Another woman targeted

[SunsetBeetch]

Another shocking story of a woman being bullied by a TRA for 'transphobia', and reported to the police. Jesus christ.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-woman-to-watch-out-for-kate-mcewan?r=7w5qn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

THIS is why I came off Twitter - so many nutters. Someone on mumsnet posted a video clip of Obama talking about how it makes people feel good to be woke and 'throw the first stone' .i'll try to find it and repost.

Her response should, of course, be to reply 'oh fuck off you freak'...

It’s such uncomfortable reading. What does this even mean for starters? Ridiculous bullying behaviour.

It is to do with the GRA2004 Section 22

There is rather more than in the screenshots but you can’t add more than three images to a post.

22 Prohibition on disclosure of information

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

(2)“Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1) and which—

(a)concerns that application or any application by the person under section [F14A,] [F24C, 4F,] 5(2) [F3, 5A(2)] or 6(1), or

(b)if the application under section 1(1) is granted, otherwise concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(a)the information does not enable that person to be identified,

(b)that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,

(c)the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,

(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,

(i)the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or

(j)the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

(5)The Secretary of State may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which the disclosure of protected information is not to constitute an offence under this section.

(6)The power conferred by subsection (5) is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers (rather than the Secretary of State) where the provision to be made is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

[F4(6A)The power conferred by subsection (5) is exercisable by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (rather than the Secretary of State) where the provision to be made could be made by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly without the consent of the Secretary of State (see sections 6 to 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).]

(7)An order under subsection (5) may make provision permitting—

(a)disclosure to specified persons or persons of a specified description,

(b)disclosure for specified purposes,

(c)disclosure of specified descriptions of information, or

(d)disclosure by specified persons or persons of a specified description.

(8)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(My bolding above).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

If that person has disclosed on Social Media or anywhere else publicly that they are transgender and that is how someone else becomes aware of the fact, ie. not by accessing that private information in a “professional capacity”, then it is hard to see how GRA2004 Section 22 applies.

Section 22 was included because one of the fictions in the GRA2004 is that transsexuals (wording in the act) all “pass” so successfully that nobody could possibly know that they are transsexual unless told. The GRA2004 also did not anticipate the likes of bearded “lesbian” Alex Drummond.

Section 22 is intended to cover circumstances such as a Medical Secretary or someone in the DWP having sight of paperwork that contained confidential information.

The GRA2004 was also passed in the days before people posted selfie’s on social media posing with their GRCs and historically inaccurate, newly-issued birth certificates.

Section 22 was included because one of the fictions in the GRA2004 is that transsexuals (wording in the act) all “pass” so successfully that nobody could possibly know that they are transsexual unless told.

Yes which is how we ended up in the situation where if a woman in hospital complains about a transwoman in the next bed, the nurse has to lie to her and pretend that the person is actually a woman.

MoltenLasagne yes, a truly despicable aspect of the GRA2004. The enforced complicity of Heath Professionals in the gaslighting of vulnerable women, of Educators in the gaslighting of children, etc.

An appalling piece of deliberately garbled legislation when it comes to “sex” vs “gender”.

It does make me wonder if the Equality Act, Same-Sex Marriage and equalisation of pension age had been in force earlier whether we could have avoided the GRA, including the pernicious provisions in Section 22.

There is no reason why people could not have protection from discrimination without introducing the fiction that it is possible to change sex and all its legal ramifications.

Some police forces monitor discrimination against people described as living “alternative life styles”, listing examples such as “Goth”. It is a bit odd, given that it is clearly a personal choice of dress and appearance rather than an “immutable characteristic”, but not so very different to “cross-dresser”. The latter obviously applies mostly to men since it is hardly “alternative” for women to have short hair, wear trousers and no makeup.

No wonder trans activists hate detransitioners so much; they give the lie to the notion that “being trans” is an immutable characteristic. It should not matter though, in terms of protection from discrimination.

Disability is a Protected Characteristic under the EA2010 but it is perfectly possible to qualify for protection temporarily, even if for a matter of years, then not. I am a case in point, as it happens.

The sensible thing for legislators to do would be to consider whether the GRA is actually necessary, whether the benefits to a few outweigh the disadvantages to others and society in general and whether there might be a better way of accommodating diversity.

Which reminds me - is the WESC Inquiry still taking evidence? It seems not:

committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/

This report by Fair Play for Women makes clear that the Women and Equalities Select Committee Inquiry is severely lacking as far as impartiality is concerned:

fairplayforwomen.com/wesc-gra-inquiry/

The WESC sounds like it should be renamed the TEC

Thank you for the info and thorough explanation Molesmokes. I wasn’t aware of the detail of that section... the implications are chilling. That such denial of reality is protected by law, and is being weaponised in such a way, is utterly unfathomable.

I think it's highly unlikely that infuriating became known in a professional capacity. This is the first link in google when you search Karen Passmore -it's public information.

www.transformingsociety.co.uk/authors/karen-passmore/

Which reminds me - is the WESC Inquiry still taking evidence?

Written evidence had to be submitted by the end of November. They've published 105 written submissions so far, it looks like around 2000 submissions were made. It's a slow process.

You can read the oral and written submissions here.

committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/

I think it's highly unlikely that infuriating became known in a professional capacity

I think infuriating was meant to be information!

Yes new year, I found that too. It's public information because Karen has appeared in a recent book talking about it, and then seems to have done interviews to publicise the book in which they talk about it to journalists in the knowledge it will be published in more places.

As a side issue, how do you know whether someone has a GR certificate? Other than them telling you I mean. Is it something you could reasonably be expected to know?

Unless you had reason to know “in a professional capacity” or they themselves told you or they advertised it widely, as some do by posting about it on social media, or they told you that they had changed their birth certificate, you wouldn’t know.

