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.

The emphasis is all wrong imo.

We currently have single sex spaces. Every refugee and aid agency in the world is pushing for single sex spaces and has the data to back that up. The data to show men are a danger to women is there.

So why is the default now to allow men in? Surely the onus is on those who wish to turn a single sex space unisex to make the case. On a case by case basis.

But the joke is that service providers will still label themselves as single sex. The NHS strives to provide single-sex accommodation and is fined when it fails to do so. It also allows transwomen, including those who've made no actual transition, onto female wards. It doesn't make any sense but everyone's acting as though it does.

The statutory code says:

2.27
Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate as evidence of their legal gender. Such a request would compromise a transsexual person’s right to privacy. If a service provider requires proof of a person’s legal gender, then their (new) birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

13.59
Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.

Statutory code is not quite the law but carries a lot of legal weight in courts and tribunals.

--------

The technical guidance says:

Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so

Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services.

Technical guidance carries less weight than statutory code but organisations may still be asked to justify why they have not followed it.

IMO the second paragraph here goes much further than the EA itself. The example in the EA explanatory notes (Schedule 3, part 7, para 28) is:

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

Would the clients be suddenly willing to attend if the trans person had a GRC?

(by the way, I couldn't get the PDFs on these pages to download directly. Right click - copy link location - paste into new tab works for me)

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.

I struggle to read it that way. It states that it can't be a blanket ban, and the example given refers to excluding an individual trans woman - not trans women in general.

This means it can’t be a blanket ban, or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis. For example a female only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the trans person.

garam

Why do we have single sex spaces?
Why should men be allowed in them?

I’m still unable to understand why our single sex spaces, which are needed because men are a danger to women, are suddenly to longer needed.

Can you explain why?

FlourellaI
*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?*

Because the law gives that right.
The equality act and the protected characteristic 'gender-reassignment' gives them that right.

This right can be challenged, but surprisingly not that many people are as transphobic as others I could mention.

You need a transphobic business owner, to take it to a court of law, so they can be told they should have followed the guidance, lose, and trans rights will be even more strengthened...... thats seems to be how things are generally going...

I suggest a crowdfunder...

garam - do you support all single sex spaces going unisex? If so why?

Bowlofbabelfish
men are not allowed, just trans women..... so....

I haven't read the consultation (yet) but that quote doesn't look right to me. As far as I can see neither the EA nor the Codes of Practice give TW without a GRC any particular rights to enter "women's" spaces over and above other natal men.

The protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment means that a person cannot be treated less favourably because of their (actual or proposed) gender reassignment. It does not mean that person should necessarily be treated as the "gender" they have transitioned into.

Organisations can have single sex facilities, subject to the proportionate and legitimate test. Unlawfully preventing a TW without a GRC from using a women's only service (i.e. it's not proportionate and legitimate for it to be women only) could be discrimination on grounds of sex, (because they would be classed as a man in law). I don't think it's discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.

Maybe I'm wrong? But if I am, what is the point of a GRC at all if it is not needed to be treated as a woman?

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.

Dunno LangCleg, this is from the statutory guidance (13:60):

A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances.

As far as I am aware, 'case-by-case' is not mentioned in the EA single sex exceptions. Statutory guidance is an interpretation of the law and as such is open to legal challenge.

I struggle to read it that way. It states that it can't be a blanket ban, and the example given refers to excluding an individual trans woman - not trans women in general.

How about my example? It is a specific example from the EA guidance where there is a clear expectation that it would be a possible use of the exemption to only offer a role to biological females, thus excluding ALL males even those with GRC.

ofew,
A trans woman does not need a grc to be covered by the equality act.

As you see from the attached pic, it is very close to self-id and has been for 8 years, the GRA is about changing a birth certificate.

Trans people understand this legislation very well, it is essential for navigating everyday life, more people would do well to listen, everything they have been saying on this subject will be proven to be true.

Statutory guidance is an interpretation of the law and as such is open to legal challenge.

This.

Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate as evidence of their legal gender. Such a request would compromise a transsexual person’s right to privacy. If a service provider requires proof of a person’s legal gender, then their (new) birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

Which is yet another reason we don't want lots more males being able to lie on their birth certificates that they are female.

and statutory guidance invariably gets it right, so if it is such shaky ground, why is no-one challenging it? Because if they did, they would be advised the statutory guidance suggests they will lose, and if they go ahead they will lose.

try it and see

"Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate as evidence of their legal gender. Such a request would compromise a transsexual person’s right to privacy. If a service provider requires proof of a person’s legal gender, then their (new) birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

Which is yet another reason we don't want lots more males being able to lie on their birth certificates that they are female."

How often do you show your birth certificate to use the toilet or changing facilities?

I think toilets are the least of our issues really (although they're the most visible on a day to day basis, and god knows I wouldn't be able to use them in public if they were all unisex).

Statistics, healthcare, and things to prompt equal opportunities in society for women like sports and shortlists and scholarships are the biggies for me.

Anyone in the world who actually cares about women's rights (the ones born with cunts) wouldn't need this explained.

Straw man. Where did I mention "toilets and changing facilities"?

A trans woman does not need a grc to be covered by the equality act.

I know what s. 7 EA 2010 says. It defines gender reassignment. The EA protects people who have or are proposing gender reassignment from being discriminated against. I agree that this is through self id. But they are self-id-ing as people who have or propose to have gender reassignment. This is not the same as self-id-ing as someone of the opposite sex.

The GRA allows people to obtain a GRC which makes them legally the opposite sex. The proposals relating to self id mean a TW can become legally the opposite sex by identifying themselves as the opposite sex (rather than going through the current 2 year etc. process).

what is the point of a GRC at all if it is not needed to be treated as a woman?

It's pretty much obsolete. It used to be important before we had equal marriage and retirement age. There are a couple of instances where it makes a difference. One is prisons and the other is all women shortlists (Labour are currently flouting the law by allowing self-ID tw on the shortlists).

The statutory code and technical guidance strongly imply that there is a different standard for those with and without a GRC - i.e. without a GRC, the trans person should be treated as their preferred gender if they are 'visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender' (so a few transmen), whereas with a GRC, the assumption is they have access to women's spaces jobs etc. unless a proportionate means/legitimate aim/case by case bla bla.

Then there's the difficulty of proving someone is trans, even if they look like Muscato or Drummond, if they have a female birth certificate and you're not allowed to ask for a GRC.

there is a different standard for those with and without a GRC

I think that must be right because with a GRC they become legally (for most purposes) the opposite sex, so can claim sex discrimination as their "new" sex for example. Whereas without a GRC they can claim sex discrimination only as their natal sex.

I don't think much of the "for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender" stuff in the guidance to be honest because I don't know what passing or not really has to do with what's set out in the legislation.

*I know what s. 7 EA 2010 says. It defines gender reassignment. The EA protects people who have or are proposing gender reassignment from being discriminated against. I agree that this is through self id. But they are self-id-ing as people who have or propose to have gender reassignment. This is not the same as self-id-ing as someone of the opposite sex.

The GRA allows people to obtain a GRC which makes them legally the opposite sex. The proposals relating to self id mean a TW can become legally the opposite sex by identifying themselves as the opposite sex (rather than going through the current 2 year etc. process).*

They are not self-id'ing as 'proposing' anything.
They are self id'ing as a gender different to they were born, whether you think thats conflating gender/sex is irrelevant, the guidance is very clear.

If someone id's as a gender different to that they born 're-assigning' their gender, they are protected in public life, in terms of the equality act as though they were born as the gender they now identify.

Obviously 'identify' is a loose and problematic term in reality, trans women, were born trans women they don't suddenly identify when they come out, it is innate.

And before the usual suspects go on about it not being innate or biological, theres better sources for information than a forum such as this... so don't be offended If I can't be bothered debating the gender-crit philosophical debate about gender identity, I'll stick with science...

science.

13.59
Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary So if some one identifies as a woman but does not "pass", they can be prevented from women's spaces?As long as they do not have a GRC? Have I got that right?