Reform of the GRA - can someone answer a question?

[lucydogz]

I'm just going through the Easy Read section. One of the points it makes is that there will be no change to women's - only spaces. So, doesn't that solve many of the issues that have been discussed here?
I'm not being disingenuous, as, until now, I've been strongly opposed to the adoption of Self ID, but would be interested to hear what others say.
Also, my apologies if this has been done to death already.

Why don't you have a look at the fairplay for women's guide

It has a good explanation on the issues.

Basically, women's spaces can stay as women's only. But when any bloke can rock up and say he is a woman, it makes a mockery of 'women's only'

If you have a transwoman in a changing room standing there naked they are viewed legally as a woman so therefore it's a naked woman standing there naked.
If an 11 year old girl who has gone swimming with her dad is in there, she might not see it the same way.

It’s complete nonsense to say there will be no change to women only spaces, when they’ve utterly destroyed the dictionary definition of “woman” to include anyone with a penis who wants to invade said spaces on their own say so that they “feel like they’re a woman” that day.
Either we fight this nonsense to the bitter end, or we accept having to be naked in communal showers and changing rooms with naked male genitals.

I've just checked out the wpuk site on this, which is very useful, thanks.
spartacus I hear what you say, but isn't the document saying , in effect, that trans women won't be allowed in women's -only spaces?
What I get from reading the wpuk guidance is that the basic problem lies in the erosion of the concept of 's ex' and replacement with 'gender', which effectively dismantle s the provision of women -only space s? And which lies outside of the GRA? Is there any way of countering this apart from challenging it's use?
Can I also ask, when a transwoman declared their sex, so they have to say male? If so, is there a possibility of that requirement changing?
Again, my apologies for covering old ground, it's just that I want to get it straight in my head.

Sorry about the typos, I'm On my phone

I hear what you say, but isn't the document saying , in effect, that trans women won't be allowed in women's -only spaces?

If any man can get his birth certificate changed to female simply on his say so, it will become impossible to implement single sex spaces or services on the ground. Privacy restrictions mean no one has any way of establishing what sex that person is.

There is short and longer guidance at www.fairplayforwomen.com as well

Men aren't allowed in women's spaces.

The political argument is that Transwomen are women, so are not men in women's spaces.

Self ID means any man can at any moment decide he's a transwoman.

Specious argument #3251b, 'single sex exemptions will do the job of protecting where biological women only are allowed':

• hasn't worked to keep male bodied people out of women's prisons, even when they're rapists
• hasn't worked to keep male bodied people out of women's refuges
• hasn't worked to keep male bodied people of girls' organisations such as girl guides
• hasn't worked to keep male bodied people out of vulnerable spaces like women's psychiatric wards even with a detrimental effect on other patients
• hasn't worked to keep standard safeguarding procedure around children in terms of preventing male bodied children to sleep, shower and toilet in the same room as female bodied children, (although does provide for stopping the female children from voicing safeguarding red flags like saying 'no' and 'I'm uncomfortable' and 'what about the PANTS rule'.

Would be interesting to know in what situations it would apply since if it doesn't protect biological women and girls in the above situations then it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

If you have a look at the last couple of pages of the Girl Guiding thread you'll find the most recent reply from the GG Association basically saying there's nothing they can do, their hands are tied, and proving in writing that the single sex exemptions are meaningless.
The 'single sex exemptions will remain' is a 'don't frighten the horses' line thrown out either in ignorance or in intentional gaslighting to get this in law and irreversible before the general public realise.

The problem is that the Equality Act allows a 'case by case' basis for inclusion. That means various services are concerned about being tied up in legal action. Add to that the pressure to not be 'transphobic', and many women's services are going unisex in advance of legislation.

What women need is for Govt to give a clear message and protect women only spaces and services.
Its ridiculous to expect service providers or users to police this. It just isn't safe or reasonable, and it discriminates against women.

This:

What women need is for Govt to give a clear message and protect women only spaces and services.
Its ridiculous to expect service providers or users to police this. It just isn't safe or reasonable, and it discriminates against women.

Also it needs to actually work in practice. If self-ID came in how can service providers establish who is biologically male?

God the GRA is tedious isn't it?! Important but I've stopped about half way through for a rest!

