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.

That's a really interesting piece by Naomi, hadn't come across it before.

How they can possibly justify calling the GRC process humiliating whilst at the same time requiring DLA applicants to describe how they need someone to clean their bottom, insert a catheter, wipe away excess saliva or spoon feed them, or how often they soil themselves, or fall over, or become delusional, is beyond me.

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.

Gender reassignment should be removed. Protection for those who identify as the opposite sex could be considered under ‘religion and belief’ instead.

There's a theme running through transgender ideology that identifying as a woman is humiliating anyway. Some men have to do it, because otherwise how can be their authentic self, but seriously, who would go through all that if they didn't have to?

And the government seem to be telling everybody that they are sexist, because no one would identify as a bloody woman, if they didn't have to, so we're not going to make it harder than it already is.

Gender reassignment should be removed.

agreed. It's a quite gargantuan feat that successive governments have been persuaded that we need to give fetishistic cross-dressers civil rights to practice their fetish in public without hindrance.

No wonder tinsel is being targeted so desperately.

Absolutely this. This is why I never voted for them either.

Absolutely this. DIsabled people have genuinely stressful assessments to go through. All governments enforce these processes and assessments as it would cost them lots more money to make it easier to identify as disabled, because people who are not disabled would say they are.

However, with GRAs all that happens is that women are put at risk, as well as having the genuine humiliation of not having the right of bodily autonomy of not being in states of undress or vulnerability around men. And the Labour government doesn't care about that in the way it cares about saving cash.

That's what it comes down to with Labour. They care about money but not about basic, fundamental women's rights.

DLA assessments are designed to be humiliating. And you notice you never hear government ministers talking about making the Court of Protection more user friendly - if there's one bit of the legal system that could do with reform, that's it.

The GRC process is not humiliating. This may disappoint some Malaga Airport people who like humiliation. But actually the 5000 or so people with GRCs are not the main problem. The main problem is the ambiguity in the law that's created de facto self-ID and been a chill factor for anyone who wants to apply a single sex exemption.

That's why we need clarification.

GRCs are a huge problem. They introduced the idea that some men can be legally treated as women, though you are not allowed to ask which ones. Without them sex in the equality act always means sex.

I don't believe the Tories had any real intention of amending the EA. To them this was just fodder for elections to distinguish themselves from Labour.

Oh, I'd be quite happy to see the GRA 2004 repealed entirely. It might create a problem of what to do with the 5000 or so people who already have GRCs, but legal solutions can be worked out.

I just don't think it's politically viable at the moment. Whereas putting a one-line amendment in the EA 2010 to specify that sex means sex is viable. As is making sure that companies and public authorities actually know about SSEs and how to apply them.

We have the GRA because of the ECHR. We would have to come out of the ECHR to repeal the GRA.

No we wouldn’t.

How come?

It might create a problem of what to do with the 5000 or so people who already have GRCs

Those must be recinded

I don't know the details and I'm not a lawyer, but I think the argument is that the government's obligations have been fulfilled by same sex marriage legislation and other legislation subsequent to the GRA. (I warned you I was short on details!) So there would be no need for the GRA.

There could be a phasing out of current GRCs - yes it was stupid to grant them, but they were granted and I don't think the government could just rescind them even if it wanted to. The important thing would be to make it clear that they are strictly for certain legal purposes between the holder and the government - state pension age, marriage and death certificates, things like that. Even Keir Starmer acknowledges that a GRC does not give a MCW the right to be in women's single sex spaces.

Obviously, none of this will actually happen.

Some of it might happen if FWS win at the Supreme Court. That would clarify that sex in the EA means just biological sex in law, not sex plus those with a GRC.

The EA2010 needs to have exemptions that allow transwomen into female spaces, not exemptions for female spaces. I.e. it ought to mean that a robust argument for including TWs is needed before a space is open to men who ID as women. That this is not currently the case, but that women must make a robust case to keep men/TWs out of female spaces such as changing rooms, sports, rape crisis centres etc suggests that those who drafted the bill thought all female spaces should be open to men/TWs and the exemptions are an afterthought they assumed would never be applied.

Nonsense. Without a GRC, men who identify as women are legally men and have no right to female spaces. Men with a GRC stating they are legally women can be excluded on the basis of safety, privacy or dignity. Given most single sex spaces only exist at all due to these considerations they can also exclude men who are ‘legally’ women. The guidance makes clear this includes rape crisis centres, dormitories etc. s19 of the GRA makes it clear that men with a GRC stating they are women can be excluded from female sport due to safety or fairness to women.

Given there are whole sections covering this in both Acts they are very definitely not afterthoughts.

Shame to duplicate the existing thread started last night.

Why split the discussion.

GRCs are a huge problem. They introduced the idea that some men can be legally treated as women, though you are not allowed to ask which ones. Without them sex in the equality act always means sex.

I agree, the GRA has really torpedoed protections for sex.

Is this a new statement from Dodds / Labour?

I thought they'd be this terrible for women and girls pre GE so I'm not surprised

I recall we were meant to trust some statement on it being reasonable to keep single sex spaces, that all went to dust. As anyone who could see Labour as they were predicted.

It wasn't their intention to change any of this other than making it easier to get a GRC

The Tories also dragged their heels on changing/clarifying it, so I'm not surprised that Labour are acting in such a predictable way.

suggests that those who drafted the bill thought all female spaces should be open to men/TWs and the exemptions are an afterthought they assumed would never be applied.

You can also read Hansard and see that men accessing women’s spaces were repeatedly raised as a concern but were brushed aside as ‘that would never happen’.

So why are there men in women's rape and DA refuges? Why are there men in changing rooms for bra-fitting etc at John Lewis's, and other stores, e.g. M&S, Primark etc.? Why are schools introducing gender neutral or mixed sex lavatories with sinks in the public area, causing schoolgirls to avoid using them?
The Act is unclear - or people are wilfully misinterpreting it.