No to self-ID, so when does a man 'become' a transwoman / woman?

[Shedbuilder]

And what rights can they claim before they have a GRC?

Liz Truss has clearly said that that self-ID is not being introduced. So at what point can a man/ woman legally assert that they have changed sex? (Yes, I know people can't change sex but unfortunately the GRA has created the legal fiction that they can)

Are there any lawyers or clever people out there who can advise?

Have been doing some reading. The Equality Act says that Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic and that protection is afforded if the 'person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning a the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

So it seems that even proposing, at some point in the future, to start the process of applying for a GC is enough to offer an individual the protection of Gender reassignment under the Equality Act. How does this differ in practice from self-ID?

Under the GRA 2004, their legal sex changes when they get a gender recognition certificate, following consideration by the Gender Recognition Panel. They must have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and have lived "as the opposite sex" for two years. There is no requirement of hormonal or surgical intervention at any point.

The proposed reforms to the GRA, known as "self ID" would have removed all or some of the criteria for getting a GRC, to be replaced probably by a "statutory declaration", ie a statement witnessed by a solicitor that they intended to "change sex".

I see it as men who go and get their gender reassigned should not be treated worse than other men.

The Eq Act protected characteristic of gender reassignment does arguably come very close to self ID as a transperson.

The GRA, had it been reformed as proposed, is that it would have allowed self ID as the opposite sex.

I don't see how it does.

As I understand it, without a GRC the comparator for discrimination is biological sex (ie if you would legitimately not provide this service to a man, for example bikini wax or women's sauna, then you are allowed to reuse to provide it to a transwoman). With a GRC the comparator becomes the legal sex - except where it would be reasonable to exclude a male bodied person from a female space or endeavour. So what's the difference?

To add to the confusion created by this legal fiction of changing sex, how do you differentiate between these two 'classes' of gender reassignment?

Sorry that should have said:

The GRA, had it been reformed as proposed, would have allowed self ID as the opposite sex.

The two pieces of legislation do different things.

The GRA allows a person's recorded sex to be the opposite to that on their birth certificate.

The EA prohibits discrimination, victimisation or harassment.

It's my understanding that you can't be discriminated against on the basis of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

And of course, it's not discriminatory to say that males do not have the right to, for instance, disrobe in front of women and girls.

Where there is a case of discrimination, it's my understanding that without a GRC the comparator would be other men. But with GRC the comparator would be women.

But there are still circumstances, under which men can be excluded from women's spaces, whether they have a GRC or not.

The bottom line is people are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex under certain circumstances. Without a GRC, the comparator would be people of the same sex, though. If you exclude all men, on the basis of their sex, that would include men who identify as women (with no GRC), as they would be considered in the same cohort as 'all men'.

To date, barely 5000 GRCs have been issued. Removing all the criteria, would obviously negatively affect women.

Thank you, yes, I understand that. But there seems to be a fundamental conflict between the GRA and the EA2010. According to the latter, anyone proposing starting the process at some point is covered by the Gender Reassignment section of the act.

I have a friend who helps run a small, badly-funded women's support service. They have been approached by a transwomen who doesn't have a GRC and won't say if they have started the process of transition. They do, however, seem to have a knowledge of the law and are pursuing it aggressively.

I know that a women's organisation can still call on the sex-based exemptions to exclude a man, but for a small organisation with limited resources, fighting off the legal threats of a very determined individual can be catastrophic.

@Dreeple

I see it as men who go and get their gender reassigned should not be treated worse than other men.

That would make sense. Something I could get behind.

It obviously all needs clarification, something which people seem very reluctant to do.

The fact of someone being protected under the equalities act is not at all the same as self ID.

If someone proposes that they might at some point start a process of changing their official gender then the equalities act protects them from that very moment from being sacked from their job, evicted from their home or denied service by a business due to someone else's transphobia. That is totally correct and as it should be, no one should ever suffer that kind of discrimination.

That does emphatically NOT mean that they get access to spaces and services reserved for the opposite sex from the moment they make such a declaration. Most activities can be accessed by either sex after all, and in most circumstances where activities are divided by sex it is possible to do them in a "gender neutral" way with a bit of thinking time. In the very rare circumstances where this isn't possible, the equalities act is explicit that it is ok for service providers to insist that sex does actually matter.

