Why do trans folk need 'extra' rights?

[lurker33]

Imagine a UK without the GRC, and the same equality act as we have now.

Why would trans folk need extra 'rights' over those that the equality act provided?

What rights do trans folk require that they wouldn't already have?

garam are you new to MN? The convention here is to bold the text you are quoting, you seem to be doing the opposite.

homefromthehills why you think this extra group of people who do not want medical assessment/diagnosis want to be able to change their birth certificates?

Transsexuals had altered their birth certificates long before 2004. Up to the early 70s most of the first few cases did, such as April Ashley, who used it to get married.

The right was removed by a court decision. Several cases went to court over the next 30 years - up to the European Courts.

These ultimately found that a person diagnosed as transsexual and who had undergone reassignment surgery should have their birth certificate changed on approval of a doctor.

The GRA did consider applying the surgery rule in the UK but decided against it on medical advice and given low estimated numbers (ie the ones we actually have now).

So really the birth certificate was a change that the government made in 2004 in very specific cases with medical reasoning and in expectation of being forced to do this anyhow.

Obviously to extend this to self ID changes all of that basis. But will be coming from the precedents set on this in other countries.

Welcome back garam!
Thanks for your response.
In the meantime I have digested homefromthehills points about wanting to keep medical gatekeeping, and I agree with a lot of them. I also subscribe to the belief that there is a difference between someone who is transsexual, and someone who is under the trans umbrella because they cross-dress occasionally. I do believe medical gatekeeping helps distinguish between such categories. Whilst philosophically I have problems with changing a birth certificate, as I view this as a medico-legal document, I think if such a process is available, then some outside/medical checks and balances at the very least is necessary.

amazing, your experience is the polar opposite of every bathroom, changing room and hospital ward I have ever been on

What can I say. It's the truth that I've always witnessed some form of policing of access to these spaces, whether informal or formal. And I've been grateful for that, whether as a kid changing in front of my peers for the first time, being in the female bay of a hospital ward, or sleeping in a female dormitory in a hostel. It's always made me feel safer and more at ease. I know those doors aren't magical, but the psychological and social conventions that keep spaces single-sex are important to me.

Trans people want to relieve the bureaucracy of getting a new birth certificate

And I am asking, if you're on the one hand saying that the birth certificate means very little practically - as you claim to already have all sorts of access to single-sex spaces - then why do you need to change your birth certificate more easily? And look, as far as I understand it, if you're campaigning to change the Gender Recognition Act, then you are campaigning to change a piece of legislation, i.e. the law. And I wish to know the impact of changing such a law before it is rushed through.

Because only people who have never understood or have digested misinformation about GRA, EA 2010, and 'gender reassignment characteristic' think it is in any way gatekeeping who has access to these spaces.

I think if I'm as confused about it, as you claim I am, then perhaps society at large will be as well? Perhaps it is a bigger discussion we all need to have, so we're all clear. So that sex is clearly defined and same-sex spaces upheld. Because I do believe there is a real risk that single-sex exemptions would be much more difficult to defend if the person in question has an amended birth certificate. At the moment, as homefromthehills mentioned, only about 5 000 people have gone through the process. It would not surprise me if that number would increase exponentially should the process be made as simple as self-ID, and I want to know what the potential effects of this on society, especially women's rights, would be. And I would want to know how such a system would be kept safe from abuse. Because there's always someone who will try and exploit a loophole.

waddle, I can only guess why they would like you. Or ask the ones on here. From my own perspective it was a pleasant surprise to be offered it and just said yes because it was. After 33 years without any legal status and no experience as yet of what the GRA would mean in day to day life I just felt it was a wise safeguard. It was not about validation (though likely a bit subconsciously I suppose). And I have only ever used it once for proof of age.

In practical terms not once has it made any difference to me day to day, but then I don't go looking for trouble and would not presume access to things like women's short lists or refuges even with one.

It is not really something to live or die over. But as I said before the principle of moving from a doctor having the say over what a BC says and the person themselves just seems to me a line we should not cross willingly. As who knows what unexpected consequences it will have years from now.

With things like this they tend to work in the limited cases they are designed to do and only long afterwards does society change and the old rule is used in unpredicted ways with unintended consequences

Trans people are literally just removing some bureaucratic barrier

It seems to me that a GRC effectively legally "moves" a male into the protected group "female".

I think it is entirely reasonable that there should be some gatekeeping as there are in many areas of life as people have listed above. The potential negative impact of males declaring they are women in bad faith, surely means gatekeeping is a reasonable check to have in the system?

This whole fuss is being stirred up by transphobes, and believed and supported by the uninformed.
How utterly patronising. If trans rights activists made the effort to understand what women are actually saying instead of writing them off as either bigots or confused, we might actually get somewhere.

heresy, yes, on your last point, the 4900 are those with a GRC - about 3000 of them being transwomen. The others 1900 are transmen.

