The New Equality Act (according to Betty) 2018 - what do y'all think?

[BettyDuMonde]

This began as a post in Daimbars Self ID thread but it grew so big I figured I would put it in a post of it’s own!

......

It occurs to me that the reason I have, up til now, been very sympathetic to the trans cause, and been willing to look for some kind of negotiated middle ground, is because I have been thinking of the wonderful transfolk in my life, and how they pose no danger to me nor my children, and how the absolute last thing I would want is for them to have harder lives than they do already.
I haven’t posted anything gender critical on my social media, because I wouldn’t want to upset any of my trans chums, nor my friends who have trans partners.

This afternoon I’ve concluded that I’ve got to stop thinking this way.

It’s not about MY trans friends, it’s not about MY comfort.

My trans friends are kind, thoughtful, quiet, attempting to fly under the radar, not trying to break down barriers and insert themselves into spaces they know are not their spaces.

I’m a weightlifting, brick removing, tree pruning, able bodied, educated, heterosexual, married woman who isn’t at risk of homelessness, drug addiction or domestic violence.

But, as we know NATALT, and lots of women are far more vulnerable than me.

So, with all that in mind, here is my current position on how we reform both GRA2004 and EA2010, whilst both preserving women’s sex based rights AND making the lives of transfolk easier.

Firstly:

No to Self ID that allows male born people to co opt the legal designation of ‘woman’ or ‘female’
No to accessing ANY of the places or positions allocated only for women.
No changing birth records, no hiding of criminal pasts.
No to competing in women’s sports.
No standing on AWSL
No policing of the language women use to describe their own bodies and their own experiences.
No to conflating sex and gender,
Statistics to be compiled based on birth sex for everyone AND adopted gender by those that have one.
Options to request medical examinations or airport pat downs etc be carried out by people sharing your birth sex. Options for professionals to refuse to provide medical examinations or airport pat downs to those of the opposite sex.

No negotiating. No changes to the above to be made without consultation with women and women’s advocacy groups.

***

However - yes to Self ID that gives you legal protection for your adopted gender and gender presentation - no need for a medical diagnosis, it can be like deedpoll.

Yes to a selection of theoretical genders to chose from (none of which can be named man/woman/girl/boy/male/female - these terms are to be used to describe biological sex alone) to be decided by the community who will be adopting them.

Yes to gender protections against discrimination, in the workplace, in housing, in healthcare.

yes to exemptions that allow for those with the legally registered characteristic of adopted gender to provide services and spaces that exclude people who do not share the self id’d legal characteristic of adopted gender. Yes to sports and facilities for adopted gender people as well as access to single sex spaces based on your biological sex.

Yes to schemes that work towards proportional representation for adopted gender people in public office,

Yes to safe, secure, appropriate spaces for adopted gender people in the prison system.

Yes to statutory time off work for health care appointments that relate directly to your adopted gender needs (although the self ID system will mean some adopted gender people will not be attending specific healthcare appointments. Those that are can prove their entitlement by doctors certification (similar to how pregnant women prove entitlement to maternity protections).

Yes to properly funded, in-depth and ongoing research projects relating to adopted gender people to ensure any existing inequalities are identified and addressed. Priorities should be decided by the community (I believe the things that most worry TRA are currently suicide rates and violence against transwomen of colour?)

Any future changes to these provisions must be made in consultation with those that have registered for this characteristic and their advocacy groups.

…..

Current Gender Recognition Certificate holders could choose to retain their current legal status for life or transfer to the new protected characteristic of adopted gender, depending on their personal preference. No more GRCs to be issued.

....

Basically, separate sex and gender completely - protect both against discrimination, but sex remains forever as observed at birth (with the current extra time for doctors to diagnose intersex conditions prior to registering the birth retained).

Everyone has the protected characteristic of sex, gender is an optional extra with minimum gate keeping that adults can sign up to just prior to turning 18 (so when you sign up to vote).
You can sign up any time from just-before-18 onwards and it’s free the first time. If you want to change it again you have to pay an admin fee (same as you do when you get a new passport etc). Titles relating to adopted gender (to replace Mr/Ms etc) can be part of the same process.

Anyone wanting to access single sex spaces based on their birth sex should be prepared to show ID if requested. This could work much like showing age ID to buy booze. You may or may not be asked for it dependent on whether the service provider requests it, but if you ARE asked to present it and you are unable to do so, the service/access can be refused.

