Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

131 replies

BettyDuMonde · 21/06/2018 22:21

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?

OP posts:
PeakPants · 24/06/2018 06:48

Snappitty if you are saying you think people might need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the case of longer sentences, that totally undermines your argument that all trans women are real women for all intents and purposes. You cannot sustain your argument without accepting that according to your logic, any male prisoner, including Ian Huntley, can at any time obtain a GRC and that person is then a woman (no question about it) and must be moved to the female estate unless there is exceptional risk (based on current behaviour, not past crimes).

Anyway, for me, the point is not whether these people are women. It is irrelevant because woman means different things to different people, clearly. The point is that the physical nature of their bodies makes it unsuitable for them to be housed with natal female bodies. One key reason is that the majority will have an intact penis. Nothing to do with gender identity and being a real woman. That is why I believe they should be segregated and should be housed in a special facility for trans prisoners. I find it difficult to see how you reason. You seem to say that someone with a penis must be accepted as a woman and that there are no legitimate reasons why that person should be sharing all spaces with those with female bodies. That is surely right- you keep saying they are real women etc. But how is a trans woman’s penis different to that of a natal-man? Why is it inappropriate for a natal man to share prison space or other intimate space with a woman but it’s not inappropriate for someone with a male body but a female gender identity? Is it the identity that makes the difference? Surely you can’t say that a gender identity removes the risk of criminality given we are discussing prisons? So it must come down to the body. Assaults and rapes are perpetrated by bodies, not minds.

That is before we even get on to rights of privacy and dignity. I presume your argument that trans women should not have to share facilities with men is based on privacy and dignity. Their bodies are different and they would not always feel comfortable. If that is so, why are you saying privacy and dignity is not relevant or important for women? Again, their bodies are different and they might not feel comfortable. Is it just that you think those rights are not important? What is it? I struggle to understand.

daimbars · 24/06/2018 07:26

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

Before civil partnerships gay people had no legal recognition of their relationship. Civil partnerships provide gay people with almost the same legal recognition as a straight marriage with a few exceptions.

Since 2014 gay people have been able to marry and now have identical rights to straight people. The only difference now is many churches will not marry gay people.

Similarly, before trans people were able to obtain a GRC they had no legal recognition of their acquired gender. Since 2004 trans women with a GRC have been legally recognised as women and trans men legally recognised as men. There are exceptions in the Equality Act which mean trans women and trans men do not have identical rights to natal women and natal men. For example single sex service providers can refuse to accept a trans woman, a bit like churches can refuse to marry a gay couple.

The OP's argument is to remove the GRC altogether for new cases but allow those who already have a GRC to keep it. I think this would be unworkable, a bit like removing civil partnership and gay marriage altogether and replacing them with a different type of union that doesn't offer equal rights for gay people.

As GRCs have been in place 14 years it would be very difficult to remove them entirely.

However strengthening the exceptions in the EA as per the OPs other suggestions could be workable. Making them mandatory is problematic though, it would be like instructing all churches not to marry gay people when many are happy to do so.

Massivelyouting · 24/06/2018 07:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Massivelyouting · 24/06/2018 07:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 08:00

daim as far as I am aware same sex couples can’t legally marry in church in England even if the vicar would be okay with it. So your example is actually proving the opposite. The issue is that sex segregation is a matter of safety for service users and therefore the wishes of service providers should not be relevant. It would apply only in narrow categories where necessary for safety and dignity and where there are alternative third spaces available to cater for trans women. So I do think making it mandatory is both possible and desirable.

As for the GRC I do agree with you. It’s fine to have as a goal, but I really cannot see any government daring to propose its removal altogether. However, mandatory sex segregation in some cases would get around that because women would retain protections while trans people would get legal recognition.

daimbars · 24/06/2018 08:24

PeakPants when I said some churches can choose to conduct gay marriages I mean unitarians, metropolitan community church, United Church of Christ. I know CoE don't.

I see what you mean though and agree there could be some services exclusively for natal women (I agree one could make EA exceptions mandatory in these cases) where other services can be mixed or assessed on a case by case basis.

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 08:45

OK, fair enough. The point is that a mandatory provision is in no way controversial or unworkable. The religious exemptions are simply based on belief, not on safety or privacy or dignity, so if anything, there is a much much stronger justification for exemptions in the case of trans people.

If accompanied by a mandate that service providers must provide suitable alternatives to trans people where they segregate on the grounds of sex, this will ensure that trans people are not excluded from the service. So if a refuge only allows natal women but there is a suitable alternative provider that does offer refuge for trans women, the trans woman cannot claim to have been discriminated against.

The wishes and feelings of service users or of service providers should not be directly relevant. They will never be unanimous. You will get some women saying they are happy to share all facilities with natal men and don't understand why some want a male doctor. I saw our friend Snappity on another thread saying they thought sex segregation in sport was 'patronising' and that men and women should always compete together (Hmm). So, you won't be able to get a clear consensus. Instead, the state should have a minimum basic duty to ensure the safety and dignity of all its citizens by making single sex provision mandatory in some cases.

