Brainstorm your ideal outcome

[BarrackerBarmer]

This is what I think a fair society would look like.

1. Repeal the GRA. Noone changes sex, and society shouldn't force people to pretend they can.

1. Create a SEX Recognition Act in its place. Sex is a protected characteristic, we can define and describe it, and we have an obligation to do this in law. We must give it watertight legal protection. Make it unassailable. Outline the same sex rights that are protected.

1. Legally separate terminology -ALL terminology that relates to sex Vs gender.

All legal institutions already recognise the fundamental difference between the two, but currently they rely on deliberate ambiguity and conflation of terms to make two opposing concepts opaque and interchangeable to suit an agenda. This ends. There are legal terms which relate to sex (male/female/man/woman) , and terms which relate to gender (masculine/feminine) and these concepts are not synonymous in law. No crossover of terms. Sex has a legal lexicon, and gender does too. They are not interchangeable. .

1. New legal protections for 'gender expression' such that no discrimination is allowed on the basis of how someone presents themselves. Not protections for 'trans' which should not exist as a legal concept. Protections for male people who present themselves as whatever they perceive their gender to be -feminine, etc. And vice versa.

A person's sex status is immutable. Their gender status - and this is NOT a compulsory characteristic, JUST LIKE RELIGION, is subject to change if wished.

1. 'Grandfathering' of the 5000 already granted a GRC. They have passed through a period of history that endorsed a legal fiction, and they benefitted from it and will continue to do so. But that door is now closed and none will follow. Those people will be the last to be legally recognised as the sex they are not.

That is my desired outcome. What would yours be?

Don't start with the compromise you think society will give you.
Start with how you think things SHOULD be. Uncompromising.

Totally with you in your opening post BarrackerBarmer this is my position but you express it so much more eloquently.

SistersOfMercy, you write as though sex is difficult to ascertain. But it isn't. It's very, very easy, as the OP said.

However an awful lot of men who identify as women seem to be under the impression that they pass when the truth is that women have been too kind, too polite or felt too intimidated to say anything.

The selfies taken by TW on various Reddit sites show it's very hard to pass if you're MtF. Human beings are sexually dimorphic, so pretty much every detail of our bodies differs. A MtF may pass in a still photo but in life their walk, stance and proportions reveal the sex. IME it's unmistakable from behind.

Even Caitlyn Jenner, with every surgical and cosmetic advantage, doesn't pass. It's obvious what sex CJ is as soon as CJ moves or gestures. The iconic photo carefully conceals the hands and forearms.

My "ridiculous proposal", readers, is that the sex which is already on the birth certificates of 66 million UK citizens no longer be subject to change according to the 'feelings' of the holder.

Sistersofmercy appears to be arguing that it is impossible to do something - record sex - that we already do for every single person without exception

Do you not accept that everyone's sex is already a documented fact?

All other documentation should be reflective of fact.

5000 individuals have a legal lie on their birth certificates. Many, many more have a legal lie on other forms of ID. NHS estimates suggest that people identifying as transgender may top 2 million within a few years.

My proposal is that we no longer validate legal lies, and that sex on birth certificates and other documentation be factual and truthful.

I’ll come back to this but I agree with the points in the opening post.

I do see a need for a privacy enabler for men who choose to present as feminine and vice-versa. E.g. having sex: M (T) on a passport would avoid having to explain why a male person has a female name and appearance, or having a marker on a bank account would help avoid this sort of situation, or having a marker on medical notes would ensure that the person receives appropriate medical care for their sex, etc.

Also: name changes - no matter for what reason - show up on DBS reports. This is too important for safeguarding to be messed around with.

I think it may well be harder for men to identify sex than for women to do so. In my unscientific sample of the men and boys in my family, when watching either trans people on TV or looking at random lanky teenagers - they seem to go for 'boobs = female; no boobs = uncertainty, urgh, awkward'.

I've just embarrassed my daughter by accurately identifying a teenager in a drama show as 'girl, but playing a boy' (DH had asked whether a key character was a boy or girl -- it wasn't just a random statement). The child in question is trans FtM, but I didn't know that before DD told me.

