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, the Labour Party's stance is not in accordance with the law. But most of these people don't even have a GRC and self-ID refers specifically to getting a GRC. Labour's self-ID is a different kind to what is being proposed. I believe there will be a legal challenge against Labour and that might clarify matters.

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

Yes, why do you think that might be?

I think there is a lack of information and guidelines as to when they can provide single sex services. The Labour thing just shows complete and utter confusion and misunderstanding by the party leadership.

My feeling is that GRCs need to be scrapped and there should be limits as to who can ask you to disclose your sex.

Instead of having to tick male or female on every bloody form - how about, only businesses and services where sex is relevant can ask?

That might actually benefit women since we're less likely to be stereotyped.

And less intrusive and unnecessary questions about date of birth, etc - when all you are doing is a bit of internet shopping.

So, PeakPants, all this fuss and aggro is for nothing. All SF, LM and their pals want is a bit of paper saying they are women. They aren't expecting access to women's spaces, rights, sports, etc and they want nothing whatsoever to change?

They are happy with that?

I think there is a lack of information and guidelines as to when they can provide single sex services

No no no. There is plenty of guidance. There is deliberate misleading by trans advocates, unless it suits them to argue otherwise.

No Suited but I believe that the argument needs to be made on the basis of retaining and strengthening protections under the EA.

I agree with a bit of everything posted above

If the government genuinely intends to distinguish between sex and gender, then the assurance on retaining the current sex-based exemptions is good news (and everyone with that written on an official piece of paper needs to hold onto it for future reference)

But, as we have seen with AWS and various organisations, there can be a disconnect between legislation vs policy vs practice. At a really basic level, the receptionist at a council run leisure centre needs to know very clearly whether it is OK to sell a ticket to an obvious transwoman who is asking to attend a women's only session or if she will get sued if she refuses. Unless the law is crystal clear on how the exemptions work, and organisations interpret them in accordance with the law (and not how TRAs have told them it should work), it doesn't matter where this all ends up because women's sex-based exemptions will be rendered meaningless.

As a bit of an aside, has anyone heard of any women's organisations that have been contacted as part of the pre-consultation stakeholder engagement exercise?

PeakPants
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.
How? If they have a female birth certificate, and say they were born female, how would you be able to exclude them?

OldCrone, trust me, you can and domestic violence shelters tend to do this. They will be able to do so even if self-ID comes in.

PeakPants
But in practice it's unworkable. The Scottish Transgender Alliance want the exceptions to be removed, because:
as well as violating trans people’s article 8 human right to privacy [under the ECHR] about their gender reassignment history, [it] is generally unworkable because the only way anyone could prove beyond doubt that they had not undergone gender reassignment would be to submit to an unacceptably intrusive medical examination.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

I'm sure we've had this discussion before...