Can I just check my understanding re equality act and GRC and GRA changes.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Equality act says can't discriminate against people based on sex or gender reassignment.

Gender reassignment in eqa is defined so loosely as to mean effectively self ID.

GRC means that legally a person becomes the opposite sex.

Equality act says can't discriminate on basis of sex, but there are exceptions such as sports, sleeping accommodation, proportional response to a need (women's shelters etc). This means that males can be legally excluded from female spaces and vice versa if their is a good reason.

Equality act also says cannot discriminate against gender reassignment. This means that you can't sack someone if they are trans, and you can't exclude a transman from women's spaces or vice versa.

GRC means that someone becomes legally a woman, except where single sex exemptions apply. So can be excluded from opposite (biological sex spaces) but female on documentation, statistics, women's shortlists etc.

Currently pretty much everyone is allowing self ID for everything anyway (prisons, passports...) and pretty much everyone is misunderstanding the law (twaw so cannot be excluded from any female spaces ever)

Self-ID means harder to pull back on all the ahead of the law stuff, and more official stats etc may be wrong. Will reinforce all the ahead of the law stuff. Will reinforce idea that sex can be changed. Will possibly impact ability of children to access medical and surgical transition. Other issues with self ID?

What really needs to happen is repeal of GRA completely, reinforcement of single sex spaces, and society to be accepting of people who don't conform to stereotypical gender stereotypes?

Sorry for the wall of text, but I'm am trying to get it straight in my head for the next time I get doorstepped by a canvasser!

Oh and case by case doesn't mean for Eg that individual tw or men should be risk assessed for entry to women's refuge, it means that a women's refuge can decide as a proportionate response to a legitimate aim to be single sex.

This means that you can't sack someone if they are trans, and you can't exclude a transman from women's spaces or vice versa.

Correct, but further need to understand no one has a right to a sex-specific space of their choice. I don't have the right to use Male showers in the gym. A TW has the right to the same facilities as any other gym user, but, like me, doesn't have to right to choose female showers. Refusing them use of a shower because of their trans status would be discriminatory. Refusing them use of female showers is not discriminatory as long as they are offered an alternative (Male facilities, unisex, even disabled facilities). TRAs want EXTRA access over and above what everyone else has.

That's really useful thanks. Lasts canvasser said was great certainty that EA said that and transperson could not be excluded from spaces of their identified gender with great certainty, and I wasn't sure enough to push back.

So without a GRC trans people are treated as their sex for sex discrimination stuff, with a GRC they are treated as opposite sex in most circumstances, but not when it comes to single sex spaces where they cannot use those of the opposite sex.

What really needs to happen is repeal of GRA completely, reinforcement of single sex spaces, and society to be accepting of people who don't conform to stereotypical gender stereotypes?

Having been looking at this for a few years now, this is where I've ended up. There should be no circumstances in which the law says a man is a woman. Companies, institutions, organisations etc should be placed under an obligation to maintain single-sex spaces. Once those have been achieved then we can move onto there being a cultural change where it is not acceptable for men to obtain entry into women's single-sex spaces.

I'd say your understanding is spot on, perhaps with this exception, which I don't think has seen enough daylight.

When does someone achieve the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'?

Read carefully:
Protection for trans people was achieved by means of Section 7 of the Act, which refers to the “protected characteristic” of “gender reassignment”.83 A person has this characteristic if he or she:

is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Such a person is referred to in the statute as a “transsexual person”.

PHYSIOLOGICAL OR OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF SEX.

I'm going to say that ostensibly ALL pretenders to protected trans status fail this test.

And I think that we should apply that test more to the likes of Philip Bunce et al, Who are changing precisely ZERO physiological (or other) attributes of sex.

Which clearly means they are NOT legally protected under this characteristic as they don't meet the test for it.

Depends if 'other attributes' is being taken to mean 'name and dress sense'.

All that is required to refute that is evidence that males can and do take such names and dress in such clothes, ergo, not an attribute of one sex or the other.

Also, sex being referenced here in its biological terms, suggests the law intended the changes to be biological.

It says proposing to undergo. There's no time frame or limit on this, so you could essentially say you will undergo such changes at some point in the future without actually having to do anything medically or surgically. You don't have to change anything about yourself?

It does, and of course it's patently a badly written clause - it makes no sense.

But there was clearly an intent by the legal wording to exclude anyone with no intention to change 'physiological or other attributes of sex'.

It does leave room for a challenge to a bloke who has changed nothing and has no intention to either. There's no case law and his default assumption that he's covered by that characteristic hasn't been tested.

Disclaimer: no amount of fiddling with your attributes changes your sex, I am opposed to unnecessary, damaging surgical alterations of bodies to meet any perceived standard of sex, everybody stop trying to change sex, you can't, and let's repeal the GRA and start recognising sex properly instead.

Oh and case by case doesn't mean for Eg that individual tw or men should be risk assessed for entry to women's refuge, it means that a women's refuge can decide as a proportionate response to a legitimate aim to be single sex.

Case by case is not in the equality act at all. It's in EHRC statutory code where it clearly means person-by-person, not setting-by-setting.

EHRC have now said it means setting-by-setting but the statutory code remains unchanged. Statutory code is not like other guidance, it cannot just be rewritten, it needs to be put before parliament and passed using a statutory instrument.

EHRC were asked to write new statutory code as an outcome of the inquiry into enforcing the EA but they have refused.

Case by case still does not appear in the EA at all.

Thanks for all the discussions and explanations across various threads on this topic.

I'm trying to get my head around all of this legal stuff too as I'd like to understand it better so I feel more confident if I'm challenged about it.

GRC means that someone becomes legally a woman, except where single sex exemptions apply. So can be excluded from opposite (biological sex spaces) but female on documentation, statistics, women's shortlists etc.

I don't see how this is possible / enforceable. If a male has used a GRC to change his birth certificate to state he is female, then how can the single sex exemptions be applied to him? If he is asked to show his BC it will say he is female and I don't think you are allowed to ask to see a GRC?

NonnyMouse1337

I agree. God it's a mine field.

It's my understanding that once legal sex is changed, the only way to exclude, when necessary, is on the basis of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. (With all the normal conditions).

But, in practice, you can't, because the privacy protocol prevents you from asking if the person is trans (and therefore has the gender reassignment protected characteristic).

I think.