Thread by @fairplaywomen

Asked about the government delay, @FiLiA_charity says we must take enough time to make policy that works for everyone, which needs proper democratic discussion, to strike a position and policy which is balanced.

@Womans_Place_UK what has made the debate toxic is the insistence that any objection has been transphobic. There's been a failure by bodies that have a duty to foster good relations, like @EHRC. it's been left to grassroots women's groups to take personal risks.

NW: When we did speak to people on the streets, they didn't call us transphobic, they said thank you for explaining the issues. It is not hateful to do this. The effect on women and girls has to be discussed.

NW: It's no surprise that well-funded trans groups raised a lot of support for the GRA consultation, but it is surprising that small groups like ours from a standing start were able to generate a v significant response, and that tells you a lot about public opinion on this issue.

@Womans_Place_UK the govt has struck the right balance in reducing the barriers for eligible trans people while restating the importance of single-sex spaces. But many orgs have jumped ahead, anticipating self-ID, and made policies which may be unlawful.

@FiLiA_charity any official processes in state bureaucracy should be "kinder" - getting a GRC is already much easier and kinder than, e.g. getting citizenship or claiming benefits. The govt must be kind to those people too.

NW: we mustn't get confused between making a process easier and widening access, changing who is eligible. The original GRA was designed for a specific purpose for a specific group, adults with gender dysphoria, who've lived in role. The trans umbrella is much broader than that.

@Womans_Place_UK "The idea of 'living as a gender' is putting sexism into the law. There's no particular way to live as a man or as a woman. But a period of reflection is essential for such a major decision as changing your legal sex, and to show commitment.

NW: It is sexist to suggest you can "live in role" as a woman. But some sense of having lived in role was part of defining the original target group for the GRA, those with severe gender dysphoria.

We are really concerned about removing eligibility requirements that would increase the numbers. The original law balanced the benefits for some to the inconvenience to women and girls. if we increase the numbers eligible for a GRC, we need to look at that balance again.

@FiLiA_charity the GRA provides a major benefit to that small number of people with severe gender dysphoria, but causes problems for women and girls, esp in relation to maintaining single-sex spaces. We already have conflicts.

@FiLiA_charity Any relaxation of the GRA is going to impact females negatively, because it already has some negative impact. We need clear guidance on how these 2 pieces of legislation (GRA and EA) can interact without infringing anyone's rights.

@Womans_Place_UK (asked about the statutory declaration) - there needs to be a process for detransitioners.

@Womans_Place_UK (asked why they oppose lowering the age of eligibility) - the rise in gender dysphoria among young people should raise concerns and curiosity; to lower the age would seem reckless.

@Womans_Place_UK Research into the topic of why the rise in GD among young people is needed but has been blocked.

@FiLiA_charity There is nothing preventing young people from expressing themselves how they like. But intervention by the state must be done with caution. There is pressure on girls to conform to femininity. It's not surprising to see girls wanting to escape patriarchy.

@FiLiA_charity The spousal exit clause is just that, not a veto. despite misrepresentation in the media. But why wouldn't we want to keep the exit clause? Marriage is a contract between two people; if one of the two no longer wants to be in the marriage, why shouldn't they?

NW: spousal consent recognises the impact of the GRA on spouses. Shows how it's necessary to listen to all stakeholders - in this case, the people in the marriage. No one has a veto. it's an exit plan for both parties.

NW: The issue with self-id is that it would open up the ability for any male, for whatever reason, to change their birth certificate to hide that they were born male. That creates a fundamental problem for the single-sex spaces in the Equality Act, which are for ppl born female.

On paper it looks like women have single-sex spaces but those are worthless if they can't be implemented. If you can't distinguish legally between ppl born male or born female - if a male person has a birth cert saying they were born female, a service provider can't differentiate

NW: Single-sex spaces are being lost. Service providers are unsure how to implement them so are giving up, going "gender neutral". @FiLiA_charity This is already happening bc of the policy capture across the UK.

