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.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom the issue for me is whatever bearing a GRC has right now on access to spaces, that situation could easily change under a future govt. The fewer people who acquire a "legal gender" the better IMO.

The problem is not TW or even most men. The problem is predators.

We keep all men out of womens spaces because we dont know which ones are the predators. That includes men with gender. A man with a diagnosis is still as much as a threat to women and girls as any other man.

We also have single sex services for dignity and opportunities.

I generally start reading an OP without paying attention to the username of the poster. Less than halfway down the post I knew what name I’d see at the top.

I don't have time this morning to check back through the whole thread, but think I am correct in saying that there has been no disagreement with the facts laid out in the OP?

What are these "facts in the OP" relevant to?

How do you propose to stop (some)TW using the ladies?

I would say we ask them not to, and if necessary provide third spaces for them to use.

Do you think this will work?

Oddly I have never seen anyone stood outside a toilet policing who can and can't go in. Perhaps its just me, or maybe I am lying and I see it happening regularly. Who knows.

The price is already reduced, they already have medical gatekeeping.

Medical gatekeeping = a man has to tell a doctor that he feels a mismatched between his sex and his gender identity.

So it is entirely based on the feelings in the man's head.

We already have a situation where a man can apply for the female sex marker on his passport without a GRC. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75b9dfe5274a43682997fe/Applyingfor_a_passport_additional_information.PDF. You can apply for a passport in an acquired gender. This option is available to those who do not hold a Gender Recognition Certificate or have not had gender reassignment surgery, as well as those who have.

Why have either the GRC or the ability of a man to say he is female on their passport if you are going to then say they are not really women and should not be in women's single sex spaces.

The whole thing is based on falsehoods / gender ideology which is based on unmeasurable feelings and should be abolished.

That's the only way we are going to get single sex spaces back.

Why perpetuate a fiction at all (let alone make it easier) if it's not with the aim of giving the men with women sex additional rights?

I can see no connection between my suggestion and your reply.

My suggestion was that we ask them nicely not to use women's spaces.

No! I think some TW have a very strong drive to be seen and treated as women at all times and will use the ladies regardless. Don't you?

So you're saying that they can't in fact be trusted to do the right thing?

I thought these were vulnerable and marginalised people who mean no harm to anyone and just need to pee?

Well how lovely of them.

They clearly don't give a shit about the impact of their presence on other women, some of whom will be displaced as a result.

Decent males wouldn't do that, decent trans women don't do that.

Adam highlights an important point.

Male shame, male decency and male respect for female needs are no longer more powerful forces than male entitlement. Unfortunately, the social contract genie can be very difficult to put back in the bottle once it's out.

Yes. You already asked me this and I already said yes.

I thought these were vulnerable and marginalised people who mean no harm to anyone and just need to pee?
No you didn't. And neither did I - I'm getting pretty fucked off with people putting words in my mouth to suit their agenda.

I'm GC, I support single sex spaces. I don't think its practical or possible to police toilets, and from a purely personal perspective I don't care if I use a public toilet and a TW is in there.

If we pass legislation banning all male born people whatever their gender identity or legal sex from all women's single sex spaces, then if we see a male born person in a women's single sex space we know that they shouldn't be in there and we can do something about it.

That would already be a huge improvement.

"Decent males" 😂I'm not sure of the proportions, but a sizeable chunk of the male population are not decent. They watch porn, or use prostitutes, or abuse their wives, or are violent, or rape people. Quite a lot of them watch filmed CSEA.

I'm not sure any plan based around "Decent males" is worth the paper it's written on

When eddie izzard was photographed in the queue for the women toilets, MPs should have spoken out and said that he shouldn't have been there.

The management of the railway station should have removed him.

Theres no ambiguity with izzard, we all know hes male.

But because women know MPs are staying silent, and the management wouldnt do anything, women cannot challenge him and stay safe. He has two threats against women - his fame and his male threat of violence.

Its not the laws that are unworkable, its the fact that when there is an opportunity to make the law clear, those who have the authority stay silent.

OK. I don't think its going to be that easy to legally define "womens space" and like I said,I think a lot of service providers may simply stop bothering to provide it, but if a government wants to bring forward that legislation I'd support it.

True, but at least we'd be in a situation where we know for sure that any male in a women's single sex space is not decent and knows they shouldn't be in there.

I think it should be legally mandated.

Would anyone like to engage on the points I copied into the OP?

....

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

So we should make more of these males legal females by making the process for that easier, and that's going to solve all of women's problems?

You are not making any sense Adam.

Letting more males into women's spaces and destroying the social contract simply enables violent males. But you know that.

If you had posted a post about how awful domestic violence is without trying to use that as an excuse for women lowering boundaries to allow more males into single sex spaces then you might have had more engagement on the point of domestic violence.

HTH.

The two pieces of legislation referred to were passed by Labour.

Labour passed the Gender Recognition Act. They referred to "male" and "female" as "genders" but failed to define "male", "female" or "gender", which is a pretty basic failure in legislative drafting. They also introduced a specific exception to protect male aristocrats against losing their inheritance, but nothing to protect vulnerable women.

They also passed the Equality Act which made sex a protected characteristic, but failed to state whether sex meant biological sex or legal sex, despite the fact that they had made "legal sex" a thing just a few years previously.

So Labour's shitty legislation is in large part responsible for allowing Stonewall to misrepresent the law to all and sundry, which has directly led to organisations failing to provide and protect single sex spaces and services for women.

Yes, services are underfunded, but that's not the issue here. The Survivor's Network didn't refuse to provide single sex services due to a lack of funding; they did it for ideological reasons.