Trans unpeak.

[Regularhuey]

After reaching peak trans I have followed a few well known Radical Feminist groups on SM to learn more.

Sadly I have come across actual genuine transphobia in GC groups which I thought was just propaganda put out by TRAs.

Because I only ever hung around in naice intellectual spaces such as here, I thought they would all be a bit like MN feminist chat.

One summary of a conversation went along the lines of

Group post
"There's a Transwoman fitting bras at a London branch of M&S" Shock face.

Replies include "oh no (angry face) I'm never taking my daughter there"

Me:
"Men can work as a bra fitter. We should be able to ask staff for a female fitter if we want one"

Cue loads of hypothetical scenarios that we don't know will ever happen and predictable posts about AGP and boycotting M&S.

Anyway this is just one example of many I've come across recently.

I just suppose, as GC feminists perhaps we should be doing more to call out transphobia when we do see it because it seems lots of people are using GC feminism to express their hostility to Transpeople.

I wouldn't, nor would my mother, nor would my grandmother.

Can I just ask: the exemptions in the EA do not apply simply to the specified circumstances do they? It's a 'such as'?

It wouldn't be absolutely clear cut whether M&S could refuse to hire a transwoman as a bra fitter. They probably could not if they hire male bra fitters (I don't know what their policy is). They would need to show that not being trans is a genuine occupational requirement of the job.

The trans example given in the explanatory notes is "A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress."

I'm not aware of any case law on this issue yet (although if anyone else is please do let me know) so we haven't seen how the tribunals and courts will treat this. I think it would really depend on the evidence that the parties could produce (ie could M&S provide evidence to show what percentage of their customers would be unhappy with a trans bra fitter and would it cause them distress etc.).

But of course M&S have decided not to try to rely on the exemption so we won't know what would have happened if they tried to rely on the exemption.

I assumed I would have been told that as female care assistants bathe male residents, equal opportunities would say the reverse was also acceptable.

I've worked in schools where some staff and parents voiced discomfort at male members of staff helping severely disabled (primary aged) girls with personal care, although no one thought twice about the female staff helping boys. The girls in question were clear they were happy to be helped by both their male and female classroom staff and the staff were police checked and working within strong safeguarding procedures, same as male nurses etc.

I've also worked in care homes with elderly people with dementia, with male and female nurses. Some of the residents were perfectly happy for any member of staff to offer personal care. Some of them were clearly uncomfortable about staff of the opposite sex offering that care and it showed in face, voice, body language, even if they weren't able to verbalise it. Some were happy for personal care to be done so long as it was a familiar, known member of staff and not bank staff or new staff they didn't recognise. We knew who was and wasn't happy with what kind of care, and would always support them in waiting for a different member of staff if they wanted one. The priority was their feeling safe, comfortable and able to trust the people caring for them.

The only issue is that when the line comes between right to do a job and being sensitive to the feelings and needs of the person receiving care, it needs to be the current law: case by case basis, considered in context, with the recipient able to say no without pressure.

Both males and females generally speaking prefer female caregivers. Not entirely and not for everything.
I spent a few months in hospital and when I became aware of my surroundings I said no thank you to a male who came to assist me. He argued that he had been providing intimate care for me for weeks.
He was not prepared to force me so he left and a female care giver came to assist me from that point on.

I assumed that they had hired a transgender bra fitter for transgender bra fittings. Not because they think they would be discriminating against transgender individuals if they did not.

For those asking earlier why Paris Lees does not have a GRC, if I understood her correctly when she referred to this, it seems to be a sort of protest to pressurise for the making of GRCs available to all who simply self ID and for the scrapping of any need for a medical assessment or diagnosis to do so.

That was the impression I took from what she said. But I could have been mistaken.

I would also add another reason that you might not have considered as to why those with a GRC can also change their birth certificate.

I do understand why it seems a step too far to some but there was another reason it was voluntarily introduced at the time, whilst aware that they were talking very small numbers. Under 5000 people in 14 years.

There have been cases where the press have been sold stories by members of the public who knew a trans person, accessed their birth certificate and used that to create a story behind the back of the trans person as the paper required documented proof of the veracity of the claim.

Sometimes this had awful effects on the family of the person so outed.

I know as it happened to me. Fortunately with no lasting damage on my family other than temporary distress to two young children. Who were both real stars and who were never even considered by the man who did this, I assume for money.

