Gov.uk statement about the GRA consultation

[donquixotedelamancha]

This doesn't seem to have been posted already:

www.gov.uk/government/news/facts-about-the-gender-recognition-act-consultation

The Gender Recognition Act sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender. The Government Equalities Office wants to ensure that the legal gender recognition process works well for the people who use it which is why a consultation is currently underway. These are complex and sensitive issues. We know that many trans people find the current requirements overly intrusive and bureaucratic.

We have always made clear that any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not change the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.

In this current consultation, which ends next week, we are seeking to understand the issues in more detail and explore ways in which we can improve the system.

This is an open consultation – we are not putting forward any specific proposals for how we want the system to change. Only after we have gathered all the evidence will we set out what we think the new gender recognition process should look like.

Neither the Government Equalities Office nor Ministers were approached for comment on today’s coverage. The consultation ends next week and we will look carefully at all the responses.

So maybe Penny Mordaunt telling us all that a transwoman is a woman is no longer the party line??

Did she lie? Was she badly advised? Does she not know the difference? So many possibilities.

Which coverage are they referring to?

somebody read today's sunday times and shat themselves (metaphorically)

good

Yup Bernard . The Mail picked up the same story I noted.

I still wonder how that crap biased consultation document got passed - evidently by friends in very high places.

We have always made clear that any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not change the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.

So GG and SG need to take note here.

I hope this will clarify things from a safeguarding POV.

I watched the SG gg good morning interview for the first time and was quite shocked at how SG interprets the EA and the law.

I watched the SG gg good morning interview for the first time and was quite shocked at how SG interprets the EA and the law

Yes, there is a lot of that going on. No one affected can afford to go to court for a better interpretation, and no one affected wants to be taken to court for a better interpretation, so they capitulate.

Changing the law bit by bit by deception.

Interesting...
The AWA want to revise the equality act next though. So we're still going to be fighting.

I also don't know which coverage is being referred to.

We have always made clear that any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not change the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.

They can't introduce self-id then. If everyone can choose their own legal sex, then the protected characteristic of sex will disappear from the Equality Act because it will be meaningless.

Has this been posted?
@mragilligan
67% of MPs across all parties (and 78% of Tory MPs) are concerned that rules allowing men to self-identify as women and access women-only spaces could be exploited by abusive individuals. ComRes poll of MPs, September 2018.

This is completely untrue

We have always made clear that any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not change the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.

They have rowed back on this since women's groups started to shine a light on their intentions.
womansplaceuk.org/government-commitments-on-single-sex-exemptions/
In 2016 Maria Miller tried to pre-empt GRA changes by changing gender reassignment to gender identity in a private members bill.

services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/genderidentityprotectedcharacteristic.html

This came from her Trans Enquiry and had the specific intention of rendering all sex exemptions null and void. She tried to rush it through in a Private Members Bill which only got stopped by the general election.

Other recommended changes are all documented here.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39010.htm#_idTextAnchor213
Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic
17.The inclusion of “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 was a huge step forward and has clearly improved the position of trans people. However, it is clear to us that the use of the terms “gender reassignment” and “transsexual” in the Act is outdated and misleading; and may not cover wider members of the trans community. (Paragraph 107)
18.The protected characteristic in respect of trans people under the Equality Act should be amended to that of “gender identity”. This would improve the law by bringing the language in the Act up to date, making it compliant with Council of Europe Resolution 2048; and make it significantly clearer that protection is afforded to anyone who might experience discrimination because of their gender identity. (Paragraph 108)
19.The protections afforded by the Equality Act 2010 are intended to be available to all, including children and adolescents. (Paragraph 109)
20.The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be able to investigate complaints of discrimination raised by children and adolescents without the requirement to have their parents’ consent. (Paragraph 109)
Exemptions in respect of trans people
21.Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In many instances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test. (Paragraph 132)
22.We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132

To lie about this is very deceptive. They really need to be careful about trying to rewrite history here as it's all documented and easy to find. STOP LYING TO US.

Help me whilst you're all here!

I keep seeing the acronym AWA.

What does it mean?

We have always made clear that any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not change the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.

But if anyone of either sex can identify into the protected characteristic of sex, then it isn't bloody protected is it? That is the whole point.