People whose appearance is somewhat unusual for their birth sex will likely need to carry their proof, much the way those who appear young need to carry their ID when wanting to purchase age restricted items. Obviously, if you don’t plan on accessing stuff reserved for your birth sex, you won’t need to carry it. Your privacy will be legally protected and you will not be compelled to show it to anyone when you are not accessing things reserved only for your birth sex (excepting on request by law enforcement officials).

If you wish to participate in sex segregated sports reserved for your birth sex, but have received medical treatments that might be considered performance enhancing (testosterone, for example) you must be willing to participate in tests or assessments and/or provide medical evidence if it is requested. You may be refused participation on this basis (rules to be decided by individual sporting bodies. Decisions can be appealed/referred for second opinions). In some circumstances there may be the option to enter ‘open’ categories or specific categories for gender variant people, where they exist)

……

Minors - anything divided by sex in school should be divided via birth sex and gender stereotypes should be minimised - all uniform items should be suitable for all school activity but individual items should be freely chosen by pupils themselves without traditional restrictions (boys can wear skirts, girls can wear trousers/shorts etc). Children must not be told that ‘changing sex’ is possible, but instead should be encouraged to research and explore the various gender options that will become available at adulthood, and the option of having no adopted gender should be given equal weighting.

Dysphoric or distressed children should be able to access private changing/toileting facilities on request, and have their mental health needs properly supported by professionals inside and outside the school environment. Guidance for schools regarding dysphoric pupils should be vetted by Tavistock and Portland and regularly updated.

.......

Am I getting somewhere? What have I missed?

@ClareFlourish

'So, what happens where there is no third space? At the moment, I understand that some women might be revolted by the thought of me in women's loos- transitioned over a decade, still have a Y chromosome, trying not to stand out- but how often is anyone here actually revolted because they see an actual trans woman in a woman's loo?'

Has anyone on here said anything about being revolted?

I am very sorry if anyone on real or on here has every said anything about being revolted. I'be read a lot of these boards and I have never heard that sentiment.

Also I used 'diagnose' in a way to say this is what parents on TV and the internet say.

I totally get that gender dysphoria is a real disposable condition.

But parents say things like 'She never liked dolls' or 'He always liked dolls.' Or rather vice versa.

How is that not reinforcing gender stereotypes?

'Transition is difficult and costly. It took all my attention. No-one is saying "Come on in, the water's lovely". '

Clare I don't know how old you are But I think would imagine you are a way past 13. What is happening now with teenage girls is very, very different to the experiences of older transsexual women, or transsexual men even a few years ago.

I've read anecdotally of groups of friends transitioning socially. I think if you watch videos of young trans men you may find there is less of the long hard slog about it.

I am not trans so cannot tell what trans people feel but I can see it represented quite differently these days than in the past.

what we have in common is greater than what drives us apart.

What do we have in common in your view Clare?

I totally get that gender dysphoria is a real diagnosable condition.

"Clare I don't know how old you are But I think would imagine you are a way past 13. What is happening now with teenage girls is very, very different to the experiences of older transsexual women, or transsexual men even a few years ago."

Very, very different.

But not necessarily any less real

@snappity define real for me.

@Clare where are all these warm swimming pools! No don't say! All our pools are freezing!

'I'm sure some feminist would work alongside transpeople if that didn't compromise the needs and wants of women and girls.'

Yes I would. I want everyone to be safe.

Ps for the record I do care about trans women and trans men.

I honestly do not think this is about knowing nice trans women.

This is about having sex based provisions for Some things.

No matter how nice my father in law is I would not want him in the showers with me. If I am honest I would not want to shower with my mother in law either! But I would not feel as bothered by it as by being asked to shower alongside a male bodied person, even if that person had had surgery.

More to the point, as an adult, no one tells me when or where to shower! School girls do not get this luxury.

Provisions can only be made for males and females and for trans people of we can define who is who. Self is will take away our ability to do this.

Betty knows all these nice trans women, but perceives trans women are nasty from the internet. The answer is to know more trans women as friends.

I know some perfectly nice transwomen. I think up to just a few years ago or less, many of us - me definitely - simply wouldn't have seen what the problem was with trans inclusion.

Then I started to hear things that made me uncomfortable. Didn't seem quite right. But I didn't want to think about it because I liked my trans friends.

Then Tara Hudson happened and I couldn't unsee it all any more. It's not about us seeing how nice transwomen are. I'm sorry. Quite apart from the attacks on Maria Mac, Magdalen Berns etc, & having the pleasure of protestors outside shouting "BURN IT DOWN!" when I was at the first We Need To Talk Meeting, I know plenty of perfectly nice men, including one of my best friends. I would still not want to share a changing room or a dormitory with him.

