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.

Peak, there are tests by psychologists and psychiatrists. They used to do loads of them that helped diagnose motives. They had a good record at identifying why anyone said what they did.

They seem to have stopped doing them. I think that is a mistake. Whilst not perfect I suspect they would weed out a few who are going to get legal status when I fear they really possibly shouldn't.

Living as a woman doesn’t really mean anything. It’s basically another way of saying they have to believe you are genuine. If you change your name, grow your hair etc they are more likely to believe you than if you do none of these things. But ultimately it depends on you saying that you feel you were born in the wrong body. Obviously there is no objective way of testing whether it’s true because it’s just a feeling- there’s no physical objective evidence of it.

Exactly - I would be interested to see what judgements are based on then...

It seems there needs to be much more regulation surrounding this..

Kettle, nobody gets recognised as 'being a biological woman'. That is why there are sex exemptions even with a GRC.

Around 70% of existing GRC holders have had surgery but it is not enforced. If self ID comes in that will plummet.

If they have a GRC they share the protected characteristic of sex with women, they're not just protected by gender reassignment

That is incorrect. Those in the protected category gender reassignment are specifically excluded from the protected characteristic sex.
Please review the EA. You appear to have misunderstood it.

So you don't have to have the full surgery to be recognised as a biological woman? I thought that was the problem, that a GRC didn't necessarily cut it where sex was concerned and that was what they were campaigning for...?

They can never be biological women. But they are allowed to pretend that they are in law. So the more males who are protected by the EA characteristic of "female" the more sex protections and the concept of biological sex itself is undermined. Which is what TRAs want. They want "gender" to replace sex in policy making and for MTF trans people to be considered the same as women in everything, and many institutions have eagerly adopted their suggestions.

Sorry that was the wrong phrase to use..I've had a long day and my brain is very foggy. I'm still learning the details. I just didn't realise that they had the protected characteristic of sex with a GRC, I thought that was part of the problem...

^Those in the protected category gender reassignment are specifically excluded from the protected characteristic sex.
Please review the EA. You appear to have misunderstood it.^

Can you point to this? Not doubting, but lawyers have confirmed this. As have posters on many threads.

I see Eresh. Thanks.

Ah thanks Bewilderness.

I did think that was alarming.

As in with a GRC they have double protection of both sex and gender reassignment.

Yes my understanding is that GRC holding biological males are protected sex characteristic female, and non GRC holding biological males are protected sex characteristic male.

I've asked two different lawyers on here to confirm this. And they have. As does Fair Play for Women in a fact sheet they've done. But it's all woolly really isn't it so it might be a case of interpretation.

How can a law be passed that says someone has to live their life as a woman without any definition of the word woman? Also, how can a law be passed insisting that a male bodied person use a female only sex segregated space.

The problem is with the original GRA having so many ambiguities. It should be repealed and the whole business discussed properly, with agreed terms.

Could it be as you said Eresh, that my discriminating against on the basis of their trans status, is, in effect sex by-proxy if you like, because you are discriminating on the basis that they are a man, who does not conform to accepted gender norms? On some level, to discriminate on the basis of gender, you have to make a judgement about sex...?

By not my!

It's tricky, isn't it? Agree that sex and gender are conflated in some instances and not in others.

There are examples cited in the act where males can be excluded from female sex specific facilities.

Yes I know. Which is why I've always said they're not actually considered female in law. It's all such a mess of poor and ill defined legislation.

What does 'living as a woman' actually mean?

To a lit of people it seems to mean using womens publuc toilets and a female name & pronoun.

I think one of the clearest aspects is being expected and obliged to consider other peoples, and especially mens, feelings and issues before your own, and always being nice.
While living as a man involves behaving as if you are entitled to expect women to always consider your feelings and issues before their own, and always being nice to you.

But that's what I clumsily meant by 'recognised as a biological woman' I meant that they are recognised as female then?

So they are not? You are saying that in some cases, even with a GRC, they are still considered male...? Even with surgery?

I do apologise if this is basic stuff, just want to be clear if possible, in my own head!

Surgery is completely irrelevant to both the EA and GRA. It's not expected for either. However you have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get a GRC currently so it could be surmised that GRC holders are maybe more like to surgically transition as they have the dysphoria.

Ok, so I'd be interested to know if/why they are protected on the grounds of sex then...

It's not explicitly spelled out but it's implied that they are male by the provision to exclude them if it is considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, that aim being single sex facilities, roles or sports etc.