Debbie Hayton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b

changing physiological or other attributes of sex

What does that even mean. What attributes of sex are not physiological?

Are they talking about souls, ethos, personality?

No wonder we have lost female only spaces, how can you argue about protecting sex against 'attributes'.

Is there anything about tra that isn't about men's rights the the abolition of female spaces? Why are so many people who write these policies so keen to remove female spaces?

... which means none of them are 'legally female' and are only protected under EA gender reassignment category, yes?

Yep.

So if you intend to say, get a boob job, but never get round to it, you can still be protected under gender reassignment?

You don't even have to do that. In fact you don't even have to be trans.

If someone is discriminated against, on the basis that you think they're trans, they're protected under the characteristic gender reassignment.

I want everyone with a "female attributes" to have fair access to services and facilities. But when 'female attributes' is interpreted as female, we lose female spaces. Surely people who provide sex segregated spaces know they are provided for biological, not attribute reasons?

If someone is discriminated against, on the basis that you think they're trans, they're protected under the characteristic gender reassignment.

Or even if they think - or say they think - you think they're trans.

Remember: it's all on victim perception, nothing to do with actual motivation.

I think that the original intention was the "planning to undergo" would offer protection to people who had started down the road of "living in the opposite sex for two years" and could face discrimination from employers and landlords who weren't keen on men wearing dresses. Plus it helps patch over the long delays for surgery - people aren't being penalised for something outside their control. And of course in the old days, who would say "I want to change sex" unless they really meant it?

Which is all laudable, but rather out of date now

It's an interesting point, though, about the loud voices we have heard in the GRA debate and who has and hasn't got a GRA themselves.

I suppose it's quite possible they've been refused GRCs...

Amazing that anyone actually can get refused seeing as violent sex criminals can successfully apply for them.

I believe some trans activists are opposed to GRC’s because it involves appearing on a government list.

That’s why they prefer the idea of a self ID that works like a deed poll, with no central records held.

I suppose it's quite possible they've been refused GRCs..

Debbie Hayton said she could have one but didn't have a need for one.

Jane Fae said she wouldn't have one for ideological reasons:

"I don’t have one. I will not, because I absolutely refuse the right of the state to demand money from me for the simple purpose of acknowledging who I am. In that sense, the GRC is NOT like a passport or driving license. Because it says that my gender is dependent on the ratiocination of some state apparatchik, who obviously knows who I am better than I do."
www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/why-has-trans-woman-tara-hudson-been-sent-all-male-prison

Not sure if Paris Lees has said explicitly:

"Writer and broadcaster Paris Lees transitioned when she was a teenager. She has not applied for a GRC but her passport says she's female. She told the BBC anything to make the transitioning process "just a little bit easier" was "long overdue and great news".

She rejects the fears raised on Mumsnet and elsewhere as "absurd"
www.bbc.com/news/uk-40713645

The shift in prison policy which came about after the campaign based around Tara Hudson's move from male estate (also no GRC) informed the decision to house Karen White, formerly known as David Thompson and Stephen Wood in female estate. White subsequently sexually assaulted four female prisoners.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapist-karen-white-in-women-s-jail-was-trans-faker-lbcwjp8jc

Amazing that anyone actually can get refused seeing as violent sex criminals can successfully apply for them

from the BBC article linked above:

"Former boxing manager Kellie Maloney says her application was twice rejected before her gender recognition certificate was granted"

Here’s a 5 year old article by Jane Fae that throws up some interesting scenarios.

I can see why a GRC would’ve been unappealing for some before gay marriage existed - divorcing an opposite sex spouse and recommitting under a same sex civil partnership would result in a loss of some financial benefits on death of the trans spouse, due to no longer having the true length of the partnership recognised in law. Totally reasonable to campaign against that, but not relevant now, thanks to marriage equality.

At the end of the same article Fae reveals a reason for middle age AGP’s and convicted sex offenders to support the early transitioning of children - it’s an argument against the current obligation to disclose your trans history... and we all know who secrecy benefits:

www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/05/gender-and-consent-trans-not-deception

This pedo successfully got a GRC www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281372/transsexual-paedophile-moved-womens-prison/amp/

One of the amusing ironies in Trans Britain:
pioneering transactivist Mark Rees who took his claim to change legal sex to ECHR in Strasbourg in the 1980s, which began the series of cases culminating in ruling that forced the GRA in 2004.
But he did not apply for GRC because he preferred to remain legally female to get the early female pension!

