Letter to Scottish Parliament from Scottish Trans Equality Network

[HeyHeyThey]

Alerted to this when looking at publicity for a Scottish Secondary School being awarded its Bronze LGBT Charter and being congratulated for it in Scottish Parliament last week. Retweet of Scottish Trans tweet and letter below by Beth Goodyear. I believe she is something to do with the Charter Award process.

^Trans equality does not equal women's inequality! Read
@ScottishTrans's open letter to understand why.^

www.parliament.scot/S5_Equal_Opps/Inquiries/LetterfromEqualityNetwork.pdf

It's not a long letter but these are the crunch paragraphs for me and I just want people's thoughts. Is this actually right? Does a trans person's 'Lived Sex' come under the Sex Protected Characteristic of the Equality Act?

(I wanted to italicise it all but you have to do each word individually?! So I just italicised beginning and end of quoted sections)

In summary therefore, it is incorrect to state that the sex protected characteristic in the Equality Act only protects on grounds of biological sex. It does provide that protection of course, as it should, but it also protects trans women and men from discrimination or harassment that happens because of their lived sex, whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate.

It is therefore not incompatible with the Equality Act, and in no way undermines the protections that the Act provides non-trans women, to treat trans people in their lived sex.

Nor does such treatment adversely affect women’s access to single-sex spaces. Single-sex services in Scotland generally treat trans women as their lived sex. They do that sensitively to the needs of all involved, and it works well. If the Committee wishes to know more about this, we urge you to speak with organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland or Scottish Women’s Aid for example.

I would like to be able to counter this belief accurately and calmly if indeed it is the case that what they are claiming is not correct.

Bumping for more legal minds.

I understood that the legal precedent was that the comparator class for sex discrimination claims was birth sex or legal sex post a GRC award. But I had that impression from MN. I don't believe 'lived sex' has any legal force at present except as a prerequisite for GRC? Though I'm sure there are thoughts about a case to try and establish 'lived sex' as a concept in law, because that's gender identity isnt it, and gender identity is tending to slip erroneously into lists of protected characteristics. There are also frequent arguments that gender and sex are de facto interchangeable concepts.

It's incorrect because it conflates two separate issues.

The Equality Act actually makes that clear when it clarifies that trans people can be excluded from single-sex services even if they have a GRC, ie have a legal sex that differs from their biological sex.

Their argument seems to be an oblique reference to discrimination by perception.

So if an employer doesn't hire a female candidate who is an equal to male candidates because the employer thinks she won't mesh with his all-male team, this is sex discrimination. If a male candidate who the employer reads as a woman is rejected on the same grounds, then he has been subject to discrimination by perception. This is as unlawful as when it happens to a female candidate.

However, this does not mean that such a person cannot be excluded from single-sex services. Because single-sex set asides are actually the exception to the rule of sex discrimination being unlawful.

Under an extremely limited set of circumstances, it is entirely lawful to treat someone differently if they are a different sex. Those circumstances include services that are not needed by members of another sex (prostata checks) or situations where the needs of the end user require a single-sex setting (rape counselling).

Conflating these two separate issues is disingenuous to put it politely. Done by manipulative, lying bastards. That would be the less polite assessment.

I see that STA get central funding, half a million quid of it.

You'd think that, with that sort of cash, they'd make sure that what they put out is accurate.

This is total tosh. So, if a person passes, they are of the opposite sex?

I think the gender clinics need to be clear with people with trans issues - you can't change sex, sorry, dude, you can't. Be happy in your stereotypes of the other sex, but, you can't change your DNA.

These lies the trans community tell themselves, and us, are deeply damaging.

'Single-sex services in Scotland generally treat trans women as their lived sex. They do that sensitively to the needs of all involved, and it works well'

Do they? And does it?

How many women does it work well for, and how many not?

Lothain NHS can't guarantee me a female nurse to do my smear. So, no, it's not very fucking sensitive and it does' meet my needs.

Ah so they're getting rattled now about women actually being listened to.

'Lived sex' is not the same as biological sex.

Biological women are a distinct, easily identifiable group with specific needs for spaces and facilities apart from men relating to their biology. Those needs cannot be met when male are present, regardless of how those males live and identify.

Do whatever you want in creating additional spaces, but biological women continue to need spaces specific to biological women only, that males cannot enter. Once males are included in the situation, regardless of how they present and identify, women's needs are no longer being met.

Women have needs too. It is not just, equitable or compatible with human rights to remove those facilities for women solely so that males do not have to face that there is a difference between a TW and a biological woman. This works for TW. It does not work for all women. End of.

'Single-sex services in Scotland generally treat trans women as their lived sex. They do that sensitively to the needs of all involved, and it works well'

It is not sensitive in any way to the needs of biological women.

Women are afraid to speak out.

How many women, particularly vulnerable women, are self excluding and have lost access to any provision at all to allow people born male a wider and more emotionally supportive range of choice?

What sensitive provision has been made for women who are not willing to agree that a lived sex and a biological sex are one and the same, and to undress or be vulnerable in a space alongside someone they perceive, quite fairly, as a man?

And sorry to bang on, but just to point out the bloody obvious:

Necessary to be sensitive, supportive and offer MORE CHOICE to people born male to honour and support their feelings

Necessary to reduce and REMOVE choice and support from women, avoid and deny needs of women and the expressed feelings of women, and paint this massive loss of sensitivity and support as 'better for everyone'.

