How if the exmption in the equalities act remains?
[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)
- Thread starter Kate Sharpley
- Start date
How if the exmption in the equalities act remains?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Because they are for exceptional cases. If, for example there was no exceptional reason to insist on a cis person in a particular role, the proposed changes would mean that anyone can gain access to that space simply by claiming trans status.
What is the proposed change for if not to make it easier? That's the whole purpose!
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Or unless you're a woman concerned by the direction of travel.
They are not for exceptional cases they are for cases where there is a proportional need. And they are used all the time, not just with regard to gender transition but also race and sex.
As would be the case right now, if there is no proportional reason to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender transition then it would be illegal. And rightly so. Just as it would be if an office job was advertised as men only
And the proposed change is to make the process of applying for a GRC less lengthy and traumatic, not to give transwomen access to women's spaces. The point of a GRC is that then people can change their passport etc not that it automatically triggers access to women only spaces because it doesn't, just as not having one doesn't necessarily prevent it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. The Gvernments guidance, here, expicitly states that they are:
'Unlawful discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not acceptable and consequently the exception has to be used in exceptional circumstances.'
That's sophistry. The point is that, at present, there's a requirement for a medical process to get a certificate, and a presumption that, in all but exceptional cases, receipt of the certificate will result in access to women's spaces. It follows that making the process for getting a certificate easier, means making access to women's spaces will become easier.
Also, there's the proposal to make 'gender identity' (as opposed to 'gender reassignment') a protected characteristic. That would make it practically impossible for a woman to challenge any man - and I'm not calling trans women men, here - who enters a woman's space; he need only say that he identifies as a woman, even if it's not true.
That's something women have every right to discuss. However much anyone might try to deny them that right, based on their own spurious (and possibly self-interested) interpretation of what the proposed changes might mean in practice.
Last edited:
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Well said comrade.
The law says must meet a proportionate aim as you well know. And those exceptional if you like exemptions include things like women's refuges. Until recently Womens Aid invoked the exemption when recruiting staff, although they now say their policy is under review.
Yes, in cases where there is no grounds to discriminate then someone with a GRC must not be discriminated against. But neither must anyone undergoing or who appears to be undergoing or who intends to undergo gender transition. A GRC has nothing to do with how the law is applied. It is illegal in most cases to discriminate against transpeople whether or not they have a GRC. Unless the exemption is applied then a prospective employer/service provider has no right to even ask to see a GRC. From a legal point of view self-identification is all that is required.
A GRC has nothing at all to do with accessing women's spaces. Why not read the committee's report and you might understand why these changes have been proposed better and what current practice already is.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but, again, your assertions about the current law are incorrect. At present, gender identity is not a protected characteristic (gender reassignment is); self- identification isn't "all that is required". In fact, that is a really significant proposed change; originally in the form of Maria Miller's Private Member's Bill: the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-17. Which also serves to prove that you're wrong to suggest that the only proposed change is around demedicalising of the GRC process. And why women have a right to discus it.
Eta: We're going round in circles, now. It suffices to say that: I think you misunderstand the current law, and are dishonestly downplaying the significance of the proposed changes, in order to prevent women having the discussion; and, you think that my position (that the changes are significant, and so legitimate for women to discuss) is driven by some sinister motive (notwithstanding that I've always been clear that I consider trans women to be women). Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Currently "a process to reassign their sex by changing their physiological or other attributes of sex", not mere self-identification.
Anyway, see my edit above; not sure this is going anywhere.
Yes, I've read the committee report and much of the evidence, youre talking off the top of your head so perhaps not worth it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I've read it too. But I understood it, and am not trying to misrepresent it. So, yes, it's not worth it.
Not for you, but for others reading this thread because I think it's important that the proposed changes and the current situation are understood.
A gender recognition certificate has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws or access to women's spaces. There are people who have fully medically transitioned who don't have a GRC because its such a pain iin the arse to get one. They are still fully protected under the equalities act.
The all party group committee report did recommend that gender identity replace gender transition as the protected legal charicteristic in the equalities act. The government rejected this proposal. But importantly, this recommendation was aimed at protecting non-binary people, not transpeople who are already relatively well protected. At present someone could be legally refused employment, or being allowed to rent a flat, and all manner of other things if their gender identity was not male or female. A person who said they were gender fluid, or rejected the gender binary completely, can legally be discriminated against. The committee report is quite clear that it is this group that changing the protected charicteristic in the equalities act from gender transition to gender identity is intended to protect.
