The history of the Gender Recognition actand Labour's role

[AdamRyan]

There have been lots of threads recently about Labour's position on gender and their role in the GRA. A poster on another thread made a slightly off topic point that I thought deserved a thread of its own. Please scroll on past or hide this thread if you aren't interested in discussing further!

Thanks to @bigcoatlady....

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 only allows people to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate if they have two written reports by medical professionals confirming that they have lived in their affirmed gender for two years as well as evidence of any medical treatment they have undergone. There is no requirement for a GRC to be issued that the applicant has undergone surgery, the reason for this is the original bill introduced by Labour restricted GRCs only to those who had received surgery and this was removed in the Lords by Tory peers uncomfortable with the requirement that 'men' undergo surgical removal of the penis.

That much is ancient history. Less than 5000 people in the UK have a GRC.

In 2015 the Home Office launched a proposal to remove the costly and time-consuming medical assessment of applications for gender recognition in favour of self-ID. This was a Tory proposal from a Tory government. They have since reversed their position on it but it was never a Labour proposal.

The Equality Act 2010 has always made it possible to exclude trans women from women only competitive sports (s.195), women only services (sch 3), all women shortlists(s104(7)), communal accommodation (sch23), women only associations (sch16) and job requirements (sch 9).

As a result employers who want to recruit a woman but not a transwoman to a role such as 'rape crisis counsellor' have always been able to do so. If a rape crisis service wanted to offer rape crisis group therapy ONLY to women and not trans women they are entirely permitted to do so. If a domestic violence refuge (and I have chaired the board of trustees of a housing charity which offers refuge services for many years) wants to only accommodate women and not trans women it can do so.

Services such as Survivors Network are choosing to include transwomen in their service for whatever reasons but there is no legal obligation on them to do this.

Even had the Tory proposals to permit self-ID gone ahead it was never proposed that the law be changed further to reduce the protection for women only spaces in the Equality Act.

You can call that a gender ideology scandal if you like but its pretty tame.

There is another scandal. During those fifteen years, those of us who have been scrabbling to fund frontline services have been hard hit by austerity. In the city my charity operates in the women-led charities which delivered refuge services went to the wall in the first round of austerity. By 2015 we had no DV refuges at all. Our Rape Crisis nearly went bust and is currently closed to new referrals. We are not a women only provider but we started to offer specialist accommodation for women at risk of homelessness 8 yrs ago because of the massive demand. Women leaving violent partners were becoming street homeless and ending up in hostels surrounded by aggressive mean with drug issues due to the shortage of safe accommodation.

Two years ago the govt did create a statutory duty on councils to urgently accommodate households leaving DV BUT by then it was too bloody late, the good charities had already sold up their properties and moved on. The sector has been ripped apart by the last fifteen years

This is a bigger scandal than the GRA.

@AdamRyan

Well that is a cheek since you did not offer any evidence on improved child safety yourself. And BTW i have not called anybody a liar.

Having said that historically there were predators crawling through children’s services in the past, and that to a lesser or greater degree, depending where and when.

I could of course be fibbing (but am not) i have worked and been a member of safeguarding boards. Newer safeguarding models and public awareness put pay to predators running amok in schools scouts and the like.

And then came along Trans rights, and the internet. Predators have a new open door. That is where you consistently miss the point.

That is not to say that trans people are predators but some are. (Isla Bryson et al)

No point saying some are not “real trans” should we have a test for that?

Oh and have you read the Cass report … you should, i have.

No. I've said I personally have no issue sharing public toilets with trans women. That's not the same thing at all.

"Clearly demonstrated I do not understand safeguarding" is code for "don't agree with Internet randoms that teachers are transing children". No I don't. I know lots of teachers and they all take safeguarding extremely seriously. I would prefer to listen to experts I know in real life than Internet randoms who could be anyone.

Do trans women not use a cubical the same as trans men.

Maybe we don’t quite understand someone who says they cannot tell human males apart from human females by sight. It may be a ‘Ripley’s believe it or not’ situation.

Maybe people who make claims like this were raised by wolves since they were tiny, tiny babies. So they could try to do the olfactory method (seeing as wolves can detect scent from 1.75 miles away with the right conditions, it wouldn’t have to be a sniff to the arse, as my cats do to each other).

If these people actually ‘identified’ with their wolf family (so now magically actual wolves), they might be able to do that. Although actually lacking the wolf nose/snout.

I'm sorry for implying you were lying. You aren't. I'm annoyed by posters being very dismissive of others on this thread for no good reason.

I have personal skin in the game re: sexual abuse which means I get triggered on these threads. I think children are better protected these days from predatory abuse rings, but had not factored in Internet CSEA so you and Rufus are right about that.

I don't however agree that trans people pose a particular threat of sexual assault over other predatory males. Some men rape and abuse people. We need to deal with that, pretending TW are the issue doesn't help.

I think a lot of us can tell the vast majority of the time

i think a small percentage of people honestly do struggle with being able to tell with some trans people, and i think that a small percentage can tell all the time

makes sense to me 😀

Jess thanked my post of 21.59.

Jess doesn't think that trans women are men when it comes to women's single sex spaces but doesn't want to spell it out by typing it.

Yet claims not to have an agenda on this thread.

I don't however agree that trans people pose a particular threat of sexual assault over other predatory males
But the relevant question is whether they pose less of a threat than other males, and as the information we have suggests not, it doesn't make sense to allow them to bypass safeguards that apply to other men.

