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.

Massively, the point is the GRA legally alters sex for all purposes. The EA refers to those undergoing Gender Reassignment. There looks to be a clash that would at least end up being tested in law.

And the problem arises if self ID into the GRA means that all those currently only covered by the EA because they do not have a GRC also have legally altered status by getting a GRC.

I would suggest it is perfectly reasonable to have a register of those with a GRC that is available for scrutiny by anyone with a need to know.

This is how access to the undestroyed natal birth certificate is possible to the likes of the police in a criminal enquiry.

Should be possible to broaden that access to, for example, refuges or sporting bodies in doubt over anyone asking for entry.

You will not get any problem from the 4850 covered by the GRA if what I have seen from them out there is true.

If the GRA is opened up to anyone self IDing into it then I would not be anywhere near so confident.

Massively - why would you bother? You wouldn't if you had no interest in this being a bond of mutual trust and respect with the women you are asking access to integrate with.

Transsexuals in general are happy to do that. They want to do the right thing.

You have to ask really why all those who haven't bothered but now want a GRC only want it if they have to do nothing much in order to get one.

Looks to me all take and no give.

You have to ask really why all those who haven't bothered but now want a GRC only want it if they have to do nothing much in order to get one.

I think many trans people argue in favour of self-ID. I don't think it will mean that they will all rush out and get one.

As I and massively have pointed out, it really doesn't offer much. 'Changing sex in law' doesn't make a huge amount of difference other than maybe if you were in prison, in which case access to the female estate would be easier. But if someone like Jane Fae who would easily obtain one on application doesn't bother, will the new law really make a huge difference? The problems people perceive are here already- we have de facto self-ID for nearly everything. Nobody knows whether a particular trans person has a GRC or not. Discrimination against them is unlawful regardless.

If it does not really matter then ask them to drop the whole plan to change to the GRA to self ID.

If it is an irrelevance they will surely tell the government to do so.

The whole argument is built around that. Makes no sense if it does not matter.

If it does not really matter then ask them to drop the whole plan to change to the GRA to self ID

It matters to them in a symbolic sense, in terms of recognising trans rights and not medicalising it or having the state police it.

It can be compared to equal marriage. You could have told same sex couples 'it doesn't matter because you have civil partnership now, so no need for marriage'. However, that would not have been acceptable to most same sex couples.

I can pretty much guarantee that they won't drop it.

massively I think that a trans person without a GRC in prison would still be protected within the EA and could potentially be put in the female estate on request but that where they actually have a GRC, the prison has to justify why they cannot go into the female estate. Hope that makes sense. So it makes a bit more difference in prison as far as I understand it.

Having a gender identity validated, which I suppose is in the form of a GRC, is akin to a Christian quoting the Bible to prove that God exists. It means nothing to a non believer.

You seem to be deliberately muddying the waters and conflating protection from discrimination as being one and the same thing as being accepted into all-female areas and opportunities exactly the same as if they didn't have XY chromosomes in every cell of their body.

This is not true.

I don't know of anyone who wants trans people to suffer actual discrimination due to their trans status. That doesn't mean that John from the accounting department gets to use the ladies loos at work the instant he decides that they are actually Jane from now on. It means that the business is not allowed to sack Jane or deny Jane promotion opportunities etc due to this change. It means that they had better create a gender-neutral lav at work during the intermediate time before Jane gets a GRC.

We need to reframe the debate on this and urgently.

I've thought this for a while too. I've never been able to work out precisely what the issue is.

There was a thread on here a few months ago. Someone might find it.

It was about the only test cases of gender reassignment under the EA and the GRA.

I think there were only two iirc.

As I remember (could be wrong) they involved toilets and changing rooms and denial to someone.

If I remember (again might be wrong) the one where a GRC was held was found in favour as inappropriate use of the two laws denying access unreasonably. The one without was not.

Even if I am misremembering the two acts seem to be impacted by having a GRC or not. There are still exclusions with a GRC, but it was implied judges would take more notice of a GRC in making a decision of proper use of the exclusions.

It needs a proper legal mind to assess this but if this is right and understood by those wanting self ID I would not presume the take up of GRCs and altered birth certificates will not rise quickly.

It is highly unlikely to effect me one way or another. I have never been in trouble or had trouble. But the concern for me is that self ID and gaining legal documents will matter more to those who might expect to have to use them. So the more of a risk they are to women the more likely they are to use the new freedom to cover their backside.

I've thought this for a while too. I've never been able to work out precisely what the issue is

The basic issue is surely about safety and dignity through sex segregation in some circumstances.

I just watched the Penny Mordaunt speech. The government will not listen to the debate as it is currently framed. She does not give a shiny shite about Womans Place UK and alludes to its lectures as being transphobic. Yes, you may get the odd Rod Liddle article in support, but at the end of the day if the government is intent on getting this in, it will get in and it is not going to a public referendum so it doesn't matter that much what the odd public figure here and there say.

Some things will have to be conceded. The best strategy is to fight for sex-based protections on the grounds of dignity and safety in limited circumstances. Arguing the toss about whether there actually is such a things as gender identity and insisting on calling a trans woman a man will not win people like Penny Mordaunt around.

Sorry if this offends some people but if you watch the Penny Mordaunt speech (on one of the other threads) you will see that it's nearly game over on this anyway and the proposals for new legislation will be published before summer recess.

That's interesting home. Yes, I don't think they are totally meaningless, but it is true that the EA legislation covers people who don't have one too.

The basic issue is surely about safety and dignity through sex segregation in some circumstances.

I thought we'd just established that's the Equality Act and there aren't any proposals to amend the Equality Act and exceptions.

I thought we'd just established that's the Equality Act and there aren't any proposals to amend the Equality Act and exceptions

Yeah, but the EA doesn't go far enough really and needs to be tightened up and that is how feminists can engage with the whole thing.

What I am saying is that the whole issue is safety and dignity. It is to me anyway. Because after hearing Penny, it's pretty clear that self-ID is on its way soon. I would be prepared to put money on it. No, I don't think it's great and I am not happy about it, but that is what will happen and currently Penny thinks that the feminist protests are transphobic and she can't even see that there is a balanced debate.

Some things will have to be conceded. The best strategy is to fight for sex-based protections on the grounds of dignity and safety in limited circumstances.

If women and girls are only to be allowed safety and dignity in limited circumstances, women and girls need to be made aware in which circumstances their safety and dignity is not important. Pretending situations are sex segregatef when they are not is not fair to women and girls.