I suspect that women are more accustomed to assessing sex (and possible risk level) than men need to be.

I suspect it's also connected to the more crass, unsubtle aspects of male sexuality (ie. if it has boobs, long hair, and lipstick then it's for shagging - some of them seem like they'd try to shag a postbox if you put a blonde wig on it and drew some lippy on the front).

I've read that Bronners.

Interesting judgement, isn't it

It elevated the rights of males not to be searched by other males who presented in a feminine way OVER the rights of females not to be searched by a male who presented in a feminine way when the law already assumed that it was unacceptable to be searched by the opposite sex.

So it elevated presentation over the sex based rights.
But
I strongly suspect that had the situation involved a female pc presenting male that the opposite conclusion would have been reached. That men have a right to refuse a female no matter how she presents. That sex trumps presentation, when it comes to men's rights.

In other words, the case prioritised men over women.

I've just reread Lord Rodgers of Earlsferrys judgement and it's really interesting.
His position is that
-the chief constable WAS prepared to make accomodations such that Ms A would NOT have to do searches
-the law SUPPORTED the position that women should not be forced to be searched by the opposite sex, and thus the Chief Constables position.
-that Ms A introduced the obstacle by saying being excused from searching women would 'out' him as transexual
(Let me search the women so that I am validated, in effect)
And that Ms A had no right to compel the chief constable into confidentiality about his status where to keep it secret might break the law

The chief constable, stuck between a rock (let Ms A, a legal and biological male, search women to validate himself even though that breaches women's legal rights) and a hard place (employ Ms A, excuse him from search duty, and accept that colleagues might ask questions, potentially outing him)
...went for not offering employment at all.

The judge seemed actually completely sympathetic to that plight but said that Chief constable should instead have offered the job and let Ms A accept or reject the terms (those being - you can't search women, full stop, but I can still employ you, but I can't lie about your status, and you can't compel me to do that where it would mean I'm now breaking the law, so the truth may come out about you. Your call, Ms A )

That isn’t the only case where a trans woman, without a GRC has been ruled to have been discriminated on the basis of sex. For example the very recent ruling that a trans woman without a GRC had been refused her state pension.

The case law supports the principle that legally trans women are women and trans men are men.

The law also states that women have sex based rights because of their oppression and risk from male violence, defines women as adult human females, and requires that there are sex based separations for privacy, dignity and safety in situations of vulnerability and undress. And a whole lot of stuff about safeguarding.

The law's got a bit muddled, hasn't it? Due to bloody silly lack of research, forethought and common sense in law making. Hence why we're all stuck here trying to argue that women have rights too .

ranty

Two questions for you:

1. Do you believe humans can change sex?
2. If you don’t, do you believe a law that treats a biological impossibility as a fact is a good thing or not?

You’re right and the same principles apply, a trans woman or indeed a trans man is protected on the basis of sex. Not necessarily on how they were observed at birth, but how they present and are perceived in a given scenario.

The basis of your arguments against trans people is that you believe you can always tell, when in reality those who transition early enough or can afford facial surgeries may well be indistinguishable from natal women.

The law has to therefore reflect a society which isn’t as black or white as you’d like it to be.

but how they present and are perceived in a given scenario.

Perceived. Exactly. You cannot legislate people's perceptions. That is why sex is more important than gender.

It does not matter if Mary 'passes'. The fact that I think 'she' is a woman won't stop 'her' raping me with 'her' penis should 'she' choose to.

One of my replies to the GRA consultation was to add separate gender and sex fields and differentiate between the two. Its the only way forward IMO.

How people look vs how people behave.

Solve the problem of male violence before you subject any more women in psychiatric units to mixed sex wards.

you believe you can always tell, when in reality those who transition early enough or can afford facial surgeries may well be indistinguishable from natal women.