That's one of the problems, to accept male transpeople into women and girls spaces, we have to pretend to not see male violence, and we have to pretend not to see that male transpeople are male. An individual male transperson may not be violent or any threat to women and girls, but nobody has come up with a solution that allows the safe males in and keeps the bad ones out.

I know plenty of perfectly nice men, including one of my best friends. I would still not want to share a changing room or a dormitory with him.

Yeah, I guess this is what is always skirted over and never directly addressed. Trans people have never explained what precisely it is about transitioning that suddenly makes it appropriate for them to share intimate spaces with women but it remains inappropriate for women to share spaces with non-trans men. Is it surgery, is it hormones, is it a feeling, a sense of identity? When does it happen? Is it as soon as someone realises they are trans or does it happen after a period of time?

Trans people say that its prejudicial to suggest that they would be a risk. But couldn't a man say the same? We accept without question that men and women should have some separate facilities, but in doing so we are not saying that all men are violent rapists at all. So why, when women say that some spaces need to be single sex, is that interpreted as them saying that all trans women are dangerous? It doesn't mean that at all. It's about privacy and dignity as well as safety. I know many men who would never attack or hurt me but I still don't want to get changed with them.

I think if trans people say that there is no reason for single biological sex spaces, they must then accept that there is no reason for sex segregation of any sort at all. If they are saying there is something special about trans women that means that their presence does not impact on the dignity of natal women, they need to clarify what that is. And if the answer is a sense of gender identity, they need to explain how that works when you usually don't speak to the person you are getting changed next to so you would not know what their identity is.

And Clare thanks for your response. I also think we have things in common and I have great sympathy for the plight of trans people. In the case of trans women, I don't think it's appropriate for them to be in all-male spaces either, for their own sense of privacy and dignity (after all, if women have a right to privacy and dignity, so do trans people). I accept that their bodies are no longer the same as those of natal men BUT nor are they those of natal women. Therefore, the only solution that appeases everyone must be third spaces. Otherwise, this fight will continue because it cannot be won while there are only two forms of spaces, without one group feeling that their rights have been seriously violated.

I would urge any trans people reading on here to spread that message wider in the trans community. If you feel that it would be wrong and a violation for you to be forced to use male spaces despite a female gender identity, that violation is also felt by women having to share spaces with trans women. The feelings you have around the issue are no different in value or strength to those of women. If you gain access to female spaces, that will have been at the expense of women's feelings and personally, I would not want to carry that burden of achieving my own right to privacy and dignity at the direct expense of someone else's.

I like this list OP, you have obviously put a lot of thought into the thread.

The bit I am unsure about is this:

Current Gender Recognition Certificate holders could choose to retain their current legal status for life or transfer to the new protected characteristic of adopted gender, depending on their personal preference. No more GRCs to be issued.

This is a pretty radical change to the law. If you compare the GRC to civil partnerships which came in around the same time it would be like having 14 years of (almost) equal rights and then a radical shift to something completely different.

I think the fact the GRA has been the law for so long doesn't make removing GRCs workable but I actually think a lot of trans and non binary folk would like your other suggestions. Your alternative would mean people who actually wanted full on gender reassignment would be very minimal. There's about 72 genders now or something!

@Snappity I know a lot of girls and young women are presenting at Gender services and are genuinely unhappy in their female bodies. I know that is real.

Are all these girls and young women somehow born in the wrong body etc?

I think that is the bit I do not believe. Although I recognise being a trans man is a genuine thing.

Because if society valued girls as much as boys, and women as much as men, being a girl would not be seen as such a bad thing, IMHO.

twitter.com/bbc/status/1005842545069428741

@BettyDuMonde you have lots of good ideas here.

It's worth noting that for most of their history Beaumont has been an organisation for transvestite / cross-dressing men who never believed they were women. I knew a few men in the 90's who were members and they were very clear Beaumont was for TV only, not for TS (although I believe there were some internal fights about this). Only in the last few years have they decided to wholeheartedly shelter under the big lovely trans umbrella. They haven't abandoned their original members though. From their submission to the trans equality report:

The Beaumont Society opposes atempts by some sub-groups to claim that the term transgender applies only to themselves. To us the term includes people labelled as transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, bi-gender, ambi-gender, gender-queer and other groups.

and also: The 2010 Equalities Act had a major impact on the way in which trans people were treated ... This raised the bar, but also had the effect of raising expectations. We believe that the country is now ready to make another major step forward in the acceptance of trans people. It needs leadership at the highest level to do so.

