GRA Reform, Legal Self Declaration, has no effect on access to spaces

[ool0n]

I'm wondering given the recent convincing defeat of gender critical ideology in the high court vs EHRC - if the Mumsnet gender critical people finally accept the fact that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces?

People on the other side of the debate like myself have been explaining to GC people on Twitter for years that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces so their objection to GRA reform is/was unfounded. I/we based this on -

1. English government legal analysis that stated having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces
2. Scottish government legal analysis ... ditto ...
3. The EA 2010 and GA 2004 text
4. The practical impossibility that a BC (Not an ID document) could be of any use in deciding access

now we have

1. Gender critical crowdfunded challenge to EHRC guidance that says having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces. Comprehensively lost, not even passed the very low bar to even be considered for a Judicial Review.

Given this is the case will gender critical people be reevaluating their assertion "Self ID", as in GRA Reform, must be opposed as it effects access to spaces? Trans people have always been able to "Self ID", in the colloquial sense, into men's and women's spaces. So making it easier for trans people to change their birth certificates only helps them, has no effect on GC feminists, and/or cisgender women and spaces.

(I also wonder if there'll be any introspection as to why an obviously incorrect interpretation of the law was able to become so prevalent in gender critical circles. Maybe listen to groups outside of GC circles a bit more?)

Apart from the fact that that is a previous consultation if you look at the EQIA it does not say there is zero impact. What it does say is there is no evidence. There is now evidence.

@Firevixen, this is definitely one of the bits of GC ideology I find most puzzling. It comes across as a slogan with no substance.

1. Sex is immutable.

What characteristic of sex? Legal sex isn't, the GRA is proof of that. Biological sex characteristics are not either, biology is very much mutable, I think at least we can agree on death and cremation there is no "immutable sex" left of either of us? We are very mutable. The only way I can see it makes any sense at all is if you view "sex" as some magical essence, a sexed eternal soul that can never change in some religious philosophy. That certainly doesn't fit with GC claims to be materialists.

Women will always have a right to privacy from men. We'll always be able to say no.

Of course, there will always be men fighting to force us unwillingly into their presence, men telling them they can, men granting other men special dispensation to override women's consent, and men celebrating the gross misogyny of all this.

But we'll carry on saying no.

If providers don't properly invoke our rights, and at the moment the law has been written to 'allow provider privilege' rather than 'endow citizen rights', well then, we'll probably lobby for new laws that endow us properly with these rights as female citizens, and take the decision out of the hands of providers by making it an obligation for them, not a choice. Something enforceable.

It's all changing and it can't be stopped now.
This genie won't go back in the box.
The law doesn't work for women.
So we'll change it.

[quote spoonrider]@itwasjustresting Could you show me an example of Danielle post-transition where she has a beard? Or are you simply referring to the PRE-transition photos of her in an attempt to make it sound like trans women routinely keep beards? Hmmm?[/quote]
Her lovely 5-o clock shadow would perhaps be more accurate.

This thread really demonstrates the absurdity of creating laws specifically for TW and TM. We have one poster saying we won't be able to notice TW as they look exactly like women and another saying we'll be able to spot them as they will be overly feminine. Until we have a clear definition we can't even discuss this.

“ when they started to enter the manufacturing workforce (which had been until then exclusively male)”

Woefully ahistorical.

www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-work-organization-648000/Women-in-the-workforce

You want trans people to have rights, but specifically not the right to legally change sex?

How can there be a "right" to something that is the province of science fiction? Do I have the right to leave the solar system when I have no means to even leave the planet?

We are very mutable. Interesting fact! My neighbours recently found some ancient skeletons on their land and they could tell what sex they were! Not so mutable after all.

Women, know men can make and break you. You are nothing special, your struggles because you are female is your choice because you didn't mutate your sex. If men mistreat you or ignore you or harm you, you should have seen it coming. Shame on all of you!

Or something like that.

Oh I wish for nice transactivists who will actually respect and work with women and treat us with dignity. Would make such a welcome change.

Your interpretation of the outcome that it means there is no difference in law between a woman and a man who identifies as a woman is incorrect. Yesterday’s judgement was about whether the EHRC’s guidance is broadly ok. I don’t think the implications are any broader than that.

1. Sex is immutable.

What characteristic of sex?

The characteristic that you can either produce eggs and give birth if these are fertilised or you can produce sperm.

This goes along with XX or XY chromosomes for the most part, that are replicated in every cell of your body.

Adding hormones at a level the opposite sex has would have some effects but not change your sex.

I think you knew that, really.

[quote spoonrider]@itwasjustresting Could you show me an example of Danielle post-transition where she has a beard? Or are you simply referring to the PRE-transition photos of her in an attempt to make it sound like trans women routinely keep beards? Hmmm?[/quote]
There are amazing cisgender women with beards out there, so while it's certainly a social signifier of sex/gender it is one we should be breaking down to as gender critical people say "destroy gender".