The changing of the birth certificate and blocking access to all but legitimate sources (such as the need to do a criminal check) was partly a result of the number of cases like this which occurred prior to the GRA becoming law.

it was voluntarily introduced at the time

I know I'm being a pedant and a bore but I don't think it can really be described as being voluntarily introduced. It came in because Christine Goodwin won the case in the European Court of Human Rights which Tony Blair's Government fought against. I don't think we would have them otherwise (although again if anyone can show me I'm wrong then please correct me).

I'd describe myself as agnostic when it comes to GRCs. I can see why trans people would want them, and I can see why some people would object. I guess if it's only a small number with a sound gatekeeping process and strong Equality Act exemptions then I am OK with it, but self ID would ruin it.

What do you mean by right sex? Do you mean gender identity? Gender and sex are not the same thing.

I mean the legal sex to which they have taken the trouble to change to with a GRC.

Couple of pages behind.

No woman should ever be put in a position where she has to specifically ask for an actual woman to perform an intimate service.

Take it as read that if an actual woman asks for, or expects, a woman to provide such a service she means an actual woman.

The times when this matters are times when we already feel vulnerable because we are naked or being touched by people we don't know.

The women this matters to most are the least able to speak up.

We don't need educating, we just don't want random male people touching our tits.

We are saying no.

Great posts @ZeroFoxGiven

Legal fictions? And if self ID comes in what 'trouble' has been gone to?

@supermatchgame Do you just mean for marriage? How does that work? I don't think marriage certs mention sex? Do they?

Sorry for three posts on the trot. I should formulate before I post. But more and more I'm understanding GRCs serve no purpose now other than to 'validate' in a drawer at home or else provide a way to pretend males are female for access to female spaces. I think the GRA is now outdated and unnecessary. Can someone explain what the GRA is for? What is the policy intention?

Well not just for marriage I can understand why a transitioned person would want a bc in their new legal sex for security.

Don't know what a same sex marriage cert looks like or how the sex of people on it would be identified if it wasn't obvious by names? But a person going from one sex/ gender to the other would need a legal gender change if they wanted a same sex marriage. Ie. trans woman would need legal change of sex if marrying another woman in same sex marriage. That's my understanding anyway.

We could just change marriage certificates instead. Just have two named spouses.

I sometimes wonder what life must be like for families in Witness Protection Schemes who have had a new identity and backstory invented, and must never reference their old lives and history.

How it must be impossible to ever really forget, to ever feel at ease, the constant vigilance to keep the new story going and never break character. The knowledge that immense physical danger may result if the truth is discovered. No-one would voluntarily choose that life.

Surely this must cause intense anxiety and distress.

Is this what it is like for those with a GRC? Constant fear and pressure to maintain the new life and fear of the old being discovered?
Because the legal lie that is created by those documents that pretend a person's sex has changed isn't enough to make the lie truth. And I desperately wish we can draw a line behind those that have been the guinea pigs of the GRC process, and instead just address the reality of people who struggle to accept their sex. We as a society should never have facilitated this lie. It has been cruel and deceptive to everyone and there needs to be a better way now.

In witness protection the consequences of failure are dire.

Can someone explain what the GRA is for? What is the policy intention?

In a nutshell, the GRA (2004) could be described as focused on (legal) identity issues ("paperwork"). The discrimination components are primarily covered by the Equality Act (2010).

With the introduction of the EA2010, all of the other discrimination legislations were repealed in full, including the Sex Discrimination Act (1975).

You can read the list of repeals here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/27

You can read the GRA (2004) here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

And the EA(2010) here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

As an aside, it looks as though Section 19 of the GRA (2004) has been repealed.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/27

My apologies, wrong link still on the clipboard
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/19

Can someone explain what the GRA is for? What is the policy intention?

The concerns about marriage and pensions which were very important at the time have largely disappeared due to the introduction of same sex marriage and the equalisation of pension ages. The marriage forms could be improved to make them gender neutral I suppose (IIRC when I got married a couple of years ago there were references to "bride" and "groom" etc).

Privacy is still a concern that hasn't gone away, although opinions will of course vary as to whether this is a strong enough argument to allow someone to legally change their sex when it is impossible to change their biological sex. Even though discrimination is outlawed in theory, I think if I were trans I would just want to hide that fact as much as possible because I am sure they still have to put up with a lot of crap.