Utter fucking bollocks. Don't piss on women and tell them it's raining, this is blatant sexist double standards.

the comparator class for sex discrimination claims was birth sex or legal sex post a GRC award

This isn’t just from Mumsnet, it’s from a court case where a prisoner was claiming he was being unfairly treated as he wasn’t allowed wigs and stockings (dangerous). The judge said he had better conditions than other men and was therefore not discriminated against.

I’ll try to find it if I haven’t cross posted with someone faster.

No I didn't think it was made up by MN, just that I'd never read the original source. Thanks anyold.

How does anyone know what's working well for females or males if statistics aren't collected by birth sex any more? Also what does 'working well' even mean? Lots of people who used to make awkward complaints have self-excluded?

I saw 'lived sex' on a thread on here a few days ago, if I can find it I'll link it. But it seems that this is a new tactic to get round protections in the Equality Act. There was a written piece where 'Gender Identity' was replaced throughout with 'Lived Sex'

Although thinking logically your lived sex is surely your actual birth sex? Regardless of your gender identity, you can only live as the sex that you actually are, surely?

The case is listed on here if you want to rebutt the claim.

womansplaceuk.org/julian-norman-in-house-of-lords/

Nor does such treatment adversely affect women’s access to single-sex spaces

Just to add that I am so fucking sick of anti-woman-activista making these sort of claims. How ironic that they tell everyone to “stick to your own lane”

The honest way to push for change would be to set out the arguments for why they feel male transitioners should have women’s rights extended to them, and then clarify that obviously it’s important that service users of those women’s services should be consulted.

Just to summarise:

They are right that trans people who pass are protected from discrimination and harassment in circumstances where discrimination by perception applies.

They are wrong in asserting that this has any bearing on the lawfulness of trans people being excluded from single-sex services of the opposite sex.

They know this.

They also know - as do we - that very few trans people pass. And that those who will benefit most from self-id (those who undergo no body modifications at all) will be subject to discrimination by perception only in exceptionally rare circumstances. (I was going to say never, but the world is just crazy enough now).

IOW this is a smoke screen. An obfuscation. Blatant demagoguery that creates a false equivalence between two unrelated issues, completely and deliberately misrepresenting the facts of the matter.

Thanks all and thanks AnyOldPrion for that link to the Womans Place website. Will read through that later.

It does seem a bit sneaky to breezily drop in the phrase 'lived sex' and expect no one to notice that that doesn't actually mean 'sex' as it is meant in the phrase 'sex based protections'. I'll get my thoughts together and maybe drop a wee tweet on Beth's Twitter. Important that the person who is advising schools on their LGBT Charter awards is not putting forward misleading information to young people (and old!)

There is an account on twitter calling itself "Real Equality Act" that seems to be spreading similar information?

twitter.com/Act2010Real/status/1161299359985803264?s=19

"This is specifically wrt sex discrimination. Read it and you will see. The scenario you Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes have in mind is one where the relevant protected characteristic is gender reassignment. So this statement doesn't mean what you think it means.
Here's the bit you need to have noticed in order to even begin to properly understand what the thing you are linking to is actually about t.co/kFm5u3ru35

When would a trans person be claiming in relation to sex discrimination and not gender reassignment discrimination? When they are already being treated as their lived gender, but being discriminated against as such. NOT the scenario you have in mind.

But in practice a trans man without a GRC being discriminated against as a man, or a trans woman without a GRC being discriminated against as a woman, would be able to go under discrimination by perception. So the difference with/without a GRC is pretty technical. You're welcome.

Another attempt to conflate sex and gender.

TheShoes I recall James Morton of Scottish Trans Alliance (I think) using the expression 'lived sex' which seems to be the new woke word for gender.

There is an account on twitter calling itself "Real Equality Act" that seems to be spreading similar information?

This is an account that was set up to counter a GC account which is focused on the EqA.

The argument made by these people is once again irrelevant to the question of trans people being excluded from single-sex set asides of the opposite sex.

Just keep remembering that these are two different issues:

Unlawful sex discrimination which trans people who pass as the opposite sex are protected from twice (in their biological sex via the sex discrimination provisions and in the sex they seek to emulate via the discrimination by perception provisions).

Lawful sex discrimination which excludes trans people from single-sex services and spaces either on the basis of their legal or their biological sex.

There is no reference in the EqA or its explanatory notes or any statutory guidance to "lived sex" btw. Which is as undefined in UK law as "gender identity".

It does seem a bit sneaky to breezily drop in the phrase 'lived sex' and expect no one to notice that that doesn't actually mean 'sex' as it is meant in the phrase 'sex based protections'.

Is there a definition of 'lived sex' anywhere? This does seem to be a new phrase which has come from nowhere. Are they just talking about living as some regressive, offensive stereotype of the way you're supposed to live depending on your sex?

Lived sex seems to be a term that's only ever been used by Equality Network/STA since the Census Amendment Bill. Not mentioned anywhere else on their website and hasn't made it into their website glossary either.

Vic Valentine (STA) and Tim Hopkins (EN) had a go at defining it to the census committee last December but were rather less than convincing (same session that Rosa Freedman and Forwomen.Scot gave evidence).
www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11836&i=107072&c=2137217#ScotParlOR

Thanks AncientLights

It was James Morton of STA

Thread here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3702947-Come-read-this-please-Mortons-neverending-gaslighting-bullshit-steps-up-a-gear

Article from thread here www.heraldscotland.com/news/17931281.must-fight-rolling-back-trans-rights/

Thanks Charlie. I thought they were talking rubbish, and you've articulated perfectly why.