Trans Women are Women for Equality Act 2010 purposes (Penny Mordaunt MP)

[stephLDS18]

Well the Secretary of State has made her view absolutely clear!

Where is this from?

But still refers to "gender reassignment" rather than self-declared "gender identity"

I'd like to know where this came from too.

It came from the Secretary of State! It is an on the record quote!

This statement doesn’t say that a transwoman would benefit from exemptions in the Act afforded to women based on their sex, but rather that they are protected by the Act if someone should discriminate against them because they (the person doing the discriminating) believe that the man is a woman (e.g. if they pass really well or, in a paper exercise, have a woman’s name). This protection would apply to any man discriminated against because the person doing the discriminating believed that they were a woman, whether or not that man was in fact a transwoman.

What Penny Morduant is saying is right.

However, there is a concern that if the definition of woman is expanded to include men, then this could in theory lead to fewer acts being regarded as discriminatory under the Act.

She hasn't defined 'transwomen' either.

This is how the government originally justified to the trans lobby that they weren't going to make any changes to the EA. Discrimination by perception. Most (the overwhelming majority) MTF trans people are not protected sex characteristic "female". I agree that this achieves this by the back door, and we need to push for definitions to be tightened up in the EA and the recognition that it is not a reasonable belief that the likes of Jess Bradley, for instance, would have a GRC. And of course, stop the GRA being changed to admit lots more male into the legal female sex class.

I think there is some merit in what you say and that is how I interpret it BUT I am aware of some lawyers circulating extracts from a letter based on a legal opinion. Now, I have to say I am not convinced that the protected characteristic of Sex (F) applies to a TW without a GRC (otherwise what is the point of the GRA); however, that is the argument. I have asked for the full legal reasoning. This has not been provided (and this could be because counsel wrote the opinion for a client); however, if this is the interpretation being adopted by government then this is BIG!

July 4th 2018 James Kirkup 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate'
(extract)
"It is, again, a simple fact that people with penises have the potential to commit certain acts of violence and abuse against others. That fact is the reason Parliament and society accept the concept of single-sex spaces: women have a right to keep someone with a penis out of those spaces.

Upholding that legal right is possibly the founding principle of several women’s groups that have sprung up since the Government first announced its intent to make it easier for people to change their legal gender. Unlike the charities that lobby for transgender rights, the women’s groups - Woman’s Place UK, Fair Play for Women and ManFriday - have no corporate or public sector funding, and not much money at all. They are genuine grassroots political organisations that have sprung up from a concerned public. Those groups have made a difference. Back in the autumn, that point about female-only spaces was either often ignored or dismissed in political debate. Women talking about penises were ridiculed as bigoted cranks, accused of transphobic misinformation. Their meetings were subjected to violent protests (one person has been convicted of assault) and a bomb threat, threats that went shamefully unremarked on by most politicians. Nevertheless, the women persisted: the meetings continued; the campaigns went on; and it made a difference.

Yesterday on the Today programme, Penny Mordaunt, equalities Minister, didn’t dismiss those women as cranks. She said this:

“Those women who are raising those concerns, those are legitimate concerns that we need to address…We will listen to everyone’s voice in this consultation.” (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

Do you have a link to/source of documents please?

However, there is a concern that if the definition of woman is expanded to include men, then this could in theory lead to fewer acts being regarded as discriminatory under the Act.

March 2018 Scottish legislation which changed definition of both 'woman' & 'female'
fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

Concerns on current thread that within proposed bill to make mysogyny a sex based hate crime in UK might do similar. Suggestion that it might include male-born people who identify as women.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3355910-Stella-Creasey-is-on-a-guest-post-invoking-SEX-as-a-protected-characteristic-for-legislation

This is the supposed letter from the GEO.

It could be fake, I guess, but it was tweeted at PennyMordaunt and at the GEO and so far they haven't refuted it.

twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1037437309044576256

It is not tested in court.

Until it is...

...its just some people on the internet speculating on the basis of the comments of someone who does not have the power to make that judgment.

