The Times: Westminster poised to intervene over gender bill assent

[ResisterRex]

Begins:

"UK ministers are willing in principle to take the unprecedented step of blocking a bill passed by Holyrood after receiving legal advice on Nicola Sturgeon’s contentious gender recognition reforms.

Informed sources say that Rishi Sunak’s administration has the political appetite to intervene in the controversy over self-ID, opting for direct action to deny the Scottish parliament royal assent rather than referring the matter to the Supreme Court.

It follows concern about possible risks posed to safe spaces for girls and women by cutting the waiting time for legally changing gender, making the option available to 16-year-olds and eliminating the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

More here:

Westminster poised to intervene over gender bill assent.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9864f1e4-8ea9-11ed-a321-77184a1c82e4?shareToken=9342e07f5c59124eb13d7c1a93f40d5ee_

Great news, this is a battle worth fighting. No way can the interests of a tiny group of paraphilic males be allowed to cancel womanhood.

Still no one has explained exactly how making it easier to get a GRC makes it harder to exclude trans women. If a service has a policy of excluding trans women (with or without a GRC) and they are confident a particular woman is trans, they don’t have to ‘prove’ they are trans. They exclude them, and then the person (whether trans or not) can decide whether to bring a legal challenge, on the basis they were discriminated against because of their (perceived) gender reassignment status - on the basis that their exclusion is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate expectation (or, if the woman isn’t actually trans, on the basis that the policy was wrongly applied due to a mistake of fact).

And how many people (particularly those who don’t have a GRC) have their birth certificate to hand anyway? It doesn’t seem practical that a service could use that as the way to determine whether any particular person is trans.

Because only a few males currently have a GRC, you are undermining the whole foundation of sex as a protected characteristic.

I'm sure this has been explained many times. I have posted this before (as have others) but here it is again from the MoJ guidance on transgender prisoners.

all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the
estate which matches their legally recognised gender

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

So if a male prisoner has a GRC and falsified birth certificate stating he is female, his legally recognised gender is female, and he will be initially sent to a women's prison. Even if he is a rapist.

You should go back and read some of the many discussions we've had over the years, rather than assuming your tales are new and original in any way. I can link some?

Takes, not tales.

I do take the point about the current MoJ policy. But that is one organisation and one service (admittedly a big and important one) and my point was that it is open to organisations under the equality act to adopt policies which allow them to exclude trans women with a GRC, and so making it easier to get a GRC doesn’t prevent them from excluding trans women (or make it harder to do so).

Also, I wonder if the MoJ will amend their policy if it becomes easier to obtain a GRC, or apply a different policy to those who have obtained a GRC in Scotland? Given the general direction of political travel currently I wouldn’t be surprised if the MoJ changed the prison policy regardless of the Scottish legislation.

Yes please, I don’t recall anything addressing this specific point.

Has it really been years? Jesus that’s depressing.

We've been discussing the GRA with respect to self ID specifically here since Theresa May went to a Pink News event in 2017 and made a verbal commitment to change it to self ID. So coming up for 6 years. I'll have a look and dig out some good threads.

Twice in the Equality Act it is implied that having a GRC provides a higher bar for inclusion on a case by case basis. It's specifically mentioned in the single sex exemption for occupational requirement, where it's given as an example in the explanatory notes that a rape counsellor might need to be a woman and that a "transgender woman" can be excluded "even when she has a gender recognition certificate".

Oh, I thought you meant the discussions you and I have over the years! Thanks, I look forward to reading

This is an excellent point.

There is case law where having a GRC would have meant that a male prisoner was treated as a female prisoner when it came to the treatment the prisoner received.

The lack of a GRC meant that the person was not.

Here is Fairplay for Women's written submission to the GRA consultation:

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16877/pdf/

'it is open to organisations under the equality act to adopt policies which allow them to exclude trans women with a GRC, and so making it easier to get a GRC doesn’t prevent them from excluding trans women'

Allegedly this is true. But we have a male without a GRC in a job that was advertised using the SSE to restrict applicants to females.

I'm not aware of any organisations that have implemented the SSE to exclude transwomen.

The law seems to be operating as if the SSEs don't exist.

It could be that the problem lies with the EA rather than the GRA - those who've suggested clarifying and updating the EA to make the meanings of 'sex' and 'gender' clear beyond any doubt and the EHRC providing far more robust guidance for organisations on the need for and the means of implementing SSEs might mean that the whole GRC process becomes a bit of a red herring.

Alternatively we could look at scrapping the whole GRA.

As it is right now we are living in a mixed sex world with a pretence that there are SSEs. Which I think is more dangerous for women than open adoption of mixed sex spaces.

