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.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by 'add bio sex to the EA' - do you mean clarification that 'sex' means 'bio sex'?

I'm not trying to be predantic, but when discussing the wording of legislation, it's really important.

I'm not sure why you are equating the clarification of 'sex' to removing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's not what is being proposed.

I am aware, but the comparator for a man who identifies as a woman is still other men.

A person is transitioning from male to female or from female to male. After transition they are a transwoman or a transman.

Then they are doomed to fail.

That doesn't make sense to me. They are protected from discrimination because they're transing. For example, taking time off for appointments or wearing non conforming clothes. It also covers harassment and victimisation. However it's immaterial as I've learnt that changing the EA doesn't effect those protections.

That's good to know.

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.

Yes, there are exceptions in the GRA itself, as well as the EA.

100% of the time.

Apologies for being so unclear. I mean amending the EA to clarify sex as biological sex. I'm wondering how amending the EA to only include biological sex as opposed to sex, conflicts with a certificate that legally changes your sex and protection from discrimination as you change your sex.

I'm aware that you can't in reality change sex. I'm wondering how the conflicts in law will be resolved.

Exactly this.

This is why I didn’t vote for them. The told us who they are.

They hate women.

That doesn't make sense to me.

What doesn't make sense? A man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is protected from discrimination which occurs because he has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The comparator would usually, but not always be another man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. With the legal fiction of a GRC the comparator may be considered to be a woman for most purposes. But some exceptions exist.

You've just clarified what I was saying.

I think the overriding takeaway from this discussion can be that the laws relating to gender reassignment and discrimination in England and Wales are currently a dogs dinner and require clarification!

Shame Labour are so reticent.

I'm wondering how amending the EA to only include biological sex as opposed to sex, conflicts with a certificate that legally changes your sex

It legally changes your "gender" which is supposed to be equal to sex. Except when it isn't. It's all a bit murky.

This.

I understand it's murky which is why I'm seeking clarification. It came up a lot before the election and the reason the Tories didn't make the amendments, in my opinion, is because it's a legal minefield.

Amending laws takes a lot of time. It's a complicated iterative process involving a lot of policy analysts and lawyers and the amendment then has to get through both Houses of Parliament.

A government can't do it successfully near the end of their term in office (like less than about a year from the end).

Thanks for clarifying your point upthread about the EA btw. I now notice ironically that I misspelled 'pedantic' 🤦‍♀️

Oh please, if we can legislate that a person can legally change their gender we can also legislate that this doesn’t mean that they get protection of both sex (the acquired gender) and gender reassignment under the Equality Act. What failing to amend does is give men with trans identities dual protection and women none (with very limited exceptions).

Starmer is a lawyer, he knows that the current situation harms women. He knows this can be fixed but chooses not to .

It is, I agree. There can't be any clarification without it being challenged in law. So far the position is that "sex" means both biological sex and people of the opposite sex with a GRC. Except that sometimes it does mean only biological sex (the exceptions to the GRA and EA).

It could be clarified to retain protection from discrimination for people who are undergoing gender reassignment, while acknowledging that they haven't actually become the opposite sex.

I don't think it's necessary to get rid of protections for people undergoing gender reassignment.

But it would take some work to thrash out what 'gender reassignment' actually means and clearly ensure that those two characteristics are able to remain separate, ie that gender reassignment doesn't trump bio sex.

We already have plenty of laws that deal with complex categorisation. I don't think this is beyond us as a species!

The law, in terms of how the EA interacts with the GRA, is clearly a dog's dinner and could do with some clarification.

The biggest reason to clarify the law isn't so much with how the law is applied, it's because so many public authorities and companies have adopted Stonewall Law i.e. assuming that "gender identity" is a protected characteristic that trumps sex and not being willing to apply single-sex exemptions that the law explicitly allows for.

So to get these bodies to follow the law as it is rather than as TRAs would like it to be, it would be really helpful to clear up the ambiguities. I don't think Dodds is being stupid here. I think she knows what she's doing.

I've always loathed Anneliese Dodds.

This blog post from Naomi Cunningham (barrister) is very useful.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/what-does-a-grc-do/

Thank you so much, will take a look.

I'd have a lot more faith that they know what they're doing, and aren't blindly driven by ideology, if they didn't call the current GRC acquisition process 'humiliating'.

it's emotionally manipulative and untrue.