So the committee report said let's let people reject gender completely if they wish, and even enshrine that in law. And the so-called gender critical feminists are outraged.
bimble
floofy
Can you post a link to the source for this please (the comittee report)? I'd be interested in the wording.
Athos
Well-Known Member
When considering this 'rejected' proposal, you might want to bear in mind the Private Members' Bill bought by the current chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. And that any such change to the law would have implications well beyond its well-meaning intentions, which is what concerns gender critical feminists. Also, the wider picture and the direction of travel (rather than each proposal in isolation).
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
This is completely unrepresentative of the radical feminist view of trans men - in fact most radical feminists are deeply uncomfortable with and worried about the rate at which teenage girls are suddenly identifying as trans boys, wearing binders and crushing their developing bodies because they're so horrified by the reality of female puberty. It doesn't 'ruin the theory of trans people being a product of misogyny' at all, in fact radical feminists would say the existence of trans men reinforces that. My 14 year old daughter has three trans boy friends just in her year at school, before anyone leaps in and yells at me for not knowing what I'm talking about here. Edit, and yes, they were all lesbians before they started saying they wanted to be boys. It's more acceptable for them to be boys than it is for them just to be gay. Further edit, two of them have eating disorders issues too. They hate their bodies. Society has done that to them, we (radical feminists) are fucking furious that this is happening to female children and they're so desperate to escape it they want to change their sex. Don't tell us we're denying their existence, it's offensive.
Last edited:
bimble
floofy
When my cousin's child socially transitioned for a couple of years (has now decided to revert to being a girl) they explained it in terms of not being into make-up and liking science. I did not find it easy to hear that stuff and not feel upset, as if the last few generations of feminism have disappeared somewhere. But some will say she was not true trans, so whatever her reasoning its not got anything to do with the real thing.
A friend was telling me a similar story about a girl in her son's class at primary who spent a year as a boy (not sure what the exact terminology is) before going back to being a girl/using her female name etc.
Again a lot of this seemed to be based on her liking 'boy' stuff rather than 'girl' stuff and thinking being a girl was rubbish in comparison. My friend knows the parents and was quite shocked that there seemed to have been no discussion with the child about how it's perfectly possible to be a girl while liking/wanting to do 'boy' things and vice versa.
No doubt it's way more complicated than that but it would seem a reasonable place to start with children in general.
Again a lot of this seemed to be based on her liking 'boy' stuff rather than 'girl' stuff and thinking being a girl was rubbish in comparison. My friend knows the parents and was quite shocked that there seemed to have been no discussion with the child about how it's perfectly possible to be a girl while liking/wanting to do 'boy' things and vice versa.
No doubt it's way more complicated than that but it would seem a reasonable place to start with children in general.
The report and the Government's response are both at: Transgender equality inquiry
The more recent consulation announcement is at: New Action to Promote LGBT Equality - GOV.UK
The consultation was originally supposed to have been published now and legislation laid this Autumn but it has been delayed until after the new year sometime, meaning any change to the law is unlikely this parliament at least.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Interesting contribution here (probably by someone folks on here know). Apologies if it's been posted before, if it has I missed it.
Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools
Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They used to post on here around the time of the summit hopping. In fact, i summit hopped geneva with them. Will read now.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Really worth reading. Lots of good points raised.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Also a welcome bit of levity.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Yes.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's a bit superficial. 'Hitler was a vegetarian' type stuff. Doesnt really offer any positive suggestions. Or even ask the right questions: how has the liberal left been allowed to create a state of affairs whereby feminists are driven into the arms of the right?
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
A good read, thx for that.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Have you made any positive suggestions? (Sorry if I have missed them)
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes. Open, honest and respectful dialogue.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Perhaps a bit more flesh on those bones?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Don't try to no platform feminists, don't lie about what the proposed changes to the law mean, don't spitefully misgender people, don't smear all trans women as rapists, recognise that there is some merit to the 'other side's' concerns, recognise that this isn't a case of good v evil (but of competing goods/unintended harms), focus on what people have in common as a way to build solidarity, etc., etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
