Sorry to pop back to the issue of the SC judgement being “legal erasure” and that’s what makes it unfair. That claim really irritates me because it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
First let’s look at this alleged erasure through the lens of the equality act? There are 9 protected characteristics which cover everyone in society. The idea is to balance rights and prevent discrimination for everyone in society, not just minority or under represented groups. “Trans” is not specifically one of the 9 but it’s termed Gender Reassignment and trans rights and protections are included there. It’s defined as a choice to live in a gender different to sex at birth. No requirement to have any treatment of any kind. Someone in this category does not lose one characteristic (sex) in order to get another (gender reassignment). They have the protection of both. They also have a third protection for if they are perceived to be the opposite sex. So there is no “legal erasure” there as far as I can see. Quite the opposite - women have one protection while trans people potentially have the benefit of 3!
Also there are the basic human rights plus the GRA protections against in addition to everyone else. Plus the opportunity to change key documents (passport, drivers license etc). Not to mention that public policy has been overwhelmingly skewed (unlawfully) toward trans rights over and above the other 8 protected characteristics for 10-15 years. So being front and centre of public policy (NHS, police, civil service etc etc) doesn’t look much like “policy erasure” either.
Then there’s the YouGov polling which indicates that the vast majority of people in the UK are happy to use names a preferred pronouns. Very much in the live and let live approach. So that’s not “social erasure” in any sense that I can see.
So with all of the above it’s possible for trans to freely exist legally and socially in the UK with the right to live without harassment or discrimination. So far so good.
Past arguments about erasure and human rights for trans people always seem to go back to Goodwin’s European court case in 2002 which was about not being able to marry, adopt, access to financial services and retirement age equalisation etc. None of those things were open to trans people at that time which wasnt OK and breached their human rights. That was legal “invisibility” but those matters are no longer an issue. Trans gender identity is now acknowledged and afforded legal protection and equal access to services like everyone else.
But looking at the GRA it is very much (from my POV) about how trans people interact with the state. Instead the contentious issues mostly come out of how trans people expect to interact with other individuals. There seems to be an expectation that trans people should have more human rights than others - which isn’t reasonable.
Because in relation to other people, demanding access to all spaces and services for the opposite sex is a social and legal over reach. The claim is based on a requirement that everyone else in society must share the belief that someone can change sex. And they don’t.
The next problem is that in addition, trans people require everyone to agree to how trans people want to manifest their belief - by being treated like the opposite sex in all regards.
Unfortunately for Tandora we live in a liberal democracy so we can’t compel people to believe any particular religion or belief. My Muslim neighbours can’t force me to believe in Islam & insist that I attend Mosque. The state cannot insist that we all become Anglicans and attend weekly Evensong. My maiden aunt can’t force me to believe the moon is made of cheese. My trans colleague can’t make me believe that someone can change sex. But most importantly no one is “erased” as a result of these differences?! We just have to compromise and work around each other to live amicably.
Unfortunately thats not possible when some believers demand rights that impinge on other people’s human rights to fairness, privacy, dignity and safety. My human rights are breached if my ability to choose is removed and someone else decides to remove my boundaries and ability to consent.
By Tandora’s logic in order to avoid the erasure of trans people I will have to give up my GC beliefs and give up my right to privacy and dignity to share changing rooms with unfamiliar males. I must give up a place on a female sports team to a male. References to woman or mother (key parts of my identity) have to be scratched out of NHS policy. So we women are being asked to give up our beliefs, spaces, services, words to facilitate trans beliefs. Thats an authoritarian state and not what democracy looks like. What’s been imposed on women in the last 10 years is much closer erasure than how the state has treated trans people. Thank goodness it’s stopping and some sort of reasonable balance will return. But this thoughtless removal of women’s rights has caused a deep deep wound for many women. And there are growing numbers of us. It won’t be forgotten any time soon. But simply I will not accept Shon Faye’s assertion to women “enjoy your erasure”
Ultimately tho, human right laws and principles are on GC’s side, a third unisex way & third spaces being added to existing provision is the lawful and respectful way we will all eventually learn to live together better. Because there’s no reasonable or balanced alternative to meet everyone’s human rights. And any attempt by Moylon & Co to try otherwise in the European Courts is a lost cause.