The GRA also provides that anyone with a GRC should be treated as the opposite sex (subject to the limited exemptions in the Equality Act and any other legislation). This is relevant for interpretation of whether someone is being discriminated against under the Equality Act. Prior to obtaining a GRC, in any discrimination case the transwoman would be regarded as a man who is undergoing gender reassignment, which does not necessarily mean that they are entitled to the same treatment as a woman. After a transwoman has a GRC they are legally a woman and are treated like any other woman unless the defendant is relying on an exemption. If we got rid of GRCs we would either have to amend the Equality Act or its interpretation would become more messy and difficult (as it was prior to the introduction of GRCs). As pp have said, you could amend the Equality Act to do away with gender reassignment and have something to cover people who don't ascribe to gender stereotypes associated with their sex (maybe this should be done anyway!).

Privacy is still a concern that hasn't gone away, although opinions will of course vary as to whether this is a strong enough argument to allow someone to legally change their sex when it is impossible to change their biological sex. Even though discrimination is outlawed in theory, I think if I were trans I would just want to hide that fact as much as possible because I am sure they still have to put up with a lot of crap.

The privacy argument is rendered moot by self-ID, surely? Even post-SRS transsexuals rarely pass. Under self-ID, most of these people will not have had surgery and may not even bother with hormones. Nobody will be in any doubt that they are trans. Nobody is in any doubt now.

The privacy argument is rendered moot by self-ID, surely? Even post-SRS transsexuals rarely pass. Under self-ID, most of these people will not have had surgery and may not even bother with hormones. Nobody will be in any doubt that they are trans. Nobody is in any doubt now.

It's hard to tell how self ID will change the perception of trans people. Passing has never been a real factor in the test for getting a GRC of course (as far as I am aware at least).

I agree that IMO I don't think many of the transwomen that I have seen pass to my eyes. I have seen a fair few transmen who pass though, which I put down to the rapid and powerful effects of testosterone.

The people who do pass (and those who think they pass, which is probably a sizeable number) will want to protect their privacy. For those who don't pass or are on the borderline, I guess there is still some comfort in not having to confirm people's suspicions and having ID which matches with what they see to be their true sense of self even if their exterior does not.

I don't know. I'm still on the fence about this. I'm aware I'm speaking about trans people's feelings as an outsider so if there are any trans people who feel comfortable talking about this then I will defer to them.

It is a little uncomfortable reading some of the posts, more so than usual, as people are talking about getting rid of the GRC - something I imagine I am the only one on this thread to actually possess.

What to you all will seem an academic argument with the talk of letting everyone just self identify and get on with it, misses so many points.

I am not blaming you for that. I understand why it is confusing and worrying.

The post about a GRC putting someone into a situation like they are in witness protection constantly looking over their shoulder actually made me laugh and sigh at the same time.

It is nothing like that. The reality is that most people with a GRC are getting on with their lives quietly and for them it is just a reassurance - like an insurance policy you put in your drawer and know it is there if some maniac breaks into your house and smashes it to bits.

You hope that never happens but insurance is to cover unforeseen consequences that just might occur.

If someone told you that there were now too many maniacs out there and so insurance will just be scrapped to let them get on with it I doubt you would consider that an equitable solution for your security.

When you transition you do so to become the person you have always believed you were. And in many cases have been for years.

Of the 5000 or so who have obtained a GRC since 2004, nearly half of those did so in the first two or three years and many of them (like me) had transitioned at least several years and often decades earlier.

So the GRC was created for people who had long integrated into society and faced non validation without rancour. And who were very comfortable with who they were and who they once had been but were happy to have this reassurance at last.

It was devised for a specific purpose - transsexuals, who are not typically out and proud and actively campaigning for anything but had just settled down in many positions such as doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers and so on where having this kind of legal support helped bring confidence and securituy to their day to day life.

And was a thank you for getting through this mess and still contributing to society.

The fact that most of the activists out there do not have GRCs and that over the years after 2006 in every year a very consistent number of new people - just 200/300 - have obtained a GRC, shows this is aimed at a very specific group of people that involve a small number of new cases that occur every year.

It is NOT some fashion or fad or social contagion created by a media campaign or activists trying to push back boundaries.

Here are the figures per year from 2008 on - 241, 239, 260, 263, 236, 318, 244, 332, 318 - of these 1761 were trans women, the others were trans men.

That is 1761 trans women only legally invading your spaces in the whole UK in 9 years.

We are where we are because many others want to bypass the built in safeguards or feel they might not qualify if they tried.

If you have a sound immigration policy and it is working but suddenly many, many more people decide to try to take advantage of your flexibility then a civilised country applies the rules or tightens them.

It does not kick out every immigrant as the cause of the problem.

Agree Jaycee and Miranda Yardley has repeatedly said the same. Self ID trivialises those with GRCs for whom transition meant a very serious, long term commitment (that did not involve demanding anything from women as a class.)