I'm not remotely bothered how people choose to look. That's up to them, and good on them, I'm all for the abandonment of gender stereotypes around appearance. I do not however want to be forced into situations of vulnerability or undress around people with penises with no right to boundaries or consent. Or for any man who chooses, with any motive he chooses, to be able to walk into any women's sex protected spaces.

@jellyfrizz, Barack has suggested repealing the hard won rights of trans people in this thread. To the point they lose all their access to correctly gendered facilities. But not explained how foreign trans people who the UK XX gestapo haven't marked as "birth sex" via their birth certs are to be policed. Because I assume, she can't.

Also @jellyfrizz ...
"How exactly do you enforce access to "women's spaces" anyway

Much the way it always has been."

--> Excellent, self-id. I agree.

Facilities are sexed, not gendered. Hope that helps!

I'd only repeal the hard won right TO LIE and force people to acknowledge that lie as if it were true.

That would put everyone back on an equal footing under the law.

But I'm very balanced...I don't think ANYONE should have that right

Sisters Dramatic much?

Let's cut to the chase here. Do you think Karen White, as a transwoman, should be in a women's prison, women's changing rooms, women's wards, giving intimate care to vulnerable women?

Sisters single sex exemptions only apply in very restricted circumstances, so no, Barack is not proposing repealing hard won rights to "ALL their access to correctly gendered [sic] facilities." Indeed, if the TRA argument that the EA already excludes trans people even with a GRC from sex-segregated spaces and therefore nothing would change is correct, then she is proposing making no changes at all to the entitlement of trans people to enter different facilities.

What she's proposing is that the GRA be replaced with two separate laws, one of which protects gender and the other protects sex.

I don't know whether I agree with that or not, but it wouldn't stop anyone travelling (or do you think people from countries with self-ID are physically unable to travel to countries with no mechanism to recognise transition whatsoever? because that would be obviously wrong) and wouldn't see an end to hard won rights.

It is irrelevant how well someone passes as the other sex or not. Everyone knows what sex they themselves are and therefore they know whether or not they are breaking the law. If they choose to break the law then that is their look out (although of course also crap for anyone affected by the breach) . They might get caught, they might not, just like a dog walker failing to keep their dog on the lead in a place where using a lead is mandatory is breaking the law, whether or not they get caught.

An individual cannot just decide that a law does not apply to them because they do not like it or because they think they should be able to get away with breaking it. They can only make a personal decision whether to follow the law or break it. If they choose to break it then consequences may or may not follow. All laws work like this.

If someone is thought to have breached a law there are plenty of ways of meeting the evidentiary burden without asking them to drop their trousers.

@BarrackerBarmer

Your OP is balanced, respectful and fair to everyone.

I genuinely don't understand the objections to it, unless people are (a) choosing to read it wrong or (b) unwilling to contemplate anything other than us all agreeing that transwomen are women.

I was going to write, 'anything less than' but I think the idea of different values being attributed to different sexes is against the spirit of the thread.

The basis of your arguments against trans people is that you believe you can always tell, when in reality those who transition early enough or can afford facial surgeries may well be indistinguishable from natal women.

Err, no. The basis of the argument is that males and females have different biological needs (sex), it’s not about how people present (gender).

No matter how much money a trans woman has spent on transition they are not going to miss out on promotion because they took maternity leave or need sanitary bins in toilets.

The argument is for women not against trans people.

I'd like to point out that what would be a "correctly gendered" facility for a transwoman would be "incorrectly gendered" for me. I would be compelled to use an incorrectly gendered facility such as public toilets/leisure centre changing etc.

When facilities are allocated by gender rather than sex it is a violation of my privacy, safety and dignity. It forcibly shoehorns me into a concept I utterly repudiate as oppressive and subjugatory. I do not have a gender... this elision of sex into gender as the overriding concept in law and policy erases all provision and rights for women like me who do not subscribe to having a gender identity.

Sex and gender should be treated as separate legal concepts... the conflation of the two is a legal lie, has knock on terrible consequences (Karen White) and is helpful to no one (except those who wish to exploit loopholes for nefarious purposes).