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.

@PeakPants

'They would have to if it was the law and they could be sued for failing to protect women.'

Great. Campaign for that and I will support you.

But how are you going to keep any man out of that space, if that person identifies as a woman?

'To be honest, I agree that self-ID is not good for trans people either.' Are you opposing it?

'For feminists, I don't think self-ID itself will have the impact people predict...'

It already has, think girl guides.

'... the fact that service providers often don't even consider the need for single-sex spaces.' I think most do in theory but trans women asking to use the 'ladies' cannot be denied, or so I am led to believe. If so, what would stop any man identifying thus, if he wished to? Genuine question.

'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'

Let then change 'gender', just don't equate gender with sex.

"...it doesn't make much difference because they can still get all their ID docs and stuff without it.' Not their birth certificate though.

'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).'

Actually, I agree, it is about making their own choice about their own gender. But what about sex? Did I get to back out of periods at 11, did my daughter? No. You don't get to choose your sex. Pretending you can is unfair to everyone.

'I think it is unlikely that this would be repealed, given the UK's international obligations.'

You may have missed it but international obligations are up for grabs. I think this is a bad thing generally. So why can't the UK lead the way in protecting women and girls instead of backing out of existing obligations?

'I don't think that the law will stop permitting men from being women' so how is it going to stop these women accessing female only spaces?

"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."

Sounds like you plan to do this (telling) by looks. This is, I am afraid, fatally flawed!

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

How can this be done? Explain how Ireland works? Please.

Italian girl-guides is not about self-ID because self-ID has not become law yet. The problem is that what we currently already have is de-facto self-ID because you actually don't need to have a GRC in order to gain access to female spaces. So making it easier to get a GRC is unlikely to have a huge impact on women's day to day lives. Stopping a self-ID bill won't affect Girl Guides because girl guides has decided by itself to allow anyone who identifies as female. There is no law to prevent them doing so.

As for the UK leading the way in repealing the GRA and no longer recognising transgender people, when nearly all European states have legal provision recognising them and the European Court of Human Rights has expressly mandated that states need to have legal provision for gender recognition, this will not happen. The only way I could see it doing so is if we got some right wing UKIP type government that also pulled us out of the European Convention on Human Rights. Trust me, nothing is worth that.

Birth certificates are of limited importance. I have no idea when I last used mine- I doubt I ever have. All things you need ID for just ask for a passport or drivers licence and/or proof of address. I have never needed to show it for jobs or anything like that. And since I was naturalised rather than born here, my birth certificate is dated 14 years after my birth....

I think you simply have to rely on appearance to restrict entry to sex-segregated spaces. There is no other way of doing it really. You can ask for ID but ID can have the 'wrong' sex on it, as discussed above. Years ago, before we even had gender recognition or anything like that, there were transsexuals who attempted to pass for the opposite sex. Some did and some didn't, mainly based on physical appearance. You will never be able to legislate to prevent a man from dressing like a woman and if it's convincing enough, he will be able to enter female spaces even if he is not legally female. It's just the way it is.

I don't 'support' self-ID as such. I can see the argument from trans people about medicalisation, but I think it has downsides. I do however think it's the wrong thing for feminists to target. None of the current problems re girl guides, trans kids, media personalities, would stop existing if you prevented self-ID from taking place.

I guess to simplify my position, it's a bit like the Lib Dem LGBTQ account thread linked to BUT without the huge lie about nobody proposing a change to the Equality Act AND with a desire to redraft and strengthen the Equality Act to protect women's spaces in certain circumstances. It makes sense in my head at least...

Thanks you massivelyouting that is very very helpful. Yes, it seems they have much stronger protections of biological sex there. Some of it cultural, but some of it also legislative.

@PeakPants please can you link to who is proposing changes to the Equality Act and what they are proposing?

I have seen anything apart from that Stonewall document I recently shared and those changes appear to be positive ones for both women and trans people.

Re Jazz Jennings maybe there is no male privilege in society as a whole (I didn't know that about the family but it doesn't surprise me) but it is such an unusual case that those transitioning as teens have already been through childhood with male privilege.

If we look at e.g. those who had rich childhoods and then fell on hard times, they have massively better outcomes than those who were in care or ran away from abusive homes as children. It's the early years that stay with you.

Pushing for women to be consulted in any change to a law which affects them is something concrete to fight for and will likely get a lot of backing. I'm surprised I haven't seen more suggestions along these lines.
This is exactly what most of the women's groups are that are called 'transphobic' are trying to talk about.
That petition has been all over mumsnet for months.
Man Friday talks about it.
The We Need To Talk discussions talk about it.
It pretty much summarises Woman's Place demands and what they are campaigning for and talk about at their meetings.
It's been on these message boards over and over too.
It was prior to a meeting to discuss legal changes that Skepticat was punched. I'm sure you heard about that.
This is why it's so incredibly frustrating. Women who want to debate and discuss changes to the law are getting abused, assaulted, physically stopped from meeting by masked activists and being called bigots.
This is why so many women are getting pissed off.

Why can't we record sex and gender on all official documents? You can never change your sex - because that is physically impossible but anyone can record whichever gender they wish.

What's wrong with this?

Maintain sex segregation and sex-based EA protections?

