Government will not close biological sex loophole in Equality Act

[Justme56]

But will make changing gender easier.

Sorry no archive version but some screen shots.

Dodds is a blithering idiot and will never see sense.

Has the blithering idiot said why?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/08/labour-wont-close-biological-sex-loophole-in-equality-act/

How does changing the Equality Act work with the ECHR? Under the EA you're protected from discrimination, even while transitioning. How is that affected if you change it to biological sex?

Labour were very clear before the election, that they weren't changing the EA and would take away the panel aspect of the GRA process.

Labour were very clear before the election, that they weren't changing the EA and would take away the panel aspect of the GRA process.

I absolutely do not understand why it should be made easier to transition when it impacts so directly on women's rights or why it should be made easier for someone to take such a major step. For both women and transwomen/ transmen, the process should be rigorous. It's been working, why change.

I'm not in the Labour party, but I believe their reasoning was that the GRA process was humiliating for trans people. They've taken out the panel process though I imagine the length of time it takes to transition will remain the same. Instead of a panel, they are signed off by a specialist.Very few people apply for a certificate.

We'll have to wait and see how things progress as the government are following the Cass report guidelines.

Even with the rigour of the panel, bad apples have slipped through. Less rigour, less safety

Safety? I don't think they do background checks. A GRA doesn't include surgery.

The discussion is about clarifying the meaning of 'sex' in the Act to be clear that it means 'biological sex' not self declared sex or even legal sex as determined by a GRC (which of course it was intended to mean, because that's what "sex' meant in 2010 when the Act was drafted).

This would ensure that the single sex exemptions written in to the Act can actually be used, without people of the opposite sex claiming they have changed sex just because they have transistioned /got a GRC/ identify as the opposite sex.

This would ensure that in some certain specific situations, for a legitimate aim, we can still have women only spaces, rape crisis centres, sports teams etc, where woman means biological woman.

AFAIK, no one is suggesting removing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. But gender reassignment doesn't trump sex. The comparator to determine whether or not a person is being discriminated against on the grounds of sex is a person of the same biological sex, not same 'gender'.

Edit for the many typos.

The process is the safety. If you limit the process and make it simpler, easier, then more chance of bad apples. I read quite a bit about the panel and they seemed quite on top of things

I'm not in the Labour party, but I believe their reasoning was that the GRA process was humiliating for trans people.

How was it humiliating? You do know that no-one has to appear in person before a panel, like in a job interview, don't you?

It just means that more than one person considers the written application.

Whereas with Labour's proposals all that will be needed is a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from one single doctor. No details of what specific qualifications the doctor will be required to have are available.

I don’t understand why this is news. Labour always said they think the law is clear and doesn’t need updating.

The discussion is about clarifying the meaning of 'sex' in the Act to be clear that it means 'biological sex' not self declared sex or even legal sex as determined by a GRC (which of course it was intended to mean, because that's what "sex' meant in 2010 when the Act was drafted).

Thank you for the clarification. I'm aware of what the discussion is about. It's about putting biological sex into the EA.

I'm wondering how that would actually work legally. If someone has a GRC, they're legally the sex on their GRC and entitled to those rights and privileges. The EA also protects people who are transing from discrimination. I'm wondering how changing the EA works legally with other rights given in the ECHR and the EA.

It would be great if someone could explain.

I don't understand the 'humiliating' aspect either.

I think it's a word (like 'valid') that's been latched on to in this situation for its emotional weight.

Big decisions that impact on others/ wider society require checks and balances. For instance, in England you can't just get married, you have to give notice so that anyone who has objections can raise them (this was to weed out bigamy or otherwise illegal marriages, when public records were non existent/ not very extensive and most people didn't have ID).

You can't just adopt a child, you need to go through a lot of checks first.

No one seems to complain that this is humiliating, invasive, or any of the other loaded words that are bandied about to essentially mean 'I should just be able to do exactly what I want, when I want and be answerable to no one'.

