Single-sex spaces tsar will also lead reforms to make gender swap easier

[Igneococcus]

This government really is a bunch of disingenuous feckers.
"The official in charge of leading the government’s response will be employed by the LGBT+ policy team, rather than the women’s policy team, a decision that raised concerns among colleagues over impartiality."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1043dd5a-11c1-4e1d-86bf-cae2c7f034d8?shareToken=cb5ab14f1bf8bf6981050dd98de978f5

The sneaky wee skitters.

Really good to shine a light on this. Few people will notice it's happening, and I'd say that job description sets up a clear conflict of interest even if it weren't based in a totally captured policy unit.

Don't say we didn't try to warn you.

Archived: archive.fo/NqGzV

As sex is what matters for practical purposes as clarified in law, what does a ‘legal gender swap’ achieve?

Bad news about Starmer is trying to extend the misbegotten GRA. But excellent reporting by Geraldine Scott in The Times, with strong, clear quotes. It’s good to see news media regaining the courage to speak openly.

The proposed reforms included removing the spousal exit clause - which is probably unlawful as it will allow one party to retroactively change the marriage contract without the consent of the other.

''Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process.''
archive.ph/alL7b

You get a false birth certificate and then use that to falsify your sex in digital ID and then use that to try to access women's spaces or create a false female persona online for 'Catfishing'.

Will it really matter how many men apply for a GRC?

Transgender people with or without a bit of paperwork are required to follow the ruling of the SC aren’t they?

So a legal document to help you break the law?

A legal document that will make breaking the law easier, if you are so inclined.

''Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process.''

Seems to me that 'gender change' itself is dehumanising. Human beings come in two unchangeable and distinct categories: male and female. Pretending otherwise denies the really of being human.

You want an example of a dehumanising process that denies the reality of a person's physical existence, have a look at applying for PIP.

You don't need a GRC to change the sex marker on your ID. Both DVLA and the passport office let you self ID anyway. So it doesn't change the first pass of checking.

But if an organization thinks you are a different sex to the one you purport to be and tries to check, the existence of falsified birth certificates means that organizations will find it hard to do that administratively. And it doesn't really matter how many there are, if you know there are false ones out there that the men who might be trying to access women's spaces are likely to have, you can't rely on any of them if the person you are suspicious of looks different to their purported sex. The fewer GRCs there are, the less often an organization will need to dig deeper, but they will still have difficulty doing things administratively - especially with Trans-identified people of the correct sex who look like they might not be of that sex.

The only reliable way will be a DNA check (as sports are only too aware).

If a GRC is easier to get so that someone whose documents say the wrong sex can prove they need to use the facilities that match their sex then this might not be a complete disaster.

It means the poor ickle staff member at Islington can get the necessary documents to direct the transwoman to the gents and the transwoman is supported from harassment by members of the public.

If a problem arises there is then no need to hitch skirts.

I don't understand why something that is fundamentally about women's rights is given to the LGBT+ policy team to implement rather than the women's policy team, or at least to both of them jointly. It indicates where the focus for the civil service/government lies and it's not women.

Well, precisely. They want to regain some ground with the blue-haired section of the electorate.

They seem to be determined to lose ground with as many people as possible.

If we confirm that 'gender' is meaningless in terms of access.to services and spaces them will it matter how easy a GRC is?

The issue with name changes obscuring identity and DBS checks is one area that causes concern. And the spousl exit clause. So these.need focused attention.

Maybe this is Starmer laying the ground for a future U-turn. As we've seen, he likes to do a big one every couple of months.

Ouch.

The EHRC are responsible for protecting the rights of all those with protected characteristics.

I have no problem with the notion of a GRC, should that be something that improves the quality of life of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. I have no problem with making it really easy to get one.

I simultaneously expect systems and processes to be put in place to uphold the right of people with gender critical beliefs to be able to reject the idea that people can change sex and to make it easy to keep single sex provision single sex.

I think we're stuck with the GRA because we don't have politicians who would be brave enough to scrap it but one amendment I'd like to see is to change it so that a GRC holder gets a I-have-a-special-gender status, which has nothing to do with sex and provides no right to change a birth certificate. This could be used in claims related to discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. I'd even be willing for an optional freeform data field to be available so holders can include their particular gender identity, as extraordinary as they wish it to be.

Yep! Am assuming this is meant to be the trade off so all the moob baring, piss pouring, shouty TRA who’ve no doubt been bombarding everyone they can think of and annoying every local Labour Party meeting with long motions about how terrible it all is that the new EHRC chair is a GC woman Will shut up

they won’t of course

and the Reform supporting press will jump on it with glee

why do they never learn?

There must be a few FWR denizens who'd be eligible to apply for this?

Please?

I don't think this is necessarily the most bonkers decision.

The alternative is that we have two separate policies that can never work together - SSE and policies to make it very difficult to implement SSE.

One single person in charge of both can't claim to not understand how they interact.

If i were a service provider, and had the threat of legal action from both women for not providing SSE and from men for questioning their identity, id want this clarity.

Although, the cynic in me is yet to be convinced that thid is the motivation of the government.

Giving someone a GRC is like giving an anorexic a certificate stating they are overweight.

Totally irresponsible & causes untold problems for safeguarding women & children. Issuing of GRCs really needs to be stopped.

There need to be some questions asked in parliament.

Yes, this seems to be the TRAs' take. There has been a marked uptick in applications for GRCs (especially after the SC ruling if social media is to be believed) - it seems to be a belief that if a critical mass can be achieved and the holders are belligerent enough, they can put an end to single-sex services and spaces in practice since no one will be able to prove, even in the face of obvious physical evidence, that someone is trans.

Ensuring that birth sex can't be expunged from a persons record's and ensuring the integrity of any future digital sex marker is a high priority of SexMatters for this reason. With the data bill trans sympathetic Labour MPs may have drawn the conclusion that there's relatively low political cost to pursuing this particular avenue for advancing trans rights - in contrast to amending the EA or having the EHRC becoming an aggressive promoter of trans activism again which would both most likely be bloody public battles. So, there may be a shared agenda between TRAs and that Labour faction. Streeting's concerns about NHS records, however, shows that Labour is far from unified on this score.