Clarity on furore about proposed changes to the GRA, please.

[StruggleAgainstReality]

Can someone clarify which, if any, of the proposals reported in the infamous Sunday Times article (mobile.twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1271915997574893570) would actually remove, or change, any rights currently held by trans people?

There seems to be so much misinformation out there, and I want to be completely clear on the situation. I'm currently in the process of raising concerns with my employer about the pervasiveness of the prevailing narrative at work (which has included widespread encouragement to sign the petition calling on the PM to reconsider Liz Truss's plans regarding the GRA), and the accompanying hostility towards anyone with a more critical stance, and I want to avoid saying anything that is factually incorrect.

Some transitioning advocacy organizations appear to have gotten out in front of the law by distributing fraudulent copies of the EA2010 that replaced sex as a protected category with gender identity to councils and businesses, and even government agencies.
They then proceeded to demand that councils and agencies policies be changed to reflect the rights they had awarded themselves through the fraud. That is why so many formerly women and girls single sex changing rooms became mixed sex changing rooms.

Women have contacted many councils and businesses to alert them to the fact that they have been victims of a fraud and most have change their policies to comply with the actual law and not the fraud.
There are many more whose policies reflect the fraud and not the actual law.

There are no proposed changes to the GRA. What the government has done is to state that they will not change it.

At most some clarification may be issued to the guidance for the EA 2010. This is only necessary becacuse (as Bewilderness says) some influential organisations are misrepresenting it's content.

Thanks, this is helpful. That's what I thought, but I started wondering if I'd got it wrong, given the amount of information going around saying that trans people stand to lose existing rights.

The letter to the PM in the petition included the following sentence: "Compounding the trans community's worries about this was that in the same article, prospective plans were revealed that would tighten the screw of exclusion for trans people from single-sex spaces." I was wondering exactly what this referred to, because my understanding was that people already have the right to single-sex spaces. Are there any proposed changes at all that could be interpreted as "tightening the screw of exclusion" (other than clarification on existing laws), or is their argument built entirely upon false premises?

I started wondering if I'd got it wrong, given the amount of information going around saying that trans people stand to lose existing rights.

How would they lose existing rights if the law stays as it is? If there are no changes to the law, then nobody loses any rights they currently have.

@TehBewilderness I don't suppose you could link me to any resources with more information about these fraudulent copies of the EA2010? (Or even better, if you could point me to any specific examples?)

When I discuss these issues with people who are willing to engage, the usual (reasonable) response is "what's your source?" or "can you give an example?", so I'm trying to build up a collection of resources to share with people who are open to learning and re-evaluating. And of course I want to have these to hand if I need to push the point with my employer. Thanks!

@OldCrone Of course, no one will lose existing rights if the law stays as it is. What I wanted to be absolutely clear on is that the proposals were indeed for the law to stay as it is, with no changes to any existing rights.

I'm trying to be completely clear on the facts, so that I can't be tripped up when arguing this point (because it would weaken my argument significantly if it turned out I'd misunderstood the facts of the issue).

There is no "tightening the screw of exclusion". All of the rights they had, remain. There is no change.

Trans advocates had been hoping for self-id to be added to the GRA. Self-id has been scrapped, will not be added, but is not being "taken away" because it was never part of the act.

What I wanted to be absolutely clear on is that the proposals were indeed for the law to stay as it is, with no changes to any existing rights.

There was a consultation in 2018 about possible reforms to the GRA. The Sunday Times said that they had information which indicated that the government wouldn't go ahead with the reforms, so the law would stay as it is.

Upholding the single-sex exemptions in the EA2010 was also mentioned. Again, this is a law which already exists.

If trans people are going to 'lose any rights', it is only 'rights' which they didn't legally have in the first place, but had wrongly obtained due to misinterpretation of current legislation. Many organisations have been operating self-id policies in contravention of the Equality Act, due to lobbying by trans rights groups such as Stonewall.

To put it bluntly, the law in this area is a total mess. It's full of inconsistencies, unclear policies, and conflicting rights.

I had a question about it as an American following with interest.

As I understand, the EA2010 allows and organization to exclude all males (females) from female (Male) occupations, spaces, etc... as long as it is “a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.” With the example given employment as a counselor at a women’s’ shelter.

But it doesn’t require exclusion, right? That is, the owner of such provision can decide whether they want to use the qualified exemption or not?

I don't suppose you could link me to any resources with more information about these fraudulent copies of the EA2010? (Or even better, if you could point me to any specific examples?)

