Confused - Need Clarification

[chickenshaslikklambbhuna]

This morning I read the paragraph below , written by someone who is well known and fighting against self id & it has confused me.

"The equality act is already self-identification. So trans people can already self declare themselves trans. The gender recognition act is assessed and they want this to also be self ID. The difference being that a trans person could then not just self ID as trans but also as actually female."

I do get that many female spaces are already governed by taboo rather than law. I think what I want to know is. If I found Dick or Dicketta in my communal changing room (it has no cubicles) is this lawful now?

The paragraph in quotes above make it sound like the virtual self id that we have now, means that in reality we have very few truly female spaces in law. Is it true that the only spaces we could ever hope to protect would be very limited to refuges, prisons, rape crisis centres? Could Dick in the FPFW video already access those spaces now if he wanted?

Single sex spaces are perfectly legal. Consistent with the equalities act. Although it is unclear exactly what the boundary for reasonableness is, and it is clear to me that that boundary is likely to move if self id becomes law ( that boundary being the one at which each transperson with a grc is entitled to case by case consideration of their right to access the single sex space rather than simple exclusion on the grounds of sex)

Yes we rely on social policing /social norms rather than dna scans at the door. It’s very effective.

Yes we rely on social policing /social norms

And the TRAs are trying to change these social norms so that, for eg, public toilets become de facto mixed sex.

Saying 'it's already happened and has been happening for years (so why worry)' is one of the strategies to push this through. However look at some of the recent conversations in the press with Whittle who is pushing this at government level, and they themselves flip flop between 'this is a minor administrative change' and 'people will commit suicide if the GRA is not reformed'.

Also bear in mind the research on what happened in Target in the USA and the recent analysis of the 2-3 fold increase in sex based crime against women there. When it was published, celebrated, announced knowledge that people could choose whichever changing room they wanted, it actively promoted and built the confidence of male people to both use AND abuse access to female only spaces, many of whom were enjoying it for non trans related reasons.

It was the promotion/open statement that This is Now Ok that caused much of the problem for women, whose experience wasn't nearly so inclusive or jolly.

I find this aspect the hardest part to get my head around. Bearing in mind the paragraph in my OP was written by someone on our side, I felt quite dispirited and further confused reading it.

I do understand Julian Norman's analysis (i think i do) that discusses gatekeeping as a social taboo. Also Kathleen stocks recent twitter thread, giving a hypothetical sleeper carriage scenario as an example of how self id will make women vulnerable should self id become law.

However I don't understand what I could do or legally expect were i to find Dicketta stark bollock naked (emphasis on the bollocks) in my gym changing room. If Dicketta were tell staff she is trans, legally should/could she be left to it?

If Dicketta were tell staff she is trans, legally should/could she be left to it?

The problem is the law is opaque enough on this that your gym will probably have been advised by a lobby group that Dicketta must be treated as a woman in every way.

Legally, they could be excluded but there is a massive and successful push to get organisations to act "ahead of the law" on this.

I've been contemplating what action I might take were I to find Dicketta stark naked in my gym changing room. If the management state (as we all suspect they will) that there's nothing they can do, etc, I shall be forced to write to them telling them I can no longer use the changing rooms (and requesting a rebate on my membership fees, as I shall not be using full facilities for my own privacy and safety) and (b) contact my local MP to inform him of this. I shall probably also contact the press.

I live in quite a small town, which is also relatively remote and had imagined the scenario was unlikely. On Friday, I saw my first transwoman in town, so it's more likely than I had thought.

I think that in the UK, there hasn't been a solid court case to give a definitive answer to the naked Dicketta in the changing room question.

The situation is that the Equality Act exemptions should be applied on a case by case basis, so there is no law that says "all changing rooms must be single sex". The gym could conduct an assessment and come to the conclusion that they, as a business offering services to men and women, wish to provide single sex changing rooms, and a judge would need to determine whether that was sufficient to enable them to use the E Act exemption.

I'd guess most places haven't ever really thought about why they provide single sex facilities, and whether they should continue to do so. Therefore, I would also guess that they would be vulnerable if taken to court because there's no paper trail to support and justify their situation

Schools in England (and I think the rest of the UK, but not 100% sure) are different, in that the regulations covering school provision are explicit that toilets and changing facilities should be single sex except in very specific circumstances. But we have still seen this being flouted by schools, either in re-designed facilities aimed at reducing bullying (for example) or in individual cases where boys have been allowed to use female facilities (often on the advice of groups like Mermaids)

The other clear exception to the Equality Act is All Women Shortlists, where the primary legislation is clear that only women and transwomen with a GRC are eligible for inclusion when political parties chose to use the route to increase female representation. This is why it's so curious that individuals like Madigan were allowed to stand as women's officer, and it will be interesting to see how the court case being brought agains the Labour Party by JJ comes out

This thread might help
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175666-Want-to-know-why-women-are-livid-trans-thread

I do understand Julian Norman's analysis (i think i do) that discusses gatekeeping as a social taboo.

