Important - The Equality Act guidance has just changed

[WatchThePotatoesBoil]

I've just this minute been told by the EHRC that the Equality Act guidance has been changed, and the new version was published on Friday as promised to Fair Play for Woman.

It no longer states:

Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services.

It now states:

Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate (if they have one) as evidence of their legal sex. If a business requires proof of a person’s legal sex, then their birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

There will of course, now be a new Twitter war on what this actually means.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf

"Fair Play for Women", sorry.

So... new words, similar meaning, single biological sex exemptions still valid if appropriate.

Though they did swerve the toilets issue by changing to disability....

Will Self ID mean a new birth certificate is issued along with a GRC?
If so, how is it legal to introduce a workaround to The Equality Act?

The old words meant that people with a Gender Recognition Certificate should never be excluded from single-sex spaces.

That has gone.

Upstart - I believe that's always been the case.

That’s positive but not good enough. The EHRC must clearly state that single-sex provisions are legal in some circumstances and that providers of these provisions can exclude a trans-identifying person of the opposite sex observed at birth. How they work with that when getting a GRC means a new birth certificate, I have no idea.

That's interesting

So, if we are saying that they can be excluded from single sex spaces, then we are saying that transwomen are NOT women. Even if they have a GRC

Right?

• it was legal in the sense of it being "legal fiction"

Amazing what can be done with the stoke of a pen.
As the saying goes, "The penis mightier than the sword..."

Ooops, I meant "The pen is mightier than the sword..."

Yes how is that going to work?

I think it's becoming more and more obvious that the gender recognition act needs to be completely repealed as it is no longer fit for purpose.

People cannot change sex therefore a new birth certificate in a fake sex should not be issued.

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049293400741052416?s=19

Interesting Twitter thread above on all the ins and outs of the gender recognition act

I'm slightly confused, but take that statement to mean the same as Chrysanthemums does. So a step in the right direction for preservation of safe spaces.

I have said before that I think a birth certificate should not be reissued as a fictional document, as it is a record of facts at the time of birth.

A new certificate showing 'observed [male/female] at birth, legally recognised as [opposite sex] on xx.xx.xxxx' would be better than the legal fiction of a new (false) birth certificate in my humble opinion.

TerfedOff - as stated in the wikipedia link above:

"One example of a legal fiction occurs in adoption. Once an order or judgment of adoption (or similar decree from a court) is entered, one or both biological (or natural) parents becomes a legal stranger to the child, legally no longer related to the child and with no rights related to him or her. Conversely, the adoptive parents are legally considered to be the parents of the adopted child; a new birth certificate reflecting this is issued. The new birth certificate is a legal fiction."

In the case of GRC, I'm not lawyer, but my understanding is that it was done to avoid the huge task of re-writing laws around marriage and pensions.

Male suddenly becoming female on birth certificate... What could possibly go wrong...

However, if they are able to get their birth certificates rewritten, how does this hep women?

help

Another small, but presumably significant-in-some-way change:

It no longer says:

Generally, a business which is providing separate services or single-sex services should treat a transsexual person according to the sex in which the transsexual person presents (as opposed to the physical sex they were born with), as it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of gender reassignment. Although a business can exclude a transsexual person or provide them with a different service, this is only if it can objectively justify doing so.

Instead, it now says:

Generally, a business which is providing separate services or single-sex services should treat a transsexual person according to the sex in which the transsexual person presents (as opposed to the sex recorded at birth), as it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of gender reassignment. Although a business can exclude a transsexual person or provide them with a different service, this is only if it can objectively justify doing so.

Not entirely sure why this was done, but I can hazard a guess...
(p.s. hurrah!! they didn't say "assigned", they didn't say "assigned"!!)

In one sense this is a very significant change.

All through this consultation we've been repeatedly told the GRA changes wouldn't affect us because the EA exceptions could be used even when someone had a GRC.

And all the time this misinformation was there on official EHRC guidance saying a GRC overrode the exceptions. And when this was pointed out to them they took AGES to change it.

How shit is that?

The new wording hasn't actually solved the problem though - If someone, clearly male, attempts to access a women only service with their shiny new birth certificate and you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC then in practical terms it makes no difference to the old wording.

Also interesting

The "assigned" thing was just a fucking insult to reality

I think it does make a difference - it no longer states that they cannot be excluded.

I also agree Birth Certificates should not change. They are Birth certificates. Perhaps they'd like to change the meaning of the word birth

You've got no legal way of saying they are trans though, even if it's extremely obvious they are not female. If they say they are a woman and don't say they are trans and have a birth cert that says female, there's no legal way to ask.

The birth certificate thing probably does mean something. Given that undergoing the GRA issues a "new" birth certificate this sounds like they are anticipating that self-ID will go through and that we cannot question the validity of the legal fiction that anyone will now be able to claim........... This still undermines the strength of single-sex exemptions, in my opinion.

I really don't like the sound of that second change, one bit.

• as opposed to the physical sex they were born with is the biologically correct statement.
• as opposed to the sex recorded at birth really does sound like someone made an accident when they made the record initially.

I do not think this is good news.

well done to those who worked on this.

I might not have understood this correctly but I can't see how it is good news.

I did think that new suggestions were for birth certificates to be changed though. I'm finding it hard to keep up tbh.

They had to change the wording. It flatly contradicted the EA and the government had reiterated that tw with a GRC could still be excluded in their response to the petition. They have changed it in such a way as to make no practical difference.

Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate (if they have one) as evidence of their legal sex. If a business requires proof of a person’s legal sex, then their birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.
This is a complete mess - 'routinely' implies that there are occasions where you can ask for a GRC but then suggests you shouldn't. Does this just apply to businesses, not refuges etc. Dog's breakfast