UK Government confirms it will block Scottish GRR

[IwantToRetire]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757

'Somewhat support', which is lukewarm at best, is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I suspect those respondents wanted to sound like the were being kind. If they jumped ship, having educated themselves, then the two surveys align fairly closely.

It was published in February 2022

This is nothing to do with the proposed reforms.

Transpeople have always been able to access facilities they identify as by law, and as for prisons that's determined on a case by case basis by prisons.

Your statement also stinks of transphobia by heavily implying that transpeople are somehow setting out to become sex offenders, when this isn't based on evidence even if you look at other countries where transpeople have more rights than in Britain.

This just stirs up fear and hatred which can result in transpeople who are just trying to live their lives becoming victims of violence and hate crimes.

Ha, my latest username, very apt. Good news wims, I'm on me holibobs so this is the first I've heard.

Very happy today.

It is impossible to deny the stats from the census which show clearly that male people with TQ+ identities not only can be sex offenders but are heavily over represented in the prison population.

Those people identifying into women's spaces is a very serious issue. Those who wish to name call people for caring more about the women's rights than those of a male sex offender can crack on.

And even those male people with TQ+ identities who are perfectly safe are still removing women's privacy, dignity, equality of access and inclusion by insisting on their right to be in female spaces regardless of impact on female people. I expect equality of consideration of need, inclusion, access and respect for feelings.

Male people should not have sex based privilege in law over biologically female born people and that is one of the key reasons for this bill being blocked. Rightfully.

Your statement also stinks of transphobia by heavily implying that transpeople are somehow setting out to become sex offenders, when this isn't based on evidence even if you look at other countries where transpeople have more rights than in Britain.

You've got this back to front, rather like you've got public opinion back to front. The issue is not trans people setting out to become sex offenders, but sex offenders using self-ID to more easily access women's and girls' spaces. Whether they are "genuinely" trans, whatever exactly that means, the practical effect appears to be trans-identifying males being at least equally or quite possibly more likely than other males to be imprisoned sex offenders.

This is not rocket science.

As usual you don't answer. The last couple of posters have answered your automatic meaningless post, but please can you answer (you have never been able to provide an answer to this) exactly how one lives as a woman.

I am being as clear as I can. It's a simple question and I'm genuinely interested in your answer. A specific answer to that specific question.

How does one live as a woman?

Sturgeon seems to have chosen her hill to die on.

I was listening to her today talking of the Westminster government being "undemocratic"
But there is nothing democratic about this bill.
I don't believe this bill is representative of scottish people, there was no public vote or referendum. I don't believe it represents the views of most scottish people. They didn't have a say.

To repeat. I am not in any way implying "trans people are setting out to be sex offenders". I am saying that this legislation provides the means for sex offenders to gain access to womens spaces like prisons, changing rooms, toilets, rape support groups etc etc, simply by saying they have lived as a woman .

How exactly does a man live like a woman?

Exactly.

So women should have their spaces invaded to protect men who think they are women from other violent men?

It's bonkers.

So men who believe themselves to be women want to be identified as women, while none can define what a woman is?

It infuriates me that no one is saying- why are these men so desperate to get into women’s spaces?

If these men who claim to be women had any nous they would appreciate that their male bodies aren’t welcome in single sex spaces.

It isn’t just about creating the gateway to any old men getting into female spaces. I feel even the most ‘genuine’ Trans person should ‘get’ that women don’t need the hassle in changing rooms, care, etc etc .

And specifically into the non consenting women's spaces.

Offer them a mixed sex women's space with the women delighted to be there with them and those women won't do.

And specifically into the non consenting women's spaces.

Exactly. You would think they would show some respect to women who feel uncomfortable and don't want them in there. But no. Male privilege.

This is your own misrepresentation of what was posted. And you seem to have taken any opportunity to display your usual polarised thinking.

By the way, your repeated posting of that jpeg image does not make it any truer than the first time it was posted.

Considering a recent court judgement in Scotland made clear that males with a GRC can be considered as female, why is any government willing to allow a bill that puts that further into ambiguity. Or do you also think some magic words on a bill stating that the EA would not be impacted mean that the EA would not be impacted. Just like people were assured all those years ago that no males would consider themselves ‘female’ - Ie consider they have miraculously changed sex when we know that is impossible.

Some of the arguments made in favour of changing the law could easily be covered in other ways. Death certificates by a clause allowing a declaration in your will to ask you be recorded as a woman or a man instead of what is on your birth certificate, for example.

Agree. The people interviewed in the last two days seem to only have the argument of "the admin is a nightmare" and I just heard on Radio4 the case for "when I get married I want to feel the most feminine ever".

