EHRC position on GRA review

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

Just published, haven't read it yet
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/blogs/reform-gender-recognition-act?

Wholly focused on trans people, their needs, their feelings, there there noises with sympathy for the toll on their mental health.

Vague mutters about it should be easier to get GRCs and even vaguer mutters about the EqAct protects single sex spaces.

As we all know, it fucking doesn't. Claptrap. It bewails a divisive debate while very clearly taking a side.

there there noises with sympathy for the toll on their mental health.

I got the impression, by the way it was worded, that it didn't mean women were violent and aggressive. I have a feeling they might have meant TRA's. Might be wrong

That's pretty short considering. Bit like a holding statement whilst we wait for the actual government announcement.

The divisive nature of the current debate means that some people feel they need to withdraw from discussions due to the strength of opposition to their views and the toll it takes on their mental health.

Hmmm this could mean either group but I think it refers to the victim Olympics.

We must build an environment where the issues raised by GRA reform can be freely discussed, in an atmosphere of tolerance, dignity and respect. There will always be strong views and differences in opinion and this is the sign of a healthy democracy. But that must stop when it turns into speech that incites aggression or violence. The only way to ensure all our rights are protected in the long-term is to ensure we try to understand each other’s perspective.

Again this probably refers to misgendeting as hate speech rather than the "die in a grease fire" incitement of violence.

We will continue to use our evidence base and listen to the views on all sides to understand the potential impact of reforms.

The guidelines are long overdue. This evidence of which you speak? Show your cards.

Females are being excluded from services now. Today. It's happening. Many of those females having other protected characteristics.

While they hem and haw about the importance of everyone's views they are permitting blatant discrimination against females to roll on unchallenged. Anyone think there will ever be a point in the next decade or two where the TRA political lobby may try to understand the perspective of females who cannot share mixed sex spaces, as opposed to issuing death threats?

No?

Me either. This is why government authorities have to be the grown ups and put down boundaries. The only skin off the TRA political lobby's nose if female only services are maintained alongside mixed sex and male only services, is the knowledge that somewhere there are people recognising that sex is a thing and females are getting spaces and recognition that hasn't been pulled under male colonisation and control. That's it. That's all. Pique that other people's needs are being met somewhere in a way they don't agree with. The skin off female people's nose is actual total exclusion for many females from any services. Especially vulnerable women.

Which is the more serious loss? Which is incompatible with equality?

In fact if you want the parallel with protests against gay marriage its the TRA political lobby doing it, not GC women.

Gay couples getting married had no impact on anyone else's marriage: it was purely protest against people doing something somewhere out of your sight that didn't affect you that you didn't want them to be able to have or do.

That's precisely how the TRA political lobby feels about female people being allowed female only services.

GC women? Believe in different people with different needs, and strategies that meet all the needs, irrelevant whether you personally agree with them or not. Add all the forms of provision. Diversity, choice, inclusion, no one left unprovided for.

The guidelines are long overdue. This evidence of which you speak? Show your cards.

Any thoughts - There seems to be some row back, or trying to sit more in the middle of the see-saw. Is this the weight of public opinion shifting quite massively and EHRC doesn't want to see a campaign to withdraw the GRA because there is a big recognition that trying to resolve issues between the GRA & the EA is actually like trying to square a circle?

EHRC position on GRA review

Why have they taken a position at all? Are they not civil servants who are required to be impartial?

The divisive nature of the current debate means that some people feel they need to withdraw from discussions due to the strength of opposition to their views and the toll it takes on their mental health

This could be describing me currently. I’ve come off Twitter because of the abuse I’ve received from TRAs because I believe that TWAM / TMAW. As per their biological sex. My dh has seen a change in me, I’ve seen a change in me! I feel so disempowered when I read shit that’s spouted by the likes of Owen Jones and his posse, along with the abuse being piled on young children via the medicalising of their Autism, sexuality, trauma or gender dysphoria.

even vaguer mutters about the EqAct protects single sex spaces

It is EHRC’s job to protect single sex spaces - where are they??!!!

highame, I agree, this is a carefully-worded statement which acknowledges that there are two sides and tries to take a neutral stance. I recall that previous communications from EHRC have not taken such an impartial position. I am able to agree with 70-80% of this statement.

This part is interesting:
'The divisive nature of the current debate means that some people feel they need to withdraw from discussions due to the strength of opposition to their views and the toll it takes on their mental health.'

I am reminded when this topic was covered on Woman's Hour and the two interviewees had their discussions recorded separately, because one of the interviewees was unable to be in the same room at the same time as the other interviewee. I wonder if withdrawal of parties involved in the process has contributed to the delay in Liz Truss' much-awaited statement.

@Aesopfable

EHRC position on GRA review

Why have they taken a position at all? Are they not civil servants who are required to be impartial?

So much this

"There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on these protected spaces and services, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010. That is because the special circumstances set out in the 2010 Act, which allow organisations to treat trans people differently, do not hinge on whether the trans person has a GRC or not."

This is an outright lie.

@BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy

"There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on these protected spaces and services, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010. That is because the special circumstances set out in the 2010 Act, which allow organisations to treat trans people differently, do not hinge on whether the trans person has a GRC or not."

This is an outright lie.

“There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on these protected spaces and services, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010. That is because we ignore the special circumstances set out in the 2010 Act, which allow organisations to treat trans people differently, and have failed to ensure the law protecting single sex services and spaces are protected even though that is what we are paid to do

Are they fit for purpose ?

@Melroses

Are they fit for purpose ?

No

It may just be my natural optimism but I read that as a more positive attempt at an even-handed approach than most I have read over the last few years

The only skin off the TRA political lobby's nose if female only services are maintained alongside mixed sex and male only services, is the knowledge that somewhere there are people recognising that sex is a thing and females are getting spaces and recognition that hasn't been pulled under male colonisation and control. That's it. That's all. Pique that other people's needs are being met somewhere in a way they don't agree with. The skin off female people's nose is actual total exclusion for many females from any services. Especially vulnerable women.

Agree. Third spaces would solve any problems trans people have whilst retaining rights for women and children and yet somehow they're not keen - tells you all you need to know. I'm already self excluding from some spaces (well I was prior to coronavirus).

Great post Michelle

Compare the two statements:

July 2020
“There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on these protected spaces and services, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010. That is because the special circumstances set out in the 2010 Act, which allow organisations to treat trans people differently, DO NOT HINGE ON WHETHER THE TRANS PERSON HAS A GRC OR NOT”

July 2018
“At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. THE SEX DISCRIMINATION EXCEPTIONS IN THE EQUALITY ACT THEREFORE APPLY DIFFERENTLY TO A TRANS PERSON WITH A GRC OR WITHOUT A GRC.

It may just be my natural optimism but I read that as a more positive attempt at an even-handed approach than most I have read over the last few years

I read it as a desperate attempt to look like even-handed civil servants rather than a transactivist lobby group.

Paris lees is already on the ‘human rights must apply to all’ backed up by David Allen green (possibly the person I’ve been most disappointed in)

For the millionth time - trans ppl are entitled to all the human rights I have & I’ll fight for them. What they’re not entitled too are women’s rights

@BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy

Compare the two statements:

July 2020
“There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on these protected spaces and services, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010. That is because the special circumstances set out in the 2010 Act, which allow organisations to treat trans people differently, DO NOT HINGE ON WHETHER THE TRANS PERSON HAS A GRC OR NOT”

July 2018
“At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. THE SEX DISCRIMINATION EXCEPTIONS IN THE EQUALITY ACT THEREFORE APPLY DIFFERENTLY TO A TRANS PERSON WITH A GRC OR WITHOUT A GRC.

Remember the Mermaids leak, which revealed emails between them?

lnThe Times:

The emails also show co-operation with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), another official body with a public stance of neutrality in the transgender debate. In the correspondence, the EHRC appeared to seek trans test cases against schools and service providers.

They sound about as neutral as Stonewall.

@IloveJKRowling

The only skin off the TRA political lobby's nose if female only services are maintained alongside mixed sex and male only services, is the knowledge that somewhere there are people recognising that sex is a thing and females are getting spaces and recognition that hasn't been pulled under male colonisation and control. That's it. That's all. Pique that other people's needs are being met somewhere in a way they don't agree with. The skin off female people's nose is actual total exclusion for many females from any services. Especially vulnerable women.

Agree. Third spaces would solve any problems trans people have whilst retaining rights for women and children and yet somehow they're not keen - tells you all you need to know. I'm already self excluding from some spaces (well I was prior to coronavirus).

Great post Michelle

Yep. Would also mean increased overall provision. Stonewall have a huge annual income - would easily be able to fund a specialist domestic abuse shelter and rape crisis centre, and GALOP have the expertise to staff and run both. That would mean more support available to everyone, across the sector.

Instead, they want women to have less. And some women to have none at all, because they could not use spaces not truly single-sex. Some women have already self-excluded from women's provision on that basis.

Very human rights focused, that.

Instead, they want women to have less. And some women to have none at all

It seems more and more that there is really is some kind of warped need to see females excluded, suffering and put down, there has to be a visible and punished 'loser' or there's no win. The childishness, the lack of empathy, the self serving use of wholly empty words such as 'respect' and 'diversity' and 'intersectionality' when there is no actual holding of those values and no care or compassion for anyone else however harmed they are - it's gobsmacking. It's devoid of morality. And yet apparently intelligent adults are standing behind it.

Public sector lawyer here. The EHRC statement is massively disingenuous. The GRA was passed on the basis that it affected “1 in 18,000 people“ ie fewer than 5,000 people in total in the UK (it’s all there in Hansard from January 2004). To say that it needs “simplifying“ and “modernising” because the 200-500k people who now fall under Stonewall’s trans umbrella don’t have one is just wrong. The Act has actually been a huge success, given that around 5,000 people now have a GRC - ie pretty well everyone who was assumed to want one duly got applied and was successful. Strict gate keeping was the whole bloomin’ point!

Smashing Yesterdays, comments swivel everything around and puts what TRA's are campaigning for into a real context. They have moved the goalposts