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?

@MiladyRenata

Or just let us pee in peace?

I take it that is directed at the other males in the sex based facilities that transwomen should be using?

@MiladyRenata

Or just let us pee in peace?

Certainly not if you are in the wrong bathroom! We worked hard for these spaces.

I agree, men should let men pee in peace. However they identify.

@MiladyRenata

Or just let us pee in peace?

So, you're asking me to prioritise the desires of a person (who on this very board recently denied that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and who posted truly antediluvian ideas about women, too) over my own and that of all other women and girls?

And not to "pee in peace". What infantilising, minimising nonsense. If only that was all we needed - a bit of peace! We need to use single-sex facilities where we are vulnerable, and far less able to defend ourselves, to navigate various aspects of being female in the privacy, dignity and safety we are entitled to by law.

In order to manage our periods, to help children and those we care for to use the facilities, to deal with pregnancy and post-partum issues and sadly, for a quarter of a million of women each year, also to deal with miscarriages - many of which actually do start, happen entirely or finish in public toilets.

I shall give that request the hard no it deserves.

Maybe they need to change the signs on doors from Woman and Man to Penis or no penis.

I think you will find that the Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the provision of separate and single-sex services but includes an exception that service providers can use in exceptional circumstances.

This exception is only actually relevant where someone has obtained a GRC. The Act is saying that even if a male person goes through the process of changing their legal sex to female, there may still be circumstances where it is OK to exclude them from women-only services etc. It is not relevant for those who have not obtained a GRC.

Also, the language used is that the exception is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, not "exceptional circumstances".

@SimoneAndGarfunkel

I think you will find that the Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the provision of separate and single-sex services but includes an exception that service providers can use in exceptional circumstances.

This exception is only actually relevant where someone has obtained a GRC. The Act is saying that even if a male person goes through the process of changing their legal sex to female, there may still be circumstances where it is OK to exclude them from women-only services etc. It is not relevant for those who have not obtained a GRC.

Also, the language used is that the exception is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, not "exceptional circumstances".

Pretty sure its not dependent on a GRC. . Nothing in the act says that it is dependent on a certificate. If it was, then it would be easy to ask the trans person to produce to enter the space. Plus we wouldn't be having all these issues as there are only 5,000 of them apparently!

MishyJDI it's legal to provide a single sex service if it is line with EQA 2010, Sched 3, para 27. Male people can be excluded from all such services that are exclusively for women. Transwomen without GRCs are legally male and as the Green High Court judgment made clear that the comparator for a transwoman without a GRC when bringing an EQA claim is a man who is not trans.

The exception in Sched 3, para 28 therefore only comes into play if the transwoman has a GRC. It allows the service provider to effectively say in certain circumstances "You are legally a woman but it is appropriate to exclude you from this women only service because you are trans."

Service providers won't in practice generally know whether a particular transwoman has a GRC. This means that in practice it's important for service providers to have a reasons to exclude that would satisfy Sched 3, para 28 if they don't want to provide services to transwomen, even though that reason would only be tested if they have the misfortune of being sued by a transwoman with a GRC.

@MishyJDI - I thought it was not legal to ask to view a GRC anyway?

[quote NellieElly]@MishyJDI - I thought it was not legal to ask to view a GRC anyway?[/quote]
Random people don't have the power to demand to see a GRC, but it isn't a criminal offence to do so. This is yet another misinterpretation of the law designed to scare us into submission.

The privacy provisions contained in the Gender Recognition Act make it unlawful for someone who learns of a person's trans status in their professional capacity to share this information. They must only do so in extremely limited circumstances (such as if the police or the courts ask for it). Disclosing this information in any other circumstance (idle gossip for instance or a work dispute) is a criminal offence for such a person.

This provision does not effect people who know in a private capacity in any way.

A refuge manager who has a policy of allowing females as well as males who have legally changed their sex to female could ask for a birth certificate rather than a GRC, although this isn't usually done. If she only allows females, she can exclude a male who identifies as trans because that person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (she is not asking to see a birth certificate in this case).

