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.

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?

No.

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

But I thought humans couldn’t change sex? Can humans change sex?

If humans cannot change sex, why are spaces becoming unisex?

You will not say you believe humans can change sex. Nobody I’ve ever asked will say they believe it. Yet you are expecting women to give up all their rights and protections as if it were true.

So I will ask you again - can humans change sex? What are transwomen transitioinjng from exactly?

Can you summarise what you think that screenshot actualy says, garam?

Because I don’t think it says what you seem to be implying, but what do I know about science eh?

Does Garam's constant referral to organisations that support women's rights as anti-trans not breach the new talk guidelines?

If I can't be bothered debating the gender-crit philosophical debate about gender identity, I'll stick with science...

Don't be offended if I can't be bothered to debate women's rights with pomo ideology pushing genderists who only post things from trans mouthpieces. I'll stick to reality.

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

Self-id means any man can get a GRC and a birth certificate to say he is a woman. Any man. With no gatekeeping.

Great way to commit a crime and disappear...DNA shows one sex but birth certificate and all following documents show another.

About I’ve reported two of garam’s posts for defamation/libel.

garam

The article in your screenshot - a 'position statement' by the Endocrine Society - cites 5 distinct references from journals (3 of them are cited 3 times each to bulk out the reference list).

The first reference is a very short literature review, Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.

From the conclusion:

"Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but that article is not very convincing.

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.

It means what it says case by case. In Croft v Royal Mail the judge uses the phrase "in all the circumstances" which means every individual case will be judged on its facts.

Also see 13.60 www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf

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

A blanket ban on trans women - whatever the circumstances would be considered discriminatory.

OP - you are correct. We already have self-id already as far as provision of services is concerned.

If GC feminists don't like this, they are welcome to campaign to change the law. But to pretend otherwise is delusional.

Where do you think trans people have been going to the toilet before and since the equality act?

I can only assume you mean by "trans" the relatively small number of 'transsexuals' who have taken extraordinary means to make themselves as like women as possible.

Not the Stonewall "trans" people who are - it seems - mainly men who have no intention of doing this, but want access to women's spaces for reasons unrelated to those which apply to the group I mention in my first paragraph.

Short answer seems to be yes. The example given shows distinctions are being made in different spaces. Self id in toilets = OK, refuges not OK.

I practice it could be difficult to police more everyday cases like toilets, but that doesn't mean its acceptable for anyone born male to demand access in any circumstances.

The NHS are TERRIFIED of appearing transphobic. They spend a lot of time and money on improving diversity, and rightly so.

But, they are bewildered and frightened by the crossfire between stonewall & members of staff who are objecting to trans policies (that allow anyone who says they are women into women’s wards).

Their way of dealing with the difficulties in interpreting ‘proportionate & legitimate aim’ is to do away with it. They say it’s too difficult for staff to make those decisions.

If I hadn’t been involved in these discussions I wouldn’t have believed it.

These are well-meaning but utterly clueless people.

So we are supposed to think that case by case means that if you have a single sex toilet (For example) then each time a transwoman goes to enter, the service provider must convene a meeting to offer evidence for refusing them entry for this one time?
How long do we think this meeting would last because I think we'd need to have some kind of interim toilet arrangement.

Unless of course this is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys

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?

No you are taking it out of context - you need to read all the paragraphs of the ECHW guidance. The starting position is that trans people are protected from discrimination. However, there are exceptions to the EA. This guidance applies to the exceptions.

For someone who is "is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person" , it is unlikely that the exceptions could ever be applied to them. I also read this as fully medically transitioned rather than "pass" personally - but this is just my view - I don't have an authorities for this. After all many women look masculine and we are fine with this. The problems occur when bodies that look male are exposed.

Even if someone is not is "visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person" , it does not follow that the exceptions would always apply. It is literally a case by case basis.

The guidance says nothing about GRC status and neither does the legislation. Originally the exceptions did not apply to women with a GRC but the legislation was changed. So GRC status is not definitive - although today it does provide a considerable amount of evidence - that could change if self-id comes in.

A blanket ban on trans women - whatever the circumstances would be considered discriminatory.

Read my example. Why would barring all biological males including those with GRC from being a rape counsellor of women be specifically mentioned as a possible proportionate and legitimate use of the exemptions?

3 of them are cited 3 times each to bulk out the reference list).

Hardly surprising. WPATH cites its own journal.

*The article in your screenshot - a 'position statement' by the Endocrine Society - cites 5 distinct references from journals (3 of them are cited 3 times each to bulk out the reference list).

The first reference is a very short literature review, Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.

From the conclusion:

"Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but that article is not very convincing.*

Like I already said, I'm not really bothered about debating the credibility of the conclusions of The Endocrine Society, nor am I trying to convince anyone anything.

I am simply pointing out I will take my cue's from the latest science based literature instead of opinions and whataboutery that I don't hold in quite so high a regard..

The Endocrine Society based their consensus on the millions of man hours of studies and literature and discussions, and are one of the most qualified areas of medicine to have authority on the debate of gender identity and it's biological origins.

What they cite on the statement is merely a press piece.

I suggest anyone who thinks they know better than world class endocrinologists should challenge The Endocrine Society, I'm sure they'll be impressed.

Abouttoblow
Does Garam's constant referral to organisations that support women's rights as anti-trans not breach the new talk guidelines?

Why would it? I don't consider womens organisations transphobic, but I consider transphobic organisations to be transphobic.
That is my opinion, I thought this place was the last bastion of free speech?

Actually endocrinology isn’t really the best placed to talk about human development. That’d be embryology/genetics/development.

Which is my field!

Isn’t that wonderful garam! Ypu love science and so do I! we can have a chat about science! Now you were going to tell me how humans change sex. I’m really interested in how because my entire career I’ve been sure, as has every other scientist from every other discipline I’ve worked with, that this isn’t possible.

So please tell me how it works. How does a human change sex?

Actually endocrinology isn’t really the best placed to talk about human development. That’d be embryology/genetics/development.

haha, hilarious.

Nope The Endocrinolgy Society are at the forefront of the complex relationships between biology and hormones, and as most scientific data suggests atypical gender identities arise due to a mechanism of hormones in utero.... you are very much mistaken if you think you can sweep away the actual experts in this field.

No human changes sex, I never said they did, the endocrine society doesn't say that either.

It says clearly trans women are born that way, they dont change anything.............. whether they have surgery etc to align themselves better with their experience is immaterial.

Trans women are women, you may have heard this phrase already, because that is precisely the position of modern science.

The closest I can find to 'case-by-case' in the EA itself is in the explanatory notes for separate services for the sexes (S3, part 7, para 26 & 27) This is the exception that permits different services for men and women, before even considering trans.

In each case such provision has to be justified and In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.

Obviously it would be ludicrous to suggest for example that a clothes shop has to consider letting men (actual men) use the women's changing rooms on a case by case basis, or a women only gym has to consider applications from men on a case by case basis. For these provisions at least, 'each case' refers to the context and not to the individual man who wants entry.

So the sudden appearance of 'case by case' in the codes and guidance seems quite a departure.