Diva magazine is trans inclusive

[daimbars]

Statement on trans inclusion in a tweet from Diva, the UK's biggest lesbian magazine.
I'm pleased they've made their position clear, and support it.

Lemon Jello I have given examples in the past where as a health care professional I and my colleagues have been mindful of the impact of being trans may have an a individual service user or family. As do all my colleagues in relation to there. Personal characteristics like my manager last week not being able to work with someone as she as blonde hair. The nhs does not usually apply the exemptions as it does not need to use them and very few cases require it for employees as part of being a health care professional is understanding and reflecting on your impact on the care you are giving. If you are unable to do that then chances are you will not be working in the nhs for long. I suspect there maybe times when someone as wanted to test it but as I said it would be mostly confidential as it's a hr matter and people are intitled to privacy in relation to this

I understand that Bespin, I was asking about how the exemptions were used in practice.

I’m not talking about individual NHS employees who I’m sure are very professional.

I want to know about organisations that make use of the exemptions as I haven’t heard much about them- I’ve mostly heard about orgs that don’t use them.

You mentioned the NHS as one, so that’s why I have been asking about their policies. In your first post you said the NHS ‘routinely’ uses the exemptions. But now you say that the NHS does not usually apply the exemptions?

The aim of the exemptions is to allow organisations to use them. Should they be needed were it is felt no suitable alternative can be found what I am saying is that usually a suitable alternative is found that does not require them to be used so in the case of an employee they would have to want to make the employer use them and not wish to seek alternatives but insist that they do this work. All hr and legal teams that I have talked too are aware or if they are not are very quickly aware that these exemptions exsist as the nhs and that intermate care area is one of the reason these exemptions exsist.

I realise this Twitter thread is written in a goady fashion but it's useful as it explains the difference between the GRC process and the Equality Act very clearly:

mobile.twitter.com/lgbtld/status/1004079579747835906?s=21

Why don't you answer the question Daim? No one wants to read their nasty misogynistic shite.

Yes quite goady!

I do agree with it though that the Equality Act and self ID are two different things, but I don’t think anyone has ever argued that they aren’t?

What I’m saying is that they interact with each other.

So, using Bespins example we have the NHS which has 2 transwomen employees. Employee A has a GRC and has therefore lived for at least 2 yeas as a woman, has a diagnosis of gender disphoria and most likely has had some form of hormonal/ surgical treatment for this. Employee B on the other hand does not hold a GRC. Employee B is just at the beginning of their transition and has only changed name and pronouns.

At the moment, as Bespin has stated, if a female patient requests a female nurse, the NHS would apply the exemptions with regard to employee B, but not with employee A. As far as the NHS is concerned, employee A is female and the NHS can’t ask to see a GRC.

So then self ID comes into law. Employee B, who has no gender dysphoria diagnosis, has made no steps towards transitioning other than a name change applies applies for and is granted a GRC.

Before self ID: NHS would apply exemptions to employee B

After self ID: NHS would not apply exemptions to employee B.

Would you agree with my reasoning about how self ID and the EqA interact daim?

Re the question, do I think the process of getting a GRC is relevant to the EA exemptions?

I see where you are coming from, but it appears actually having a GRC doesn't make a difference legally. I believe trans people are protected whatever stage they are in the gender reassignment process.

94.It also seems to be widely believed by employers and service providers (as well as some trans people) that the Act only protects trans people who have been granted a GRC.92

I can see how having a GRC would strengthen a case for discrimination though.

I can see how having a GRC would strengthen a case for discrimination though.

Then you are contradicting yourself aren't you? If it is taken more seriously in a discrimination case it does "make a difference legally"

Ah sorry cross post LemonJello

I believe the NHS would assess the situation on a case by case basis as per the EA regarding employee A and employee B.

If the female patient was distressed and requesting a female patient it would be lawful to discount both employee A and employee B from treating her as it would be a proportional means of meeting a legitimate aim. The GRC wouldn't be relevant - the existing EA specifies it is lawful to treat employees differently who have had gender reassignment.

It's an interesting point and who gets to make the decision in the moment? Presumably both employee A and employee B are aware of the exemptions? And therefore cannot claim discrimination if they were enforced? And would they really want to push the matter? They could lose their job.

Similarly, the female patient could make a complaint if she was given no choice but to be seen by a trans 'female' nurse as she could cite the EA exemptions as a lawful reason for her to request a natal female.

I believe trans people are protected whatever stage they are in the gender reassignment process.

Yes I quite agree they are protected, however being protected against discrimination doesn’t mean that the single sex exemptions don’t apply to them?

From the twitter account you linked it says:

The best we can work out is that the people doing the protests seem to think that the Gender Recognition Act has some provision that changes how the Equality Act sees you.

But it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. They made that up.

