Transgender people can be turned away from female only spaces government says

[mammyoftwo]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5880533/amp/Women-allowed-bar-transgender-people-female-changing-rooms-toilets-ministers.html?ico=amp_mostReadNews

Apologies for the source, it's from the daily fail. However, if true it's definitely a victory worth celebrating!!

*I really think that self ID is the biggest problem.

People that actually get therapy, take hormones maybe have a surgery etc...?

It's imo much more acceptable / probably (hopefully?) less dangerous.*

Self ID will help trans people with beaurocracy mostly. In order to change a gender marker and actually be who they are is quite a long, arduous, expensive and invasive experience.

Maria, I'd hate to encourage anyone to have drastic surgery in the hope that it will make them 'more of a woman/man'

Maybe. But if someone is determined enough to go through invasive surgery?

I feel like it's a bit less likely they're just doing it for frivolous reason. Or because they feel like being a woman (or man) occasionally.

They're probably also less likely to use their penis and the physical 'advantages' (in a physical confrontation) of male puberty to rape someone... (Especially not people that had vaginoplasty)

unwashed

This.

It is so bizarre to believe that a man is a woman because they have said: 'I am a woman'. It's extraordinary that a single person on the planet believes this.

James Kirkup's commentary (link includes evidence):

Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

See also current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3288905-WPUK-and-the-attack-on-the-Equality-Act-exemptions?msgid=78954060#78954060

I don't think helping people with bureaucracy should come at the cost of endangering women and girls.

I don't think helping people with bureaucracy should come at the cost of endangering women and girls.

No, of course it shouldn't. Add to that the fact that a large proportion of those loudly supporting this ideology don't actually need any help with bureaucracy. That video yesterday with the non-binary Madison, spitting hatred with all her mates about pronouns really illustrated this. An obvious female, maybe a lesbian, it wasn't disclosed, but demanding to compel other people's language. Why? Because she doesn't identify with female sex stereotypes? Neither do most of us. She wasn't transsexual, she was self obsessed. The only oppressed group she belongs to is females. And all her mates support this and on the back of that changes which endanger women and girls and erode their rights.

Self ID will help trans people with beaurocracy mostly. In order to change a gender marker and actually be who they are is quite a long, arduous, expensive and invasive experience.

I admit to being mystified by this argument. What does bureaucracy have to do with "being who you are"?

What is all this bureaucracy that keeps being mentioned? How does it compare to other, significant processes in the UK such as applying for a visa / British citizenship? Getting married? Registering a birth? Being approved to adopt a child? Joining the armed forces?

I admit to being mystified by this argument. What does bureaucracy have to do with "being who you are"?

What is all this bureaucracy that keeps being mentioned? How does it compare to other, significant processes in the UK such as applying for a visa / British citizenship? Getting married? Registering a birth? Being approved to adopt a child? Joining the armed forces?

----------------------

Because in order to do something simple like changing your passport you need to go through a GRPC (Gender Recognition Panel) session who make case by case desicions to grant an "F" or "M" marker. Like the SIA or other government departments you need to pay for this to be done and the outcome is not always guarenteed.

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

There are set requirements in place for this to go through and even then it is not always guarenteed and no refunds given should the panel not be satisfied with the outdated requirements.

That is a good thing though. I wouldn't want to remove all the checks. That would be awful.

Because in order to do something simple like changing your passport you need to go through a GRPC (Gender Recognition Panel) session who make case by case desicions to grant an "F" or "M" marker.

Incorrect.

"You have a valid British passport in your birth gender but wish to apply for a new one in an acquired gender.

Please follow the guidance on how to make changes to your existing passport in the “Applying for a passport” booklet.

You should select the “Changes to your existing passport – New Name” option under section 1,as we do not record gender change as a specific category on our application form.

Under section 2, you should complete the details relating to your acquired gender, but you will also need to include previous names used in your birth gender.

In addition to your old passport, you will need to include one of the following as part of your application:

• a birth or adoption certificate in your acquired gender
• a Gender Recognition Certificate
• a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming that your change of gender is likely to be permanent, and evidence of your change of name such as a deed poll."

From: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251703/Applying_for_a_passport_additional_information.PDF

So, a letter from your doctor will do, no panel necessary.

