Response received from Minister via MP

[Fluffymule]

Today I received the Minister response letter via my MPs office following my query to him regarding the GRA back in March.

I was going to share it here, but wanted to check before I did. I haven't been able to get online for a while so I wonder if people are still comfortable with these being shared?

I can redact all elements that identify the MP for example.

Yes, so long as the identities of the people in the letter are kept off, I don’t see the problem.

Yes do share redacted.

I think the ID of the minister should be OK, but obviously yours and the MPs probably not good to share if you don't want to out yourself. Would love to see.

Also keen to see if that's alright.

Maybe don't share the minister if they are supportive of the gender critical position- they'll be put through hell by the T/MRA thought police & Glitter Brownshirts until the bow to the pressure.

I agree, don’t share anyone’s name.

Ok, have redacted info apart from the Minister's office because I assume that this would be public knowledge anyway - if this is the government department with responsibility.

Plus, the response is clearly an official line, which I assume would be repeated to any such query, from any channel.

Well it says little, apart from there's nothing to worry about, but good that they're inviting input

The difficulty is that if transwomen are now women, single sex spaces are now meaningless.

Spaces remain for women only. Including transwomen. And so, if self-id comes in (either legally or in practice, as it appears to be at the moment) also including men.

Maryz I think single sex allows exemptions for biological sex specifically in some circumstances.

This is a good briefing from a female perspective:

fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/

Thanks for posting, Fluffy.

The exemptions include transwomen with a GRC as women.

If self-id comes in (or if everyone eg the Labour Party, Girl Guides, schools) continues to behave as though it has already come in) then exemptions are meaningless.

Single sex spaces mean ones based on natal sex. Therefore trans women would be excluded from these.

PeakPants
No, they won't.
There will not be a legal way to enforce it.

From fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/#a4.3

5.3 Sex-based exemptions will become impossible to use in practice
Even if a male gets a GRC and switches legal sex class to female they can still be legally excluded from some female-only spaces if sex-based exemptions are invoked in full. These exemptions allow the lawful exclusion of males and also trans people to reserve a space specifically for female-born women. However, in practice it will be impossible to prove someone has switched their legal sex to female because people are not obliged to show their GRC and it is a criminal offence for officials to reveal the trans status of an individual once they have a GRC.

At the moment, most (99%) of trans-identified males do not have a GRC and so do not have a female birth certificate. As such, asking to see a female birth certificate is a way to officially distinguish between natal women and self-identified women. However, if any male can obtain a GRC and a female birth certificate on demand this method will no longer distinguish between these two groups. Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it. As such, the single sex exemptions will be rendered meaningless by GRA reforms.

if any male can obtain a GRC and a female birth certificate on demand this method will no longer distinguish between these two groups. Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it. As such, the single sex exemptions will be rendered meaningless by GRA reforms.

Exactly my thoughts - bloody trojan horse.

Suited that is incorrect. At present, single-sex services can exclude trans people even with a GRC. After self-ID they will be able to continue to do so. The only process that will change is the one for obtaining a GRC. But whichever route is used- doctor's cert or self-ID, single sex services will continue to be able to exclude them.

Peakpants, sadly you are wrong.

For example, the Labour party including men who "identify" as women on women-only shortlists. The girl guides including boys who "identify" as girls in guides (and letting them sleep with the girls). Prisons are meant to be single sex, but loads of men are managing to be transferred to women's prisons just because they "identify" as women. Men are competing in women's sports.

That's the issue. No-one hates transwomen. We just don't want to get rid of single sex spaces.

If the law says "single sex spaces will, in future, be based on biology" then yippee, we can all go home.

Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it. As such, the single sex exemptions will be rendered meaningless by GRA reforms.

No, this is someone's spin on what they think will happen. The law currently allows exemptions and will continue to do so. Even a fully operated trans woman with a GRC and amended birth certificate can be excluded from a refuge at present. That will continue even if self-ID comes in.

PeakPants.

How can they be excluded?

Despite the fact that most people can distinguish males from females by eye (irrespective of gender presentation) there will be no way to officially prove it, and the trans person will be under no obligation to reveal it.

Lets try a real world situation. I am a Swim Team manager. Our changing rooms don't have cubicles. If a Transwoman rocks up, how EXACTLY can I stop them entering, given that they don't have to prove their "femaleness", or rather lack of it?

Suited in what way does the current law require a trans person to prove their femaleness?

Oh and if you are a Swim Team manager you could at present say that your female changing room was restricted to natal females. You could also do that if self-ID comes in. You wouldn’t be prevented from doing so because the Equality Act states that you can restrict your services to biological females. So if someone looks male, they can’t come in.

The fact that many businesses choose not to use the EA exemptions is a different matter obviously.

The request for ID has been the method previously used to screen entry to sex segregated spaces. I suspect you know that.

The request for ID has been the method previously used to screen entry to sex segregated spaces. I suspect you know that.

Yes and a male to female trans person with a GRC will have a female ID. They can still be excluded under the Equality Act if it is necessary to have single sex services.

After self-ID, a male to female trans person with a GRC will also have a female ID. They can also still be excluded under the EA if it is necessary to have single sex services. A random man who wakes up and wants to be a woman today will not have female ID and can be excluded regardless.

Self-ID refers to the process of getting a GRC, it does not mean that people can decide on the day to identify as a woman because they feel like it.

The Labour party is a case in point. All women shortlists are a form of discrimination. They have legally been allowed only on the basis of sex, because women are underrepresented and the courts have accepted this is a legal means to increase participation by women.

That's what the (time limited) ruling on the AWS specified. By allowing men who merely self-identify as trans but do not have a GRC to be listed on AWS, Labour is actually violating the ruling. Hence the crowdfunder for a legal challenge.

So Labour is not only breaking the rules, it does so without self-id actually having been enshrined in law. Which is why all the arm waving about how harmless self-id is and how it won't change a thing is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately untruthful.