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?

Stonewall law has lead to de facto self ID, it's a lie to claim women ARE and WILL be protected by the EA 2010. We should be but in reality we are not even though the law hasn't changed.

The video in the link demonstrates exactly how self ID can be exploited, if men are this emboldened now then I can't imagine self ID would make them less so. This is not a plug for Alba, I don't live in Scotland, I found it on the women won't weesht hashtag.

twitter.com/YesToAlba/status/1403727546877943815?s=20

Another issue is that self ID changes the nature of sex identification on birth certificates.

The point of the GRA was to comply with the right to privacy, so in some situations it was legal to hide birth sex.

Self ID makes GRCs completely meaningless if they can be obtained by anyone ‘on approval’, and the link to the requirement for privacy is completely lost.

The implication is that the sex marker on everyone’s birth certificate is a choice - a declaration of innate identity.

I don’t want to derail, but the case about changing ‘mother’ to ‘father’ on birth certificates did the same thing.

Many people have a complicated relationship with a parent, but information on birth certificates is completely neutral and objective and doesn’t imply anything about a relationship beyond the facts at birth.

I really don’t think the role of the state is to classify, record and by default evaluate identities and personal relationships.

murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/

The above policy analysis group have done a lot of research into how self id as proposed will harm women. Their emphasis at the moment is on data and how it is being skewed and they also have on their site some ideas of what ordinary women can do to fight this.

Sex will no longer be a protected characteristic.

Ergo 51% of the population lose their sex based protections and rights in law.

While I understand that there are those who would be much happier if no one talked about or recorded or thought in sex based ways that limit them personally, a very large proportion of those 51% are reliant on sex based rights for equality.

This is the root of why this is absolutely incompatible with women's rights. A sex based class understanding of female people is essential to meet the specific needs of living with female biology. That this is hurtful and offensive to some is sad, but to try and remove sex based rights from half the population as a result and let them be collateral damage cannot happen.

[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]
I think even with the exceptions still in place there are massive practical difficulties with implementing them.

Service users are reluctant to use the exceptions because they are worried about being called transphobic. The classic example is women's prisons where male-born individuals with a GRC are placed in the female estate. So obviously self ID would increase the number of male-born individuals placed in the female estate. The prison service could have very justifiably used the exceptions but chose not to.

But also Self ID would significantly increase the number of male-born individuals with a female sex marker on their birth certificate. if a person has a female sex marker on their passport how can a service provider practically refuse that person from the service? Basically the birth certificate can no longer be trusted as a truth telling document. It might depend on how well the person passes. Masculine looking women might be suspected as being male. You would have to rely on individuals being honest about their birth sex. There would be no point in saying "this service is only for female people" because even the word "female" is being used to include males. It would be an absolute headache for service providers to police and so they will all end up being "inclusive" even though in certain circumstances this will end up excluding women and girls.