Yep. TM want to retain the sex based rights that suit them (earlier pensions, women’s prisons) and TW want to gain the sex based rights that suit them (earlier pensions, women’s prisons).

I can’t imagine why TM and TW aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet on these issues

Another New Statesman article referencing Jane Fae:

2012 'The turning of the tide'
BYJULIET JACQUES
The media's monstering of transgender people is finally being challenged.'
(extract)
hatever the long-term results of the Leveson inquiry, one appearance may prove a turning point for an increasingly visible and (hopefully) decreasingly vulnerable population. When Helen Belcher presented Trans Media Watch's submission last week, explaining the largely negative practices and consequences behind more than a hundred news items about transgender (but mainly transsexual) people, it felt like a turning point for a group no longer prepared to tolerate the media intruding into and sensationalising their personal histories." (continues)

"Just because editors believe that the public are interested does not mean that this reporting is in the public interest. The detrimental effects outweigh any benefit in this systematically invasive and dishonest coverage, which at worst threatens not just the safety of individuals, but the existence of the entire transsexual population by undermining their right to gender reassignment via the NHS. In this "age of austerity", stories attacking transsexual people for using a service to which they were entitled became frequent; the unsourced figures oscillating so wildly that Jane Fae compiled a comprehensive guide to the actual costs to the NHS. Her figures are far below the £20,000-£60,000 spread I've seen across the right-wing press."

This was another fine example of transgender people using the internet to challenge a media that has objectified and excluded them for years. On Friday, Millivres Prowler launched a stable-mate to Gay Times and lesbian/bisexual publication Diva, aimed at the transgender population. Meta, an online magazine catering to female-to-male and male-to-female people will likely reach a larger readership than any other trans-related journal. Its editor, Paris Lees, appeared on BBC Breakfast last week, alongside Livvy James, to expose transphobia in the media to a terrestrial television audience. Now, there's a sense that the excuses that gatekeepers of mainstream liberal and left-wing spaces have previously used to keep out transgender perspectives that the issues are too complicated, or that transsexual people somehow undermine feminist or socialist politics are finally becoming untenable." (cont)

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/transgender-media-transsexual

unfortunately the embedded link to JF's 'comprehensive guide' is not available to me

Current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3371942-Trans-Media-Watch-Twitter

From the Fae article Before obtaining your GRC, however, you must show that your partner actively consents to it. Not that they are aware, or have been informed: but that they consent. This is a seriously odd requirement, seeing as how their consent has not previously been required for other changes, including name, hormones, or surgery.

I don't think Fae has grasped that the marriage is a joint venture. Its important that both spouses are aware and happy with the marriage, not just one.

I can understand being refused a GRC on a technicality - paperwork isn't always easy to get together, whether it's doign tax returns, applying for a visa or claiming benefits. And there's no right of appeal to a GRC refusal - something which I intend to raise in my response to the consultation, as it's against the principles of public administration - so a re-application is the only way forward.

I'm also going to say that a GRC should only be granted to those with a clean criminal history, or perhaps after crimes are deemed to have been "spent".

On one hand we are told that a GRC is an absolute right for trans people to obtain, that they deserve the state to recognise their gender identity. On the other, it's an irrelevant bit of paper that hasn't held up the careers of a number of prominent TRAs...

Yes, re-application is unfair because the fee would be payable again.
There should be some kind of chance to appeal before a complete reapplication is necessary.

Anyone know how this stacks up in terms of other legal changes (such as application for spousal visa, indefinite leave to remain or citizenship? All are far more expensive than a GRC and the fees are not returned on refusal, but i’m not up to date on those laws so don’t know if there is a clear appeals process/how it works?)

I agree with criminal records checks too, but I don’t think low level crimes such as shoplifting should be automatic grounds for refusal. Sexual offences, absolutely, and non sexual offences on a sliding scale of seriousness, perhaps? Fraud should probably put you on a exclusion list too, at least until it’s been spent.

From this, the number of people refuse GRC is very low. KM was very unfortunate to be denied twice before being granted one. Maybe more to it than a bit of lost paperwork, twice.

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-10-06/105995/