Government response to the petition...

[LazyTuesdayAfternoon]

I don't know if there's a thread about this already, sorry if I've missed it.

What do people make of the response?

It seems quite proportionate to me but, as always, I guess the devil will be in the detail...

But even if not, the least discriminatory response, and therefore the one probably required by law, would be to make the space unisex. If that happens I, and may Y other women like me, are going to be very cross with any feminists whose campaigning brings that about.

Eh? Surely it would be transactivists campaigning that would be the issue. Given it was them that started this and feminists are simply trying to preserve the rights of women, to sex segregation (where appropriate)? It would make no sense at all that if, because of the actions of transactivists, all space changed to unisex...people were unhappy with unisex and thus blamed feminists when it is feminists wishing to retain spaces that are bloody sex segregated and are fighting AGAINST unisex! But its usual to blame feminists/women for everything regardless of if blaming feminists/women makes no sense at all (see also, feminists/women are to blame for male violence against transwomen) so, go fugure.

The case by case part didn't feel right though
It is exactly right. The exceptions do not allow blanket discrimination. You have to justify it on an individual basis.

Any GRA reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act nor the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces
Been saying this since forever.

I am not in a position to do this, I would help, is someone be up for leading a crowdfund to take Marks & Spencer and Topshop along with those that offered the training, to court for the EA2010 sex segregation, putting the dignity, privacy and safeguarding of women and girls at risk?
Not really sure what law you think M+S have broken. The EA2010 protects against discrimination. By allowing transgender people to use the appropriate changing rooms, M+S did not discriminate.

It will be impossible for a service provider to prove someone IS trans. On paper ALL their official documentation will match that of a natal female. We cant exclude on the basis of trans if we can’t confirm someone IS TRANS.
If you are unsure if someone is trans then it will never be proportionate to exclude them. If you know they are trans, but cannot prove it, and it is justified, then discriminate against them. If they are not trans then there is no liability. And if they are trans, then it fits into the exception.

And the organisation cannot ask if people have a GRC
Yes it can. But if you have a need to know someone's legal gender then it is good practice to ask for a birth certificate instead.

EA says there are sex exceptions even though they are useless
Not useless, they do the job. If you really need to discriminate you can. But casual bigotry is not allowed.

“The Government has not yet decided whether or not to introduce a self-declaration model, and will not change the Equality Act 2010 provisions which support organisations to run single sex services.“

Interesting.

Bewilder
Thank you for your clarity of explanation.
I found certain posters quite worrying.
The goals thank you too.

The case by case basis is from the EHRC guidance. Not statute.

The case law is 1 unreported first instance decision. I have a mind to get hold of it. We are not talking definitive precedent here. Not by a long way.

Failure to invoke the exemptions is a PCP which causes indirect discrimination against women who are disproportionately negatively affected. See the Target evidence of 3x increase in voyeurism against women and children once they removed the single sex protections.

I would think that invoking the exemptions as a decision to avoid indirect discrimination against women would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

We desperately need case law. We need to take the Equality Act for a spin. Politicians will take note and if the exemptions don’t work then they will amend the law. Right now we need to stress test it to see if we can ensure exemptions are invoked.

Any GRA reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act nor the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces
Been saying this since forever.

If your ID says you are female do you really think the shop owner is going to ask you to drop your drawers to prove that bulge in your pants isn't a boner from wanking in the ladies loo?
Don't be silly.

"Furthermore, trans people are already able to more easily change their name and gender in their passport and driving license."

Seems like government ID gets to say M or F as they want anyhow. Can't be seeing how GRA reform would change that.

I would think that invoking the exemptions as a decision to avoid indirect discrimination against women would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

YY.

One thing I didn't notice being mentioned anywhere in the response was collection of statistics. I think this will be really important to bring up in the consultation (assuming they do, as promised, genuinely consult with women's groups etc). It will be really important to make sure data can be gathered on the impact of any changes, for example in prisons, crime stats, hospitals, women's representation etc. Personally I can't see how this would work long-term without considering some way of logging both sex and gender identification (if different) separately, at least for some purposes.

I think overall it is an OK-ish response though and certainly could be much worse.

As for the case-by-case thing, I didn't necessarily read it as referring to individual trans people, but (in the context where it was mentioned) as potentially also referring to e.g. a specific service provider or scenario. For example, that it could potentially mean a certain number of refuges/hostels in an area remaining single-sex in order to cater for women specifically requiring this, while others could potentially cater for transwomen as well. But agree that it's not made entirely clear.

@SarahAr

Do you think it is ok that you 'You have to justify it on an individual basis' when what we are actually talking about is a right to female only spaces? Why do males get the right to deny us this, or other women. Almost everywhere is unisex so female spaces are pretty much by definition an exception anyway.

If trans people wanted a group, club or activity just for trans people I would not feel they needed to prove why they wanted a trans only activity.