In Ireland they just have to fill in a form and get it signed by someone they have told that they fancy being classed as a woman. I know there are genuine cases and them I feel for but there are utterly ridiculous cases too and here it doesnt seem to matter. No psych evaluation, nothing. Literally fill in the form, send it off and voila, you are classed as a woman.

gript.ie/barbie-kardashian-the-full-story/

Thank you, Datun. At the moment the individual concerned is arguing that they fall under the Gender reassignment protected characteristic and as such should be treated as female. But from what you say, without a GRC they remain male and can therefore legally be excluded.

Can you identify where the information about a man without a GRC being compared to another man comes from? That would be very helpful.

Datun is right.

The Equality Act is fairly straightforward on when different services can be provided for men and women without it being considered discrimination.

But when a man has a GRC they are legally a woman, so although they can be lawfully excluded from certain services or places there are a whole load of more complex rules around this and it's more limited than for men without a GRC.

A big problem is that organisations don't fully understand what they are in fact allowed to do under the EA, not helped by inaccurate guidance from not only Stonewall etc but also the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who are meant to get the law right.

I think Fair Play for Women have some helpful resources on this.

Shed there is nothing in the Equality Act to say that they should be treated as a woman although the EHRC do say so in their guidance, which is wrong but causes a lot of misunderstanding. I think the case of Croft v Royal Mail confirmed this too.

Apologies for looking even thicker than I actually am: I'm having to type responses between doing other things and in the meantime people have explained and moved on. Thanks for all the input. I'm referring my contact to this thread. The organisation has, it would seem, received some very poor legal advice from their solicitor.

Many thanks. Trust Mumsnet to see it clearly.

The EHRC changed some of their resources in 2018 after challenge from FPFW. They also put out a statement about the GRA at the time of the consultation clarifying that MTF trans people without a GRC were legally male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

There was some clarification on the Fair Play for Women about this, I'll see if I can find the specific link.

I seem to remember them being involved in getting the EHRC to clarify this a year or two back as well

Unfortunately the EHRC statutory guidance is still wrong, although Eresh is right they did change some.

I've got internet trouble at the moment but when I get that sorted I will post the relevant sections of the Eq Act so your friend can see them, OP.

Unfortunately the EHRC statutory guidance is still wrong, although Eresh is right they did change some.

I've got internet trouble at the moment but when I get that sorted I will post the relevant sections of the Eq Act so your friend can see them, OP.

This should never ever have even been an issue because no adult male born person ever requires female sex based rights, regardless of any chosen identity because they are based on our biology and reproductive systems.

The comparator should always be other males. GRC or not.

They have the protection of gender reassignment, which prevents them being treated less favourably or discriminated against compared to other males.

To say no transmen in women's toilets would be discrimination against both sex and gender reassignment.
Same with transwomen using male facilities.
Not the other way round. They seem to like ignoring/re writing the part that we are allowed to discriminate against anyone of the male sex in female only spaces and sports.

From FPFW fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/#a2.2

4.2 Sex-based exemptions (Full)

This is different to sex-based eligibility because it makes legal provision exclusively for natal females, acknowledging the importance of biological sex differences between the three groups. These exemptions are discretionary and their use must be shown to be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. For example, in a women’s refuge where females are escaping male violence is it appropriate to exclude all natal males, irrespective of their legal sex status. A male-born trans person without a GRC can be refused based on being legally male. A male-born trans person with a GRC can be refused based on membership of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The three groups referred to above are:

1. Females
2. Males with a GRC making them legallyfemale (but of course still biologically male)
3. Males who self ID as women, so legally and biologically male

Thank you, Curious Monkey — yes, the EHRC does imply that you have to treat someone who says they're a woman as a woman and this has been cited by the individual attempting to gain access to the women-only service.

I know law / legislation is often not as clear-cut as one might expect, but this is a such a mess.

I think the EHRC giving guidance has a lot to do with the current problems over changing rooms / toilets etc

Women have the right in law to single sex spaces as per the EA2010, but transwomen/TRAs see on the EHRC website that they should be treated as the gender they present as, so believe they also have a right to these spaces in law