Gender reordered so there's no in-congruence between how you present and what your documents say?

daim the push is to replace sex with gender in the EA. There are threads in FWR from last week about academic consultations that are clearly set up to achieve this. Multiple links inside

Of course I don’t need to say that replacing sex with gender in the EA would remove all sex based protections for women - do I?

daim
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

Para 132 of the report:
We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and/or the single-sex/separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Para 143 deals with sport.

It is there in black and white, albeit that the government has said that it does not intend to pursue amendments. But it sure has been suggested. By a minister, no less.

Bowl is that really what the aim is? Because from what I can gather that would strengthen the protection for women.

Stonewall are looking to replace the word transsexual with transgender in the EA. At the moment it is lawful to exclude a 'transsexual' women from certain jobs etc, they are proposing this is changed to 'transgender'. They are not challenging the exemptions at all.

How is that not broadening and strengthening the protections for women? I'm clearly missing something!

They are arguing for the replacement of the word 'sex' with the word 'gender.' They don't need to remove the exemptions if sex is abolished...

The consultations are to replace sex with gender as a blanket thing.

Transgender status is already protected.

Thanks @PeakPants - interesting to read. So basically a minister suggested an amendment to the EA and the Government said no.

And there's no current proposals to change the Equality Act?

daimbars nothing about this push to change the law is to help transsexuals.

Most of us seem perfectly fine with how it stands and, if anything, want things tightening up and clarifying, not loosening.

We do not want the GRA to be weakened, want the EA to be made clear and guidance issued publicly so nobody is assuming self ID is already here and defaulting to that position as seems common, and we do not want anyone getting a GRC without existing medical and psychological checks.

The ones wanting to change things are transgender, not transsexual.

Many on here will not see a difference and I am not arguing that transsexuals are biologically changing sex in any way or 'elite' either for that matter, as obviously that is not true.

But there is an important difference. Not least it is transsexuals the GRA was created for, not the ones who want to use it now - provided they can by pass all the rules.

The changes being demanded are NOT to benefit transsexuals - who by definition - want medical support and assessment and to follow treatment protocol. Not magic it away as unnecessary.

Demedicalising the whole process actually puts those people at risk as much as it does women facing the consequences.

daim I have to confess that I have not seen proposals to replace sex with gender, but if this exists, it is not a good idea and will not strengthen protection.

Sex is based on discrimination against someone because of their sexed body. If it is replaced with gender and there are people of the same gender but with different sexed bodies, then you may no longer be able to provide separate services based on sex, because this no longer corresponds to gender identity. So for example, I could no longer say that telling someone they cannot breast-feed is discrimination, because not everyone who breast-feeds has a female gender-identity. At the moment, I can argue it is discrimination based on biological sex because only those who are female can breast-feed.

So on the whole, getting rid of sex as a protected characteristic is not a good thing for women.

Yes, you're right daim. Although I don't know if the issue has been properly debated enough for it to be true to say that the government said no. I have seen no reports that they have considered the issue at length and decided against it. But there is a statement somewhere that says the government has no plans at the moment to amend the EA.

My issue is with the LGBTQ account that says that literally nobody has ever suggested this and that feminists are just being paranoid. Someone did suggest it.

I have not had the time to read through the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed. Is it the case, that if one of the proposals for self-id, involves allowing people to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate? If so, then any sex based protections included in the equality act, become meaningless, do they not? As a person with penis and testicles, and usually being bigger and stronger than people born with vulvas, and socialised with a sense of entitlement, will be of the female sex.

Pushing for women to be consulted in any change to a law which affects them is something concrete to fight for and will likely get a lot of backing. I'm surprised I haven't seen more suggestions along these lines

I am going to be charitable and assume you've only lightly skimmed the threads on here. It is exactly what we have been pressing for.

Stonewall want the removal of sex based exemptions

This exemption is the ONLY part of our law where same sex rights reside.

EVERYWHERE else GENDER trumps sex when the two collide.

Sex is based on discrimination against someone because of their sexed body. If it is replaced with gender and there are people of the same gender but with different sexed bodies, then you may no longer be able to provide separate services based on sex, because this no longer corresponds to gender identity.

I see it differently.

Look at the Equality Act exemptions. At the moment only gender reassignment and transsexual are protected characteristics. Broadening this to gender identity makes it much clearer. It means you can legally exclude a person from a job role because of their gender identity rather than their gender reassignment. This is great news surely?!

So disengenuous...

Broadening this to gender identity makes it much clearer. It means you can legally exclude a person from a job role because of their gender identity rather than their gender reassignment. This is great news surely?!

How? The EA is it - all the other bits of legislation were rolled into that. You remove sex based protection from the EA you remove all sex based protection from women and children.

Why do you want to see child safeguarding weakened?
Why do you want women’s protections removed?

How can you legislate for gender identity? It’s a meaningless concept

I see it differently.

Look at the Equality Act exemptions. At the moment only gender reassignment and transsexual are protected characteristics. Broadening this to gender identity makes it much clearer. It means you can legally exclude a person from a job role because of their gender identity rather than their gender reassignment. This is great news surely?!

Sorry, this is not making any logical sense to me at all. It is about as clear as mud in a muddy lagoon of mud.

Whatever happens, there needs to be an honest open discussion before any law is passed. Women need to be made aware that the majority of the time, we will have gender segregation, and only sex segregation in a few cases. Sex and gender needs to be clearly defined and understood. Its impossible to make meaningful laws when the words used are open to interpretation.

If the majority of people are happy having gendered segregation, why not be truthful and be clear about what is been proposed?