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.

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

It isn’t. I know this because I’m a scientist.

So you say that humans can’t change sex. Then you say transwomen are women.

The two statements are contradictory.

What have these transwomen transitioned from?

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.

Good point.

TRA logic:

"Everything is already in place, you can't do anything about it; you welcome to talk of course; 'science' says that transwomen are women."

But on the other hand:

"We're the most oppressed group ever and need new rights; shut up you utter transphobes; there is no definition of trans."

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?

Because that would be a blanket ban - you would be denying all those you term 'biological males' (including for instance those who have worked as rape counsellors elsewhere) working with all clients (including trans women etc who might raise no objections)

As I've said, the subjective test of "legitimate" and "proportional" is subject to change with attitudes to women's rights. If organisations had to take them seriously, they would have to balance. So we do need a culture change.

Because that would be a blanket ban - you would be denying all those you term 'biological males' (including for instance those who have worked as rape counsellors elsewhere) working with all clients (including trans women etc who might raise no objections)

No. Read the post again. You have misunderstood what I am saying. Have you not read this example in the EA notes? I thought you were an expert?

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

Yes, exactly. Mission creep.

TRANS LOGIC IS LOGIC!

Schedule 9, part 1, para 1 (genuine occupational requirements) example:

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Garam

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?

Free speech for some on here, not everyone. I've no idea why but I'm sure it will become evident at some point.

And yet again, organisations defending the rights of women are transphobic.
I'm glad you get to spread your views on here. You do your movement no favours.

We see you.

Thanks Pencils!

Garam and Snappty - is it your view that ALL transwomen should have access to single sex spaces? Those who identify as a woman part time & / or gain sexual pleasure from doing so (of which there are, the research suggests, a significant number)?

Stonewall certainly have a very ‘all or nothing’ take on this.

If yes, does this not breach safeguarding standards? Not least women’s privacy dignity?

If no, how do the NHS distinguish between ‘genuine’ & ‘non genuine’ trans women?

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

MIGHT - it is case by case

It's all very well going on about "this is how things have been for eight years and there haven't been any problems", when everyone knows that in that period we have gone from the TW who would use the ladies loos being those who have got a GRC; to those who haven't got a GRC but make a great effort to pass (eg P Lees); to those who haven't got a GRC and make minimal effort to pass (eg D Moscato); to those who haven't got a GRC and claim to be a woman sometimes and a man sometimes (eg P Bunce); to those those who don't have a GRC, claim to be gender queer but sometimes entitled to use the females facilities on their whim and fancy (eg T Alabanza)

It's disingenuous in the extreme to try to claim that anyone involved in the drafting of the Equality Act had in mind the Moscato / Bunce / Alabanzas of this world. They clearly meant those with a GRC and those (like Lees) who do a decent job of passing.

Yes, things are changing very quickly, but that's not always for the best - certainly not in this area

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.

No, that is not the effect of the EA. Under the EA a transwoman has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That is, they are protected from discrimination on the grounds of being a transexual person. They are not protected from discrimination on the grounds of being a woman unless they have a GRC.

So if a service provider wants to exclude all men from a service provided to women, (and that is not proportionate etc etc), that is sex discrimination against men. It is not gender reassignment discrimination against transexuals.

garam
most scientific data suggests atypical gender identities arise due to a mechanism of hormones in utero.

Can you link to some of this scientific data? If you want people to believe you, you need to back up statements like this with evidence. Otherwise it's just 'opinions and whataboutery' as you put it.

The Current Legal Position
for the 2nd time this week

“Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, providing it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim”.

Proportionate: It must be reasonable - in proportion, and of an appropriate size, extent, amount, or degree

Legitimate: It must be a legal aim i.e. not a spurious or false grievance.

In other words

• those who are managing single sex spaces may refuse access to a trans person, so long as the response is reasonable and based in real facts and circumstances, and lawful. But that is a very high barrier to reach.

Section 9. Subsection (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

Subsection (2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).

Conclusion

What Ministers are doing is using fudge words (as indeed they are used in the directive and in the Equality Act 2010), because no one really wants to say ‘No’ to either side.

It may not be what you want to hear , but that's the law , if you don't like it change the law , not just the GRA 2004 , also the HRA 1998 ,

as the Government has already indicated they don't intend to change the EA 2010
there isn't a political party in this country , that would support you , it would be political suicide

but if its any cold comfort , my girlfriend who is boyish , regularly gets challenged , and I know many butches who have the same problem

garam

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.

What is their 'experience' that they need to align themselves with? Are you talking about stereotypes?

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

In what way is a transwoman a woman? A woman is an adult female human, someone who was born with female reproductive organs (this applies equally to those women who are born without some of those organs, or who have had any of them removed, or who are infertile for any reason).

It is my understanding that I cannot be a transwoman, because I was born with the organs described above, and in order to be a transwoman, one cannot have been born with any of those organs.

So in what way is a transwoman a woman? It seems to me that whatever a transwoman is, it is anything but a woman.

What a fucking mess this all is.

Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender

This says transsexual and the intent of the judgement in 2004 that ed to all this birth cert stuff, was that it would apply to transsexuals who had undergone surgery. Not to any man who says he feels like a woman.

That must be taken into account in the interpretation of the judgement and any future rulings. I'm sure there is legal stuff here that goes to intent and unintended consequences etc.

And also "visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender"; unless you have had genital surgery a trans person absolutely is distinguishable in the practical acts of going to the toilet and having sex (and even then one could argue not).

This reinforces that just passing is not enough - it has to be genitals too. This is relevant to changing room situations.

Also, not to make this about toilets, but some pub toilets are so dodgy that single sex provision is vital. Many have bouncers on the doors. Its not just about Waitrose and your naice garden centres.

The law is quite clear above, I have taken sworn oaths from plenty of people who have made applications to the GRP

I have seen lots of new birth certificates , for female their new birth certificates says Girl, for men the new BC says boy

as a solicitor I have to stay within the law, that's the law as above

please understand these quite nice people who have lived the most awful lives , finally recognised , but none I have met want to bash anyone or cause anyone any problems

they just to want to live quietly , without any fuss

all I have met who have lived quiet unassuming lives are horrified of the actions of some

foxyliz
Do you think it's a good idea to let everyone choose their own legal sex, with no gatekeeping? That's what self-id means.

Section 9. Subsection (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

How does "acquired gender" translate as a change in sex? Surely there is no sex change but rather legal rights are conferred?

They never quote section 9 subsection 3 do they?

(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.

Explanatory note: Subsection (3) means that the general proposition is subject to exceptions made by the remainder of the Act and, for the future, by any other enactment or subordinate legislation.

i.e. Terms and conditions apply

Kyanite I believe they put the sex bit in so tw with a GRC would be covered by sex discrimination law. I don't have the reference to hand though so could be wrong.

MIGHT - it is case by case

"Might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person" is clearly a general position not just about one person. So the job could be advertised as only for women. And the trans person would need to test it in court.