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.

Whatever happens, there needs to be an honest open discussion before any law is passed

Yep 100%

I agree the proposals to amend the EA aren't particularly clear. But still can't see anything challenging the exceptions.

daim how is it great news for women that they can no longer claim discrimination on the basis of biological sex? I really don’t see it at all. The only people who would benefit would be male to female trans people, not women. If you can provide actual examples where gender identity rather than sex would improve the position of women, I am all ears.

Stonewall basically want to have absolutely no circumstances in which it is lawful to exclude a trans person from single sex provision. I thought you said upthread that you agreed that sex segregation in some circumstances was necessary?

@massivelyouting good point, it's an outdated term that isn't used so much so I can see why Stonewall are proposing changes.

You can’t see anything challenging the EA provisions? What about the Women and Equality Committee report and the Stonewall report? They both challenge the provisions. And you yourself have just said that you think they should be challenged because gender is apparently a better criterion than sex.

I must say I am confused.

What exactly does "transexual" mean in the context of the EA though?

I'm interested in this too. Surely this is an old fashioned term used before such issues as gender dysphoria were so widely discussed?

It seems meaningless now....unless Stonewall defines it...?

No @PeakPants I think you are interpreting it wrong. Stonewall aren't challenging the exceptions in the Equality Act (as far as I can tell) which means it's perfectly fine and legal to have single sex provisions which exclude trans women under certain circumstances.

The exceptions are already being challenged. Quite apart from proposals to change the actual law, it's being subverted by some transactivists on local authorities and in institutions so that 'sex' is no longer included in their list of characteristics which their policies are intended to protect.

It is not used much because the transgender activists want rid of it. NOT because those experiencing it do.

You might have a look on Twitter and ask there why so many transsexuals, from the 4850 who have a GRC, seem determined to reclaim it. As well as others on here I have seen.

It is because they see much as you do what is going on with creating this mile wide transgender umbrella.

daim did you read barrack’s link at all. Para 21 states that ‘Stonewall is very concerned’ about exemptions on the basis of sex. Ergo they are against them and do not think there should be any circumstances in which sex rather than gender identity should make a difference. Literally there in black and white. Can’t see how you could say otherwise.

Yes, I think that is a fair assessment massively, we already have self-ID in all but name.

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.

Can you link to the law that says men have to use female facilities in order to gain a GRC?

Can you also link the law that says transwomen have to 'female' clothes.

Do they take cuts in pay, too? I mean, if they're going to live as women...

The difference is that the EA is about protecting access via the protected characteristic.

The GRA legally alters sex (that word is used - and I agree it is arguable that it ever should - but probably needed to alter the birth certificate).

This creates a division. And is why sex related exclusions are in the GRA so as to make it possible for those even with a legally redefined sex to be denied access on a local decision basis.

These have been very rarely tested as the numbers with a GRA are small and little trouble has ensued.

This changes if the GRA is made accessible to large numbers of others. Or if the EA is modified to redefine anyone covered by the EA as also being covered by the GRA. Because the clash of definitions will then involve far more people and far more who have not had surgery, as bout 70% of those with a GRA now have.

I feel like most of you that tightening exclusions is more necessary than loosening or removing them.

I am not a lawyer so could have this wrong. Someone who is should be asked to comment to ensure you ask for the right things to be done rather than ones that might make things worse.

Regardless of what you think of me as a transsexual this is one place where our interests coincidence. We need to press jointly for the right things that are achievable.

@Fairenuff here you go. As you can see you have to be able to prove you have been living in your acquired gender for two years. This would include going to work in your acquired gender. In an ideal world there would be a gender neutral toilet in all work places but it's not always the case.

www.gires.org.uk/gender-recognition-panel/

In particular

To make an application you must be able to show:
• You have, or have had, gender dysphoria
• You have lived fully for the last two years in your acquired gender
• You intend to live permanently in your acquired gender

‘Live as a woman’ is nonsense unless they mean ‘perform in accordance with social stereotypes’.

‘Live as a woman’ is nonsense unless they mean ‘perform in accordance with social stereotypes’.

Yes good point which is why there are proposals to make the process simpler and work on a basis of Self ID so they don't have to comply with this living as a woman nonsense.

One of the problems is that the illegality of a request to see a GRC has made self ID virtually impossible to avoid. Transactivists know this already and it's just a matter of time before predators and fetishusts click on in a big way.

If someone says they're a woman you just have to accept it, because you aren't allowed to ask for a GRC. Women are in a terrible situation. We can't risk challenging a predator without also risking committing a hate crime.

That's our boundaries totally dissolved, just like that.