This is pushy, 'boiled frog' language. Accept this small thing. Now accept this next small thing. Now accept ...

I've read right to the last page of green eggs and ham and I still don't like them Sam I Am.
-----

The situation with prisons has moved on since Beaumont submitted their statement to Miller's Inquiry in 2015. New prison instructions for trans prisoners were implemented in 2016 and can be downloaded here - scroll down to '17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders'.

The prison service now go by legal sex, first and foremost. They're not allowed to ask to see a GRC but they can ask for a birth certificate (the sole remaining thing a GRC is good for). If a prisoner has a female birth cert (original or obtained via a GRC) they will be housed in the female estate unless they present an exceptional risk, in which case they may be moved to a men's prison, purely because this is where the facilities are. They will still be housed separately from men and will be accommodated in line with PSI for female prisoners. TW prisoners with a GRC are treated as female in all circumstances.

There is case law directly referenced in the prison rules linked above that says that even if a tw is in prison for attempted rape, if they have a grc and hence a bc that says 'female', they must be sent to a women's prison. The bar is very low as we have seen in various cases that have made mainstream media.

Only for trans prisoners without a GRC - i.e. those who are legally male - are decisions made on a case by case basis. And the Transgender Case Board are no fools, which is why all those self ID trans sex offenders are still treated as male prisoners in the male estate.

Changing the GRA to a self-ID process would allow all of them to be treated as female. The vast majority would have to be moved to the female estate, with only the few exceptionally dangerous ones remaining in the male estate, but housed there as female prisoners.

At first glance I like your list OP. I need to spend some time digesting it tho...

Daim, how can you compare the GRC with civil partnerships? What equal rights does the GRC confer?

"The Beaumont Society opposes atempts by some sub-groups to claim that the term transgender applies only to themselves. To us the term includes people labelled as transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, bi-gender, ambi-gender, gender-queer and other groups."

Hmmm.

Personally I am clear, trans women are women and should be treated as such; trans men are men and should be treated as such. However, they do not together comprise the entirety of the trans spectrum by any means. Indeed, they are a minority, and a minority which is qualitatively very different to the rest of trans spectrum.

"Changing the GRA to a self-ID process would allow all of them to be treated as female. The vast majority would have to be moved to the female estate, with only the few exceptionally dangerous ones remaining in the male estate, but housed there as female prisoners."

It needn't. States have a margin of appreciation. It might be possible, for instance, to say that prisoners serving sentences of over 2 years still require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being allowed to Self-ID.

@PencilsInSpace your words on Sat 23-Jun-18 23:08:44 were very chilling, and of course, we know this is true because males are already in female prisons.

So we definitely do not want any self id which could be conflated from gender to sex and lead to any more males being housed with females in prisons.

@Snappity If you are so clear that '... trans women are women and should be treated as such; trans men are men and should be treated as such.' then why do you want to consider 'It might be possible, for instance, to say that prisoners serving sentences of over 2 years still require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being allowed to Self-ID.'

Is there somewhere in you, maybe, a thought that violent males who are saying they are women might not actually be saying the truth! Because the rest of us have had that thought a long time ago.

The fact self id is even being considered shouts loudly how little society values women and girls.

It needn't. States have a margin of appreciation. It might be possible, for instance, to say that prisoners serving sentences of over 2 years still require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being allowed to Self-ID.

Well all things are possible but nobody's proposing this except you. Are you imagining some sort of two tier system with one set of rights for people with a GRC based on the 2004 act and another set of rights for people with a GRC under whatever new law we end up with?

Or are you suggesting we remove rights from those who already have a GRC?

If it is decided that self-ID is the way to go and this is based on human rights and yogyakarta bla bla then you can't deny those rights to people just because they are in prison. That's the point of human rights - they even apply to arseholes.

You need to discuss this suggestion on trans forums, not here. Let us know how that goes.

What about prisoners serving sentences of less than two years? Can they just sign the form and get transferred? Why would women be happy with that?

Spousal veto. This would automatically disappear with the end of the current GRC anyway.

Would it? Where have you read this?

I gave this some thought because it was a question in the Scottish consultation. The current rules say that if your spouse disagrees with you legally changing sex you can get an interim GRC but not a full GRC. You can use your interim GRC to dissolve the marriage without having to cite unreasonable behaviour, or separating then waiting for 2 years (with permission) or 5 years (without). Once you have ended your marriage you can get a full GRC.

