense.

I think that passports say 'sex' rather than 'gender' on them, but it is possible to change your passport before a GRC is issued with a note from your doctor saying that the change is expected to be permanent. To add to the confusion, if I recall correctly the legislation about passports refers to gender. I really don't think most people appreciate the difference!

Speedy said:
"The real reason why we effectively already have self ID is because A) nobody seems to understand the legislation and think that self ID is already here, B) there are many situations where it's not practical to check whether someone has a GRC or not and C) some people want to actively 'get ahead of the law' (eg Labour Party with self ID AWS)."

To which I would add: D) the fact that some TRA organisations are now going into schools, police forces and other public bodies and deliberately spreading confusion, or in some cases (at least this is the impression I am getting) may be completely misrepresenting the current laws, so that these bodies will change their policies based on a genuine belief that this is what they have to do. (I suspect something like this happened with Swim England for example, as they seem to be considering backtracking on their changes following not only the ManFriday actions but probably also having current law clarified for them as a result).

Particularly outrageous that a transgender identified male police officer who runs a transgender agency goes to schools to lie to them and tell them it is illegal to prevent boys from using the girls changing rooms.

Is anyone looking at mounting a legal challenge to clarify the law and protecting women's rights? Also what about those with criminal records who want to rewrite their personal history by changing gender???

Also what about those with criminal records who want to rewrite their personal history by changing gender???

Don't worry - there are already systems in place to deal with that. If you have a DBS criminal records check then you have to disclose all your previous names, but there is a process for trans people so that if they are handing the criminal records check form to their employer they don't have to include their 'dead name' on it, but have to phone up the people doing the check to tell them. And my understanding is that when the employer gets the results of the criminal record check it was contain any offences etc. without revealing the person's old name.

I'm sure that there are checks in place so that if somebody didn't reveal their 'dead name' at all they could be found out by the people doing the record checks - in the same way that you cannot get a clean criminal record just by changing your name using deed poll.

It all seems fairly sensible and well thought through in the circumstances I think.

www.ddc.uk.net/question/dbs-process-transgender-applicants/

*will contain not was contain.

I need to check the preview more carefully before hitting post.