Would you back self ID if...

[daimbars]

Once a trans women got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to have the same rights as all women? For example they would only be able to apply for a job as a women’s officer, appear on a female only panel or to compete in women’s sport after five years of lived experience as a woman?

Someone I know is meeting with her MP to discuss how to propose this legislation. She thinks it will address possible repercussions from self ID and stop it being abused. I thought it was an interesting idea I could get behind.

I guess it's whether to focus on the GRC process itself or whether to focus on the EA.

Daim, just to be clear, my preferred solution would be to abandon the GRC system altogether, protect gender expression and strengthen single sex provision in law.

However, if this is impossible or politically unpalatable I would grudgingly accept a much strengthened GRC system. Total GRCs awarded are currently in their predicted numbers of low thousands. Generally awarded to dysphoric transsexual people who have been medically assessed.

Suggested GRC strengthening:

A GRC would be required to obtain a passport, drivers license etc. Males would not be treated as female until they had a gatekept GRC.

Strong and effective gatekeeping. Numbers should remain in the predicted low thousands.

It would be legal to ask to see a person's gatekept GRC.

Strengthening of single sex provision. IMO it should not be legal for males to use female spaces. Some single sex spaces and schemes should never be open to people with a GRC. Women should decide which spaces these are.

NHS hormones, surgery etc would only be available to people on a 'pathway' to GRC. Increased MH spending for those experiencing dysphoria.

A strengthened GRC requirement should be formulated to remove children from the debate. Children should never be led to believe that they can change sex IMO. It would be helpful for children to be told 'no. You cannot be legally be treated as the opposite sex. Be yourself and start the pathway to GRC as an adult if you still feel the same'. We know that most children will desist.

Very much an over complicated last ditch compromise, which still makes me feel somewhat uneasy. My trust has been severely damaged. I would still prefer to see the GRC abandoned.

I haven't RTFT but say for example if someone going through the process doesn't dress 'as a woman' every day, would that get added on to the five years?
For example, today I am dressed 'as a man' - trainers, cords, t-shirt and my OH's hoody. I'm not working 'as a woman' - I'm visiting farms, a male-dominated industry.
So if I was going through the GRC process, would a day like today be added on to the five years as I'm not living 'as a woman'?

I think the protected characteristic should be gender non-conformity/something along those lines. Just yesterday there was a tweet re employers saying that 34% said they would be less likely to hire a trans person and that they wouldn't 'fit in'. Of course as is usually the case with these kinds of surveys, they didn't break down the reasoning beyond that, and this was tweeted as 'trans hate'. But I suspect if they had been asked if that trans person had appeared conforming to the gender imposed on them due to their sex, they would have found that to be fine. Because it's not an idea in someone's head these employers would be thinking of, it would be gender non-conformity, and the gendered world we live in - that trans dogma entrenches as well - is such that it's non-conformity that is punished, and we all non-conform in various ways and none of us should face discrimination for it, not just trans people.

No problem, Italian. I will try my best to answer your points.

I think a lot of organisatins are trying to make money, some providing a service are trying to save money. None have time for this type of 'navel gazing', no matter how well intentioned.

They would have to if it was the law and they could be sued for failing to protect women. There are lots of legal hoops businesses have to jump through and there is no option not to do it. At the moment, it is difficult for a woman to sue on the basis that there are no single sex facilities. If there were law to mandate single sex spaces in some cases and a duty on service providers to assess whether there should be a single sex space, this would be much much easier.

The AGP point, no it was not directed at you, but I see this every single day on twitter- feminists embroiled in debates about what makes a real woman and references to AGP and perverts etc. It was a general remark rather than aimed at anyone specific.

I don't agree getting a GRC is cumbersome, and I'm increasingly thinking we should do away with it and strengthen protections for any 'gender' presentations. Self Id is not a good idea for anyone at all. It devalues what being trans or female is and muddies the waters.

To be honest, I agree that self-ID is not good for trans people either. For feminists, I don't think self-ID itself will have the impact people predict- it is everything surrounding it- the fact that service providers often don't even consider the need for single-sex spaces. On a symbolic level, I agree that it muddies the waters in terms of what is a man and what is a woman. However, I think that it has gone too far to completely retreat, because the UK is part of a wider network of countries that all allow legal change of gender and it would be extremely difficult to back out of that. I would rather be realistic.

