Nadia Whittome calls for a change to the Equality Act...

[iwishitwouldstartraining]

But can anyone work out what she actually wants?

https://archive.ph/MxOPp#selection-4201.0-4201.14

The reassignment referred to here means the recognition of the person's acquired gender by entering it on the gender recognition register, not a change of biological sex.

I don't think rewriting this in terms of gender identity will fly politically, because the concept of the trans person is well entrenched in the public mind, and moving to a different paradigm will look very much like trying to legislate them out of existence. We need to work with what we've got.

If NW is serious she should propose a cross-bench non-partisan committee to review the EA2010 sex-discrimination exemptions individually with a view to making it possible for believers (most trans people; some non-trans people) and non-believers (everyone else) in transgenderism to practise their beliefs without interference.

The present state of affairs is not wholly satisfactory because we've flip-flopped from the state – ostensibly – imposing belief (single-sex services are forbidden!) to imposing non-belief (single-sex services are the only permitted alternative to mixed-sex services!). This overlooks believers who are willing to sacrifice their own safety to practise their belief (cf Sikhs and motorcycle helmets).

I'm not saying it isn't completely crazy, and it shouldn't have been necessary, but we can only gain from a visible debate about what the different belief communities want and what they can reasonably force on each other.

It also needs to clarify that the pc of gender reassignment can never apply to children below the age of consent. This is an adult belief and equality law should never be prioritised over the requirement to safeguard children from harm. It's a form of emotional abuse - see the definition of this in the Keeping children Safe in Education(KCSIE) guidance

“It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond a child’s developmental capability as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning or preventing the child from participating in normal social interaction.”

Clarifying that this pc does not apply to children would, in one act, remove all the dubious adults who've been allowed to sell GI to children causing them such harm.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light........

There is not really much chance of the equality act being changed for this purpose. We've gone past Gender Self ID now and it won't be resurrected by any sane or half competent government.

single-sex services are the only permitted alternative to mixed-sex services!

Isn't that just logical?

A service for people who are male and female is mixed sex. You can impose further restrictions, but it it still mixed sex.

I think the key problem faced by Nadia Whittome et al is that they can't define what those further gendered restrictions would be, so providers attempting to include everyone put up signs saying 'use the facility in which you feel comfortable', which essentially just makes them mixed sex.

we can only gain from a visible debate about what the different belief communities want and what they can reasonably force on each other

Amen to that!

I can't understand how they could produce legislation that would be sufficiently broad for their supporters without removing the PCs of sex and sexuality, but would very much like to see their proposals debated.

I think the key problem faced by Nadia Whittome et al is that they can't define what those further gendered restrictions would be, so providers attempting to include everyone put up signs saying 'use the facility in which you feel comfortable', which essentially just makes them mixed sex.

And if predatory men, or simply men who think the men's loos are grotty, "feel comfortable" in the women's, they are welcomed in by such signage.

Yes, I realise where the law says sex they mean gender, but it’s a problem for sex based rights that a legal text is using sex here, where it is saying a person can have their sex reassigned.

Since Nadia is opening the door to amending the EA 2010, I don’t see why we can’t lobby for this part to be updated in wake of the Supreme Court’s decision that sex is not gender. Whatever she proposes we can object to, but shouldn’t we also put forward the changes that should be done? Replace sex with gender throughout the EA gender section. Easy enough. We can’t give up without trying.

I agree with you though that gender identity is a belief system, and I would propose that an alternate acceptable possibility is to move the gender section to a footnote in the religious/philosophical belief section of the EA so it is deleted as its own protected characteristic. However, I think that is less likely to ‘fly’ - the public has it entrenched that gender identity is a seperate entity and they’re used to their own protected characteristic.

My MP has explained they are absolutely committed to single sex spaces for women on all fronts, but that this should not start from a position of exclusion... for men.

How taf they believe this has any hope of working in actual reality, or whether they've thought it through at all is something I doubt.

It's basically - do women and gay people retain privacy, autonomy, dignity and consent, and have services that many can only access on a sex basis, or do we abandon all this, exclude and harm, have a two tier society in which cross dressing men have priority and greater rights than everyone else does, and abandon safeguarding...

all so that men who claim a gender identity can do what they want, where they want, when they want and to whom they want, without experiencing boundaries or ever having to compromise for other people's needs and rights?

Answer on a postage stamp.

Not to mention - if in some mad world this small group of men, which contains distinctly dodgy demographics within it, and a lot of antisocial and offending behaviours with a lot of it related to sex offending, were given greater rights and control over others in society who were forced by law to submit to them?

er.... let's take a look at history shall we? How does a population usually and normally respond to a situation like this? Clue: it does not involve sunshine or rainbows for anyone, but particularly the oppressor group.

Woman is devoid of marbles. Utterly.

It does not hurt men to use mixed sex/gender neutral and additional provided facilities and to have to tolerate other people having rights and needs too. It doesn't. It is a wholly normal and rational expectation.

That change would mean it would be legal to discriminate against a child who was planning (etc) to undergo a process to change the physiological or other aspects (etc.) That same behaviour towards (for example) a seventeen year old employee would become unlawful on their eighteenth birthday.

