Legal self-id - what are the problems?

[SarahAr]

Legal self-id - what are the problems?

Assuming that the government goes ahead with legal self-id in-line with its announcement that it only intends to change the Gender Recognition Act to simplify the process and demedicalise it, but it does not intend to change the Equality Act.

And also assuming the legislation is no more permissive than the legislation in Ireland, which requires a statutory declaration stating that the individual intends to live as a women for the rest of her life. This is a safe assumption given the far right government in power today.

What are the problems with legal self-id? More specifically how does it help predators to prey on women and how does it impact women's rights?

This is not intended as a goady post - I genuinely cannot see the problems.

You keep stating 'but the rules say' like it has any power.

We know how the police actually respond in situations like these, you clearly don't.

Government guidance to the EqA from 2015 says that “a trans person should be free to select the facilities appropriate to the gender in which they present”

There is no consideration or guidance regarding the sex exemptions.

So our laws and our government guidance do not marry up.

We have self id in effect due to the EqA and erasure of the sex exemptions in government policy. We have local authorities and hospitals mismanaging the application of trans rights in practice.

So amending the GRA on top of all this is not a great idea in my view.

Men joined the priesthood/counselling charities/teaching/Boy Scouts/entertainment industry to gain access to kids of course predatory men will abuse the easier access to women. Naive in the extreme to think they wouldn't.

This changes the meaning of woman from a biological one to a feminine feeling. This undoes all the good work put in taking sexist stereotypes apart. this will have a huge effect on the youth, gender non conforming children have no room, so many will be pushed into the opposite sex category because they don't perform girl/boy correctly.

This is already happening, kids are questioning other kids and assuming they are trans. There will be no feminine boys or masculine girls left.

My largest fear is what this does to our kids. I have spent my lifetime fighting stereotypes and now we are enforcing them rigidly.

Also sharing a room with a female at Uni, female sports, rape crisis centres, crime stats, reporting of crime, awards, representation in all areas of power, changing rooms, teaching girls and boys boundaries, medical trials made for and tested on female bodies, medical examinations, the care of elderly people, the rights of autistic people who find lying difficult.

Can voyeurism and exposure still be a crime with the new changes? I'm just a woman your honour?

Um, religious girls and their rights, returning to the good old days of the urinary leash, this will not be measurable, so many females will curtail their behaviour.

the right to speak facts aloud, compelled speech, gah, so many concerns!

Sorry for typos, off to work!

I'd like to add that it is illegal to ask for a GRC and you don't request sight of a birth certificate to access services. Therefore the GRA is in effect irrelevant in most cases.

That is because the GRA is primarily a law that affords some privacy for trans individuals.

Access to services and facilities is covered by the EA that, as has been stated, is not up for review.

The EA has been in effect since 2010, which was proceeded by the sex discrimination (gender reassignment) regulations 1999. Prior to that there were no legal protections or recognition of trans individuals.

If a person of any gender or presentation enters a space and commits a crime there are laws that deal with that.

Report the guy to the management and police and let them deal with him.

Not a man, a woman - honest guv. Nothing to see here, this is my female penis - everyone knows people get their penises out in toilets right?

Part of the psychiatric assessment is Real Life Experience (RLE) a period of time when an individual lives full time in their preferred gender.

This require updating all other paperwork, such as driving license, bank, employer, DWP and NHS. All of which can be done relatively easily.

The only outlier in this process is the birth certificate which requires additional evidence such a psychiatric reports.

As the BC is largely irrelevant for a trans person to be able to function in society, streamlining the process makes sense as it would enable more of us to obtain them.

As an example I applied for a new job last year and I didn't need to use my BC as my driving license and passport both provided the required evidence for ID checks.

Access to services and facilities is covered by the EA that, as has been stated, is not up for review.

Except that:

1. the EA currently includes people with a GRC in some sex based exceptions, but self ID makes it impossible to objectively define who should have a GRC and therefore who should be in that group of people.

2. Most organisations are just confused. Without case law and without any definition of male or female, it becomes very difficult to provide protections and services specifically for women.

It’s a mess.

Since you're not legally allowed to ask for a GRC and you won't need a BC then effectively you have to allow access to services utilising the EA.

Most service providers where exemptions apply are well versed in the law and have policies and procedures in place to support all women.

The NHS for example will discuss with a patient the most appropriate accommodation for inpatient stays. For trans women that may be a side room in a female ward.

Trans men having hysterectomies are placed on general male surgical wards.

These are not new issues as far as service providers are concerned, they go back way before any legislation was brought in.

The GRA is probably the least controversial part of the recommendations from the parliamentary report and is the only thing currently being considered by the government.

But I agree Bronners, nobody asks anybody for a GRC, and the requirement to ‘live as the opposite sex’ has always been a bit strange.

However, if it helped a few people who cared?