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 08:46

Want a female doctor that should say

daimbars · 24/06/2018 08:58

PeakPants we are on the same page, I agree with everything you say. I think that's where we are at the moment as service providers are able to exclude trans women from single sex services as long as it demonstrates a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I think this is an excellent suggestion

If accompanied by a mandate that service providers must provide suitable alternatives to trans people where they segregate on the grounds of sex, this will ensure that trans people are not excluded from the service. So if a refuge only allows natal women but there is a suitable alternative provider that does offer refuge for trans women, the trans woman cannot claim to have been discriminated against.

OlennasWimple · 24/06/2018 12:07

If accompanied by a mandate that service providers must provide suitable alternatives to trans people where they segregate on the grounds of sex, this will ensure that trans people are not excluded from the service. So if a refuge only allows natal women but there is a suitable alternative provider that does offer refuge for trans women, the trans woman cannot claim to have been discriminated against.

This is laudable in intent, but I worry that it's not always workable in practice.

What about a small refuge in, say, Cornwall. Far end of the county, way past Penzance. Designed to accomodate only a small number of women. How can this service provider also provide facilities to a transwoman? Will it be deemed sufficient to give them information on a shelter in St Austell, nearly 50 miles away? Or, more likely, Plymouth - 2 hours and nearly 100 miles away?

Baroquehavoc · 24/06/2018 12:47

If accompanied by a mandate that service providers must provide suitable alternatives to trans people where they segregate on the grounds of sex

I think this will lead to services who provide essential care for one sex having to spend time and money ensuring that they provide a service for another sex.

massivelyouting · 24/06/2018 12:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snappity · 24/06/2018 12:53

So if a trans man has penoplasty but no GRC, which sex is he?

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 13:06

Male snappity. Legally and biologically. Humans have two hands. If I cut one of them off, am I not human. Surgery does not change biological sex as well you know. I am happy for trans people to have legal recognition but that doesn’t change biological reality.

massivelyouting · 24/06/2018 13:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LangCleg · 24/06/2018 13:16

Aaaaand, this load of old nonsense is what you get when you try to be accommodating, OP.

Sorry, but no pasaran.

EmpressOfSpartacus · 24/06/2018 13:21

Male snappity. Legally and biologically. Humans have two hands. If I cut one of them off, am I not human. Surgery does not change biological sex as well you know.

Absolutely. But I suspect that Snappity's definition of a transman is someone with XX chromosomes who has surgery to make their genitals resemble a penis. So the answer would be a bit different.

massivelyouting · 24/06/2018 13:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 13:26

Trans man= biological female identifying as male. Trans woman vice versa.

Snappity · 24/06/2018 13:28

So you seem to be saying that you are happy for a trans man with beard and penis to use female spaces but not a trans woman with boobs and a vagina yet argue that it is about safety rather than admit it is an idealogical refusal to accept trans women as women.

Italiangreyhound · 24/06/2018 13:30

@Snappity

'So if a trans man has penoplasty but no GRC, which sex is he?'

Female, unless intersex. But if this trans man has had surgery to create a penis then clearly he is going to be uncomfortable bring treated as a female and the women in the centre will also be uncomfortable.

So firstly why has gr not got a GRC?

I"d say this is one situation where there needs to be a case by case and alternative provision provided. BUT I think this would be a rare case. In fact I doubt it has ever happened (or probably ever will).

Far more likely is the case of a trans woman who has or has not had surgery to confirm/reassign/gender/sex. So in that situation suitable alternative provision needs to be made.

massivelyouting · 24/06/2018 13:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 13:37

So you seem to be saying that you are happy for a trans man with beard and penis to use female spaces but not a trans woman with boobs and a vagina yet argue that it is about safety rather than admit it is an idealogical refusal to accept trans women as women.

Sorry, Snappity I misread your earlier post. I thought penoplasty was removal of the penis. Okay, here is my revised answer:

trans man with penoplasty and no GRC? Legally and biologically female. Surely said trans man would prefer not to use female spaces, no? Do I think they should be forced to use female spaces? No, I think there should be an appropriate space available for them to use. If they want to use male spaces, that would be their choice, but I would also take into account the feelings of natal men who might not want that for reasons of privacy and dignity. I think the point is that trans bodies do fall into a third category- they are no longer identical to those of the birth sex but nor are they identical to those of the sex with which they identify. So neither space is appropriate and they must have their own space.

Snappity · 24/06/2018 13:42

"So neither space is appropriate and they must have their own space."

Segregation and a gross breach of human rights.

Fundamentally the choice is which group one prefers in female spaces, trans men or trans women.

PeakPants · 24/06/2018 13:43

trans woman with boobs and a vagina yet argue that it is about safety rather than admit it is an idealogical refusal to accept trans women as women.

The vast majority of them will not have an artificially constructed vagina though and will have an intact penis. There are many reasons for that, including lack of funds or access to treatment on the NHS, health reasons making surgery unsuitable, not wanting to surgically alter one's body. I don't think we should be forcing anyone to have surgery- it is not appropriate. An artificially constructed vagina can cause health risks and infection and we should not pressure people to do this if they don't want to. Therefore, most trans women do not have 'boobs and vagina' and given that you are not trans yourself, I would venture to say that you have never actually seen a naked trans body and are probably imagining that it looks identical to a natal female one. It doesn't.

Do you honestly think that it's appropriate where a trans woman retains penis and testicles to use naked changing facilities with women and girls? I bet that you secretly don't.

Swipe left for the next trending thread