If the might of the UK government can't keep women's prisons single-sex (and that is even without self-ID) then how exactly is Mandy's Waxing Parlour on the High Street supposed to manage it?

AWA = anti women activist how

But if anyone of either sex can identify into the protected characteristic of sex, then it isn't bloody protected is it? That is the whole point.

I can't decide whether they're stupid or if they think we are.

Exactly. Just what is this proportionate test that is so magically going to tell which men have magically become magical women and which ones haven't. It clearly can't exclude a sex offender/rapist/pedo so I think its not a very good magic spell is it?

A feminist I follow on Twitter said the other day that saying changing the GRA will not affect the provisions of the Equality Act is like saying "We're not changing the lock, we're just making it much easier to get a copy of the key."

Actually Mandy’s Waxing Parlour may have a better chance, back sack and crack can so easily go wrong you know ; )

It is more like "We're not changing the lock, we're just removing the entire bloody door. But don't worry because you still get a key".

If the might of the UK government can't keep women's prisons single-sex (and that is even without self-ID) then how exactly is Mandy's Waxing Parlour on the High Street supposed to manage it?

Good question

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

The statement claims that the GRA reforms are a blank canvas with no pre-conceived ideas of a way forward?

Are you kidding me? Let's take a look at some evidence that contradicts the statement, shall we?

The government told us, unequivocally, that transwomen were women and that there was to be no debate about that.

The Parliamentary Committee took (biased, unscientific and dubious) evidence and produced a set of 36 or more (?) recommendations for changes to the law and policies.

The Consultation document was designed to get further information from organisations and individuals about further steps to make transition easier.

Meanwhile, the government and EHRC was introducing self i/d in anticipation of implementation of the recommendations from Maria Miller's mob.

There has been silence about the barriers and obstructions placed in the way of women meeting to discuss the GRA reforms. Penny Mordaunt went as far as to say that "both sides" were guilty of intimidation and threats. That, too, was a lie and a smear - beautifully exposed by Andrew Gilligan and the Times.

The statement is an insult to the organisations and individuals who have battled to get the government to listen before making a huge mistake.

at the OP quoting government stating ‘We have always made clear that any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not change the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces’

OK fine.. but to my understanding at least, they haven’t been accurately representing those provisions thus far.

Sorry to recycle posts from this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3393523-Reporting-problems-with-the-GRA-consultation
But:

^^ this thread examines some of the stuff they have said about the Equality Act elsewhere in the consultation and accompanying documents.

Personally I was very confused by the ‘factsheet’ provided to accompany this impartial government consultation which contains questionable statements including that:

’There will be no change to the provision of women-only spaces and services’
The Government is clear that there will be no change to the Equality Act 2010, which allows service providers to offer separate services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria. These services can treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently, or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Importantly, a service provider’s starting point should be to treat a trans person in the gender they identify with, and to allow them to access services for that gender unless by doing so they would be unable to provide that service to other service users. This means it can’t be a blanket ban, or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis. For example a female only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the trans person. This has been the law since 2010 and will not change’.

This is wrong surely. See my bolding. They have misrepresented how the equality Act works, from what my understanding of it is (I’m not a lawyer- hopefully someone can correct if I have this wrong).

My understanding is: You CAN have blanket bans for men in women’s spaces. You do NOT have to take as the starting point that he IS a woman. You do NOT have to consider the man in that equation as though he was a woman because he is NOT a woman. You do NOT have to offer him an alternative service, because you are a service provider for women. The standard for not offering him that service is NOT that doing so would be impossible for you to do, but that doing so would massively compromise the service for the intended users, ie WOMEN.

This fact sheet is surely misrepresenting the Equality Act?

It’s here:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

The YHA is already Misusing the Equality Act to allow self ID.

Everyone is too scared ever to question it.
It is already happening and they don't give a shit

Penny Mordaunt barefaced lied (or was thick as mince over) Turkey and EU entry, on TV. So she could be equally duplicitous (or thick) about this, presumably.

She has a degree in Philosophy from Reading University, apparently.

Powerful people being mislead
Or powerful people trying to score points by lying.

Has anyone emailed the girl guides?