Equality Commission on Sex

[Snappity]

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.

I would also worry about young or vulnerable people being drawn into the surgical route before they were really certain that it was the right thing to do, if surgery were the main requirement to get a GRC.

On the proposals,

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

What is the waiting time for surgery on the NHS? Would these both in effect lead to the same amount of time elapsed?

As in:

• gender dysphoria diagnosis as precondition for surgery - 1 year (I'd think that it wouldn't be much quicker than that?)
• wait for surgery (particularly if there were other obstacles, such as the need to lose weight, or store eggs / sperm) - 1-2 years

In fact, would the self-ID + 5 years end up not being that much longer, given that one could start the self-ID process tomorrow by applying for documents to be changed, a deed poll etc, whereas the other routes will only move as fast as the medical system will allow?

Public pressure in response to ridiculous demands from clearly male bodied or gender fluid self-iding people isn't going to stand for a free for all in changing rooms etc or orgs in loco parentis ignoring biological sex. Lines have become blurrred and the vast majority of women and girls will want to be assured that they and their daughters have the choice of single sex spaces when naked or vulnerable and are aware when this is not the case not hoodwinked with 'single gender'.

Too many people are aware now and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Trans lobby orgs have been advising government and other orgs in a biased, secretive and sometimes downright incorrect way to weaken their policy around women and girls rights and protections with no consideration given to the impact on other protected characteristics and now we have this mess because of it. It isn't going to wash anymore for those who are self-iding.

With GRC under current/similar system is a separate matter.

How would the self id be evidenced?

I don't think you could have a high bar of evidence, and I can't really think what could be provided either.

The statutory declaration would be the evidence i suppose. So any time frame eg 2 or 5 years would in effect be meaningless as it's self declared.

I think if self id is introduced it would have to be on the basis that that was what the person wanted, like a name change is by deed poll.

Seconding everything Wanderabout said. The whole reason for #nodebate and the attempts to police how women could talk about these issues was to prevent the general public from becoming aware of the changes that had been made via back channels, with no public consultation at all. We won that one, and now the scope of what self-ID would mean is dawning on the public. They're not going to stand for it.

My guess is that once self-ID has been defeated the public's attention will shift to the GRC process. Right from the beginning we've been saying that it's old school transsexuals who'll be worst hit when the backlash comes. There's a reason that some of them have stepped up and tried to register a not in my name protest to the more extreme TRA demands - they've seen the writing on the wall too, and are trying to protect themselves.

People like Snappity may think they're helping, but the reality is quite the opposite.

The Gender Recognition Act

talks about modifying the gender on the birth certificate, not the sex. Can't anyone get this right?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720838/t455-eng.pdf

Under the laws of the United Kingdom, individuals are considered by the State to be of the gender – either male or female – that is registered on their birth certificates. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). If you are granted a full GRC you will, from the date of issue, be considered in the eyes of the law to be of your acquired gender. You will be entitled to all the rights appropriate to a person of your acquired gender. This will include the right to retire and receive state pension at the age appropriate to your acquired gender.

Google an image of 'birth certificate UK' and it clearly says sex.

Ok

Give me examples of how you prove your suggestion of 3) Self ID + 5 years.

Talk me through how it provides adequate safe guarding?

In what circumstances would you say that there was a problem with the application?

I suppose the only way a time-dependent self ID would work is by applying at day 1 and getting it 5 years later?

And how do you prove all the bits in between?

I dunno - maybe similar to how you prove a relationship is real to immigration? Documents, photos, cards and letters from friends and family, bank statements, etc?

You could show a dated bank statement and deed poll to prove new name and have transition photos etc.

These days you need about 6 documents to put your kids name down for primary school in our LA so document collecting isn’t unusual/unreasonable.

How can a name change be sufficient to show that you have been living as a female?

What if you changed you name to Ashley or Cameron or Lynsey or any other unisex name. Social media accounts and interviews with colleagues, friends and family would be the best way to monitor.

I think it would have to be all of the above, and personal, checkable references too.