I'm confused why gender critical people would both criticise trans women for conforming to stereotypical views of what it means to be a woman. And criticise specific women like Alex Drummond, and Danielle early on in transition, who don't.

www.allure.com/story/women-with-pcos-facial-hair-beard-interviews

Fair enough. Will you give your support to those calling for repeal of the GRA then?
I can give you some links if you DM me.

Half the women on here are way ahead of you, OP as are many others not connected with Mumsnet. We know the Equality Act 2010 cannot work as intended with certain provisions of the GRA 2004. The recent prisons case highlighted one of them:

www.repealthegra.org/blog/single-sex-exceptions-what-single-sex-exceptions

Women who are interested in good outcomes for women aren't going to be quiet if a judge interprets a law in a way that is bad for women. They're just going to campaign to change the law.

Be careful what you wish for: it might just come true.

I am personally for repeal of GRA. If trans people feel that they need specific rights and protections, they will need to campaign for a replacement that does not negatively impact women. It would help if they could adequately define their terms (for example, no circular definitions) so that workable legislation can be written.

[quote ool0n]@Firevixen, this is definitely one of the bits of GC ideology I find most puzzling. It comes across as a slogan with no substance.

1. Sex is immutable.

What characteristic of sex? Legal sex isn't, the GRA is proof of that. Biological sex characteristics are not either, biology is very much mutable, I think at least we can agree on death and cremation there is no "immutable sex" left of either of us? We are very mutable. The only way I can see it makes any sense at all is if you view "sex" as some magical essence, a sexed eternal soul that can never change in some religious philosophy. That certainly doesn't fit with GC claims to be materialists.[/quote]
Nonsense.

You, like so many others, are taking a legal fiction and trying to make it impute a reality!

It helps if your attempt actually holds some internal logic, which it doesn't!

Some female people need spaces free of male people regardless of how male people identify or feel about this.

Otherwise those female people risk being excluded from public spaces and services.

In the majority, those excluded and most significantly impacted female people will be from vulnerable groups with protected characteristics.

Anyone who does not have a problem with this, and has a problem with female people requesting solutions that work for everyone instead of just male people, cannot say they are inclusive, or ethical. They are merely interested in forwarding male interests at female expense. Yesterday's court case most usefully illustrated how very wrong things has gone with the law, and why bad law needs repealing.

It really seems like a lot of people here think that sex is what your gametes are, when in fact what we refer to as sex is a collection of physical attributes, the most visible of which can be changed. Oh go away!

Learn a tiny bit of actual biology and come back when you can recognise and explain primary and secondary characteristics!

One option in reaction to yesterday’s decision would have been for transactivists and trans allies to try to build bridges and reassure women that honestly, we don’t have to worry, this isn’t something that will bring detriment to women, and explaining why you think that.

The other option would be to come and mock women for having the temerity to have concerns, and crow about how we just have to submit and there’s nothing we can do.

You chose the first, op. Isn’t that interesting?

[quote ool0n]@Soontobe60
"Why are you so invested in wanting people of the male sex to be able to freely come and go into female single sex places? Because that’s what self ID does. Personally, I can’t fathom why someone who looks like a man, sounds like a man, but most importantly has the genetic make up of a man should be welcome into single sex female spaces."

We've had what you call "Self ID" legally for decades now, in reality for ever. Trans people have always self identified as trans and accessed the correct spaces for their acquired gender. They always will as can be seen like pioneers such as Lynn Conway who after being fired for being trans by IBM lived stealth for decades.

Most importantly GRA reform has no effect on this status quo. So far no one has answered my query as to if they accept that fact now.[/quote]
Which spaces are separated by gender?
Do I accept the fact that spaces are separated by gender? No.
Do I accept that all spaces are now mixed-sex? No.

@lonel

We are very mutable. Interesting fact! My neighbours recently found some ancient skeletons on their land and they could tell what sex they were! Not so mutable after all.

You'll be interested in the sexism in "sexing" bones, archaeologists were confused as there seemed to be way more men than women when remains were "sexed". Turns out "indeterminate" was often assigned to "male" by default. psmag.com/social-justice/our-bones-reveal-sex-is-not-binary

You chose the second, rather.

@Sophoclesthefox

One option in reaction to yesterday’s decision would have been for transactivists and trans allies to try to build bridges and reassure women that honestly, we don’t have to worry, this isn’t something that will bring detriment to women, and explaining why you think that.

The other option would be to come and mock women for having the temerity to have concerns, and crow about how we just have to submit and there’s nothing we can do.

You chose the first, op. Isn’t that interesting?

Let me try that again. You chose the second option.

Do you feel that was constructive?