The spousal veto should absolutely be preserved because if a person legally changes sex that changes the marriage contract for their spouse. Their spouse may not want to be in a 'same sex' marriage. They may not see themselves as gay or lesbian. Now we have equal marriage this works both ways - a spouse may have entered into a same sex marriage and, because their partner legally transitions, may find themselves in a 'heterosexual' marriage without their consent.

Nobody should have to cite unreasonable behaviour or stay stuck in a marriage for years when their sexual orientation has been legally changed without their consent. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic. This is what the spousal veto is for - it's a quick, easy, no fault way for spouses to end a marriage they didn't sign up for.

If the spousal veto was removed, spouses (mostly women from what I have seen) would have to cite unreasonable behaviour to remove themselves from a marriage they did not consent to. That's never an easy option and it usually causes a lot of animosity. Or they would have to remain trapped for years until they could use separation as a ground for divorce.

That would be blatant institutional discrimination because of the protected characteristic 'sexual orientation'.

Snappity: Hmmm.

Personally I am clear, trans women are women and should be treated as such; trans men are men and should be treated as such. However, they do not together comprise the entirety of the trans spectrum by any means. Indeed, they are a minority, and a minority which is qualitatively very different to the rest of trans spectrum.

While many of us here disagree with your statement that TWAW, TMAM, I am pleased you have acknowleged that there are lots of different groups under the umbrella and that they are qualitatively different.

While all those disparate identities may be fascinating to some people, women's main concern is with the group of people who have biologically and scientifically male bodies and who are apparently legally entitled to access fermale single-sex spaces, take jobs where there is a genuine occupational requirement to be female, and to take awards and benefit from affirmative actions aimed at female people.

We used to have a term for this incredibly diverse group of humans with male bodies but it's been banned.

"Well all things are possible but nobody's proposing this except you. Are you imagining some sort of two tier system with one set of rights for people with a GRC based on the 2004 act and another set of rights for people with a GRC under whatever new law we end up with?"

Nothing I said suggested that.

" If it is decided that self-ID is the way to go and this is based on human rights and yogyakarta bla bla then you can't deny those rights to people just because they are in prison. That's the point of human rights - they even apply to arseholes."

Absolutely - Chelsea Manning is a good example - but before a long-term prisoner is transferred a psych eval is sensible and it makes sense to include within that an assessment for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The GRA has always had multiple pathways. My suggestion isn't radical.

" You need to discuss this suggestion on trans forums, not here. Let us know how that goes."

Since I am not trans I am not a member of a trans forum and most members here seem to see this as a women's issue even if you don't

"If the spousal veto was removed, spouses (mostly women from what I have seen) would have to cite unreasonable behaviour to remove themselves from a marriage they did not consent to. That's never an easy option and it usually causes a lot of animosity. Or they would have to remain trapped for years until they could use separation as a ground for divorce."

I agree with the basic thrust of your argument about spousal veto but I still think that the present system could be improved by specifying within the revised statute that a spouse changing gender, whether or not they apply for a GRC, is grounds for divorce. That would both significantly improve the rights of spouses and remove the need for a spousal veto.

Go and read the PSI and then explain how your idea for prisoners would work. What you are suggesting is either a two tier system or is taking away existing rights for those who currently have a GRC. Or it's making a special case to deny rights to trans people because they are prisoners.

Also please explain why women should only be concerned about long term prisoners.

The suggestion to discuss this on trans forums is nothing to do with whether you personally are trans or not. If 'the trans community' (whatever that means this week) don't agree with your ideas then they're a non-starter.

I still think that the present system could be improved by specifying within the revised statute that a spouse changing gender, whether or not they apply for a GRC, is grounds for divorce. That would both significantly improve the rights of spouses and remove the need for a spousal veto.

You are suggesting that in addition to the usual grounds for divorce that make up 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage':

• unreasonable behaviour
• adultery
• separation of 2 years / 5 years

... we should add 'change of gender'?

I agree.

However I don't understand why we should therefore get rid of the spousal veto when someone applies for a GRC.

Some people may be perfectly happy being married to a spouse with a trans identity (can I still say that?) and only object when they legally change sex.

If the GRA changes to self ID a spouse may have no clue what's going on until it's a done deal.

An interim GRC is grounds for anulling a marriage no questions asked, not divorce, with all that entails.

What are the actual practical problems for trans people with the spousal veto as it is? Why would a trans person want to remain married to someone who exercised their spousal veto?