Yes. That's exactly what I think, which is why I think obsessing about toilets is pointless. No way to keep males out.

Other spaces (hospitals, sports, changing rooms, prisons) have some gatekeeping happening that will put off a lot of predatory men. It also means they have a way of enforcing single sex, no TW rules. Toilets don't and never will have.

I don't however agree that trans people pose a particular threat of sexual assault over other predatory males. Some men rape and abuse people. We need to deal with that, pretending TW are the issue doesn't help

Yet you agree with Starmer that some women have penises whilst knowing that trans women , being male, are no less likely to be sex offenders than any other male. You also know that children have been sexually assaulted by a trans woman in women's toilets in the UK.

I find it surprising that you don't think that safeguarding children against these kind of assaults should extend to all males even those who Starmer says are women with penises because as far as I know the GRC can't actually distinguish which trans women are predators and which are not, not to mention the fact that service providers are not allowed (by law) to ask for evidence anyway.

I don't think its practical or possible to stop (some) TW using the ladies. That is not the same as "happy to welcome men into women's and girls single sex loos".

The problem is which men are using women and girls facilities. In theory, the only ones its not practical to stop will be the men who pass as women 100% of the time. But thats not what politicans are saying. Some are saying those with GRC, or those with the PC of GR. Thats not the same as 'passing' at all. If non passing men are allowed in womens spaces, following girls into changing rooms, its difficult to stop any man from doing so.

Politicans need to recognised this problem and made active steps to solve it. They need to say explicitly that a GRC or PC of GR does not change a persons sex for any single sex space, and when a service is advertised as single sex - women or female on the door, it is for sex only, not GRC sex.

Its not hard, but politicians are refusing to make the clarification.

When there aren’t any judges to hear rape cases so it’s essentially been decriminalised. That’s great for women, isn’t it?

@AdamRyan

Sorry to learn about your childhood experiences, i hope you have recovered as best you can.

I do not think individual trans people who respect women's only spaces are a problem.

The problem is sophisticated sexual predators will always find a new way in, and TRAs have. Found just the ticket for them.

That's just not true. Perhaps in some toilets it's hard to enforce, but in the toilets in a workplace whether or not TW can use them depends on the company policy, and the same with a school.

And I think I've asked you this before - what is the harm in setting rules, laws or policies that are difficult to enforce in some locations? We clearly do this all the time, all laws are broken sometimes.

I imagine sex recognition is pretty similar to facial recognition. Some people are naturally very good at it. Others rely on cues that are changeable over those which are not, and are completely snookered by a haircut, new glasses, or I guess a wig and push-up bra.

I have appalling facial recognition, partly due to being ND, partly due to growing up in small social circles. I do have better sex discernment, but superficial cues can sometimes throw me unless I observe for a while. I can find it quite distressing when there are uncertain or conflicting cues, which given the very different risk profiles for male and female, I suppose is a pretty deeply-rooted instinct (similar to uncanny valley).

Tickle vs Giggle comes to mind she had facial recognition, which weeded out the men. So it is completely possible to police.

Thinking about it wouldn’t it be great an alarm goes off or a barrier drops when a man tries to enter a woman’s space

One can but dream.

songaboutjan

my dad was very confused when watching RuPauls drag race 😀

Kept saying

‘well that ones a woman’

nope daddy

‘well that one definitely is’

nope…

@RufustheFactualReindeer ha ha, thing is if you saw themselves in real life he would know….

Thank you. Sorry for snapping at you

I kind of disagree.
The problem is not TW or even most men. The problem is predators.
Under self ID where any man could walk in on a whim, that was an open door to any voyeur or pervert at any time. Women can not challenge them as "feeling like a woman" is enough.

If there is no self-ID, the predator has got to make some effort to look trans. And he can still be challenged. So there is a barrier there of sorts, I think that means a lot of predators will find it easier to get their kicks in other ways (e.g. from the Internet). It's the same barrier that's been there since year dot.

I do not think its practical or possible to do much more regarding toilets, especially when there is no political will to repeal the GRA.

Of course it's possible to do something about it. Use the single sex exemption which covers even those with a GRC.
The trouble with Labour's proposal to 'simplify' the process of obtaining a GRC by effectively neutering the medical gatekeeping is that this enables self-id by the back door. A simple ban on any male entering female toilets is needed. Why do you think this is not possible?

I agree with you mostly. I don't think it will make a jot of difference to toilets. I also don't think the Labour proposal does much different to the existing process, from the perspective of the person going through it. The price is already reduced, they already have medical gatekeeping. The only difference (so far) is Labour are saying one medic rather than a panel. Which seems cost effective.

This is very problematic.

Karen White wears a wig and makeup, which is not difficult.

Is that sufficient to "look trans"?

You can't have a rule based on how convincingly someone manages to look the part.

The only reason it wouldn't make a jot of difference to toilets would be if people deliberately broke the rules.

In my opinion, the GRA is the wrong focus. Yes, it's bad law which should never have been passed. But in reality it has very little effect. People without GRCs aren't being included in single sex spaces they would otherwise be included in, and people with GRCs can still be excluded from these spaces under the Equality Act.

You can't ask to see one or even ask a person whether they have one, which means that a man with a full beard can already self ID into women's spaces and if challenged, only needs to say that he is a woman. So what difference does it make how easy or difficult it is to get a GRC?