Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GRA and Equality Act

107 replies

Zhora · 15/09/2018 23:36

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?

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 17/09/2018 20:49

If you are giving out 'this will allow any man to...' leaflets then that either proves that you are ignorant or a liar.

Have I expressed it in exactly those terms? in the wider scheme of things it does though, by eroding women's sex based protections by allowing
many more males than the tiny current number into the female sex class.

Furthermore, this is part of a wider debate about strengthening women's rights and increasing sex based protections. Many people are just realising now and being made aware what has been done under the radar.

Ereshkigal · 17/09/2018 20:53

No we don't want males in our spaces. We are asking for that to be taken into account. The EA doesn't have to be changed, just the guidelines, policies and code. We want other solutions to be found that don't involve steamrolling over women's boundaries and our privacy and dignity. Public opinion matters and would influence future guidelines. Swim England wrote some terrible guidelines with Stonewall about how intact male bodies should be allowed into female spaces if they said they were trans and women should be "educated" to get over it. That went down like a cup of cold sick and they pulled them. So not so cut and dried.

ShotsFired · 17/09/2018 22:00

This thread: coming to a "transphobic radicalisation portal" twitter thread near you soon....

seafret · 17/09/2018 22:04

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

Bloody hell Zhora that is the point of it. To hide a person's birth sex with a legal fiction (administrationally at least). There are loads of situations where you have to give ID and a birth cert, like to open a bank account or rent a house, and this would show (as if no one knew already) that a man going by the name of Karen and wearing a dress and listick, is in fact a male. Thus a GRC creates a legal fiction to hide the truth - or rather to let no one speak the truth in that person's presence.

No one minds Zhora that you dont know much about it it is a complex area of shitty messed up law and few of us here are experts, but you are really bloody argumentative for someone so poorly informed. When you admit this, I cannot understand why you would repeatedly insist that you are right. It comes across as stupid and arrogant.

A situation such as toilets at work can be policed more easily as anyone without a GRC will not have their sex hidden, so people such as HR know exactly what is what and can say so and challenge men using the ladies (and they stick out like a sore thumb). To claim the protection given under gender ressignment under the EA, one would have to acknowledge that one is trans. With a GRC HR may know of it because of needing to deal with pension info for eg, but cannot disclose this information to lower managers so they can check for toilet infringements etc. But this is about way more than toilets.

A GRC does make things murky as to how to enforce the exceptions when a birth cert says a legal fiction and you suspect ptherwise. But I wonder (and am happy to be put right) if women's groups eg a rape center could work around it by asking women service users to sign a declaration that states that the service applies single sex exemptions under the EA, and so provides services to natal women only, and that service users must declare that they are natal women and have never had gender reassignment. I think (am not a lawyer) this could mean that a transwoman with a GRC who went ahead and lied and obtained services by deception would be committing fraud (so long as they service was paid for).

It is entirely wrong though that the onus is put on women to have to go throught this defensive rigmarole when the law and society should never be creating the expectation that a man is a woman in the first place. Not to mention that the poor women would have to suffer this clearly abusive male in their presence until (and if) they could persuade the police to do something about it.

Everything about this tramples on women already and giving it further credence in law just makes it worse.

OnlyObjectivity · 21/09/2018 19:55

Zhora

the hordes of 'men' suddenly appearing in female spaces post GRA reform is a straw man argument

Hardly.

There are no police officers "policing" toilets. It is down to members of the public and facility staff to do so. Since there is no law against a man being in a women's toilet, members of the public have to make an on-the-spot decision as to whether that man has a legitimate reason for being there.

Having a GRC would be a legitimate reason. So a member of the public currently has to mentally ask themselves on-the-spot: "Is it likely that an independant panel of professionals granted this person a GRC, and thus they can claim legitimate access to being here?"

Under self-ID, the question becomes: "Could this person have self-declared their way in here?" and there's a good chance they could have.

Predators know that too. They're watching this debate and know that the existence of self-ID causes sufficient doubt that they likely won't be challenged, and as such don't even need to self-ID.

blinkowl · 21/09/2018 20:06

OnlyObjectivity thank you for writing so clearly what I've been failing to articulate.

Your post sums up this issue so well.

Ereshkigal · 21/09/2018 20:14

It does, the claim of discrimination is a subjective test based on a reasonable belief. If you have a policy where anyone can legally self ID to get a GRC the belief that it's just some dodgy chancer without one is less reasonable.

The law needs unpicking. MTFs without a GRC have no absolute right laid out in primary legislation to access female spaces. They are no different to any other males legally.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page