It seems very clear that the EHRC and the government(s) need to urgently clarify the language used in law and the guidelines.

We currently have a total hodge-podge of contradictory laws/precedent that end up creating nothing but confusion, and render some of the EA completely meaningless (religion is another PC that is apparently pushed aside as less important than male feelings).

Humans can't change sex. The fact that we've created a law that claims that its possible to do so is undermining all reason and logic. Its an absurdity that compromises confidence in politics, law and society itself.

Repeal the GRA.

You know I think I've been so immersed in this what the Scottish government is actually doing had kind of dulled in my brain, if that makes sense then I read

Under Edinburgh’s new law, which has been passed by the Scottish Parliament, people will no longer require a medical diagnosis before they can legally change their gender and receive a “gender recognition certificate”.
Children will also be able to legally change their gender at the age of 16, rather than having to wait until 18 as at present.

well brought it back into sharp focus.

I do think as many people as possible need to email their mps today or tomorrow and remind them we don't want this here in the rest of the UK.

My mp may have got emailed a lot of map of Anger screen shots with me pointing out exactly how many of his constituents had signed at that point. If he ignores me his office is in the next road. I'll pay him a visit.

This.

The GRA has to go, but in the mean time Westminster needs to step in and intervene on behalf of the women and girls in Scotland who are losing their rights.

Unfortunately Sturgeon and the rest of the despicable fuckers that make up the SG get a win-win here no matter what - Westminster intervenes and the grievance fires get another stoking, or the legislation is passed and SG gets its way - but I'd rather keep my sex based rights thanks very much.

I think the GRA should be repealed. But I wouldn't want it gone just yet - only because there's a worry that with a blank slate, Labour would make even worse law than they already made in this area.

The Tories should cover it somehow in their manifesto, in the event they win. Post-legislative scrutiny - or something.

I did sign the petition to repeal it but I see it as more tactical - it may help focus minds in Westminster. And I do want it gone, but in the meantime, the Tories could and should take the teeth out of it. They can do that and the petition (plus others that are related, plus events!) help make the case.

Then, if the Tories make it quite "vanilla", Labour would have a gutted piece of law to beef up. I doubt a beefed up GRA would survive the Lords. Perhaps you could say the same about a blank slate but I'd rather they were bequeathed something of a legal minefield and shitshow by the Tories.

I wonder if they are still looking into doing this? It's interesting that the government haven't yet responded to the Sex Matters petition that asks for an update of the EA. Perhaps that's because they are planning something. I do hope so! It would make it much more difficult for Labour to fuck things up for women once they gain power.

Stonewall have tweeted. And they didn't turn off replies:

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1612062568301973504?s=46&t=8uCFm6TBlY6PIJNRA7QvhQ

"1/ 🚨 Statement from Nancy Kelley, Chief Executive, and Colin Macfarlane, Director of Nations at Stonewall in response to reports that the UK Government will attempt to block the implementation of Scotland's Gender Recognition Reform Bill. (1/8)

2/ The Scottish Government had an overwhelming mandate to reform the Gender Recognition Act. The reforms are one of the most consulted on in the Scottish Parliament’s history, and the new law was passed by a resounding cross-party majority, with support from MSPs in all parties.

3/ The Bill has been subject to extensive, appropriate scrutiny that has closely considered safeguards and interaction with UK-wide legislation, with almost 150 amendments debated and voted on.

4/ In May this year, the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee undertook ten weeks of detailed evidence hearings on the proposals, hearing from a wide range of witnesses both supporting and opposed to the reforms.

5/ The UK Government has had more than six years to engage constructively with the Scottish Government over the proposals. For the UK Government to seek to block implementation of this Act would be disastrous for trans people, who deserve far better from their government.

6/ It would also profoundly undermine relationships with the Scottish Govt and damage the UK’s international reputation as a rights respecting nation.

It will be yet another example of hampering progress on LGBTQ+ rights & undermine the PM’s pledge to govern with compassion.

7/ The UK Government already recognises equivalent birth certificates from all EU/EEA countries, including countries which have a de-medicalised model of legal gender recognition.

8/ To refuse to recognise Scottish certificates would be a mistake, fly in the face of international best practice and come across as spiteful.

We hope this is the not the approach the Prime Minister wishes for the UK Government to take."

Looks like that "unparalleled access" to no10 never made a comeback:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10197907/Boris-Johnsons-advisors-letting-Stonewall-dictate-government-trans-policy-ex-aide-warns.html

'international best practice' gets a lot of trips out these days, doesn't it?