Get a female passport
No, you can get a female passport without having a GRC. That is in fact one of the requirements to get a GRC- obtaining ID in the new gender. I am sure Jane Fae has a female passport.

Then why are they campaging for self id?
A small group of them are. I think for the majority of them, it doesn't make much difference because they can still get all their ID docs and stuff without it. I also think that for many trans people it is a symbolic point- the fact that being trans is medicalised and that it is scrutinised by the state (in the form of doctors). I may be proved wrong and there may be a huge surge in applications though- who knows.

If it is not worth having then why want it
Most of them don't currently bother (because it's not really worth having).

I am suspcicous of anyone who wants 'us' (society) to make a law that says any male who identifies as female is one. For like a 100 reasons. Actually 3.5 billion reasons
We already have a law saying this is possible. I think it is unlikely that this would be repealed, given the UK's international obligations. It's not about 'wanting' this- it is about looking at the most effective way of protecting women. Given that I don't think that the law will stop permitting men from being women, I say let them become women only in name and retain protections for biological females (as they have done in Ireland).

But how you gonna prove you can exclude anyone? The practical problem of proof is of course difficult. In a legal sense, if the legislation expressly protected single sex spaces (rather than giving service providers the option to exclude if they want to), then it should be relatively straightforward. Yes, there may be a tiny number of people who pass convincingly as the opposite sex, but they are unlikely to be much of an issue anyway if they pass convincingly and presumably nobody would know or be bothered by them.

Totally agree leyat.

Indeed Pratchet

Who wants to dance on eggshells around an employee who might change their pronouns at lunchtime.

This means at the very beginning of the reassignment process walking down the street wearing female clothes, using female toilets etc when their outward appearance is male

Hang on can we get verification of this? Are you saying that the current procedure for getting a GRC - prior to any official changes in the GRA - is that someone has to act as if they already have a GRC in terms of using female-only spaces for 2 years before they can be granted a GRC? That someone who was respectful of the idea of a female-only space and was willing to use gender-neutral facilities out of respect (which many lovely non-misogynistic trans people have said her on mn that they do) would be denied a GRC? Is that in an official policy document anywhere?

I thought that the current legal position is that female only spaces are only supposed to be open to those with XY chromosomes if they have a GRC and even then that can be trumped in certain circumstances under the Equalities Act (although obviously various organisations are acting as if self-ID is already part of the legislation) and self-ID is about removing that requirement and exceptions.

Your assertion would mean that female spaces and opportunities would have to be open to anyone who merely asserted that they were on the path towards one day getting a GRC - that would mean that Self-ID was already law, which it isn't.

Either you are making this up or the process for getting a GRC has been designed to be effectively only compatible with Self-ID.

I’m not suggesting anyone is forced to have surgery against their will! Just that in order to receive a certificate stating that they are the opposite gender they should have made the adjustments necessary for that to be true.

Eg if a transmasculine person had a certificate to prove that they are indeed now a man, and committed a crime, going into men’s prison with all the working anatomy of a female is going to cause them problems. They should either be still legally a woman and sent to a women’s prison, or if they are insistent that they are male and belong in a men’s prison then there should be no chance of them becoming pregnant whilst in there.

This is a choice they would obviosuly make for themselves, not one which is forced upon them. But it is nonsensical to have people either legally or otherwise identifying as a particular sex when their body is clearly not in agreement.

Ihaventgottimeforthis you’ll have to do some baking and paint your nails when you get home to redress the balance

I have to confess that I don't really understand the forced to have surgery against their will thing... I thought the whole point of imagining you're in the wrong body implies that you would do anything to get into the one you feel cheated of? And feel disassociated from / disgusted by the one you have?
Yet these woMEN are perfectly happy to be in possession of a penis, and females who reckon they're men are perfectly happy to get pregnant.
What's that about?

Nobody should be able to identify into a protected characteristic.

This. Absolutely.

@Imchlibob yes you got it in a nutshell. At the moment, by law, a trans person has to live in their acquired gender for two years and prove this to a panel before they are able to obtain a GRC.

