Do we have self ID already?

[Macareaux]

This is from the GRA consultation:

113 The Equality Act enables separate or differing services to males and females, or to one sex only subject to certain criteria. These services can treat the people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently, or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
114 As an example, refusing a transwoman with or without a GRC access to a female toilet in a pub is likely to be unlawful, but a female only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a transwoman only if it can be shown that there is detriment to other service users from including the transwoman as part of the regular service.

This seems to say that anyone calling themselves a woman is entitled to be in women's spaces.

It all depends on you you interpret proportional and legitimate

I’d personally say that the societal recognition of a female only space IS IN ITSELF proportional and legitimate.

It all depends on you you interpret proportional and legitimate

As Bowlofbabelfish says, it will always depend on the above - the difficulty lies in organisation that adopt a default attitude of erring on the side of an interpretation of inclusivity that is not always appropriate. E.g., certain political and voluntary organisations as well as international sporting bodies seem to have implemented policies that are substantially beyond proportionate.

This is the argument trans activists are using to suggest that as the EA is not being touched the updates to the GRA are cosmetic to smooth over access.

But the EA is the one conveying the rights - one reason they say they have not applied for a GRC already.

And on that Sky interview yesterday it was made very clear the GRA changes are ALL about making it simple to get an altered birth certificate without having to get a doctor's approval or be assessed by a panel and just to ask for one and get it once you have a GRC.

The Sky presenter even said that sounds reasonable why is there any fuss?

And nobody was even asking the to me vital point.

Birth certificates record legal sex - not gender identity. Throughout history these have been defined by clinicians. Only a doctor can alter the sex on a birth certificate.

Regardless of arguments over whether trans people ever should/should not be allowed this is the huge change to society nobody seems to understand.

We are planning to make legal sex in this country something a person self declares because they think that is how they feel that day - rather than something declared by doctors and only ever changed if they think there is medical cause.

This is not a trivial bureaucratic step. It has huge consequences nobody can see now as to the meaning of the term man and woman.

This becomes subject to self declaration it could literally lead anywhere next year or ten years from now.

Make the GRA easier if that is needed. But keep the decision on when or if a birth certificate should change in the hands of a doctor.
Let the trans person offer evidence one to one if they wish,

But take it out of medical hands entirely and give power to the individual and maybe not tomorrow and not because of most genuine trans people but we all know this will be abused by someone for nefarious reasons soon enough.

With no cone back against a doctor who messed up the decision. Our only beef will be with the person who did this to achieve whatever likely evil deed they pursued. Which is next to useless in terms of retribution.

It all depends on you you interpret proportional and legitimate

I’d personally say that the societal recognition of a female only space IS IN ITSELF proportional and legitimate.

This exactly.

"refusing a transwoman with or without a GRC access to a female toilet in a pub is likely to be unlawful,"

Key word "likely" .. there is no law that says that any male transitioner has a right to use any female designated facilities ... and if the "legitimate aim" is the privacy, safety, wellbeing and dignity of females, any owner of any premises can specify that only natal females can use such facilities.

It appears that we do as far as the DVLA are concerned - look at their notes for the proof that you need to change your name or gender on your driving licence.

www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence

"If you’ve changed your gender, send DVLA one of the following:

a deed poll
a statutory declaration
your gender recognition certificate
Get a statutory declaration
You can get an official statement confirming that you’ve changed name or gender (called ‘a statutory declaration’) from:

a solicitor
a magistrate
a commissioner of oaths"

Would quirky be just classed as anything you don’t agree with then garam?

Can you provide a rationale for why men should be allowed in female only spaces?

There is much conflict between the GRA 2004 and EqA 2010. Our campaign must focus on making the EqA Exceptions the default position and demand that any deviation from that default position must involve a formal Risk Assessment, embracing input from natal female stakeholders, to explain why such deviation is essential.

Garam .. this is a thread within the Women's Rights section of Mumsnet .. please avoid use of language such as "anti-trans". We women here are *pro-women".

Or, perhaps you take the view that anyone who is pro-women's rights is necessarily "anti-trans"?

If that is the case, you could not be more wrong.

But a (government) consultation document states that refusing to allow a man who calls himself a woman in a woman's toilet (and by extension a changing room etc) is LIKELY to be illegal.

This is based on current law and puts establishments in a position where they will allow it rather than be LIKELY to break the law.

So it is de facto self ID

We need to oppose GRA proposed changes AND push back against this!

I'm so done with this shit.