What is all this bureaucracy that keeps being mentioned? How does it compare to other, significant processes in the UK such as applying for a visa / British citizenship? Getting married? Registering a birth? Being approved to adopt a child? Joining the armed forces?

Considerably less than obtaining a right to reside, for example. Plus government assurance that the panel is minded to grant all applications unless there is a glaring reason not to. I do not think the Home Office provides similar assurances!

When did this change and why? Because I had an F marker on my passport 10 years before the GRA was even created. And I had to do nothing to get that. It was granted on a 'case by case' basis, presumably because I had had medical assessment.

That is the real elephant in the room here. It takes time and effort to get medically assessed so that it then becomes straightforward to get a GRC.

So the preference is to abandon all of that and go on trust instead of diagnosis.

Helpful to the person wanting a GRC, perhaps. Not reassuring to those (largely women) concerned about the impact of what was medical gatekeeping to such access becoming 'trust me I'm not a doctor and did not go to see one but I am okay, honest'.

This is where self ID falls down. Benefits the taker and disadvantages the rest of the world.

The bureaucracy involved for my family member - trying to get their OAP age MIL a UK visa - when she has no immediate family left in her home county is unbelievable. The cost has run into thousands, and she has just had her application refused.

The assessment for my PIP was horrible - invasive and unbelievably stressful. They then took nearly two years to issue my decision.

I'll look forward to both of these processes being done on the persons say so.

That is the real elephant in the room here. It takes time and effort to get medically assessed so that it then becomes straightforward to get a GRC

You are right - this is the point that keeps being missed (along with the fact that the medical assessment also provides the opportunity for support and medical intervention, if it is agreed to be necessary and appropriate)

I should have said in my post about how the GRC process compares to other bureaucratic processes in the UK, I know a fair bit about how each of those operates, having been involved in them personally or professionally, but I admit I don't know the ins and outs of the GRC process (or the process to change the M / F on one's passport). Or something like the disability assessment of changes to universal credit, which I understand from MN threads can be something of a nightmare.

So I'm trying to get a handle on how unreasonable it really is to require someone to jump through these hoops, as we keep being told it is. So far, I haven't had a convincing argument put forward that the process is indeed demeaning, intrusive, or cumbersome, but I'm willing to listen if someone can put the case.

So the preference is to abandon all of that and go on trust instead of diagnosis.

Getting the diagnosis isn't the issue. If it was as simple as that it wouldn't be an issue. Instead your whole life and validity rests in the palms of people that have no medical experience to do with transgender health. Instead they look at a set list of criteria that these days is just as you said "gatekeeping" and that is damaging to a trans person's mental health. Strangers deciding your validity of existence when instead they are what they are.

But it's hardly unique in that.

Delays in diagnosing diseases and mental illnesses cause damage. Delays in processing PIP claims or benefits claims can cause starvation.

People are, on the whole, expected to wait for all sorts of things, and jump through ignominious hoops for the smallest of benefits.

Strangers deciding your validity of existence when instead they are what they are.

Nobody is "deciding your validity of existence". You can change all your documents apart from your birth certificate without a GRC. Not having a birth certificate showing your preferred legal sex does not stop you from being who you are.

Instead your whole life and validity rests in the palms of people that have no medical experience to do with transgender health.

"Your whole life and validity". Really?

Strangers deciding your validity of existence when instead they are what they are.

Oh purrlease. There is telling it as it is and over egging the pudding. Like others have said what about disabled people who's lives depend on decisions made by others? Add to that, what about people who want to work in the NHS to facilitate gender patients and have to pay thousands for visa's?

Easily forgotten when it's all about me, me, me.

"your whole life and validity rests in the palms of people that have no medical experience to do with transgender health"

Oh, are capita and atoms doing them too?

*atos

Eevee, in that case why not as a compromise suggest that the panel still exist but be reconfigured to BE the doctors who do the assessment. That would certainly be what most people here would trust ahead of a faceless panel of bureaucrats when changing a birth certificate.

For me it seems an absolute principle that this should only ever be done - as it always has been in the past - when determined appropriate by a doctor. Not by someone self declaring that they should rewrite such a key document with wider impact on society.