This is a very important read from the Government recommendations

[yetanothertranswoman]

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

Paragraph 45

45. Within the current Parliament, the Government must bring forward proposals to update the Gender Recognition Act, in line with the principles of gender self-declaration that have been developed in other jurisdictions. In place of the present medicalised, quasi-judicial application process, an administrative process must be developed, centred on the wishes of the individual applicant, rather than on intensive analysis by doctors and lawyers.

And then

Paragraph 132

132. Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is aproportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In manyinstances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test.

We recommend
that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the
Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Read into that what you will. I know how I read it - and all those people talking about self ID don't mention the other recommendations

So if you have GRC then you can work say as a female carer which is currently excluded under equality act? Still dosnt sit right for me. Surely if you have GRC and the person/service you want to work for ia happy then fine.

I’d still want a choice over a fully boded man in a dress even if has been living in it for long enough to have a GRC. I still want a choice who does my personal care. I still see a man as a male body regardless of how they feel.

Just read it and cannot believe how one sided it is. Too much input from mermaids etc. Too little from scientists and gendersceptical women

Also worth noting that the Govt response to that recommendation is one of agreement. Here on the Parliament website (although Nicky Morgan is no longer in post, obvs)

You're right, that this needs to have more attention drawn to it. The self-ID issue has dominated, and the other recommendations of the W&E Committee should be talked about more.

It seems to me that

a) Anyone can self declare their gender identity
b) Once you've self declared your identity, you are free to go to any space as they want to get rid of the 'proportionate and legitimate reasons'.

The last bit is barely mentioned.

The last bit is barely mentioned.

Many transactivists disingenuously present this as a reason why women shouldn't be concerned about the current proposals. Despite the fact that they'd get rid of the exemptions if they could.

They don't want to get rid of the exemptions. They want to erase any differentiation between sex and gender. Transwomen are women (2+2=5). Sex = gender. Exemptions still apply. But they have nothing to do with physicality.

Don't panic. This was printed 14 Jan 2016.

yetanother

This made it into the final copy of the report, here:

22. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)

I've posted it a few times on here because, to me, this is far more significant than simply amending the GRA to a self-ID threshold.

That said, please note that the Tories, at least, have officially said that they no longer intend to pursue this recommendation from the report and that the EqA will not be amended. Amber Rudd stated this on the BBC Marr show and we have seen both MP and junior ministerial replies to constituents confirming the same.

Labour would.

Yes, reprieve from the tories for now. The point is, that is the agenda.

I have only had a chance to skim through all 80 pages, but I think it comes across as;

1. Trans people who have undergone the arduous process required to obtain a GRC should be accepted without question.
2. Women should completely accept this.

PS the first bit, yeah, well that’s going to be made much easier, maybe a 10 minute £40 visit to a solicitor to sign a form. Oh and the second bit will still stand.

The sad thing is that I don’t have a problem with 1. as it stands now (with limited exclusions) but after the PS, it’s a NO from me.

Happy, actually delighted, to be told that my take on this is incorrect.

I should say that this is the transcript from some years ago. As I understand it, this process would have been one sided as the select committee were tasked with looking at Trans Equality. Should a law be drafted then it will be discussed and amended accordingly after discussion across both houses.

I am not suggesting that HoC discussion will help. I think we may need to rely on the HoL to show some common sense on this as our elected politicians seem incapable of doing so. I find it incredible to have to rely on HoL, when my politics has always been to abolish them! (I am also aware that there are a few very Pro trans members of the HoL, but I think they are a minority).

And it is already being implemented in practice, by those wishing to be 'ahead of the curve' 'trans-friendly' 'inclusive'. Regardless of the reality that for women, it is regressive, unfriendly, and exclusive. Social change will inform the law, and social change is already happening.

Social change will inform the law, and social change is already happening.

This is true. My fear is that top-down imposed social change will also inform the backlash, which will probably be hard right wing.

We have a lot to fear from this. A hard right backlash will not distinguish between self-ID trans people and dysphoric transsexuals. It will blame the LGB because the LGBT orgs have spent so much time pushing the T. It will not distinguish between the SWERF'n'TERF liberal feminists who have pushed the T from the radical feminists who haven't - all feminists will get the blame.

Many blameless people will be in the firing line if a backlash is allowed to happen.

As PencilsInSpace often says around here, we are badly in need of calm, sane political leadership on this issue and it is sorely lacking.

This is part of the push by TRAs to remove the lawful exemptions in the EA2010 that allow organisations to recognise same-sex customs and exclude trans people regardless of GRA status (that currently exist but are being completely eroded and not applied in practice).

It is also part of the push by trans activists that if they can't remove the exemptions completely, then they want them to not apply to Transpeople with a GRC and only to Transpeople without a GRC.

This pressure will continue regardless of the changes to the GRA.
Labour have said they support self declaration but do not wish to change the lawful exemptions to same-sex spaces BUT many Labour MPs do support confusingly changing the wording of "gender reassignment" protections to "gender identity" protections.
The whole thing is a mess.

Feminists need to protect the lawful exemptions as the next biggest fight seeing as we've lost the fight against self-ID.

langcleg I couldn't agree with you more. I would add that I believe that the proposed changes to the GRA is the begining of the far right backlash starting with the grab of women's rights as a whole. They'll never be returned to women and we will have to start again.

There is no way that this self-id lunacy will not self destruct and I'd bet that the far right are banking on it!

adjuststin-foilhat

It is also part of the push by trans activists that if they can't remove the exemptions completely, then they want them to not apply to Transpeople with a GRC and only to Transpeople without a GRC.

And of course for the process of getting a GRC to be demedicalised and much easier. So many more people would apply and get one.

I just want to pipe up with the little known factoid that the possession of a grc (arduous, intrusive blahblah) does NOT require hormones or surgery.

Many holders of GRCs are still fully intact males, and many are not on hormones.

Not that this makes any difference to me as I don't differentiate between males regardless of surgical/hormonal/dysphoric status, and I remain the opposite sex to.all of then. And will continue to demand my existence be recognised as such.

But I know some erroneously believe in the 'truetrans/transtrender' two tier status.

Many holders of GRCs are still fully intact males, and many are not on hormones

How do you know that? Is there published data on the 'status' of GRC holders which discusses if they have had HRT or surgery?

However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In manyinstances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test.

I genuinely want to know if this would still be the case under self id, and if so how it would be monitored in relation to these scenarios. The need for medical diagnosis, social transition, and hormones and surgery unless a good reason is given for not having surgery is not perfect but gives some justification for giving these protections. If all those are removed one would think this weakens the protections for transsexual people if only transitioned on paper and in no practical reality.