TRA arguments around GRR

[JeanGabin]

I'm wondering if anyone here has a good grasp of the activist arguments re. the GRA / GRR. I can't quite get my head around it, and media coverage isn't helping!
The argument seems to be that a GRC doesn't impact on the equality act. To some extent that makes sense to me - TW with GRC's can still be legally excluded from women's spaces - even if in practice it is very difficult. For example, I've heard from those working there, that in prisons, TW with GRC's go straight to women's prison's. I'm also not sure of the mechanism of preventing a TW from joining if they insist they are female and present their birth certificate / passport etc.
At the same time, TRA's seem to argue that trans women can access women's single sex services due to the equality act, and indeed have been doing so forever - and that this is nothing to do with the GRA. These 2 arguments seem to contradict each other. Am I missing something?
I'm perfectly willing to countenance that it just doesn't make sense, but want to try to understand the arguments as best I can

Unfortunately, there aren't any or at least aren't any that stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
They just repeat the same old mantras and accusations over again.
That's why instead of us getting well-reasoned or goodwill refutations of our arguments, there's just accusations. It's because none of this is defensible if you look at the actual arguments.

I can absolutely believe it TGAT - I suppose given it's in legislation and in court judgements (Lady Haldane's and the GRR bill) I hoped there would at least be a coherent argument even if it was contested!

If the prisons, NHS, funders providing funding to single sex spaces etc were all clear and we could talk about and keep single sex spaces, and if kids weren't being routinely told they could change sex I wouldn't have a single issue with people being able to put the alternative gender on any certificate they wanted.

It is when changing birth certificates to the other SEX and pretending all is well that this becomes an issue.

Quite AlisonDonut - and reading Lady Haldane's judgement she specifically comments on those with GRC's as being eligible to access single sex services which completely contradicts GRR saying it has no impact on equality act. What a mess and so disappointing that the politicians involved are of such a low calibre

I don't think the law should allow anyone to falsify a legal document and I'm not sure how we got to the point that they do tbh. What does female even mean now?

I think they're arguing that there are already people with a GRC, and they aren't changing the rights conferred by a GRC. Whatever it is we don't want people doing - that you can only do with a GRC - is already allowed for existing GRC holders. So any impact on the Equality Act is already there.

Whereas the UK government is saying that vastly increasing the number of people who get a GRC changes the impact of the GRA. Note - the impact of the GRA, not an individual GRC.

Eg if having a GRC means that a transwoman can't be excluded from a female swimming session, you need to think of the effect on women of that. If there are only 500 transwomen (with GRCs) in the UK allowed into the swimming session at 10am on a Tuesday in Bethnal Green then even women who can't swim with men will feel safe to go to it. But if anyone who wants to swim there can get a GRC by paying £5 then those women won't go - and the intention of the Equality Act in allowing single sex spaces has been lost.

Making GRCs much more widely available changes the impact of the GRA on the Equality Act - even if a particular GRC holder has no additional rights.

It's the same faulty logic that makes TRAs/Scotgov say that men assault women even without changing gender. Therefore making it easier for men to access vulnerable women won't make any difference.

You can see what nonsense that is by asking whether they lock their front door when they go out. After all, burglars break into locked houses, right? So they may as we leave their front door open with all their valuables stacked up in plain view. No? Why ever not??

thecritic.co.uk/The-case-for-repealing-the-GRA/

I think this article might have an answer.

It is one big holy mess. See the post re the EA petition started by Maya calling for the wording to be amended with Sex. It needs to be clear in terms of protected characteristics that it is biological sex as opposed to legal sex. Once and for all.

So you can exclude a TW from a single sex space under the PC of Gender Reassignment.

But if they have changed legal sex (which is what a GRC does) then they now come under the same Sex PC as females.

So how can you discriminate against someone of the same sex. How can you exclude any perso of the female sex class from a female single sex space without being guilty of direct discrimination?

Should also comment - I don't think the EA is currently being implemented in the way it was designed.

It was mean for lots of males with penises to consider themselves trans.

So I suspect there will be a clarification at some point and a tightening up of who can use those spaces.

Bloody Nora - my typing is diabolical.

It was never meant for many males with penises to simply declare themselves as trans by wearing a wig and putting on a dress.

The legal argument the UK Government made is based on a different issue.

When the Equality Act was written, it brought together a number of separate anti-discrimination laws. It was clear from the beginning that such a comprehensive anti-discrimination law protecting all kinds of different groups would have to carefully balance competing rights, because there are many times when two groups can have conflicting interests. (That's why there are over 1000 explanatory notes that belong to the Equality Act showing how the Act works and how competing interests should be navigated.)

One such conflict was recognised to be between those protected under sex and those protected under gender reassignment, and those in the latter group who had legally changed their sex with a GRC.

A lot of this balancing took ground away from women, i.e. those who most heavily depend on being protected on the basis of sex.

This was justified on the basis of the then prevailing understanding of the group protected under gender reassignment as primarily transsexuals and those with gender dysphoria yet to transition. The argument was that this group is so small and their needs so desperate that any compromise will impact few women in reality but bring a much needed benefit to those transsexuals.

The Scottish Government's GRR Bill upsets this carefully calibrated balance. Now neither argument applies - the numbers are now big enough to affect many more women and the needs of this group, who are neither transsexuals nor suffering from gender dysphoria cannot be said to be at all desperate. In fact, no argument can be nor has been made what that need is, given that this law is no longer about those who identify as trans, but everyone. All of us are eligible now. And no reason has been given as to why we all must be allowed to legally change sex if we have no identifiable need to do so.

What was carefully balanced before, and a justified unfairness to women (justified by the lawmakers, unfair in the views of many women), is now going to be completely out of whack. An unjustified unfairness to women for the benefit of any man was never how the Equality Act was supposed to work in practice.

And that's why the UK Government says that the GRR Bill is having a negative effect on how the Equality Act works in practice.

(The Equality Act also improved the situation for women, because for the six years from when the GRA was passed in 2004 to when the Equality Act was passed in 2010, sex-based exceptions did not exist.)

That's really clear Justwaking & Charlie, Thankyou. The impact of broadening access to GRCs threatens the balance of rights in the equality act. That makes sense of the arguments. I'll have a read of that critic article interestingusernametbc, thanks
Unholy mess is a good description!

Great article @InterestingUsernameTBC, thanks for sharing it. I have to agree with AA, that ultimately the GRA needs repealed. I had thought the equality act was clear on single sex exemptions even with a GRC, but it seems that is not necessarily the case, certainly according to lady Haldane.