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.

Because of course we all know that people with GRCs walk around waving them in people's faces like some 'let me in' badge of honour.

The majority of organisations already choose not to exempt using the Equality Act provisions, not because of some mass TRA lobbying, but because they don't see an issue and there isn't one as far as the majority of the public are concerned otherwise we would already have seen people up in arms about it.

If an exclusion is in place then anyone getting a GRC now or in the future will just have to deal with it, that's not going to change. It's made very clear in the Equality Act about the fact that a GRC doesn't suddenly give you magic access and as the Equality Act isn't changing what's actually ludicrous to suggest any GRA changes are going to have some huge effect on the numbers of transgenders using the spaces they want to. They already are.

The majority of organisations already choose not to exempt using the Equality Act provisions, not because of some mass TRA lobbying, but because they don't see an issue and there isn't one as far as the majority of the public are concerned otherwise we would already have seen people up in arms about it.

That's nonsense from start to finish. If that were the case there wouldn't need to be any guidelines penned by Stonewall, GIRES, Gendered Intelligence, Mermaids, Allsorts would there?

The majority of organisations already choose not to exempt using the Equality Act provisions, not because of some mass TRA lobbying,

Oh, you mean like the Fire Service chose not to exempt last night, just a few days after publically abstaining, and a lot of lobbying? #thisneverhappens

And like the Girl Guiding Association saying basically their hands are tied?

You can minimalise until the cows come home, the facts are right there speaking for themselves.

It's made very clear in the Equality Act about the fact that a GRC doesn't suddenly give you magic access

Do point out this part of the Equality Act?

MOVE ALONG. Nothing to see here, you silly women.

there isn't one as far as the majority of the public are concerned

Yes, I do enjoy your utter dismissal of women and girls who are concerned and restricted by their culture, religion, history of sex abuse and rape etc and will no longer be able to access public toilets, refuges, changing rooms, go swimming, going to Girl Guides, and so on. Such a noble sense of inclusion.

Women's and girls' consent was assumed. We were not asked to consent. Now we are explicitly withdrawing that consent. The way we can do that is to reject the GRA/GRA proposals.

This. Obviously the first step is stopping the ludicrous GRC be any easier to get.

Spaces aren’t nearly as relevant as legal protections.

The legal fiction of the GRC, if expanded beyond the tiny number of current holders (under 5,000) will leave us unable to prove sex discrimination in court.

For example, a woman constructively dismissed because she is breastfeeding and needs a private space/time to pump/a fridge to store milk will no longer be able to prove sex discrimination in court because a the company lawyers will simply say ‘but men can breastfeed too’.

This is why the entire GRA needs repealing and starting again. Live how you want, dress as you want, but changing sex is impossible.

I support self ID for gender, BUT ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE CLEARLY SEPERATED IN LAW (and prisons, refuges etc are divided on birth sex, not chosen gender).

Yes, I do enjoy your utter dismissal of women and girls who are concerned and restricted by their culture, religion, history of sex abuse and rape etc and will no longer be able to access public toilets, refuges, changing rooms, go swimming, going to Girl Guides, and so on. Such a noble sense of inclusion.

There's a difference between 'majority' and 'utter'. Get yourself a dictionary.

Try re reading. Your - your personal view in your post quoted - utter (total) - dismissal (of the concerns of).

What does that have to do with 'majority'?

There's a difference between 'majority' and 'utter'. Get yourself a dictionary.

There's a difference between MTF trans and woman but you don't seem to realise.

support self ID for gender, BUT ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE CLEARLY SEPERATED IN LAW (and prisons, refuges etc are divided on birth sex, not chosen gender).

YY. This is how it appears to work in Ireland despite it being held up as a beacon for trans rights.

Let me explain this for you:

Your post was about my 'utter' dismissal of concerns. I had previously said the 'majority' of the public did not have an issue. That indicates I realise that some people have an issue, otherwise I would have said something like 'not one, single person has an issue'. Therefore I am not making an 'utter' dismissal of concerns. Get it now?

ArmchairAnnie

I have one question for you: Who benefits from self ID?

You keep saying it won't have a negative effect on women, and it won't change anything, but if it won't change anything then why change the law?

Someone must benefit from a change in the law, or there is no point in changing it. So who benefits, and in what way will it change their lives?

