Am I correct in thinking....

[littlecabbage]

That at the moment, a "genuine" transwoman, in possession of a GRC, is allowed to enter female-only spaces? And if challenged (because someone could see by looking at them that they were not born female), do they have to produce their GRC to be allowed to remain in the space?

Just trying to get it clear in my head, ready for talking to people about the consultation. I want to be able to show that I sympathise with genuine gender dysphoria, and that it's mysogynists/rapists/voyeurs etc that I object to.

I don't understand how the current system works, in terms of challenging someone who you feel may not have the right to be in a women's space. If I'm not mistaken, there is no actual right to demand sight if a GRC. With the current system, however, until recently anyone with a GRC was likely to be 'authentic'. Authentic in the sense that they just want to go about their business without upsetting anyone else. It's been a trust-based honour system, really. One that depended upon female socialisation to work.

This is why AWA TRAs insist 'nothing will change'.

It’s very confusing.
The GRA states that the person must be treated as having acquired the new gender. They can get a birth certificate, which will state they were born the new sex (impossible). This will prevent eg employers from discovering that their employee is trans. As they are treated as having acquired the new sex/gender (the act conflates the two), they will for the most part use women’s spaces and services (although it doesn’t actually say anything about this in the GRA). The EA 2010 allows service providers to still exclude trans women (even those with a GRC) from its services if this is necessary and proportionate. However, the EA also prevents discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, covering trans women without a GRC. The majority of service providers, schools etc have interpreted this as meaning that trans women can always use women’s spaces. Very few rely on the EA exemptions to truly offer single sex spaces.
Prisons would take a GRC as prima facie evidence that a prisoner should be housed in the estate of their acquired gender. Only in v rare circumstances would this not be the case. Those without a GRC can make a request to move and the prison authorities cannot discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment.
Basically if self-ID goes through, male prisoners will have a prima facie right to be housed in the female estate, with the burden falling on the prison authorities to show why this can’t happen. There are zero requirements to present as your acquired gender, so doesn’t take a genius to work out that those men unhappy with being in a male prison can get an easier ride by applying for a GRC. It’s already happening and we don’t even have self-ID.

Anyone with a GRC is allowed to enter female spaces but organisations can choose to deny them that if they think it's legitimate and proportionate to do that.

The problem is (at least) two-fold:

Many transwoman do not possess a GRC and are already entering female spaces, entering female sporting competitions and winning prizes for women

So already they are effectively self-IDing

Secondly, many organisations are not invoking the Equality Act exemptions because either they don't know or don't care about them

IMO, the problem is that the GRA exists at all - the government should have asked women what it thought about male-bodied people in female spaces before making the legal fiction that men can become women.

But given that it does exist, it should not be acceding to demand to make obtaining a GRC easier. The GRC is the only gatekeeping we have

Transexual people aren't the ones saying that obtaining a GRC should be made easier. I have simply never understood what is so onerous about it. The ones who are saying the GRC should be based on self-ID are the ones to worry about, IMO

It's a bloody great mess

One of the issues is that I believe it is illegal to actually ask for a GRC, so if someone has changed their birth certificate, how can you effectively use the exemption? If they insist they are 'female' (even if they clearly appear to be male), what can you actually do? I do think the GRC was a bad idea, and being able to effectively rewrite history by altering a birth certificate is absurd.

Thank you all for explaining that. It's very contradictory, as you say.

I guess what I'm trying to understand, is what stops a rapist claiming to be a transwoman and entering female spaces now? Sounds as though the only reason they (generally) don't is that they don't understand the very confusing laws either, and assume they will be challenged.

Or perhaps they think currently they will at least need to dress as a woman, and don't want to, whereas self-ID would allow them to enter dressed exactly as they normally would?

Especially as so many other rights depend on medical scrutiny. What of the horrific way in which benefit claimants are treated when they claim to be too sick to work? Why can they not self-ID as disabled?
What about children with SEN? Why can their parents not self-declare that their child needs extra support? Why do we think intrusion is fine there but when someone wants to do something with enormous consequences such as legally changing gender, it’s suddenly literal violence to require them to go to a doctor or to show evidence that they genuinely need to transition?

being able to effectively rewrite history by altering a birth certificate is absurd.

Yup.

For prisoners serving a long term sentence, it’s a no-brained. If I was a dangerous male criminal, I would 100% apply for a certificate granting me an easier existence. Someone like Ian Huntley has nothing to lose. He won’t get out anyway and probably gets a load of abuse from fellow inmates. Why the hell not? You don’t have to take hormones or do anything to your body after all.

Watch this- it puts it into perspective how insane this all is:

About a year ago I was in a 'rest room' (toilets) in America whilst visiting a theme park. I was in a cubicle when a lady shouted ''Fox in the hen house! Fox in the hen house! He wearing feathers but he ain't no hen". I was really confused and assumed there was a lady with mental health issues in the sink area, so tentatively left the cubicle and made my way to the sinks where half a dozen women were washing theirs and their children's hands and all was quiet.

Dh was waiting outside and told me that a man had gone in and straight out again and that he was wearing a dress with trainers and he was massive. I've no idea who the lady shouting was, but I wonder how many women in there were grateful (I was). Public toilets in America aren't very private, there are gaps around the doors. It was far more effective than wondering if he had a GRC.