Please can we not go over again that the Single Sex Exemptions do allow you to exclude men AND men with a GRC that says "for all other purposes" they are female.

Actually, please can we? Because I don't think it's at all well understood. Certainly Rosie Duffield interviewed on R4 just now seemed to have a poor understanding of it.

I understand, obviously, that historically the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act have allowed service providers to exclude biological males from single sex spaces and services (changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc) even if they have a GRC. All well and good.

The Haldane ruling says, however, that males who hold a GRC are for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act, female, because the Equality Act does not specify that sex means "biological sex".

However, if I've understood it right, there are still circumstances in which a male holder of a GRC can be excluded from a single-sex space under the terms of the Equality Act. I can't for the life of me understand how this follows on from the ruling that the word "sex" refers to legal, not biological, sex. Under which bits of the Equality Act does a male holder of a GRC count as female, and under which bits does that same male holder count as male?

I'm sorry if you feel you have already explained this, but I am still mystified and confused, and would be grateful for a definitive explanation - as I think would others.

Fairly even handed article in the Guardian

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/17/blocking-scotland-gender-recognition-bill-rishi-sunak

as @MargaritaPie only ever answers selected questions, I would like to ask while you are here: Do you think it's acceptable that under self ID, men like David Carrick are allowed to be housed in a womens prison?…

Well done for trying, WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles. But as always, Margarita Pie blatantly ignored your questions in her ‘answers’.

I'm going to try to answer my own question here. I've just been reading the concluding parts of the Haldane judgement. She states, quite categorically:

"For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, “sex” is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex. Such a conclusion does not offend against, or give rise to any conflict with, legislation where it is clear that “sex”means biological sex."

Nowhere does she mention the Equality Act's single-sex exemptions. She does mention other legislation that specifies that a service can be for biological females only, such as the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) 32 (Scotland) Act 2021.

As far as I can see, the Haldane judgement means that "sex" as used in the Equality Act refers both to biological sex and opposite-sex people who have a GRC, effectively losing single-sex protections for women. Am I wrong?

I think we can say two things.

The Haldane ruling was flawed. It evaded the substance of the issue.

The other merciful thing for the rest of the UK is that it is, given the hierarchy of the court system, unlikely to survive as persuasive authority. If a case was put forward in England and Wales, then I think you would get a different outcome, and a different line of authority.

All of which doesn't matter very much because....

Westminster may just decide to amend the Equality Act to address its issue of legal sex and biological sex and then the Haldane ruling will be of no relevance whatsoever. Statute trumps all. Trans activists would have to start again.

The Haldane ruling basically said what the law was then and is now. For "all purposes" a GRC changes your "legal" sex so you can get a marriage certificate and a death certificate saying you are the opposite to the sex you are born. Or a passport.

So because it uses the wording "for all purposes" those drafting the legislation suddenly realised or somebody pointed out, that there are circumstances, health care, rape crisis support, when services need to be women only, ie biological sex only.

So instead of doing the obvious, ie rewording the gender reassignment bit with its sweeping statement "for all purposes" to a specific list, they treated women's sex based rights as lesser, and sogrudgingly allowed that they should be exemptions to the "all purposes". So now women have to argue when single sex is essential, ie a sex based right.

And too many, including Duffield seem to have taken on the Stonewall briefing on the EA that says trans women with a certificate are allowed in single sex services. They aren't.

This is while Nicola Sturgeon and others are saying what is the problem, women have SSE, there is no problem.

But if you remember the meeting in Scotland when NS was heckled for undermining women's rights, she didn't do a good politician response, I know you are concerned, but dont forget women still have SSE, she used it to make out the woman challenging her was some sort of trouble maker.

And I agree with whoever it was said earlier on today that funders should be sued if they use funding to force women's groups to be trans inclusive, because not only do the EA use the example of why rape crisis support should be single sex, but that in the instance of funding it should be proportional. ie if 90% of rape victims are women then 90% of funding should go to women's support services.

It just seems more and more obvious that the SNP have been using the trans issue as a political tool to not only distract from what they aren't doing, but also to invoke some sort of organised undermining to trans rights to such an extent that they need prioritising.

What isn't clear, and clearly from the meeting where NS was heckled, too many women seem to be only to happy to imply women fighting for sex based rights are out of date, trouble makers, transphobic and so on.

Wouldn't it be great if at the next Let Women Speak which is I think in Glasgow, women who have worked in refuges etc., and been silenced and got rid off, felt able to come and speak about what has been going on.

And if they are frightened because of past experiences, if TRAs can come masked up and annonymous, then so can they.

We need to find out and expose how the SNP, Greens, etc., have turned the whole purpose of SSE on its head, the damage they have done to survivors of male violence, but are now claiming it is important and supported by them.