@FiLiA_charity In Bristol Uni our women-only society, which is perfectly legal, is being told by the students' union that we may not exclude those who self-identify as women. They think self-ID is already the law, bc of advice from Stonewall and @EHRC

@Womans_Place_UK describes the muddle at Harrogate Turkish Baths thinking they can't offer more women-only sessions than men-only, and that they may have to allow the other sex in anyway - but not picking on them, there's an example every week of confusion around EA single-sex.

NW: anyone can self-identify their gender, and are protected under Gender Reassignment in the EA. Ppl already have trans rights, they can self-identify and self-express. We are concerned this mustn't be conflated with sex, which is about what's on your birth certificate.

NW: The GRA legislators failed to anticipate the consequences, e.g. a legal female, born male, can search female prisoners. Surely that is not what they intended.

NW: The privacy aspect of the GRA makes it risky for service providers to ask someone if they have a GRC, so no one gets asked any more, so provision of single-sex spaces acc to the EA becomes very difficult.

@FiLiA_charity We see problems with provision of women's services. We hear women saying they face abuse and problems just trying to implement the law as it stands.

Over 90% of women surveyed by the Women's Resource centre in 2017 said women need the choice of a single-sex option to help deal with the trauma of male violence.

@FiLiA_charity Single-sex spaces exist to protect women, and they bar all men, even the ones who are not violent, who are the majority. Keeping them single-sex is the only way to keep them effective.

@Womans_Place_UK Wanting single-sex spaces for, e.g. recovery, is not suggesting all males, or TW, are a threat; it's saying there are times when sex matters and you shouldn't put women in a situation where they have to pretend not to notice someone's sex.

NW: we can't distinguish between safe males and unsafe males, so we keep all males out of female-only spaces. No one is saying ppl should be excluded bc they are trans; it's bc they are male.

NW: If anyone is allowed to self-identify their sex, what would that mean for those 70 male sex offenders, most of whom are in men's prison now? They could go into women's prisons.

NW: The @EHRC has only spoken to one side of the debate in developing its guidance about what is reasonable for keeping transwomen out of female-only spaces. They set the bar very high, said it should be v rare, as Stonewall said. We disagree.They need to consult all stakeholders

@Womans_Place_UK - the @EHRC needs to disseminate its amended guidance on single-sex exceptions in the EA, because they over-reached, and had subsequently admitted they got it wrong - but they've not corrected the past incorrect guidance.

@FiLiA_charity We need clearer guidance, e.g. @EHRC says cross-dressers can be excluded from female-only space, but also that who is permitted can be gauged by their "gender presentation". So what does that mean?

NW: What problems are we trying to solve with "GRA Reform"? Trans ppl can already self-identify, are already protected by hate crime legislation and Gender Reassignment in the Equality Act.

If it's the need for validation of identity, there must be some other way to do that; a birth certificate is not the right way because of the impact on other people, i.e. women.

@FiLiA_charity We need clear guidance that acquiring legal recognition of your gender identity doesn't give you full access to the sex-based rights of the opposite sex. We have trans rights under the EA, but we mustn't trample on the rights of women and girls.

@Womans_Place_UK we can acknowledge that someone has a deeply-held feeling of gender identity, but we also have to recognise that biological sex is not changed by a legal document.

NW: if I go through a door marked female-only, I'm expecting only females there. I'm not consenting to people born male in there. Women have lost the ability to talk about our needs if we can't be clear about birth sex.

We need to stop conflating sex and gender identity. If we mean sex we need to be able to say it. The law needs to be clear when it means sex, and not say gender or gender identity when it should be sex.

@FiLiA_charity Govt shouldn't be trying to register people's gender or gender identity, esp when there is no settled definition of those even among experts.

@FiLiA_charity We are concerned by gender identity policies being imposed unilaterally around the world, not in a democratic fashion but by lobby groups, sometimes in secrecy, without scrutiny. That matters bc that process is not benign.

@FiLiA_charity it's all v polite today but that's not how it usually is for women. They are labelled bigots, transphobic, just for talking about the sex-based rights they already have. #WomenatWESC