GRA and Equality Act

[Zhora]

I'm not an expert on the two acts so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand it the Equality Act covers trans people's access to facilities and services unless there is a good reason that can be argued for them being excluded. They do not need a GRC and the majority do not have one. Therefore anyone who wants to can already use the facilities of the gender they identify with. Are changes to the GRA actually likely to make any significant changes to the numbers accessing services? Wouldn't they already be doing so?

I keep having to come back to the same answer.

Likewise people have to keep telling you that you're mistaken/misrepresenting the situation.

Tedious.

Tedious that you're ignoring the legal facts.

You can use it as you would a birth certificate for some documents such as passports. I believe it would also change things like the date you received a pension but obviously that will be wiped out by the retirement ages being brought together. For some trans people it's a psychological thing, they just feel it's personally important to them to have that document. I guess that's a bit similar to some couples who think marriage is important and others who regard it as a meaningless process to them personally.

You don't need a GRC to change sex on your passport, just a doctors letter, for a driving licence you don't even need that.
As you say retirement age will be the same in a couple of years so what does that leave? Feelings basically. The meaning of female is being erased coz feelings.

Tedious that you're ignoring the legal facts.

I'm not. You are misrepresenting them as various people including me have pointed out to you.

We've had these discussions at length before here with other TRAs. Why not look them up?

You don't need a GRC to change sex on your passport, just a doctors letter, for a driving licence you don't even need that.
As you say retirement age will be the same in a couple of years so what does that leave? Feelings basically. The meaning of female is being erased coz feelings.

Zhora has made a very good case for the repeal of the GRA. Thanks for standing with us, Zhora.

Facts are facts, there's no misrepresentation. Telling the public that this is suddenly going to allow people to do something that they could do anyway goes beyond misrepresentation into downright lying.

Not wishing to make this just about toilets but in terms of employment it is not true that legally people can just choose to use the opposite sex toilet. In Croft vs. Royal Mail the court found in favour of Royal Mail when they asked a man who had declared his intention to change sex to use the disabled toilets. The women Croft worked with objected to him immediately being given access to the women's toilets (at this point Croft had not undergone any physical transition). One of the key points made was that the point at which someone 'becomes' the opposite sex and should be treated as such is not the point at which the individual declares the intention to change sex, and that it should be considered as more of a negotiation that considers all parties. A summary of the case is shown below:
"Acquiring the status of a transsexual did not carry with it the right to choose which toilets to use. In the particular case of toilet facilities the employer was not bound by the employee's self-definition in determining whether the change to female gender had occurred. (5) The moment at which a person in C's position was entitled to use the female toilets depended on all the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal approached the issues by considering section 82 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as amended, which provides that the category of persons who are not to be discriminated against on grounds of gender reassignment includes persons at all stages of gender reassignment under medical supervision. The Court of Appeal accepted that this includes pre-operative transsexuals. However it did not follow that, when considering less favourable treatment on grounds of gender reassignment, that all such persons are immediately entitled to be treated as members of the sex to which they aspire. Thus the court said that merely being a pre-operative male to female transsexual would not enable a person to use a female toilet."

The point that trans people can still be exempted has been made at various points throughout this thread.

But it's legal anyway for someone to use the toilets of the gender the identify with so a GRC is not going to suddenly legalise anything because it is already.

Generally there is a social contract in place meaning that obvious male people don't access women's spaces. You can even see this in countries with self ID held up as beacons of trans rights. Ireland generally retains SEX segregation. And in supposedly liberal Denmark women were clearly uncomfortable when "artist" and obvious male Ibi Pippi changed his legal gender and insisted on accessing women's changing rooms. One place he tried wouldn't allow him to.

What counting males as legal females for most purposes does is erode the idea of a sex class. That is very bad for women whose sex based oppression is grounded in our biology. We're already seeing this happen. It's becoming difficult to discuss women's biology as pressing women's issues, something which is desperately needed as we are the sex and reproductive class. I'm not going to stand by and see it made worse.

The point that trans people can still be exempted has been made at various points throughout this thread.

No one is disputing that this is technically possible. Also please be clear what you mean when you say "trans people". In a discussion about the GRA we need to clarify who has a GRC.

The point that trans people can still be exempted has been made at various points throughout this thread.

But in practice, how can it be applied? Take this scenario. An individual applies for a job for which only natal female applicants will be considered, using the exemptions in the EA. This person produces a birth certificate which declares them to be female, but the employer is certain that the applicant is transgender and was born male. How can the employer apply the exemption and exclude this individual?

Telling the public that this is suddenly going to allow people to do something that they could do anyway goes beyond misrepresentation into downright lying

This isn't just about the GRA. If you read the Fair Play fact sheets you will see that they accurately lay out the legal position.

The deck was stacked against women when the government allowed Gendered Intelligence free reign to write "guidelines" for employers and service providers and didn't consider women's rights or needs or ask any women's organisations to contribute.

Zhora, have you ever tried to see it from a womens point of view? A victim of rape that doesn't want men around her, a school girl that doesn't want to share toilets with boys and fall victim of upskirting or worse, an older woman in a care home that wants to retain her dignity by having a female carer, an athlete that has trained hard for her sport only to be beaten by a male? I am guessing you only see the transgender side of things? So how would you like the world to be for women, women as in biological ones?

In my previous post trans people related to any transgender person as exclusions can apply equally under the Equality Act. If you're a GRC holder you can still be excluded under certain circumstances just as much as someone without one.

It's good to have this conversation again for the lurkers, though Zhora. Thanks

In my previous post trans people related to any transgender person as exclusions can apply equally under the Equality Act

Except that in practice as I and others have said most legal analysis done on this agrees that a GRC is a higher bar.

But let's go round again.

In my previous post trans people related to any transgender person as exclusions can apply equally under the Equality Act. If you're a GRC holder you can still be excluded under certain circumstances just as much as someone without one.

But how can you exclude a transwoman with 'female' on their birth certificate who swears that they do not have a GRC and were born female? A transwoman without a GRC will still have 'male' on their birth certificate, and can be excluded.

A GRC doesn't change your birth certificate... I think that's right.

Self-id of legal sex removes the protected characteristic of sex from the Equality Act. If everyone is free to choose their own legal sex, the category of 'sex' becomes meaningless.

Yes it does. It is the only document that you can't change without one I think. Which I think is outrageous personally. As we know a Man Friday chap changed their driving licence easily from female to male and back again without any issues.

You're not really very informed about any of this OP.

Zhora
You didn't even know that a GRC means that you can get a new birth certificate in your acquired 'gender'? Really? You need to do some more reading.

4. In practical terms, legal recognition will have the effect that, for example, a male-to-female transsexual person will be legally recognised as a woman in English law. On the issue of a full gender recognition certificate, the person will be entitled to a new birth certificate reflecting the acquired gender
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes

A GRC doesn't change your birth certificate... I think that's right.

No, it doesn't change the original one, you can get a new one showing your acquired legal sex and no one is allowed to know about the old one.

The EA says people should not be discriminated against, not that they can identity into spaces of people with other protected characteristics.

This. It's policy makers and transgender rights advocates who have brought about this situation. It's not in the letter of the law.

You're not really very informed about any of this OP.

Nice. I've happily admitted not knowing everything about the two acts at various points throughout this discussion, but if you want to use that for points scoring I hope it gives you some satisfaction. If you are giving out 'this will allow any man to...' leaflets then that either proves that you are ignorant or a liar.

The main points about access to facilities and services and what the EA and GRA do and don't do - the main point of the thread - are valid.