When do you think a person would need to know someone's legal gender?

If someone wanted a female only space what would be the point of asking to see a birth certificate if these can be changed?

It just seems to make a mockery of female only spaces if there is no way to prove legally who is female.

DoctorW and Barracker are spot on. The Equalities Office either don't get it or are being disingenuous - FWIW, I think it's the former. However, many congratulations to Amy and all concerned for their tremendous work in getting the response

I think the mind shift that we all MUST make, and soon, is from falsely thinking that the law assumes that 'women' means female by default, with a limited few male exceptions. I don't think it does. The meaning of woman was once so implicit that it needed no definition. Except not making it EXplicit left a vacuum of meaning, which allowed men to get in there and write up a circular, male including nonsense definition with the gender recognition act that destroyed the class completely. Woman meant the female sex...until suddenly it meant something completely different.

The dawning realisation I've had is that the default for 'woman' has ALREADY not been sex or fact based for several years. The default meaning of woman in our laws has for several years been "whoever has the right paperwork, male or female, including any man who claims that word even without the paperwork"

Point to any occurrence of the word 'woman' in the law, and we can all demonstrate how this includes males - in theory those with the right paperwork, but in practise, males with no paperwork are being included indiscriminately too.

The category woman has disintegrated by the very act of removing its criteria so that men could claim it. That, to me, is what the GRA did.

The only way back from this that I can see is not to cling to the one remaining exemption that allows to to be recognised as women - our protections in that little clause are never to be invoked as a default anyway. That desperate act feels to me like we are all clambering onto a rapidly melting icefloe which hasn't enough room, then waiting for it to disappear into the ocean and pitch us to the sharks.

No, the only way forward that I can see now is to build up, from the ground up, a proper protected category of 'female' with objective criteria that are either possessed by a person, or not - but cannot be claimed/identified into/approximated/appropriated/transitioned into.

Define and recognise female - and let that be the foundation of our rights again.

Hell, if the law can define a Cornish Pasty and give it legally protected characteristics to prevent any old pasty claiming the name, it sure as hell can define and protect FEMALE from similar appropriation.

Define and recognise female - and let that be the foundation of our rights again.

@BarrackerBarmer so very true. Is there any organisation fighting to get our rights back?

There are many women's organisations fighting to preserve the melting icefloe and I'm trying to do my part in that too.

But I'm no lawyer, and I don't know of any effort to get FEMALE recognised as a protected and defined class. People think it already is.

If I were Wensleydale cheese, there's a process and a form you can fill out to get that legally protected status with characteristics very tightly defined.

I don't know how to make that happen with the 33 million UK citizens who have the very precise characteristics of belonging to the sex class that produces ova and gestates young. (and once was synonymous with the terms women and girls, but is no longer)

I am hoping that a group of gender critical lawyers might see this and make a start.

Now THAT is a crowdfunder that would go ballistic.

Once again, please desist from the use of the term TIM. It is abusive and should not be used

It is what is it. (Shrugs)

Barack and Rowen my heartfelt thanks.

One of you mentioned a form for local food goods.

Would it be wor the filling one of these in as a publicity stunt to protect the term woman?

I am already pondering that possibility terfulike!!!

In all seriousness.

The govt's response states:
"The process of gaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as set out in the Gender Recognition Act,... is not working well for the people it is designed for. Only 4,850 GRCs have been issued since the Act came into force."

But that's almost exactly the number of people who the Act was intended to help!

From Parliamentary Debate in 2004:
"gender dysphoria ... is a real phenomenon, albeit one that affects only an estimated 5,000 people in the United Kingdom."
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

A good carrot cake receipt won't go a miss

Carrot cake anyone?

No, I am not letting TIM's have woman, we get it back, they Rae males, Trans identified males, trans women they aren't actual women, woman isn't a feeling in a males head.

Fuck Maria Miller
Fuck, Harriet Harman and Jeremy Corbyn
Fuck Vince Cable
Fuck Caroline Lucas
Fuck Stonewall
Fuck Mermaids

They sold us out!

I am not taking this, we fight and get it back, the public don't like this we can fight to change the law and get our rights back.

Who will start testing the law?

I am so beyond not caring about politicians "identifying as" people who stole our human rights. I wish them no harm, I simply don't give a flying Fuck anymore, they have stolen our human rights.

I am not giving up the human rights of half the population.

"case by case", "proportionate" and 'legitimate"

How is this a guarantee that same sex spaces will be provided for women?

I have been lurking on FWR for some time...but just read the email response to petition that arrived in my inbox over night and found it all a bit...grey.

I am a bit confused why the statement mentions toilets-i didnt think the use of toilets by any sex was covered under legislation - that it is just a social custom and if transgressed ie a man in the ladies he can be asked to leave on the grounds it is inappropriate ?