You can change your passport and other ID without a GRC but you can only change your birth certificate sex if you have a GRC.

wow, they just want her to quietly accept being denied the job she'd worked towards, and now they want to take her down and give her a criminal record. And she cannot even tweet an article that parallels with her own experience from her perspective

The anger and vengeance of these awful people.

So if we, the general public (or even employers) have no way of knowing if someone has a GRC because we are not allowed to ask presumably we also have no reasonable way of knowing that that person is protected by that part of the GRA so couldn’t be punished for revealing someone’s trans status?

Am I correct in reading that this legislation only applies to a person in a position to receive private information about an individual that cannot be revealed rather than a member of the public observing what is in front of their eyes? With maybe the exception of healthcare professionals rhi are threatened with prosecution and huge fines if they dare to say anything?

we also have no reasonable way of knowing that that person is protected by that part of the GRA so couldn’t be punished for revealing someone’s trans status?

It's Kafkaesque isn't it?

My understanding it's a direct link to being in receipt of personal info in a professional capacity.
It seems Kate works in health care but it would only apply if she'd had professional dealings or access to private medical info about Karen.
I'm pretty sure all this was made clear in Hansard when the GRA was introduced, as a lot of questions were asked about the limits of this.

Kafkaesque is right. You only get a GRC by being the thing that no one is allowed to mention you are. You can silence people by saying you have one, with everyone knowing that being transgender is the only reason to have one. This proving their point.
Seems a good way to keep every zipped - say nothing just in case the person has one.

Bad laws, bad, bad laws.

What horrible, spiteful, bullying. I know of no other issue that causes such responses to perceived criticism, it's insane.

Wow, incredibly nasty. I hope Kate has lots of support - and a lawyer! Surely Karen Passmore is the one doing the harassing here?

Is GRA2004 the worst-written law ever? Like other PPs, I googled Karen Passmore and the first link is an interview where Passmore says 'I knew at 4 I was transgender'. It's mind-boggling that Passmore, a proud transgender activist, has called the police because a woman has said Passmore is transgender. I honestly can't imagine what goes on in someone's head that would do that.

This is yet another reason not to vote Labour. Why on earth would I vote for a party where my fellow members, were I to join it and discuss women's rights, would try and deprive me of my livelihood and get me a criminal record?

So KP has had the police round because of 'all the transphobia in Bristol'? What's that supposed to mean?
Judging by the fact that the local police sent their horses to deal with women leafleting about a government consultation, I'm worried for Kate.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1048622497254572033?lang=en

Thing is, there are always going to be mean, nasty bullies who want to damage their perceived enemies. Nothing to be done about that really - what matters is that police, employers and political parties recognise it when it happens and don't go along with them. That's the really scary aspect of this - that all the institutions are just rabbits in the headlights while women's lives are destroyed.

Important not to confuse the provision for confidentiality relating to GRC application or award under the GRA 2004 with protection under the Equality Act 2010 against discrimination, which can kick in if X discriminates against Y just because X thinks Y is a “transsexual” (wording in the EA2010). Same as if X discriminates against Y because X thinks Y is gay.

The Protected Characteristic of “Gender Reassignment” aka “transsexual” under the EA2010 kicks in as soon as someone proposes that at some time in the future they intend to undergo “gender reassignment” ie. obtain a GRC under the GRA2004. They don’t need to say when, just that it is something they intend to do in future. The stated intention is the start of the process of “gender reassignment” and Protection under the EA2010 starts right then. Under EA2010 the terms “gender reassignment” and “transsexual” mean the same thing in effect.

The EHRC guidance on the EA 2010 distinguishes between “cross dressers” and “transsexuals”, noting that if X mistakes Y for a “transsexual” because Y cross-dresses and then X discriminates against Y for that reason then X is in breach of EA2010 Protection of Gender Reassignment.

It would appear from the EHRC guidance that Y would have to claim some other sort of unfair treatment if X discriminated against Y on the basis that they thought Y was a cross-dresser.

EHRC Guidance: Gender Reassignment Discrimination

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

However, in other EHRC Guidance, the EHRC considers cross-dressers to be “transgender”, which it conflates with “transsexual”

Providing services for transgender customers A guide
November 2015

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484857/Providing_services_for_transgender_customers-a_guide.pdf

The EHRC is bloody useless on this issue. It was instructed by Government to improve its guidance by giving specific examples and refused.

Fair Play for Women has some useful information in the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment:

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

All the stuff about “Hate Crimes” and “Hate Incidents” is different again and comes from the National Police Chiefs Council, publicised on the “Report-it” website:

www.report-it.org.uk/what_is_hate_crime

I am sure there must be a better explanation of all this somewhere - @spero will know and can also correct me if I have got anything wrong.

Something I find frustrating about the EHRC guidance (apart from it being inconsistent between different EHRC documents) is that it is often less clear than the primary legislation.

Gender Recognition Act 2004

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Equality Act 2010

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

I imagine that Passmore is just trying Passmore's luck basically - probably a combination of the 'hate crime' stuff and GRA disclosure thrown in. (The point being of course not just to damage Kate but to frighten others away).

I doubt the police understand it either tbh. You'd hope they'd be more careful after Kate Scottow's conviction was overturned but who the hell knows.

Great summary.

It's mind-boggling that the EHRC have done the exact opposite of their job. They've actively made things LESS clear.

Kate should make a subject access request to the police.

But I heard that "cis women" are misgendered all the time if they're not feminine enough.

If Kate is being accused of being a man, that just means Kate is passing really well as a "butch cis woman".

QED.

(Sorry, got my Karen and Kate muddled there...)