This is problematic for all sorts of reasons and ironically works on the basis of self ID. So in effect self ID has already been in place for 13 years.

Ive seen a lot of misunderstanding on here between the GRA and the Equality Act

This Twitter thread is a bit goady but it explains it quite clearly.

mobile.twitter.com/lgbtld/status/1004079579747835906?s=21

Imchilibob

That's correct. You only have to say that you are transitioning to be protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment.

This is an existing problem.

This means applying sex segregation is so difficult many places do not try. Plus Stonewall have been telling organisations that they cannot apply sex segregation, such as Swim UK. They were told that gender reassigned people take precedence over sex segregation at all times.

We must oppose this attitude as it's very damaging to girls and women, to be informed that our consent is of no concern when males invoke gender rights over us.

MyRelationshipIsWeird - I'm going to try sitting on the sofa(perhaps I need a chaise longue) and 'feeling' like a woman for a few hours, hopefully that will do!

@daimbars that thread is useful, for me particularly it opened my eyes as to the Equality Act & GRC and the differences, and what the changes exactly are about. It's a great example of why consultation is necessary, and open, respectful debate so that we can all reach a full understanding of what we're talking about and why each 'side' (don't like calling it that but I hope you know what I mean) is concerned.

But you mention that twitter account is a little bit goady, and it's certainly put me off voting Lib Dem, as by their definition I am nothing more than a 'thick transphobe'.

They also conflate sex & gender frequently, which is just plain wrong.

What exactly is the GRC for? If you can already change your documentation to your preferred 'gender', and your protected under the 'gender reassignment' characteristic then what is the point?

I say let them become women only in name and retain protections for biological females (as they have done in Ireland).

How has Ireland protected biological females? I often see Ireland quoted as being a success with self-id but you say they have done it differently from what is now being proposed for the UK?

Yes, daim but that Twitter thread is not only goady but plain misleading because it says that nobody has ever suggested amending the Equality Act. Maria Miller's report did that very thing. It concluded that while there might be a reason to segregate sex for sports, there was never a reason to do so in any other cases (e.g. safety or dignity) where a person had a GRC (and of course also recommended that people could self-ID for that). So they are deliberately deceiving people by suggesting that it is all a misunderstanding. The problem is that when feminists are interviewed about this (e.g. Heather Brunskill-Evans or Sarah Ditum), they always seem to go off into some debate about how men are going to fake being trans to get access to female spaces. Then the trans people say, 'no, we're not' and it never gets anywhere. It never gets to the actual point which is that in some limited circumstances, safety, dignity and fairness demand that there are single sex spaces, whether or not someone has dysphoria and a GRC.

@MyRelationshipIsWeird i know you did not mean 'forced' sorry of that came across a bit strongly!

However, body dysphoric/gender dysphoric young females may sign up for the op to get the certificate. The op won't stop them being female or make them male.

I'm going to try sitting on the sofa(perhaps I need a chaise longue) and 'feeling' like a woman for a few hours

If you do, please tell me how being a woman feels! I've been doing this female thing all my life and I still don't know how I'm supposed to feel.

How has Ireland protected biological females? I often see Ireland quoted as being a success with self-id but you say they have done it differently from what is now being proposed for the UK?

My understanding is that Ireland has retained relatively strong abilities to make exceptions to gender recognition based on biological sex. The current position in the UK suggests that this is not the same here because service providers are simply not prioritising this. Maybe there is an expert on Irish law out there who can explain what legislative protections there are for women there (because the evidence so far suggests that self-ID has not caused a floodgate of men abusing the system).

No. It doesn't make any difference to me: they're still male.

@Ihaventgottimeforthis I thought it was goady but useful too.

The Government has said the EA is not up for review but I found this document on the Stonewall website and hidden away on pages 30 and 32 and proposals for amendments to the Equality Act.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but surely broadening the protected characteristic of transsexuals to gender identity is a good thing?

Stonewall also acknowledges that it is lawful to treat trans people differently in single sex scenarios and doesn't appear to be challenging this. Again, someone please correct me if I am wrong but I cannot see anywhere that Stonewall is suggesting that trans women should be given equal rights to all women?

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stw-vision-for-change-2017.pdf