Service providers won't in practice generally know whether a particular transwoman has a GRC. This means that in practice it's important for service providers to have a reasons to exclude that would satisfy Sched 3, para 28 if they don't want to provide services to transwomen, even though that reason would only be tested if they have the misfortune of being sued by a transwoman with a GRC.

Really important point that I'd never thought about in quite that way before.

That's quite sobering, isn't it? Fortunately on this occasion the trans person approached saying 'I'm a transwoman and I want to join your women's group'. The real problem arises when someone you can see is not female tries to gain admission and refuses to give any information. In which case perhaps one has to institute a procedure for everyone in the group to disclose certain information so that if someone refuses you can refuse them on the grounds of failure to comply with procedure.

@IwishNothingButTheBestForYou2

... I know a man (who looks indistinguishable from any other straight man with a 5 o'clock shadow) who identifyies as a "trans girl" and enters women's toilets at his work and in public.

Is he attracted to men or women? Is he in a relationship?

He is a white, extremely privileged, well-off man in a relationship with a woman. He dresses as a furry at the weekends, which means women entering a women's bathroom may come across a 6ft+ man in a wolf suit. I'm very glad I never have. It sounds absurd but it isn't funny. If you have seen furries in public, the costumes (which can cost more than my car) are designed to look cutesy like a child's cartoon character but that just adds to the uncanny valley creepiness.

There is a sexual fetish element to many men who dress and roleplay like this. When surveyed, "Furry men were significantly more likely to view furry-themed pornography (96.3%)", they view pornography on average 43.5 times per month and they frequently sexually roleplay in their animal persona online - from a pro-furry website furscience.com/research-findings/sex-relationships-pornography/5-4-frequency-of-porn-use/.

Just to give you an idea of the kind of men easily obtaining female ID documents using a doctor's letter (and a deed poll/bill if making a name change). A diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not needed, the doctor just has to write that the person wants to change gender and 'intends' it to be permanent. A child's passport can have the sex changed in the same way but it requires parental signatures if under 16.

@BitMuch

Regarding passports, that sounds about right level of security to me. The GP letter is needed to deter frivolous/fraudulent applicants, which is a sensible precaution.

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not needed, the doctor just has to write that the person wants to change gender and 'intends' it to be permanent.

What does 'changing gender' involve? Is there a legal definition?

I think it’s interesting that the legislation states that gender reassignment is protected if you are changing physiological or other aspects of sex. What are the non-physiological attributes, I wonder?

Because I can’t come up with any that aren’t stereotypes. Certainly none that would stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

Claiming that dresses, skirts and make up for example are a sex based attribute is problematic. How about kilts? What about the long tunics that many Muslim men wear?

I suppose a name would count as a non-physiological attribute LoeliaPonsonby. I don't know if that strictly counts as a stereotype.

He dresses as a furry at the weekends, which means women entering a women's bathroom may come across a 6ft+ man in a wolf suit. I'm very glad I never have. It sounds absurd but it isn't funny.

Fucking hell, that wold be a terrible surprise to see when you come out of the cubicle What a dickhead, really.

As for the OP question..I don't think a man EVER turns into a woman, or vice versa.

What support does any body need from a female support group when they have a penis?

This is crazy

@NRatched

He dresses as a furry at the weekends, which means women entering a women's bathroom may come across a 6ft+ man in a wolf suit. I'm very glad I never have. It sounds absurd but it isn't funny.

Fucking hell, that wold be a terrible surprise to see when you come out of the cubicle What a dickhead, really.

As for the OP question..I don't think a man EVER turns into a woman, or vice versa.

So this person looks male and appears to have typical socialised, entitled male behaviour (do any women dress as furries, I daren’t google) so why would this person possibly need to access female facilities?? - they can hardly argue the personal safety angle.

I do worry about how I would react if I was faced with an unexpected male in the women’s toilets in a shopping centre say, and I certainly feel like I can’t let my daughters go into toilets alone now (where previously I felt that they were safe enough). Sometimes I react very instinctively when faced with a perceived threat - it totally overrides my desire not to make a scene so things could get loud and angry which isn’t good in any way.