Self ID and EA2010

[CallarMorvern]

I'm assuming this has already been discussed, but...Just seen someone on Twitter claim that self ID will make no difference to women's safe spaces/women's services as they will still be protected by the EA2010.
But if TWAW, then how does the equality act even work?

We will be equal. Thats the idea.

But if TWAW, then how does the equality act even work?

Sex will no longer be a protected characteristic.

Men with no certificate are compared with men when considering whether they have been discriminated against. By contrast, those with a GRC are compared with women. Therefore, there would potentially be a large quota of males being compared with women when discerning whether or not they have been discriminated against.

There is a get out clause where even males with a grc are prevented from partaking in certain activities, but it is on a case by case basis.

TLDR: the Tras have destroyed the meaning of the word woman if the proposed GRC changes take place.

The whole point is to irradiate sex as a protected characteristic and ensure all female sex based rights, spaces and language are designed to cater for a very small minority of men.

This is progressive in 2020.

The fact that it compromises the health, safety, privacy, dignity, equity of access and outcomes of women and girls is entirely irrelevant.

The EA2010 allows exclusions, so a DV service could have a policy of excluding male people, regardless of GRC status, as it's entirely reasonable and proportionate.

This would, it is claimed, not be affected by Self ID, which would just be making it very much easier to get a GRC.

However, those making this claim.aren't telling you that part of their lobbying was also to remove the single sex exemptions from the EA2010, so that there would be no way to protect single sex provision and a GRC would be an all access pass which rendered sex obsolete as a protected class. This is a link to Stonewall's campaign aims, and I've screenshot the relevant part.

So basically, they're lying when they say single sex provision would be protected by the EA2010 if they succeed. Because they are campaigning to change the EA2010 too.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

A man will be able to change his legal sex to female with absolutely zero gatekeeping, and therefore be able to access things for females that are protected under the legal characteristic of sex in the EA.

[quote FloralBunting]The EA2010 allows exclusions, so a DV service could have a policy of excluding male people, regardless of GRC status, as it's entirely reasonable and proportionate.

This would, it is claimed, not be affected by Self ID, which would just be making it very much easier to get a GRC.

However, those making this claim.aren't telling you that part of their lobbying was also to remove the single sex exemptions from the EA2010, so that there would be no way to protect single sex provision and a GRC would be an all access pass which rendered sex obsolete as a protected class. This is a link to Stonewall's campaign aims, and I've screenshot the relevant part.

So basically, they're lying when they say single sex provision would be protected by the EA2010 if they succeed. Because they are campaigning to change the EA2010 too.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality[/quote]
Thank you Floral for that clarification. So the single sex exemptions would still exists but Stonewall are campaigning to get them removed? (Actually I have seen that before and was shocked!)

But in a culture of 'self-id', even with exemptions, it will be much harder for women to say no to males in their spaces generally. Those exemptions exist only in certain circumstances don't they?

Yes, a self ID culture, which has been pushed for a number of years already to 'get ahead of the law' means that women and wider society are groomed to accept males in female provision.

Part of this cultural manipulation has been to suggest that the 'case by case' exemption is for each individual male trans person, when in actual fact, it is for the whole service or provision in question.

So Stonewall have pushed the lie that a rape counselling service, for example, can do an assessment if an individual male trans person applies for a job, but in actual fact, the rape counselling service can make a blanket decision that it is reasonable and proportionate to exclude all male trans people from that role, they don't have to prove it is proportionate every time an application is made.

So yes, this is about a culture change on the broader level, which is why campaigners are challenging Stonewall's influence as they have repeatedly lied about the law via their Equality Champions propaganda scheme, but they are also campaigning to change the law to remove women's rights.

The cultural pressure was originally intended to simply smooth the path until the legal change was in place. Now feminists have managed to shine light on the campaign to change the law and remove our rights, I suspect the cultural campaign will receive more focus so they can suggest the law is unworkable and try changing it that way.

We will be equal.

But sadly, we are not equal. That is the point. I believed equality would have been within our grasp by 2020 but it is now further away than ever.

There is a distinct lack of acknowledgement of the benefit of male socialisation, male puberty, male privilege even if it stopped in your teens if somebody believes that ‘we all will be equal’ if the ability to discriminate based on sex (including with the magic GRC) is removed.

I would like an independent study to be done that proves to me that a late transitioning male’s opportunity throughout the course of their life was absolutely equal to a woman of similar age in all employment situations. Particularly a woman with children.

I doubt that would be the finding, but I would like to see this proof please.

now feels further away than ever. That should read.

We will be equal. Thats the idea.

How, exactly? 98% of sexual offences will still be carried out by males and any male will be able to gain easier access to women's safe spaces by identifying as a woman.

Doesn't sound very equal to me!

And anyway, how are trans people not currently 'equal'? Because they are not allowed to legally falsify their birth certificate with zero gatekeeping? Neither is anyone else?

FloralBunting Thank you for that explanation.

We will be equal. That's the idea.

There is already pressure being brought to bear that actually, there will be hierarchy of protected characteristics, and this has been touched on in several of the court cases, although not yet properly addressed. The idea is to prevent women protecting single sex spaces on grounds of disability or faith for example; the hierarchy would ensure that trans trumps everything else.

