EHRC consultation feedback guidance from Transactual

[TangenitalContrivences]

https://transactual.org.uk/equality-act-campaign/responding-to-the-ehrc-consultation/

One great gem:

"A key point here is that the Code gives no indication at all of how women- or men-only associations that wish to be trans inclusive can do so.
This would include:

• A men-only club or association that wishes to include trans men (though not cisgender women)
• A women-only club or association that wishes to include trans women (though not cisgender men)
• A lesbian-only club or association that wishes to include trans women
• A club or association only for gay men that wishes to include trans men

"

They really don't, and there's a revealing fudge there with "accompanied male child" too, where they don't recognise this applies to very small children.

A woman bringing her 5 year old son into the ladies is one thing. A woman bringing her 18 year old son into the ladies, even if he's got some vulnerability, is a very different thing.

And if we don't allow an accompanied teenager, a fortiori we don't allow an unaccompanied adult male who says he's got a special identity.

But they can exclude "cisgender people". Having spaces and services exclusively for trans people is within the law.

What is not within the law is force teaming women with trans identifying men.

Trans women have been using gender-aligned services with the support of the law for decades....

The support of which law?

....and there is no evidence of an increased safety risk from this practice.

Has the definition of 'no evidence' been changed to mean 'not including all the women who have been sexually assaulted, raped and verbally harassed by trans women'?

It says:
Many things make up a person’s ‘biological sex’, such as chromosomes, sex characteristics (which can be changed) and hormones (which can be changed).

I actually think it is really significant that they realise you cannot change chromosomes.
Sex characteristics are being surgically or chemically altered, but not transformed into those of the opposite sex. Hormones are also being altered by force, not by nature. Neither of those alterations will change a person into the opposite sex.

But they can exclude "cisgender people". Having spaces and services exclusively for trans people is within the law.

For trans people generally is fine, sure.

But their examples were wanting to exclude specifically "cisgender men" or "cisgender women". Which would likely incorporate sex discrimination if they tried to enforce it.

Yes. They can exclude everyone who doesn't have the protected characteristic in question. They can't exclude just some of those people.

The judgment gave a clear legal working definition of what they meant by sex for the context of the act.

I suspect we will have to have a court case to definitively make clear that there are only two sexes, nobody changes sex and what sex is. (They'll hate that too but will push until it has to happen.)

The bottom line of all this is an incapacity to handle boundaries.

Group titles will just have to get more descriptive. And frankly, if the issue is 'if we have a queer group for trans identified women and femmes other men might come and we don't want them' - well tough, you expected women to just put up with this and not whine about it for a decade. It's your turn to handle unwanted men and all the issues they bring. And at least you won't have organised, highly funded men in groups targeting and intentionally destroying your groups by forcing entry and then demanding to control and have the group revolve around them. Because only the GI movement is quite that unpleasant and unkind to everyone else.

Not to mention that there is no such thing as 'cis'. It's an identity some may choose and others may want to coercively apply, usually without bothering to check facts or think, and it's about as offensive as trying to identify a group of 'sinners'. It's never going to be a workable term in this way.

I think it works in the sense that if the group you are including is trans people, in practice it doesn't matter whether or not you use the word "cis" to describe the group you are excluding, it is obvious that you just mean anyone who isn't trans.

Unfortunately the relative ‘safety’ of men who identify as women is not ascertainable without gatekeeping the concept of ‘trans women’.

It's my consistent belief that, though the GRA is bad law in principle, the basic GRA settlement of 20 years ago was workable on the basis that the numbers were tiny, trans status was gatekept, and everyone understood that.

They could have had that settlement indefinitely, but no, they had to get greedy and push for self-ID, and send out a big neon signal to all the perverts that they could enter women's spaces and not be challenged, and now we'll have to take it all back. Including, if possible, repealing the GRA.

I'm not sure if the muppets at Transactual and similar groups will ever understand that.

Or the research/statistics that prove trans identified males as a group, pose more of a threat than the general male population. At least the ones in prison anyway

The clarification of the law means that if there’s a man in the women’s changing rooms at a gym we can now complain and get someone to throw him out, without him going ‘I’m trans’ and being allowed to carry on.

it is likely to be lawful to include an accompanied male child in a women’s changing room because he does not pose a safety risk.