These do not all have altered birth certificates as there are other restrictions (the GRC holder does not need to be a UK citizen but they do to get a changed birth certificate).

The government seem to think there are between 200,000 and 500,000 transgender people as opposed to the 4900 transsexuals who have obtained one.

If around half access a GRC as transsexuals seem to have done then the number of birth certificates could indeed shoot up from three or four thousand to hundreds of thousands.

And unless the government clarifies the exemptions and how they apply with/without a GRC/birth certificate - as I think they ought to do - then to what extent they will be sought after for insurance gaining access to spaces is hard to say.

Will they be carry them around anyway? Who does? I never have and never have needed to. But if self ID comes in this may well be necessary.

Also important to remember that the BC is a copy for use as proof of age (as in the only time I used it). The original at birth is NOT destroyed and remains on record and can be accessed via the officer holding this data. for example by police investigating something where identifying the true status of the person matters.

I would think this could easily be extended to other things - such a refuges - as an easy way to establish any doubt over cases applying. A quick call to discover if the person has/has not altered birth certificates. And if they had lied to try to get access then I would think that could reasonably be argued as reasonable grounds for exclusion.

Dr Dawn on Ch5 today, pointed out that the NHS clinics offering emotional support are under funded.

I would be happy for the NHS to offer extra MH support to the trans community over physical changes NHS support like surgery.

Under funding of health services is not a trans issue. It's an everyone issue.

Notably mental health services of all kinds and women specific services or health care issues which affect women most (such as Alzheimer's) are already generally particularly under funded.

No-one is discriminating against trans people. And frankly I don't see why they should jump the queue for funding just because they are trans.

This is too complicated because the mantra of 'theyre women if they're say they're women' is being repeated like it's going out of fashion, just see the recent comments in parliament. People are falling over themselves to admire the emperor's shiny new suit. People pushing this don't care about any consulting or reasoning, ditto to getting their point across without insulting women.

They'll draw parallels to homophobia, they'll say we're the bigots from the 80s. They will also say women don't actually care about this, 'only a small minority of radicals feminists' we're just a extremists, easy to ignore and brush away.

10, 12 even 15 thousand of us is not enough when you look at the money and sheer number of young people who are so keen to be politically correct. How many people have really even heard of the petition? How many are really engaged with the issue? How many people still think this is about toilets and pearl clutching?

P.s Ignore the grammar and spelling mistakes - typing with toddler around.

If around half access a GRC as transsexuals seem to have done then the number of birth certificates could indeed shoot up from three or four thousand to hundreds of thousands.

And unless the government clarifies the exemptions and how they apply with/without a GRC/birth certificate - as I think they ought to do - then to what extent they will be sought after for insurance gaining access to spaces is hard to say.

Thank you for this and your other keen points on this thread, homefromthehills.

Yes, thank you HomefromtheHills for both the historical context and your personal commentary.

So, the conclusions that I'm drawing seems to be that
a) there are no 'extra' rights that transfolk need above and beyond those given in the equality act.

b) the GRA is meaningless because transfolk have access to sex segregated spaces of that opposite to that they were born into anyway.

Which leads me to conclude that what we need is a strengthening of sex based protections so that trans folk can be legally excluded when necessary. This can only happen if there is an easy way to check the trans status of a person before admission. I'm not talking about toilets here btw.

This is from a while ago on this thread, but life got in the way of my mumsnetting and I didn't want it to go uncorrected:

he 2010 Equality Act and 'gender reassignment' characteristic that states in legal terms trans women are regarded as female, and trans men as male, as the default position.

This is not what the EA says at all. This is what s. 7 of the EA says:

(1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Section 11 is about the protected characteristic of sex:

In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

Whilst a man could, of course, claim sex discrimination as a man, overwhelmingly it is, as we know, women who experience sex discrimination.

It is the GRA which (at section 9) states:

(1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

With a GRC legal sex is changed and a person with a GRC could, for example, use the EA to invoke the protected characteristic of sex and claim sex discrimination in relation to their "new" sex. So a transwoman with a GRC could claim sex discrimination as a woman.

Without a GRC a claim to sex discrimination would be in relation to their natal sex so a transwoman would have to show discrimination because s/he is a man. Any claim made due to their being trans would be under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

At the moment there is gatekeeping as to who gets to change their sex (or is it gender? the GRA is so badly written) in the shape of the "bureaucracy" required by the GRA. The EA is nothing to do with that.

If the gatekeeping/bureaucracy is changed so that it is much easier to get a GRC, many more transwomen will be able to claim the protected characteristic of sex as a woman.

(NB I haven't gone into the exceptions, I think you'll all have had enough of the legal essay by now).

garam

Amusing deflection from a forum actively campaigning to remove rights and amend the equality act.

Can you explain to me why the demand from adults for adults is to demedicalise and make the process easier with no gate keeping, but the demand from adults for children is to medicalise with blockers, hormones and surgery?