Which basically renders the EqA2010 meaningless, as the whole point of it was to create impact assessments to ensure policies didn't accidentally have a discriminatory or unfair impact on a vulnerable group* and to prevent there being a hierarchy of protected characteristics.

• See the Welsh Govt; the dog ate my impact assessment, many impact assessments not being carried out because the results would be inconvenient to the TRA agenda, or TRA agencies training people who should know better that an impact assessment ONLY looks at the needs of trans people, and never considers any other group. This goes along with training people on what they would like the EqAct to say instead of what it actually says, and being incompatible with normal safeguarding policies, when none of the people delivering the training have any safeguarding training at all, nor experience of the needs of any group involved other than trans people.

This will end, eventually, in a mass overhaul of national and local government looking at how regulatory capture was achieved, and why so many opportunities were missed to identify it and to follow policy on transparency, fairness, integrity and freedom from personal political bias. This is a massive case study for the governments of 50 years from now on 'whacking great fuck ups you should never allow to happen on your watch'.

So basically, they're lying when they say single sex provision would be protected by the EA2010 if they succeed. Because they are campaigning to change the EA2010 too.

But the EA2010 itself doesn't need to be changed in order to effectively remove the protected characteristic of sex. If everyone is free to choose their own sex, the legal category of sex ceases to exist as a meaningful category.

It's much harder to invoke the 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' to exclude transwomen with a GRC from women's services (because they have to be compared to women) than it is to exclude 'transwomen' without a GRC (where the comparator is other men).

OldCrone, I don't disagree wrt the practicalities and applications in practice, but the particular bit of rhetoric that the OP has encountered is designed to obscure the overt intent of Stonewall et al to actively change the EA2010, so it is very relevant to illustrate Stonewall's disingenuousness on this point. It shows clearly how mendacious they are, and casts any soothing dismissals they make in proper context.
As you say, even without changing the EA2010, women are still put at a significant disadvantage by the loosening of access to a GRC (arguably by the existence of a GRC in the first place, but that's a broader topic)

There's also the question of data. In order to track discrimination against a protected group (as defined in the Equality Act) you need to be able to define that group and collect accurate information.

The inclusion of male people in the protected group of female people distorts the data. This is already a problem to some extent, because transwomen with a GRC are considered "for all purposes" to be women, pursuant to the Gender Recognition Act, and, subject to the exceptions referred to by OPs above, that has included treating them as belonging to the protected group of "women". [NB there are good arguments they shouldn't be but that is what has happened]. However there are only about 6000 people with GRCs so one would hope the data remains just about reliable.

If there is self ID so people can get a GRC with less or no gatekeeping the numbers of male people who are included in the protected group of women also goes up, potentially to the point that the data is so unreliable that discrimination against women cannot be tracked.

For example, we currently have accurate data on the numbers of women on company boards. We can see that women are massively underrepresented. We can analyse why that might be (eg pregnancy, caring responsibilities, macho culture, etc). We can try to take steps to improve the situation.

If any male person can get a GRC then how do we know how many women are on boards? How can we discuss the "motherhood penalty" when some of the "women" can never be mothers? If a woman claims sex discrimination has occured because she was denied a position on the board due to her sex, the company can claim there's been no sex discrimination because there is a transwoman on the board so they have no problem with women on the board. Currently, correctly applying the law, a transwoman without a GRC would count as a man on the board, so would be no answer to the claim of discrimination. With self ID the ability of women to name discrimination is whittled away.

Unfortunately when TRAs say self ID wouldn't change things they have a point, but not for the reason they think. What has happened over the last few years is that data on sex is very often not captured. Equal opportunity monitoring forms frequently ask for gender or gender identity instead. At the extreme end of the scale such data is explicitly gathered on the basis of self identification rather than biological fact. So we have massive data gaps where no-one will be able to track sex discrimination.

Self ID will enshrine that into law. It's nonsense.

Ugghhh why does the app remove my paragraphs?

That is helpful Monkey, thank you.

And your paragraphs are showing up for me

We will be equal. That's the idea.

And in the shit show in Canada...

mobile.twitter.com/women_are_human/status/1103058083381735426

Read the comments as well to see how ‘equal’ Canada is now and how it screws over women and girls.

More like: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. A proclamation by the pigs who control the government - Animal Farm, George Orwell.

How, exactly? 98% of sexual offences will still be carried out by males and any male will be able to gain easier access to women's safe spaces by identifying as a woman.

But they wont be men, will they, they'll be women wtf

But they wont be men, will they, they'll be women wtf

Double-plus good! Sometimes reading trans news is like a game of “How many George Orwell quotes does this bring to mind?”

Please can everybody sign the petition in the thread about the baroness' call to arms.
I don't want to link it in case MN deletes it. It is easy to find though.

Bumping.

So Stonewall have pushed the lie that a rape counselling service, for example, can do an assessment if an individual male trans person applies for a job, but in actual fact, the rape counselling service can make a blanket decision that it is reasonable and proportionate to exclude all male trans people from that role, they don't have to prove it is proportionate every time an application is made.

As though it would be less offensive if the staff in Tesco had to assess suitability to buy alcohol rather than just apply blanket age rules!