"Reforming the GRA will not change anything because the EA will remain the same"

[PikesPeaked]

^^ The Govt's response to the petition:

We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces. 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.
The Government does not intend to change the safeguarding processes that are currently used in refuges and healthcare services. Providers of women-only services can continue to provide services in a different way, or even not provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis. The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.

It's all totally irrelevant. Yes, the EA currently allows exclusion of trans people from sex-discriminated provision, but providers aren't doing so.

I don't believe it's because they are misguided by the information given to them by TRA organisations. M&S, TopShop etc all have legal departments to check the legalities of policy changes.

I suspect that they kowtow to the TRAs because it's probably more hassle to go through all the justification of exclusion than to just bow to the TRA pressure. Not to mention the hassle of dealing with the negative publicity of "Bigot!"

Damn, that's quite the Freudian slip.

Isn't it?!

SarahAr Well you could call the police suppose, but why would they attend when you don't know that they are NOT young girls?. If they say they ARE young girls then you and the police have no right to interfere, but then again didn't we agree that asking them would be an offence?

Of course that sounds quite mad, but it seems to be the ideal world we're working towards.

And what I said has nothing to do with the behaviour or morals of actual trans people, but the effect of a stupid law. I'm sure most new laws these days are scribbled on the back on an envelope on the way into work.

Maybe I'm missing something and that couldn't happen. I'd be happy to be shown where I went wrong.

SarahAr

But alternatively someone who might be a transwomen joins but you are not sure. Therefore you would like to ask her for her GRC before excluding her. The problem is not that you cannot ask for a GRC, you can.

Leaving aside whether or not you can ask for a GRC, if you want the person in your example to prove that they are legally female, you can ask for a birth certificate. They show you a birth certificate which says female. How do you know whether that is female with a GRC or born female?

It would be pointless to then ask for a GRC, because someone born female won't have one, so someone with a GRC who wants you to believe that they were born female will say they don't have one. What do you do now?

Could we extend access through the Equality Act to the currently protected link between the natal birth certificate and that of the altered one created by the Gender Recognition Act?

I think someone like the police can ask the officer at the register office to link the two and open birth identity details for legitimate need.

Make this something a wider range of sources can do specified by the EA. Such as Refuge managers, hospital care providers.

That way legitimate reasons to ask are available in a non intrusive way that protects the same sex spaces to exclusion when they should be protected.

Just a thought.

All this running around the houses. I am SICK of what men are making us do. I am sick of it. I will never forgive transactivists for trying to turn the clock back on our rights in this calculated and vindictive fashion. .

"But alternatively someone who might be a transwomen joins but you are not sure. Therefore you would like to ask her for her GRC before excluding her. The problem is not that you cannot ask for a GRC, you can. The problem is that if you cannot tell they are trans it would be unlikely they would fit into the EX exceptions."

No, you can't because asking to see a GRC is axiomatically direct discrimination - you are only subjecting someone to that detriment of intrusion into their personal life because you perceive them to be trans. It’s a slam-dunk legal win because direct discrimination cannot be justified.

Moreover there is zero requirement for any trans person to truthfully answer a question which is itself unlawful.

"Could we extend access through the Equality Act to the currently protected link between the natal birth certificate and that of the altered one created by the Gender Recognition Act?

No, because that is an human rights issue.

If someone is doing nothing wrong other than looking as though they might have a trans history there is zero you can do. And rightly so because the whole point is that they are doing nothing wrong so your objections can only stem from prejudice.

If they are doing something wrong then that can be addressed because you aren't singling out trans people but singling out unreasonable behaviour. So long as it is genuinely unreasonable then the Equality Act isn't a problem. You need to focus on conduct not gender history.

In my experience, we correctly perceive these men as men. Because they are men. That is the point.

Inability, unwillingness, being instructed not to challenge men in women's spaces, is extremely problematic and a direct assault on women's human rights.

And these men are doing something wrong because they are forcing themselves into women-only spaces, women-only roles etc. in contravention of the admittedly weak EqA and against our consent.

No, you can't because asking to see a GRC is axiomatically direct discrimination - you are only subjecting someone to that detriment of intrusion into their personal life because you perceive them to be trans.

gibberty It might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with what the law actually says before coming on here and spouting a load of made-up nonsense. There are many situations where people with GRCs can be excluded from single-sex services for their acquired legal sex.

Here's a handy guide:
fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EA2010_womensrights_-factsheet.pdf

And you can read the relevant parts of the act here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Now we just need everyone to apply the act properly.

Yesterday 21:59 GibbertyFlibbert

If someone is doing nothing wrong other than looking as though they might have a trans history there is zero you can do. And rightly so

Translation: if a man is naked in a changing room with you it's quite right that you can do nothing about it

What a rapey point of view

This from a man who thinks a rape crisis centre is 'odious'

You can directly discriminate against a transwoman with a GRC if you are invoking the sex exemptions.

Once one understands how leaky both self id and gender reassignment are (zero gate keeping and easy for men to abuse) it actually becomes easier to invoke the exemptions as keeping predators out is a legitimate aim. it’s proportionate for institutions dealing with the public to do so as a blanket basis as it’s just not proportionate to do so on a case by case basis.

The landlord case is a first instance decision. It’s the only case but it’s hardly a binding precedent. We need to be forcing this through the courts.

Right now institutions are worried about the legal threat of messing up gender reassignment protections and have taken their eye of the ball. Women are by far and away the more potent legal threat just as a percentage game.

Did Gibberty ever explain the odious comment or did they realize that there was no way to sell that no matter how hard they tried?

Creating a legal situation where a woman cannot challenge a man is male rights activism.

"gibberty It might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with what the law actually says before coming on here and spouting a load of made-up nonsense. There are many situations where people with GRCs can be excluded from single-sex services for their acquired legal sex."

Believe me I do. I am responsible for a significant chunk of equality law.

The material you posted is about excluding men, or put more precisely, about when discrimination is permitted against the protected characteristic of sex. What people are wanting to do on this thread is to discriminate against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's a whole different kettle of fish. The example I gave is entirely accurate.

There are watertight exemptions in EA 2010 which are (nearly) watertight. For example, the Church of England did a pretty strong job of getting exemptions into EA 2010. What you posted isn't necessarily wrong (although it is weaker than often claimed) but it quite simply isn't relevant.

A man who is responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks a rape crisis centre is 'odious'. Let that sink in.

The same person responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks it is 'right' that there is 'zero' we can do about a naked man in your daughter's changing room. Let that sink in.

"A man who is responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks a rape crisis centre is 'odious'. Let that sink in."

I am a woman

"The same person responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks it is 'right' that there is 'zero' we can do about a naked man in your daughter's changing room. Let that sink in."
But your objection is to certain women, not to men

New low here. Now women like me who support trans people are being called men. Post reported

I think the new low came when you called a rape crisis centre 'odious' and said it was right that women had 'zero' reason to challenge a naked man in the changing room.

Neither of us has any idea what you mean by 'woman' so you have no reason to keep using the word. It does not serve as a tool of communication.

Neither of which posts I reported because I want everyone to see what transactivism is. I totally understand why you want to silence people who point it out.

VRR is odious for it's anti-trans attitude

I have never said that men should not be challenged but you are trying to exclude women