BBC doublespeak on EHRC and "passing"

[loveyouradvice]

At present, the guidance issued to service providers - women's refuges, for example - by the Equality and Human Rights Commission states: "Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so."
Those with a GRC "should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes".
That means that anyone who identifies themselves as a woman - whether that is their legal status or not - can already use separate-sex facilities such as changing rooms, toilets or single-sex gyms.

I'm confused - above is from BBC story July last year on their website :

1. Is it true that EHRC guidance is hugely subjective: Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender i.e. someone needs to decide if they "pass" or not.... and as we know most transwomen are not visually indistinguishable....
2. There conclusion from this - that self-id is already here for any man who wants it - is mind-blowing! Surely this says it is only the ones who pass....

Too much for my brain on a mellow Sunday afternoon!

It's confusing. I find the whole passing thing quite confusing actually. I see trans people saying that trying to pass shouldn't be obligatory. I see gender critical feminists saying that we should all be able to dress how we want (but keep to our sex-based spaces). I can see both points of view.

I've never met a trans woman who passed. I don't always pass and I'm not trans. I was recently out with a gay man in drag and strangers were staring and pointing. So it feels to me like gender is still experienced by lots of people as a performance where costumes are crucial, and yet clothes don't actually disguise what people are looking at consciously or unconsciously.

Not sure if I'm making any sense, but I think I'm trying to say that passing isn't as straightforward as lawmakers seem to assume?

Don't think that is legally correct where did you see it?

Its subjective, isn't it. It can also be transitory; I have 'passed' as a man, by accident, but people quickly realise they have made a mistake.
I dont see how you can base laws on experiences that are subjective and possibly transitory.

But yes a form of self ID is already here; people can now claim the protected characteristic of 'transgender' from the first appointment with their GP. They don't have to go any further with their transition than announcing they have started the process.
This is why some people think that people with a criminal conviction for violent or sex crimes should not be permitted to transition. It effectively erases any link between them and their crime.

Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender

Although now statutory guidance, I believe this comes from case law. I would need to read the case to be sure - but I think the judgment was getting at a full medical transition.

self-id is already here for any man who wants it - is mind-blowing!
It is here, but not mind blowing. Anyone who is intending, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment (doesn't have to be medical) is protected by the Equality Act. This is subject to the exemptions and judicial discretion. And this has been the case since 2008.

The BBC has adopted self ID before the law, a sort of assumption that it will become law. I wouldn't really trust, tbh. Its 'info' page on newsbeat/radio one is just full of errors and inaccuracies.

Self id is here because women have been shamed and bullied. It's not mind blowing for men, they don't care, while female identified men are delighted. But yes, it's mindblowing that we are supposed to share showers with men, and if we don't agree to pretend they're women, we could be guilty of a crime. Mind blowing doesn't really cover it!

Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender

This is from Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice section 13.59

I find this idea of assessing femininity to be wildly offensive.

Many women look quite "masculine" or adopt masculine styles, many women fall outside the social / media idea of what a woman is "supposed" to look like.

Feminists have always said that people should be free to dress how they please, have their hair makeup whatever as they please (although obviously adhering to feminine gender role can be costly and many women don't really esperience it as a totally free choice) - this undermines all that massively.

I also find the idea that transpeople who look the part should be allowed and ones who do not should not, illogical and offensive to transpeople. I mean as women we know what it's like to be judged on your looks - this codifies being judged by your looks into law! What the fuck even is that.

I kwow what my views are but setting them aside, where is the logic in any of this, the consistency? If transpeople should be allowed into wherever then that means all of them, not just the ones who are lucky enough to go unnoticed or be able to afford lots of facial surgery etc.

All of this is very unfair on everyone quite frankly. I mean you're sitting at home and you were born a man and you have dysmorphia (dysphoria?) around your sexed body, you desperately want to "be" a woman, you dress the part, change your name, do your best with makeup etc but unfortunately your features are simply very masculine. And you're 6'5. And so the law says you can't go the places where you friend who is in the same boat but a smaller build and a "pretty" face can? Fuck that seriously. How are the trans community feeling about this?

Absolutely - it seems mad and hugely subjective and unfair...