I actually don't have a problem with using gender over sex as alex to me is the having if it and I've found gender in many a form instead of sex and not thought anything of it.

On another thread somewhere someone said that you can never know if a trans woman has a penis or not when they enter a female public toilet and even if we did know we don't know if they are in there for a pee or for something more sinister.

I googled this (should have known) but there was a case of an rape of a 10 y o girl in Wyoming some time ago in a loo but it wasn't a public toilet.

I'm sympathetic to a degree - when you've got to go for a wee you've got to go - but I'm uncomfortable with this and with the issue around prisons and sport especially and the whole #nodebate thing gives me the rage!

isn't the document saying , in effect, that trans women won't be allowed in women's -only spaces?

No, it's saying only women are allowed in women's spaces and transwomen are women.

What you've read is correct OP. Any person can, in theory, identify as trans at the moment and use the spaces they want to. Those against the changes are throwing around all types of claims about floodgates opening to crowds of men who will be able to identify as a woman at the drop of the hat and then go back to normal. They're doing that because it's a good line to get people's backs up but it's not true. A person does not need a certificate to use the spaces they want to so if they are trans they'll already be using them. The idea that there's this mass of people going 'good the GRA has changed, now I can get a certificate and start using women's spaces' is just propaganda.

No, it's saying only women are allowed in women's spaces and transwomen are women.

Yes that is the assumption we're supposed to work from. I think a lot of confusion stems from the fact that quite reasonably men (males) are excluded from many spaces intended for the privacy and dignity and safety of women (females), or to redress issues of structural sexism in which women (females) are disadvantaged. The law as in the primary legislation of the EA doesn't actually differentiate non GRC holding MTFs in this respect from any other male people. Again quite rightly. GRC holding MTFs are considered to have the protected sex characteristic female. Transgender activist lobby groups have in recent years conflated the two into "trans people" (the trans umbrella) and have persuaded everyone it's discrimination to not treat non GRC holding MTFs exactly the same as women. This is not the case. The comparator in a discrimination case based on the protected characteristic "gender reassignment" would be a male without gender reassignment. Not a female.

The good faith exclusion of men from female spaces is something we take for granted. MTFs without GRC who feel they should be able to ignore this are not doing it because they have an absolute legal right to. They are doing it because lobby groups have worked to persuade everyone that they can.

And people with a certificate don't have absolute legal rights either. The Equality Act makes it very clear that they can be excluded where necessary. Getting a certificate isn't going to magically say to anyone 'here's the magic key to the toilets, go and use them'.

Those against the changes are throwing around all types of claims about floodgates opening to crowds of men who will be able to identify as a woman at the drop of the hat and then go back to normal.

No, ArmchairAnnie, that's not what we're saying. If a man can legally become a woman just by signing a document, there will be some men who will do this to gain easier access to women and children in order to commit sexual crimes. There will be no 'going back to normal', whatever that is, that man will be legally female for the rest of his life. Some men will do this. It would be extremely naive to think otherwise.

Men who do this will not need to do anything to their appearance to convince us that they are women, because 'woman' in the eyes of the law will have been reduced to a feeling that some people (men) have about their identity.

This law is all about changing the definition of woman from 'adult female human' to a feeling of gender identity.

And people with a certificate don't have absolute legal rights either. The Equality Act makes it very clear that they can be excluded where necessary. Getting a certificate isn't going to magically say to anyone 'here's the magic key to the toilets, go and use them'.

Except two things. One, what Spartacus said. Bringing lots more male people into the female sex class will obviously erode the idea of what the legal class female means. So it will be increasingly difficult to exclude males.

Secondly, the possession of a GRC obviously strengthens a discrimination claim. This is agreed by many transactivist legal experts. It is a very high bar indeed to exclude a male GRC holder. So yes it does affect women's spaces to relax the gatekeeping and need for medical diagnosis.

I'll just point out to you that the entirety of the Equality Act is based on the perceived victim of discrimination or harassment making a legal claim.

ArmchairAnnie

Who benefits from a change to self ID? Predatory males, but who else? I'm struggling to think of any other group that would benefit from a change in the law.

Annie take a look at my post above on how well the Equality Act exemptions are working to protect biological women and girls.