I'm not trans so don't know how it's humiliating. I'm just repeating what I heard Labour say before the election.

Whereas with Labour's proposals all that will be needed is a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from one single doctor. No details of what specific qualifications the doctor will be required to have are available.

As far as I can remember, you need a gender dysphoria diagnosis, you then have a two year reflection period, then you see a specialist. I understand that the process can take approximately five years from inception due to waiting times.

The number of people who apply for GRCs and are successful has risen quite significantly (possibly since the cost has decreased).

Secondly in a Times interview on 2nd July 2024 Starmer spoke about the need to protect ‘biological’ women in SSS (attached).

I imagine most women want to know how the LP plan to ensure protection whilst making it easier for people to get GRCs and a likely further increase in numbers.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2024.09.09-005041/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/08/labour-wont-close-biological-sex-loophole-in-equality-act" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2024.09.09-005041/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/08/labour-wont-close-biological-sex-loophole-in-equality-act/

archive version

So to be clear (for any readers) what is meant by 'putting biological sex into the EA'. its about clarification of what is meant by the protected characteristic of 'sex' - not the introduction of another protected characteristic.

The EA doesn't confer any 'privileges' to any group.

Legal sex as conferred by a GRC is not the same as biological sex. It's a 'legal fiction'.

The GRC is a messy work around introduced to allow someone with a GRC to marry someone of the same bio sex, before that was legal - so a bio male with a GRC stating legal sex female could have married another bio male.

I don't believe (hopefully someone with more precise legal knowledge can clarify) that a GRC gives the holder the right to be treated exactly the same as a biological member of that sex, for all purposes. Therefore it's possible to make a distinction in law between bio sex and GRC/legal sex.

This is why clarification is needed.

Archive not working - oops! So if anyone on X this will lead to it.

x.com/qcwynter/status/1833047395417915865?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

Thank you for the clarification. So there's no conflict if you add biological sex to the EA, because a GRC doesn't legally make you the sex on your certificate. You're also no longer protected from discrimination whilst transing.

I'm surprised the Tories didn't just make those changes whilst in government since it seems very simple.

"I absolutely do not understand why it should be made easier to transition "

Please can you explain what someone is transitioning to and from?

If I've understood this correctly, the Sex Matters Technical Briefing for MPs suggests that either the EA or the GRA could be amended.

There is no need to rewrite the Equality Act. The most recent guidance from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel suggests a simple one-line amendment that could be used: 18 “Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is to be disregarded for the purposes of construing this Act.” Alternatively, an amendment could be made to the Gender Recognition Act: “The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010” Both amendments would have the same effect. It would mean that for the purposes of the Equality Act a person’s sex would clearly refer to their actual sex, whether they have a gender-recognition certificate or not. It can be done within primary legislation or through secondary legislation using the power provided by Section 23 of the Gender Recognition Act.
(My bold)

So if Labour won't change the EA, we have to encourage them to change the GRA in this way, when they 'modernise' it

I've copied this from the other thread. we seem to have two going at the moment!

It is not about “putting biological sex into the EA”; it is about clarifying that sex refers to biological sex as opposed to legal fictions. In other words, that s9(3) of the GRA applies: Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.

As for “The EA also protects people who are transing from discrimination”. It has been established by the courts for more than 10 years that a man who identifies as a woman is protected from discrimination under the EA from being discriminated against compared to other MEN. It does not give him the right to be treated as a woman. In other words, he cannot be excluded from the men’s changing room because he identifies as a woman and wears a dress and has long hair.

Just to clarify why an amendment reading "Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is to be disregarded for the purposes of construing this Act" is needed - that section reads (my bolding)
"(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."

Protected from discrimination whilst transing is a bit more complicated than being allowed into changing rooms. It encompasses every fact of life:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination#:~:text=The%20Equality%20Act%202010%20says,process%20to%20reassign%20your%20sex.