Isn't part of the problem also that there is no clear definition of what 'gender reassignment' actually means?

steph when you say 'trans women' as per your thread title, how do you define that?

Isn't most of the discrimination that trans people face based on them being transgender rather than them being perceived as actual women? I don't know?

...its just some people on the internet speculating on the basis of the comments of someone who does not have the power to make that judgment.

This exactly.

Does it matter?

If the GEO's assessment is that all trans women already have the rights to access those spaces (save for exemptions, which apply with or without a GRC), and that GRA reform does not impact on women's rights, then why would they listen to women's concerns about losing rights that the GEO doesn't think they have?

Can I just clarify! I put this up just for debate! I do not agree with this interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 at all. The guy who raised this issue with me last night goes by the Twitter handle (@LukeFTM) and claims to be a non practising solicitor (which I have no reason to doubt, he speaks "lawyer language" and my gut feeling is he is who he claims to be) who has had sight of the papers. He did approach me in a rather dismissive and combative way; however, once that nonsense had calmed down he kindly provided me with the extracts of a letter/opinion apparently sent to HMG. He is not at liberty to disclose the formal legal opinion (and this I understand) but in summary the argument goes that anyone covered by the PC of Gender reassignment (assuming for the moment they are trans women) are considered for Equality Act purposes to be women legally with the PC of Sex (F). There are some examples quoted about how it is absurd to argue otherwise. What I have not seen is one single cited case supporting this view.

Now, I am no friend of many on these boards (and I am sure the feeling is mutual) BUT I am objective enough to be open about my doubts in respect of this interpretation. It does not make any sense and drives a coach and horses through the GRA. Taken to its natural conclusion it could be argued that the legislative purpose of the GRA is made redundant; as surely anyone with the PC of Sex (F) would by definition be entitled to a female birth certificate without any "ceremony" whatsoever. Every piece of case law since 1970 makes clear that legal females are those born female (assuming no change of legal sex) or those holding a female GRC.

If HMG really are adopting this view then this is BIG and actually does give rise to legitimate concerns. It would be effectively bringing in self ID in relation to legal gender/sex by the backdoor. I am personally treating this with caution unless/until I see legal reasoning supporting this view. Just because (allegedly) it is the view of counsel, well counsel (whoever they maybe), has no more say on the matter than any other lawyer. Only a court (and in all probability the Supreme Court) can make a call this big (unless Parliament itself legislates to the contrary). Even a Secretary of State's opinion is just that, an opinion!

stephLDS18

Having sight of that letter is extremely useful. We need to copy it and reprint it as a pic and show it to the general public. Given that 82% of public don't accept sex self-ID, as evidenced by the Pink News / You Gov poll a month or so ago, I think public will be up in arms about such a response.

Both laws clearly need to be reformed to deliver very tight definitions and strict criteria.

It should never be left to service providers to interpret the law since this leaves all of them open to potentially very expensive legal challenge.

Public service announcement.

lead a measured and moderate debate

Think we have really. What are your thoughts on that, OP?

And your point? I am very clear what my views are about transphobia on this board. This has exactly what to do with the discussion of this interpretation of the law?

Ereshkigal, so far I am impressed! Let us see if it remains that way!

If the GEO's assessment is that all trans women already have the rights to access those spaces (save for exemptions, which apply with or without a GRC), and that GRA reform does not impact on women's rights, then why would they listen to women's concerns about losing rights that the GEO doesn't think they have?

The GEO can't run a fair and open consultation on this basis. This is pretty clear from the wording of the consultation and Penny Mordaunt's comments.

More to the point, why do we need the GRA review at all?

Excellent news, the soon they get rid of the 2010 exceptions (That are never used) and work in the way all good service providers work - safeguarding - the better.

Picking on a minority such as trans people, muslims, whoever and deciding they are "dangerous" never works. People should, as the EA 2010 partially lays out, be refused service or given alternative service on a case by case basis. Individual risk assessments and no assumption someone is "safe" because they have characteristics X,Y and Z.

This has nothing to do with loos and changing rooms, for which there has never and hopefully never will be, any law.