It has become increasingly apparent that the single sex exceptions are not being used effectively to safeguard women and girls' safety, privacy, dignity and wellbeing.

Three of WPUK's demands relate to this:

2. The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

3. A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act which allow or single sex services or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job (such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

4. Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

Macareaux It would be an entirely different matter if the statement said it would "definitely" be a breach of law. It is the ambiguity that is the issue here and it is this that we need the law to clarify.

All any premises owner needs to do is stick a notice on the door stating that only natal females can have access to such communal facilities via the legitimate aim of providing them with safety, privacy, wellbeing and dignity.

I’d personally say that the societal recognition of a female only space IS IN ITSELF proportional and legitimate

I don't understand why this isn't the attitude of all organisations and businesses, but certainly the likes of the NHS, women's refuges and the prison service should be considering single-sex to mean exactly what it says without exception.

Does anyone know why they are not? Are they just afraid of appearing transphobic?

I also want to know if an individual with a GRC and an altered birth certificate can still be excluded from services meant for their "preferred gender" under the EA exemptions. If they can be, this proposal for GRA reform won't make much difference, will it? We need clarification on when the EA exemptions can be applied, and for organisations to make more liberal use of them. Until they do, self-ID is as good as here regardless of how things go with the GRA consultation.

There is much conflict between the GRA 2004 and EqA 2010. Our campaign must focus on making the EqA Exceptions the default position and demand that any deviation from that default position must involve a formal Risk Assessment, embracing input from natal female stakeholders, to explain why such deviation is essential.

I concur.

quirky interpretations

That's an interesting description of women's rights. They do not seem to be a priority for you, garam. I had to do a double take because I read it as quackery interpretations at first. I should wear my glasses more often! Either way though, not the usual definition of women's rights you'd expect to find on a feminist discussion forum.

Still, you keep on keeping on with being the voice of the 18%.

flourella Stonewall has a lot of influence ... wrongly in my view .. and most organisations are fearful of falling foul of it. Stonewall is highly manipulative and controlling. A very narcissistic organisation. It abuses its position and exerts power beyond its status, in my view.

All any premises owner needs to do is stick a notice on the door stating that only natal females can have access to such communal facilities via the legitimate aim of providing them with safety, privacy, wellbeing and dignity.

The guidelines explicitly state that any exceptions must be applied on a case-by-case basis so this wouldn't be possible.

Those using the religious exceptions don't have to show 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' and they don't have to decide on a 'case by case basis'. They can just say 'no transmen priests' or 'we don't marry trans couples'.

'Proportionate' is used for the ministers of religion exception - it has to be a proportionate way of complying with religious doctrine or not pissing off the religion's followers. Those two things have therefore been pre-decreed as 'legitimate aims' without anybody having to justify them.

For the sex based exceptions we have to show 'legitimate aim' every single time. The legitimacy of women having our own single sex spaces or services is constantly up for question and the only examples of legitimacy that are provided are where women have been raped or abused. And even then we have to do the 'case by case' BS

The guidelines explicitly state that any exceptions must be applied on a case-by-case basis so this wouldn't be possible.

And that needs properly clarifying because it's also open to interpretation as to what "case by case" means. The guidelines also state that it is a proportionate and legitimate use of the exemptions to only offer a rape counsellor job to biological women, even excluding males with GRC. That would also not be on a case by case basis in the way you are interpreting it.

Yes it’s already here
The report of the man on the underground being beaten up by a group of men was reported as a group of women.
I emailed to ask why they were reported as women when the video clearly showed that it was a group of men.
The reply I received informed me that the group had identified as women to the British Transport Police
So they were classed as women.

And that needs properly clarifying because it's also open to interpretation as to what "case by case" means. The guidelines also state that it is a proportionate and legitimate use of the exemptions to only offer a rape counsellor job to biological women, even excluding males with GRC. That would also not be on a case by case basis in the way you are interpreting it.

Yes. Case by case won't mean "every time a person tries to go to the loo in your pub". It will mean "can your pub achieve the threshold for single sex toilets being proportional and legitimate". The "case" is the pub not the customer. The guidance thinks pub cases would be unlikely to meet the threshold but refuge cases would.

By case by case they mean "specific entities within the category of pub/refuge/whatever" so that one "case" going a particular way won't be a precedent for all "cases" to go that way.

But the guidance does seem very clear that the default would be mixed sex space and services/inclusive space and services* and that exceptions would need a pretty high bar.

*delete according to your view of things

LangCleg my view of things leads me to delete the latter option. And I'm most unhappy about it.