Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Equality Commission on Sex

62 replies

Snappity · 10/07/2018 12:30

I have had an email today from the Equality and Human Rights Commission which will please nobody. Their understanding of sex in the Equality Act 2010 is that it means sex on a person's birth certificate, either issued at birth or under the Gender Recognition Act.

That's narrower than trans people would want (and I still think they haven't properly reflected the latest MB judgment in the ECJ) but it also confirms that it is not the biological definition gender critical feminists want so excluding someone with a GRC will be extremely difficult.

They say that they are in the process of formulating new definitions of sex, gender and gender reassignment.

OP posts:
Offred · 10/07/2018 12:41

Is this news to you? That legal definitions are legal definitions?

The fact that the legal definition of sex was detached from biological meaning and moved towards gender in law by the current GRA thereby weakening sex based protections which were intended to address discrimination based on sex, that the current law does not say what many trans orgs are advising it does and that the proposed changes would further dilute the legal meaning weakening those sex based protections further is what people on here have been talking about all this time!

Offred · 10/07/2018 12:44

Are you going to now concede that yes, by changing the legal meaning of sex in law, the GRA specifically modifying the definition of sex in law, sex based protections are affected after all?

Cos the commission has basically told you that this is true in that email....

ArfArfBarf · 10/07/2018 12:48

That’s the argument against self ID isn’t it? - - That the GRC gives access to sex-based protections and so should at least involve some gatekeeping.

Baroquehavoc · 10/07/2018 12:48

There's a lot of information on Fairplayforwomen.com

Original poster
Snappity · 10/07/2018 12:50

No. I am not conceding, anything. I have submitted a formal complaint that the Commission is using a definition which is inconsistent with the Equality Act.

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 10/07/2018 12:51

So after arguing that your personal definition was the correct one for months it finally occurred to you to actually check and see what the commission themselves say?

Better late than never I suppose, but wow.

Original poster
Snappity · 10/07/2018 12:59

I am conceding nothing - the Commission is wrong.

But will gender critical feminists also stop saying that sex is biological sex? Because even the Equality Commission is now saying that trans women with a GRC are women regardless of their biology.

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 10/07/2018 13:02

The Equality Commission don't have the power to change how human biology works, so no.

Original poster
Snappity · 10/07/2018 13:02

That’s the argument against self ID isn’t it? - - That the GRC gives access to sex-based protections and so should at least involve some gatekeeping.

Self-ID needn't mean no gatekeeping. For instance it can still require evidence of living in the acquired gender for several years and that's what I will fight for - Self-ID as a slow backstop.

OP posts:
FloralBunting · 10/07/2018 13:02

You're conceding nothing? Knock me down with a feather, I would never have thought it.

AngryAttackKittens · 10/07/2018 13:04

Anyone remember the scene in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure where Napoleon is losing a game, so he knocks over the board? Suddenly remembering that for some reason...

FloralBunting · 10/07/2018 13:05

Really, Snappity? You're now saying you want there to be gatekeeping on self ID? Over a period of several years? Isn't that what the GRC is now? I'm genuinely interested in your proposal there, how would it differ?

MyAuntyBadger · 10/07/2018 13:09

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is wrong? About the definition of sex for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010?

UpstartCrow · 10/07/2018 13:12

But will gender critical feminists also stop saying that sex is biological sex?

No. A GRC does not change a persons biology, and its very strange that you think you can make people say that it does.

Floorplan · 10/07/2018 13:13

So can someone confirm: if you have a GRC your sex is counted as the acquired one and, legally, you connot be refused admission to sex-segregated spaces eg a safe house for women?

Or would a safe house for women be able to send you away as long as it was a proportionate...whatever

AngryAttackKittens · 10/07/2018 13:15

What's oddest about this is that Snappity seems to think this will make us pipe down, rather than lead us to go "ok so we need to address that loophole and get it closed too".

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 10/07/2018 13:21

I love the way some people seem to think they can stamp out the concept of biological sex if they just redefine it and compel everyone to use the new definition.

It's kind of like thinking you can make gravity go away if you deny its existence loudly enough

AngryAttackKittens · 10/07/2018 13:22

Maybe Snappity is going through the stages of grief over the realization that the majority of people will never accept gender theory, and is currently stuck in the bargaining phase.

Wanderabout · 10/07/2018 13:24

The Equality Commission don't have the power to change how human biology works, so no.

Exactly. We need commonly agreed names for different things that exist in the world including biological sex differences. Doesn't matter what the EHRC is currently saying, there are real differences that need clear language and law around them.

Also lol that you are simultaneously saying they are wrong in one point but that we should change our entire perspective on reality because of some other legal definition they have randomly come to.

Offred · 10/07/2018 13:24

I am conceding nothing - the Commission is wrong.

Ah just goading then...

Offred · 10/07/2018 13:28

I think what you mean is the commission is right re the current situation with the law but you are not happy about it TBH...

I think the commission is right too and I think it makes it clear that sex based protections are affected by the GRA without any changes to the EA...

Original poster
Snappity · 10/07/2018 13:38

Really, Snappity? You're now saying you want there to be gatekeeping on self ID? Over a period of several years? Isn't that what the GRC is now? I'm genuinely interested in your proposal there, how would it differ?

My personal view is 3 tracks

1 Surgery + 1 year,
2 Gender Dysphoria diagnosis + 3 years (one more than now), or
3 Self ID + 5 years

By 1/3/5 years, I mean years evidence of living in the gender role. In each case, a statutory declaration that the change is permanent, that the person is unmarried or that the spouse has been informed of the application and that the application amounts to unreasonable behaviour.

OP posts:
Original poster
Snappity · 10/07/2018 13:42

I think the commission is right too and I think it makes it clear that sex based protections are affected by the GRA without any changes to the EA...

Whether they are right or wrong that must be the case in that the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are intended to increase the number of GRCs issued and someone with a GRC manifestly has more legal rights than someone without one.

OP posts:
Wherismymind · 10/07/2018 13:50

Self-ID needn't mean no gatekeeping. For instance it can still require evidence of living in the acquired gender for several years and that's what I will fight for - Self-ID as a slow backstop

You realise the whole point in self id is the you don't have to conform to the gender. You can have a beard and wear mens clothes but say 'I am a woman on the inside' and you are one. It's a self declaration it has nothing to do with how you look, present or live your life.

Floorplan · 10/07/2018 13:51

any answers?

Swipe left for the next trending thread