Still trying to work out how you misread that and how to make it clearer.

Your point: the majority of women (claim unsubstantiated) are fine with it

My point: An obvious group of women and children are not, and will have very significant problems with it.

You seem not to be remotely bothered about those women and children. Are 'minorities' to be disregarded then?

Do point out this part of the Equality Act?

You can't give someone something they already have.

Ah! I was supposed to infer by the word 'majority' that you do actually acknowledge the issues and experiences of women and girls who don't agree with you. Even though you don't talk about, or show the faintest concern about their needs or how to meet them or whether this process should take them into account in some way. When silly me, I was using the word 'utter' to indicate 'sheer' and 'extreme' lack of caring instead of imply you hadn't recognised the fact of the existence of that population.

Got it. Need to hang on your every word and inference a whole lot more, clearly.

Old Crone said

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.

But not only that, if a woman can be anyone who says they are, and that anyone can be just an ordinary looking bloke, then any ordinary looking bloke can simply walk into the womens’ changing rooms at the leisure centre. As trans activists are so fond of telling us, nobody asks for your birth certificate when you enter a sex segregated space, so how are the women in that changing room supposed to know whether that ordinary looking bloke is legally a woman, let alone his intentions in being there? We are not allowed to ask if ordinary looking bloke has a GRC or not, so what do we do?

It’s an open door policy. Maybe not by the letter of the law, but the door is not being applied right now, in fact many places are moving to self ID a head of the law, so any single sex exemptions are effectively being circumvented, contrary to the single sex exemptions in the equality act.

The law*

We are being challenged over this specific change and told it will not affect us. Our concerns are dismissed and ridiculed.

But look at this in a wider context: that of the direction of travel.

The original GRA was brought in under the radar. That in itself was no accident. This was a law which allowed people, in effect, to legally change their sex, which is an enormous shift. The numbers were limited and those allowed to change were carefully regulated. Even if it was discovered, concerns could be dismissed as it was never going to have a major impact, in itself.

But then the Equality Act was brought in to supersede the Sex Discrimination Act. Women’s rights were eroded a little bit further. This act was brought in quickly without much scrutiny. It included gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. However the way this was defined meant that even right at the start of that process, one was covered.

Now the GRA is being reconsidered. The proposal is that original terms, which included only a few thousand people are to be removed.

Various groups are also pushing towards changes to the Equality Act such that the protected characteristic would be gender identity, rather than reassignment.

I know I’m teaching my grandmother with most posters here, but look at the direction of travel and how rapidly those changes are occurring. Yet we are told again and again, this is just a small step. You’re silly to worry. These changes are already occurring and nobody is being harmed

The changes are indeed under way. And we can already see the damage . This is not “just a small step that will make no difference”. It’s a stage in a massive pathway swathing through women’s rights. And until we can make that visible to the politicians in power, women will continue to be harmed.

ArmchairAnnie

Do point out this part of the Equality Act?

You can't give someone something they already have.

Stop deflecting. Point out the part where, quoting you:

It's made very clear in the Equality Act about the fact that a GRC doesn't suddenly give you magic access

TRAs are so slippery and/or bad at arguing it's quite breathtaking. Don't want to answer what you said? I'll pretend you said something different.

For the avoidance of doubt, where is this "made clear" in the Equality Act?

The majority of organisations already choose not to exempt using the Equality Act provisions, not because of some mass TRA lobbying, but because they don't see an issue and there isn't one as far as the majority of the public are concerned otherwise we would already have seen people up in arms about it.

Hahaha. Every single trans lobby group there is, is running as fast as they can, and have been doing so for years, to write the 'inclusivity' policy of almost every organisation you can think of.

We can read you know.

Only last month a school decided to maintain a girls only toilets. Cue 50 prominent transactivists piling on them to make them change.

They weren't allowed to exempt.

Hampstead heath women's ponds are not allowed to exempt.

Women's bra fitting services, online for adolescent girls - not allowed.

I would be very interested to know exactly what scenario you envisage as being one fit for exemptions?

Any one. Just give me one.

Because I can't think of a worse one than allowing a male rapist to be incarcerated with vulnerable women who he is then allowed to attack.

It's bad enough when transctivists talk bollocks, but when it's bollocks that we have spent the best part of a month refuting, and anyone can bloody read, it's unforgivable.