There is a current thread here on FWR where women are discussing contacting an agency because their list of protected characteristics is incorrect.
The effort by women to contact councils with improper policies has been ongoing for over a year. There are several threads here on FWR documenting contact and response.

which has included widespread encouragement to sign the petition calling on the PM to reconsider Liz Truss's plans regarding the GRA), and the accompanying hostility towards anyone with a more critical stance

It’s outrageous that a petition of any description is being passed around a workplace. Completely unprofessional to bring politics into a working environment and I would report any boss that tries to manipulate you into signing it.

@FWRLurker

I had a question about it as an American following with interest.

As I understand, the EA2010 allows and organization to exclude all males (females) from female (Male) occupations, spaces, etc... as long as it is “a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.” With the example given employment as a counselor at a women’s’ shelter.

But it doesn’t require exclusion, right? That is, the owner of such provision can decide whether they want to use the qualified exemption or not?

Safeguarding policies require it. Laws do not function in isolation.

It doesn’t require exclusion from occupations how under the equality act you can make specify a male or female for some jobs. For example an older women needs to employ someone to help her with personal care. She would be able to specify that she wants a female carer in her job advert. She may be happy with a male carer and then she would not be obliged to specify but in real life most women do chose female carers.

If someone wanted to specify the sex of a job advert but didn’t have a good reason such as this it would be illegal.

I think with toilets and hospital wards they are obliged to make sure they are single sex. There are a mixture of different refuges for women with different needs. Some are women only and there are some that do allow women who are fleeing with their teenage sons (who have a hard time finding a refuge place).

Women have been contacting everything from high street stores to their NHS trusts, to establish whether that org or business operates in self ID or the EA2010.

If anyone in any community believes that Self ID is law I would expect that is because they have been fed a lie about it being the law by these orgs who jumped ahead of the law and implemented their own corporate policy for it. That isn't the trans persons fault, unless they are deliberately misinterpreting U.K. law, but it is the fault of those who did this ahead of any legal changes being made.

I do not assume that anyone anywhere now follows U.K. law as this is so far gone. I assume that any womens groups accepts men and any public womens toilet info into might have a man in it. It's not the law but no one appears to care about that anymore.

(See the thread about the job in Brighton for a sex abuse victim counsellor for under 13s being for people who identify as women only and how this is because of the EA2010.)

Those declaring their loss of rights perceive that they had those rights when they did not under the magic of GRA and the possibility of self ID. They perceive that being told that they cannot be housed in women’s prisons, hospital wards and refuges is a loss of their rights when they did not have these rights under the EA2010.

I believe they are also including into that the right to medically halt puberty and use cross-hormones before 18 and they are campaigning for that to remain the process. This is problematic one because there is some underhandedness that has caused diagnosis to be manipulated. Eg. Charities giving tips on what to say to doctors. The NewsNight piece also shows that often parents can be unduly influencing their kids through their attitudes such as by being homophobic. The whole process needs to be completely reviewed and research needs to be done on the 4000% increase in girls being referred, and the true detransition rates.

Siablue Unfortunately hospital wards are actually single gender. I agree they should be single sex.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/04/nhs-review-transgender-policies/

medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

I think also they are speaking about the right that all the population has to play into their fantasy including no woman asking for a female health care provider. Or that women are supposed to treat them like A special woman In our interactions. Instead of just the usual male human being they actually still are and all the rights that come along with that.

And their right to colonize the word woman and adapt it to suit them.

And their right to be right all the time as there is no debate allowed.

Yes, I think they are lamenting the loss of these perceived rights that they never in fact had but convinced a large chunk of the woke population they deserved in their most oppressed state.

Oh. And that is also a right they claim and allow no research to be done to verify that claim either - most oppressed. So.... more oppressed than any other minority group in the UK? Including some women in those minority groups......

I am glad to have all the coming debates and research studies actually allowed to go ahead. It will provide actual proof and evidence of exactly where all the investment needs to go to assist those who are most needing it and if that is members of the trans community, get that help through to them.

But it doesn’t require exclusion, right? That is, the owner of such provision can decide whether they want to use the qualified exemption or not?
Safeguarding policies require it.

That's true but there is a lot of room in the middle, for example: MandS have (perfectly legal) unisex changing rooms labelled as male and female; Girl Guides allows boys to join, provided they have long hair and like pink.

This is how the Genderists have been so successful- a combination of misrepresentation and lobbying individual organisations is creating a situation where, in practice, the single sex exemptions of the EA are being demolished.