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

WatchThePotatoesBoil
I reckon the "recorded at birth" is a sop to the trans lobby. The "sex they were born with" isn't compatible with saying "I was always a woman, since birth, even though I fathered several children, I just had some physical issues which I have had fixed now" which is the current line.
"Recorded at birth" suggests the person doing the recording was mistaken, and that the individual can still claim to have been the preferred sex from birth. The new orthodoxy discards the "I was born a man and became a woman".

I'm confused. I thought a GRC allowed a new birth certificate which stated you were the opposite sex (ie the gender you identify as). So the impression I got from the above is that if you have a GRC you can access spaces meant for the opposite sex.
And if self-ID comes in it is a lot easier to get that revised birth certificate

All this guidance is so biased. Far too much wording which is not in the actual legislation, that really stretches the interpretation in favour of trans people.

I agree heresy the second change is worrying - good for intersex people maybe where it is possible mis-sex a baby, although unlikely in this country nowadays.

but I don't like how it seems to give a little leeway to imply that a changing of sex might have been achieved, or a mistake made. Preparing the way for divorcing sex from biology maybe.

Its all a stitch up for women though.

as opposed to the sex recorded at birth really does sound like someone made an accident when they made the record initially.

Agree.

Well done Nic Williams.

I have to admit, I don't fully understand, and I follow these discussions routinely. What hope does an average person have who doesn't spend any time on Twitter or Mumsnet?

"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.

This is incorrect. An adopted person does NOT get a new full birth certificate . They have a document called” an extract from the adopted children’s register “ that clearly shows that they are adopted . The privacy of the child and it’s parents is breached every time it has to be shown eg when a child enrols for school or university , applying for a passport, or a student loan.

@Pootlebug

That's exactly what I thought.

The main purpose of the GRA 2004 was the avoidance, at the time, of same-sex marriage. [See the 2003 Hansard record of the debates in House of Lords]. That Act was also designed to accommodate only 5000 people [see Hansard record]. Now that we have same sex marriage plus equalising of pension age the GRA 2004 has no purpose and could easily be repealed. We must campaign for this on those grounds and do away with the Legal Fiction that is the GRC.

I agree. The GRA is the problem

They snuck it in; now it must go

This is incorrect. An adopted person does NOT get a new full birth certificate

It's Wikipedia - it may be a US example.

Another Change:

Section: "Access to changing rooms and other facilities"

"Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes."

The above paragraph (Page 38) has now been deleted.

Ok, I’m confused. This looks like a really bad change to me.

I thought that the EA permitted single sex spaces (ie allowed the exclusion of all trans people whether with a GRC or not) if reasonable/proportionate etc.

But no one can ask to see a GRC and the max anyone can request is a birth certificate re ‘proof of sex’. But birth certificates can be changed on request.

So the single sex exemptions in the EA are still meaningless. What have I missed?

• as opposed to the physical sex they were born with
• as opposed to the sex recorded at birth

At first this looks like a really minor change but I don't think it is. 'Sex' isn't described as physical any more, it's just admin - something that's 'recorded' not a property of your body.

It's obvious from reading the old Hansard records that the GRA was meant to solve some real practical problems for a tiny number of people who were suffering greatly.

They predicted about 5000 applicants and there have been 4910 so they got it about right, but we are now told there are up to 500,000 trans people and the reason they haven't applied is because it's too difficult, expensive, intrusive bla bla (it's really not)

All the practical problems the GRA was meant to solve have now been dealt with by other legislation. We have same sex marriage. We have equal pension age (from next month IIRC). TRAs will tell you that it's to avoid being 'outed' but we all have eyes anyway.

We are now told that 'trans is not an illness' so the idea this is something kind we are doing for a group of people who are suffering has also gone.

It's very obvious to me that the GRA is not so much being reformed as repurposed and I believe the purpose is to render 'sex' as a legal category meaningless, not just in the EA, but in all contexts. It just wouldn't be recorded anywhere because if anybody can change their legal sex at any time with just a statutory declaration, what's the point?

No legal sex = no sex based rights

This is from the NUS guide to filling in the consultation:

Whilst we have responded to this consultation in good faith and believe that reforms would have a positive impact on trans people, NUS are nonetheless committed to achieving an end to gender as a characteristic regulated by the state in the long term.

It's not just daft student ideas. Here is a research project run by the Dickson Poon School of Law at Kings College London. They've been given half a million to research the feasibility of doing away with sex as a legal category. One of the expected outcomes is a draft bill. The icing on the cake is that their advisory board is EHRC, Stonewall and Equality & Diversity Forum (don't know much about EDF).

That change has also been made on page 39.

This:

"You must not restrict the participation of a transsexual person in such competitions unless this is strictly necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise. In other words, treat a transsexual person as belonging to the sex in which they present (as opposed to the physical sex they were born with) unless there is evidence that they have an unfair advantage or there would be a risk to the safety of competitors which might occur in some close contact sports."

Becomes:

"You must not restrict the participation of a transsexual person in such competitions unless this is strictly necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise. In other words, treat a transsexual person as belonging to the sex in which they present (as opposed to the sex recorded at their birth) unless there is evidence that they have an unfair advantage or there would be a risk to the safety of competitors which might occur in some close contact sports."

You've missed nothing Interviewee1001

They've removed a bit of text that blatantly contradicts the EA (because they had to once this was pointed out) and replaced it with a bit of text that is a loophole around the EA.

Same outcome.

From a brief skim, I think the new wording is even more confusing and contains even more weasel phrases. I suspect some of you are being too optimistic. Change is not always improvement.

Could be wrong, will have a look later.

I'd say the crucial question is: What is "sex recorded at their birth"?

This may be an impractical consideration on-the-spot but in court it is important. People assume it is their birth certificate but I don't take that as a given.

As a parent, you're not given a birth certificate when you check out at the hospital. You have other paperwork that has the sex recorded on it.

You get the baby registered and collect a birth certificate at a later date.

TRAs will tell you that it's to avoid being 'outed' but we all have eyes anyway

Yes

Am I missing something, this doesn’t seem a positive step at all....no protection for women’s sex based rights.

You are missing nothing. There is nothing positive about this.

TRAs will tell you that it's to avoid being 'outed' but we all have eyes anyway

Yes. They all think they "pass". They don't.

Hang on, the quotes refer to 'transexual' throughout. Not transgender. Can someone cleverer than me tease out what that means please?

"The sex in which they present"

What does this mean?

Page 42 gets the same standard cleanup, changing "as opposed to the physical sex they were born with" to "as opposed to the sex recorded at their birth" and the deletion of "Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes."

But here's an interesting change on page :

"A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person. Nor should the transsexual person be given a worse standard of service, for example, by allowing other customers to make hostile remarks or refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present. "

Becomes:

"A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person. Nor should the transsexual person be given a worse standard of service, for example, by allowing other customers to make hostile remarks. "

So: The phrase "refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present." has now been deleted.