No. It's legal because the small boy needs his mum to help him and keep him safe, or the small girl needs her dad, and the parent is using the facility for their own sex.

Dumping unaccompanied tots outside while you pee is frowned on by anyone who's met a small child.

Transwoman are adults.

Not difficult apart from the fact that, as far as I am aware, I am unable to trust the sex marker on any government or other ID, with the possible exception of an original birth certificate (but I have no idea how to tell a real BC from a BC which contains lies, so I have to rely on my eyes more than any BC.)

But if you are able to say, as the judgment expects, 'here is a mixed sex gender neutral alternative provision for you' then your job is done. You've provided an accessible alternative.

Yes, you may, very very rarely in a blue moon, possibly accidentally offend a very unusually gender non-conforming woman. But she will likely understand the importance of providing women with a man-free option, and this is still a much better alternative than men waltzing in and out of women's provisions and all women being stripped of their dignity, privacy, right to separate themselves from men and not be used by him when in a state of undress, and of their consent.

Surely a "queer" gathering would welcome anyone who is LGB or T? Given that LGBT includes all same sex attracted men and women, and some heterosexual men and women, they cannot exclude on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation, therefore anyone can attend?

What am I missing?

one can get ones real full birth certificate which shows the date of issue and would be satisfactory evidence.

If i was a manager of a refuge service (which i was), i would consider funding a fast tracking of certificate being obtained.as a matter of policy. (In the unlikely event that my own eyes and perception had somehow failed me.)

I would also consider a policy on a case by case basis of a trans man needing services in refuge absolutely based on their presentation, and wether upon a valid assessment there was a potential to cause alarm and distress to other residents.

The way I think of it, a "queer" event would benefit from gender identity (or indeed the concept of "queer") not being a protected characteristic.

So you assume the people who would be interested would be LGB plus T plus spicy straights. And you assume, probably correctly, that normie straights would not be interested. It would be like a gathering in support of a hobby or a political ideology. You would just have to rely on uninterested people not turning up rather than running a door policy.

If people want to find a way to have identity-based events they can knock themselves out. The main concern for me is that they no longer have the ability to bill an event as "lesbian" and then it's full of men.

"Transwomen are adults".
Tbh, their complete inability to recognise the rights of others suggests something's maybe gone awry? Using the derisory argument that as mothers take male babies and toddlers into toilets and changing rooms, adult males claiming a special identity must be allowed in as well suggests a significant level of impaired social and emotional skills.
Still - if this is their message let's ensure that the general public get to hear the nature of their arguments - it seems the least women can do 😂

@Bannedontherun
Do.copies of birth certificates have the original date of issue along with the date the copy was issued?

I do have a copy of mine somewhere- i'll see if I can find it and check

What strikes me is that, had they invented new words for the new groups they wanted to create, instead of stealing others’ words, they probably could have achieved what they wanted and wouldn’t be facing this.

Instead of infiltrating and invading lesbian groups, they could have created “queer femme loving femme” groups or similar (perhaps something more catchy, but you get the idea). If they were popular, they could have become established alongside lesbian groups.

This is entirely all happening because of their greedy, entitled, underhand methods and abusive invasion at the expense of women.

I will play devil's advocate again and say the guidance is such that some junior front-desk-type staff are going to be put in very awkward situations by a certain cadre of TRA's who want to prove a point. That may be inevitable, in the sense that there is no guidance that could prevent it.

However, the answer to this is obviously not for the guidance to be loosened so it is no longer congruent with the law. It may however become necessary for more legislation so that enforcement is no longer awkward - for example, by reverting all government ID back to biological sex (and perhaps repealing the GRA).

one can get ones real full birth certificate which shows the date of issue and would be satisfactory evidence.

I presume a BC with a date of issue 7 days after birth would be satisfactory... but unless it is clearly an original, first issue BC how do I know if a BC is a "fake one" or a reissue of the original honest one?

Also, seeking access to wrong-sex spaces by lying or using fake documents should be criminalized.