I think Bespins NHS example above, with employee A and B, shows that changes to the GRA do change how you are ‘seen’ in regards to the EqA.

Would you agree daim?

I've heard people say here and elsewhere that on a case by case basis, under the EA, the bar would be higher to exclude as a "proportionate" means of achieving a legitimate aim if the person had a GRC. And if they had sex reassignment surgery as well it would be almost impossible. So Daim and LGBT Lib Dems are either confused or disingenuous. Because the EA exemptions depend on a subjective test.

Yes I agree a GRC holder who has full reassignment surgery is less likely to have the EA exemptions applied to them than a non GRC holder. It's a good point.

Cheers Daim.

Why do you reckon the Lib Dem LGBT Twitter has said that the GRA won’t have an impact on the Equality Act when we’ve just seen that it will?

Yes thanks daim

I’m going out now, but would be interested to know what you think re Lib Dem LGBT twitter daim.

Do they genuinely believe what they wrote, or have they not thought it through properly, or do they disagree somehow with the kind of example I’ve given, or are they are just being disingenuous/ goady?

LemonJello it depends on what you believe a person's motivation is for obtaining a GRC and whether you think a change in the admin process is really going to make a big difference to who applies for one.

Personally, I don't think a streamlined admin process will entice a person to change gender who had not previously considered it but I know some people disagree.

But say you're right, a person obtains a GRC who is not 'genuine' and that person abuses their new female status in some way. That abuse would not be overlooked and go unpunished. The GRC would be irrelevant.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

As the law currently recognises trans women with a GRC as women, the only way to challenge this would be to repeal the GRA 2004 which is very unlikely to happen.

That abuse would not be overlooked and go unpunished.

The best take on that statement is that its breathtaking naivety.
Google 'William Jaggs' and 'Wendy Jones celebrates leaving court animal porn'.

then come back and explain why women should have no concerns about self ID.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

What about voyeurism and indecent exposure? A male person exposing themselves to a woman against her consent is committing a crime.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

Apart from that being patent bollocks (what's the conviction rate for rape - 6%?), I don't understand how people can think that behaviour is only objectionable, once it becomes a crime.

Leering, letching, smirking, dominating - none of these are crimes. Neither, currently, is upskirting, ffs.

All you can safely say is that this is male pattern behaviour.

Which doesn't change however you identify, and should be enough.

But say you're right, a person obtains a GRC who is not 'genuine' and that person abuses their new female status in some way. That abuse would not be overlooked and go unpunished. The GRC would be irrelevant.

No amount of waving a GRC will convince a judge and jury of a person's innocence if they have behaved unlawfully.

Daimbars, we have sex segregated spaces because of male violence and sexual obsession. This is expressed from upskirting to rape and murder. It's not impossible to prevent all male invasions of women's spaces but we need to be able to call out, challenge or complain about males without being accused of bigotry.

What you say is pretty saddening. Have you no idea how prevalent sex crimes are, or how seldom victims get justice? That's why women want the slim but effective barrier of explicit sex segregation in spaces where women are naked or otherwise particularly vulnerable. I know some modern public buildings are specifically designed to minimise the chances of crime. A friend used to design railway stations and explained how they work to design out crime and minimise opportunity.
.
The UN Council on Refugees makes providing safe, private loos and washing facilities for women and girls a priority. This is because males, as a class, pose a threat to females as a class. Transition doesn't change that truth. And yet we see transactivists demanding that women in the UK give up this right. No wonder women are refusing to do what we're told. This demand is very much against our interests.

What's your suggestion Datun? Do away with the GRA altogether? I can't see that happening.

There's surely a workable suggestion out there, I'm just not sure what it is. We all acknowledge the existing GRC process isn't perfect as trans women have to live in their acquired gender for two years before obtaining the GRC. Any leering, letching, smirking and dominating isn't going to disappear if self ID is rejected.

Its the third space option, Daim.

A third space, daim.

It really is the simplest solution.

It doesn't rely on grading someone's 'authenticity' as trans.

It doesn't tell a trans person what they are and what they aren't.

It stops the conflict. And it takes the pressure off labelling everyone.

Facilities segregated by sex, and adhered to. And a third option for those for whom it is a problem.

Toilets, changing rooms, sport and prisons.

Rape refuges, I believe already have exemptions. And asking for a female HCP should give you a female.

The alternative is is publicising the exemptions and making it far more culturally acceptable for them to be used.

That requires campaigning, tweaking of laws, raising awareness. It's open to exploitation and it could be a battleground forevermore.

A third space I believe, would help resolve a lot of problems. Any people who don't want that, will be exposed as having a massive agenda.

Back to the third space. Segregation of everyone who is biologically difficult. Can you really not see why history suggests that is a terrible idea and why ethically it is so abhorrent?