The problem is that self ID isn’t just about admin anymore. It’s about an ideology that promotes the concept of gender identity while deliberately ignoring the real consequences of being born with a male or female reproductive system.

The question becomes not “why can’t we tweak the GRA a bit?” but “what was the point of the GRA in the first place?”.

Most service providers where exemptions apply are well versed in the law and have policies and procedures in place to support all women.

Apparently not the Labour Party or the Girl Guides.

The NHS for example will discuss with a patient the most appropriate accommodation for inpatient stays. For trans women that may be a side room in a female ward.

The NHS reserves the right to put any patient on a mixed ward, trans or otherwise.

Reform of the GRA really isn't the issue to fight over in my honest opinion.

Although not announced the recommendation that Gender Reassignment be reclassified as Gender Identity in the EA has the potential to be more problematic as that would massively increase the scope of who is protected by the EA.

That needs the scrutiny be given to the GRA.

Regarding Labour and the Girl Guides their policies fall in line with current EA legislation, so again, I'd suggest making sure that if and when that is reviewed that all these issues are debated at that point to ensure it protects both groups.

Regarding Labour and the Girl Guides their policies fall in line with current EA legislation

The EA covers sex based exemptions, not gender based exemptions.

Arguably both are currently discriminating against men and boys based on their gender identity.

As the BC is largely irrelevant for a trans person to be able to function in society, streamlining the process makes sense as it would enable more of us to obtain them.

If the GRC and changing birth cert. is ‘largely irrelevant for a trans person to be able to function in society’ then what is the point of it?

But again, without case law it’s not clear, and who has the money to take this kind of thing to court? Not voluntary organisations.

Sex based exemptions have to be proportionate means to a legitimate aim and assessed on a case by case basis in relation to trans men and women.

Although both different in nature both have taken into account of the EA in their policies.

The GRA is primarily about privacy for a trans person. At my age I can't really hide that I'm trans but someone transitioning in late teens early twenties will pass in society unnoticed. For them, the BC would out them in a small number of instances.

The Fair Play for Women lays the issues for women out well in context of the current and proposed law.

fairplayforwomen.com/gender-recognition-act-2004-explained/

I can see two:

1. It has already become an excuse for the antitrans cabal to incite even more hatred.
2. It is a cheap and simple thing to do that allows the government to pretend that it has "acted upon" the sect committee's report, while ignoring more important issues, such as sorting out the crisis in trans health care, discrimination in the NHS, and the desperate need for inciting hatred to be made a criminal offence.

It won't make a shred of difference to anyone else. In particular, we will not see gangs of pantie-eraring perverts queuing up to get into ladies loos:
a) why would they bother getting a certificate when it doesn't allow them to do anything they can't do already?
b) why would someone who lives their everyday life as Bill want his boss, his family, the taxman , his doctor, the DVLA, anyone who looks at the electoral roll, and countless others to know that he is legally "Brenda"?

For them, the BC would out them in a small number of instances.

Which is why we need to work towards gender non conformity being totally acceptable. Hiding people’s journeys moves us further from that and means that people live in fear of being ‘found out’.

It takes a while, but these threads usually end up with the everyone agreeing that legal self-ID doesn't really affect all that much, except to perhaps give the prison service a bit more work to do in risk assessments.

But then it turns out it's all about "the principal".

But hey, I'm all up for saying get rid of everything except a statutory declaration and a doctor's note, if that would make everybody happy. But obviously I'm not trans.

The principal aside, would that be acceptable? That's about as much gatekeeping as you have when you apply for your passport - any one of us - and it hardly medicalises the process; I had to have a form from my midwife each time I took times off work when pregnant; that hardly medicalised my pregnancy.

Compromise?

But hey, I'm all up for saying get rid of everything except a statutory declaration and a doctor's note, if that would make everybody happy. But obviously I'm not trans.

But why is anything needed at all? What is the piece of paper for if it doesn't actually change very much?

Sex based exemptions have to be proportionate means to a legitimate aim and assessed on a case by case basis in relation to trans men and women.

Sex based exclusions have to be proportionate and fair in relation to everyone - including people who aren't trans.

It doesn't make sense to have a clear reason why an exemption is needed on the basis of sex and to then include other people on a case by case basis. Deciding things on a case by case basis is pretty much the definition of exercising discrimination.

You can either explain who a service is for (and this might include anyone legally recognised as a woman or women and transwomen), or you can't and it should be open to anyone.

Neither the Labour Party AWS nor the Guides seem to be able to explain who they are serving. In the Labour Party I suspect that is because they don't care (AWS were never universally popular) and in the case of the Guides I think it's because they want to avoid a fuss - which isn't really working out.

It's for transpeople Jelly.

And if it's something they value, and it hardly makes a jot if difference to us... why would we stand in their way?

I have no idea how it feels to be recognised as the person you feel you are that, having previously been seen as something you're sure you're not.

To get that recognition in the eyes of the law, to some, must bring security and a quite profound peace.