If it’s all just administrative why are children not being encouraged to simply change documents and live as they are?

Why the push for demedicalisation for adult males but medicalisation for children?

Do you see how that looks?

Ok I can contribute to this from the horse's mouth - there aren't really any gaps on trans rights, according to transadvocate lawyer Mark Landon at the Westminster Forum on Trans Equality: The Next Steps.

These are the 'gaps' he mentioned:

There is no specific protection against discrimination against non-binary and intersex people.
They don't have a specific protected period of leave for transition, like maternity leave.
They should get to fill in more
discrimination questionnaires about how they feel they are treated.

So I hope that answers your question. The only real one I can see there is the protection for intersex people, which seems hella overdue.

Why the push for demedicalisation for adult males but medicalisation for children?

That's a false characterisation.

Suppose a British citizen has lived in Norway. They might have been through the medical system in Norway but they won't have - and can't get - the documents presently needed to get a GRC because the documents they have won't have been signed by a doctor on the special UK list.

Or an immigrant fleeing persecution for changing sex in a country where that is illegal. Again, they won't have the right paperwork to get a GRC and be treated as a woman during the immigration process.

As to changing birth certificates, try getting visas for some countries if you can't get all your documents matched. How about insurance? If the form says sex and you haven't got your birth certificate changed, the insurance might be invalid - and nobody should have to to out themselves to get motor insurance. Or drawing a pension from an occupational pension scheme - they often demand birth certificates. And without changing a birth certificate, there is no right not to be outed by a malicious official without being able to rely upon s22.

Thanks Pratchet, that's really useful.

I don't really understand why there needs to be a specific protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EA act. I think another poster suggested that trans people would already be protected by sex discrimination laws anyway. Wouldn't non binary and intersex people be covered by this too. Or is this too simplistic?

Personally I think gender non conformity could be covered even though yes you are right, sex discrimination covers that too.

Snappity it's the exactly right characterisation.

to all the other mothers of children with disabilities.

I am also the mother of a son with special needs. Ober the years since he was born, I have filled out mountains of paperwork for him. Forms to get him assistance like physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy. Forms to get him into education, to get him into the special education unit and so on and so forth. Reams of paperwork.

That is an aspect of life, and yes, I do understand why we need this bureaucracy, however tiresome I might find it.

So why should trans people not also have to deal with bureaucracy? Why should they be exempt? Being trans is not the norm, and so yes, there should be gatekeeping. It is natural that bureaucracy should form part of that process.

Thanks Snappity, that makes sense with regards to why a transperson might want to change their birth certificate.

The thing is, and I realise that this is a simplistic way of looking at things, why can't a transperson fill in their paperwork with their birth sex, that matches their original birth certificate?

Is it the fear of being 'outed' (which I can understand)? Or is it to do with the fact that transpeople really do think they are the opposite sex?

If it's the former, then we need to do something in society to stop the abuse when 'coming out'. If it's the latter then....IMO it's a delusion.

@Snappity
Why the push for demedicalisation for adult males but medicalisation for children?

You did not answer this question. Transition for adult males is all to do with obtaining documentation to prove they are women, without doing anything to change their body.

Transition for children is all about starting them on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and surgical procedures as early as possible.

Why are the two modes of transition so different for adults and children?

Snappity

Your first two examples are about people living abroad and how to acknowledge that in the UK. I don't really understand why that justifies a system of self-declaration, instead of (for example) making the admission of medical evidence from abroad a clearer process. I'd also assume that in the second example - if the asylum claim is made solely on the basis of transsexual identity then clearly that should be noted in the immigration paperwork just as if someone was escaping another form of persecution. I am a little confused as to why the person born abroad should need to amend a birth certificate, presumably issued from their country of origin, for this process? Wouldn't the mismatch between their birth certificate and their physical appearance +/- medical paperwork form Exhibit A for their asylum claim? Additionally, I thought they'd be treated as their preferred gender as a matter of course, as I've been informed on by trans activists repeatedly.

As to changing birth certificates, try getting visas for some countries if you can't get all your documents matched.

I've never had to show more than my passport for visas, which I understand can be changed for a fee with relative ease. But certainly for some places you might need more documentation. This sounds like a case for the diplomats, though, because they should do something about keeping citizens abroad safe.

How about insurance? If the form says sex and you haven't got your birth certificate changed, the insurance might be invalid - and nobody should have to to out themselves to get motor insurance. Or drawing a pension from an occupational pension scheme - they often demand birth certificates. And without changing a birth certificate, there is no right not to be outed by a malicious official without being able to rely upon s22.

This last part of your post is interesting because we've been fed the line that the birth certificate doesn't matter, trans people have all their practical rights anyways, and sex based rights aren't going anywhere. Are you admitting now that actually having a GRC/Amended birth certificate does impact legally on the determining of someone's sex? And therefore women should be concerned about making this process easier and open to all with no gatekeeping?