As Julian points out, having a GRC is relevant as the comparator in a discrimination case should be legally male, not female. A GRC holder is considered female for most purposes.

As PP have pointed out trans lobbying groups are being allowed to write guidelines. Gendered Intelligence wrote the government guidelines for employers and service providers. It's striking when you watch the oral evidence how there was acknowledgement that women's spaces were a "tricky issue" even in 2015, although TRAs lie that it's been a fait accompli since 2010.

Sorry if not clear the oral evidence I refer to was to the Maria Miller Women and Equalities Trans Inquiry. And the Gendered Intelligence guidelines were a response to that Inquiry.

ManFriday proved that women who attended the men-only swimming ponds while identifying as men at Hampstead Heath were breaking a by law and they were swiftly escorted away.

It is perfectly legal to enforce same-sex spaces regardless of someone's "gender identity"

I think they're confusing the protected characteristic of gender transition, which could reasonably be considered self-id, and the protected characteristic of sex.

Just because you're saying you want to be a woman, doesn't give you the protected characteristic of 'woman' it does give you the protected characteristic of gender transition. Having the characteristic of gender transition gives you no more right to access opposite sex spaces than any other person.

Having a GRC gives you the right to be treated as the opposite sex in law, but, exclusions are still allowed, for example changing rooms, because it's a legal fiction, and the law is fully aware of that.

ManFriday proved that women who attended the men-only swimming ponds while identifying as men at Hampstead Heath were breaking a by law and they were swiftly escorted away.

I don't think that was quite the case - they'd confirmed that they should be allowed, had that permission in writing, but in order not to cause excessive trouble, they agreed to leave when asked by the police. Because they're reasonable people who were demonstrating a point, not entitled arses out to cause upset.

*to

WPUK 5 Demands:
Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.

The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act (which allow for single sex services, or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

God it's a mess and I feel less embarrassed for being confused. I keep reaching a point of confidence & understanding & then losing it again.
*
Micke* when you say -

Just because you're saying you want to be a woman, doesn't give you the protected characteristic of 'woman' it does give you the protected characteristic of gender transition. Having the characteristic of gender transition gives you no more right to access opposite sex spaces than any other person.

What kind of expectations re. discrimination can a person who has the characteristic of gender transition have? Why wouldn't that include a toilet or changing room of the sex Dicketta wishes to ogle thinks she should have been born as?

Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic, and it is currently a strongly gate-keepered characteristic. Just saying you are a women does not give you anything. You do not today get the protected characteristic by say so. You need to live as a woman for years, you need a medical diagnosis that suggests your health depends on the transistion

What kind of expectations re. discrimination can a person who has the characteristic of gender transition have?

Not being hired because their trans, not being allowed into a club because their trans, being targeted for harrassment because they're trans, being refused housing because they're trans.

So for example, if a transwoman wasn't allowed into the men's gay sauna, I believe they'd have a case here - they're male, this is a male exclusive space, and so if the transwoman was refused access that would be discrimination based on gender reassignment (or proposed reassignment - you get protection from the moment you propose it).

It would not be discrimination to refuse access to a female exclusive spa, because the spa will be using the protected characteristic of sex, and they are not of the right sex (this would hold true even given a GRC if the spa wished to exercise that legal option)

men can have a single sex space as sex is the protected characteristic not femaleness

men can have a single sex space as sex is the protected characteristic not femaleness

Yes, and if they exclude males who are trans (ie transwomen) then they are discriminating based on gender reassignment, which isn't an allowed exception.

I believe that this is similar to the all women shortlist challenge - if you're allowing men onto the list, you need to add all men - having the characteristic of gender re-assignment doesn't give you a get out clause for the sex based exemption.

Yes you can Insist on a sex only even if someone is one of the 5000 or fewer people who actually have gender reassignment. However if it is one of those very few persons they have a right to ask/expect and the refusal needs to Be proportionate. Which is probably harder to justify in the males case. Although not being a man and not being of any particular religion I may be making an incorrect statement there

I think I Mam repeating myself, sorry!

Which is probably harder to justify in the males case

yes, it probably should be. And yet so far it's the blokes that don't seem to be having the problem keeping females out. i wonder why that is....