I don’t think that’s the outcome you’re looking for.

I don't think this wording is the problem though. If you read it in its entirety, there are pages of explanations, definitions and caveats that make the Act pretty clear.

The problem we have is the reticence to even enforce what is clearly in the Act, combined with a widespread misunderstanding that the PC of gender designer means you get to be treated as though you are the opposite sex. My MP raised this on my complaint to him and said that he had lots of sad constituents who have a GRC and who have been misled into believing that means they count as the opposite sex in law for all purposes. The FWS judgement clarified that they don't. (I have asked how many constituents vs the 51% of his constituents who are women, and am awaiting an answer with bated breath).

I might be wrong but i don't think all the people moaning they are 'waiting for guidance' are doing that because of the wording of the Act. Its busy become an acceptable way to avoid doing anything.

Worse, i think its become expected that that's what 'right thinking' organisations WILL say.

None of this would be fixed by clarifying the definition of 'gender reassignment' in the Act.

The references to transsexuals are purely to make it clear that anyone calling themselves by this term, which some still do, have the PC of gender reassignment. It does not say that 'transsexuals' have changed sex, and it is quite clear about that.

legal text is using sex here, where it is saying a person can have their sex reassigned

But it very clearly explains what this means. It does not mean they have become/can be treated as the opposite sex.

I think you're looking for root causes of problems in the wrong places.

Changing this text will not change the widespread misunderstanding that self declared gender means they have 'changed sex'. People aren't getting that from reading the text of the Act. They already think that! The Act its sufficiently clear on this.

I agree.

single-sex services are the only permitted alternative to mixed-sex services!

Isn't that just logical?

It isn't logical to believers, that's the point.

Now, 'trans-inclusive' services have lots of disadvantages, but where TRAs went wrong wasn't in asking for them, but in demanding that single-sex alternatives should be totally forbidden.

The conversation about trans inclusivity can certainly cover the safeguarding risks, difficulties of administration and so forth, but the most powerful argument for providing single-sex services is that its users are entitled to have them as an expression of their protected belief and not to be forced to practise gender identity belief.

Religious believers are allowed to harm themselves in the service of belief, up to a point, but the right not to be seriously harmed is inalienable. Women can maybe play sport against TW, or join clubs or classes with them, but the degree of harm has to be examined, and enough single-sex alternative for the demand made mandatory.

I get that but as we gain ground, there will be legal challenges based on the misunderstanding that you can have your sex reassigned from male to female (and vice versa). In my opinion, so long as the actual text of the law says you can have your sex reassigned (explanatory footnotes can be rewritten at the drop of a hat) then that increases the chance this misunderstanding will be upheld if/when the reasonably predictable legal challenges are made.

Courts rule based on the plain text of the law.

I am not really looking for root causes, I am trying to prevent future problems.

Respectfully, are you a lawyer?

Have you ever been involved in drafting legislation? I have.

Iirc, the only references to 'sex reassignment' are in the part of the Act specifically detailing what does confer the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Sex is dealt with separately.

No, I’m not a lawyer. I have written legal documents- e.g. contracts, agreements, international instruments- and been a business/contract expert in court proceedings.

Thank you for your feedback.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the law being an ass. Currently it assumes this pc applies to children of any age. So while it may be reasonable for a 16 /17 year old it's clearly unreasonable for a 9 month old, a 2 year old, 5, 8 etc.

Educationally, safeguarding children is meant to be prioritised over other legal issues but there's much evidence that the demands of the Equality Act re this pc have been weaponised to enable the transitioning of children too young to give informed consent.

I have no idea how to get out of this mess legally but am clear that changing sex is an adult preoccupation that children need safeguarding from until they develop the intellectual / critical thinking skills they need to engage with it.

Would not the Gillick competency test work for this? It’s part of medical law already.
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines

Potentially it could, but to date neither the NHS, social services, schools etc have ever (to my knowledge) questioned whether a 5/7/9/11 year old can give informed consent to the notion that they can change sex, have no sex (NB) etc.
It has been explored in relation to the taking of off label drugs and experimental surgery, hence the current restrictions for children.

But in relation to the adult belief that sex change is a thing, transactivists have been able to insist on "#nodbate you bigots" and effectively deskill professionals from everything they know about child abuse (especially emotional abuse).

Hopefully if the useful idiots in parliament want to open this can of worms it will finally allow for exposure and discussion of the abusive for children aspects of all this to finally be exposed to open debate.

There's never a coherent argument from the handmaidens other than it's about protecting a minority.

I'd really love to know what possesses a woman to sell out her own sex to such a degree.

Quite.

I would like to line up the minorities of women and gay people she would like to trample for this minority group of cross dressing men, and face her with 'how lovely are you really?'

And 'explain why by 'minority awww bless babies', you actually only mean 'men'.

An expert from the Freedom Programme, a psychologist and Lundy Bancroft can also be standing by.

I can't find it, the photo of the MP with the 3 big blokes surrounding her, she's just trying to gaslight us.

Does she honestly believe men become soft gentle souls when they throw on a dress?

Some men are soft, gentle souls. None of them are women.