monkers
Legendary Member
Despite the many attempts to explain the law, it's clear you do not understand it. I suspect that you do not actually wish to understand it. Instead you wish to continue to pretend that the law is something that it is not. Worst still, you continue to attempt to convince others that the law is something that it is not.
The Equality Act sought to bring all existing anti-discrimination law into one place. Previous legislation was repealed with one necessary exception.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was repealed by the EqA 2010, as was the Sex Discrimination Amendments 1999 (protecting the rights of people proposing, undergoing, or having completed transition from discrimination, harassment and victimisation in the workplace).
It was essential for the 2004 Act to remain in its entirety especially since GRCs and amended BCs had been issued for the four preceding years. The 2004 Act says that trans women are women and trans men are men for all purposes other than the exemptions noted. Therefore the 2010 respects the 2004 Act. It is not necessary for the 2010 Act to repeat the wording or essence of the 2004 Act because it continues to stand.
For example, a person assigned male at birth but proposing or undergoing transition has two protected characteristic of sex (legally male) and gender reassignment. A person assigned male at birth who has completed transition - holds a GRC and amended BC has the two protected characteristics of sex (legally female) and gender reassignment.
Consequently there are two different positions for trans people depending on whether they hold a GRC or not. Accordingly the permissible exemptions need to be interpreted in a thoughtful way, but there is no scope for blanket exemptions.
Where there is doubt about interpretation of domestic law, the court will always seek to understand what 'parliament intends' and has the legal competence to decide on this basis. This becomes legal precedent with the effect of being binding unless one of two things happens - the law is amended by government putting a Bill or some type of Statutory Instrument before parliament, or the ruling is overruled by a higher court.
Some people consider the EqA to be ambiguous, and they are keen to point to the permissible exemptions. However the High Court have ruled that blanket bans are not a permissible exemption - I've quoted the text of this and linked you to it in the past. The High Court could not have reasonably come to a different conclusion. The 2004 Act is the only anti-discrimination act not to have been repealed in 2010, therefore it becomes clear what parliament intended.
When you say that you wish to preserve the exemptions allowed under the Equality Act, you are wishing to preserve the status quo, which means that trans women can continue to use the facilities that accord with their legal sex; including toilets, changing rooms, and prisons, because blanket bans are not permissible under the law.
To meet your requirement the EqA would need to be changed. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment could be amended such that those people previously protected but not holding a GRC could be exempt without creating a legal conflict. However it can not be amended to introduce a blanket ban on those with a GRC because the 2004 Act stands with its message - trans women are women, and trans men are men.
Kemi Badenoch wishes to change the EqA to that end. She accepts that the protected characteristic of 'sex' means legal sex - she wishes to have this changed to biological sex. However her appointees to the EHRC have advised her that this is very difficult due to the effect of the 2004 Act.
It's quite clear that trans women with a GRC are women, and trans men with a GRC are men, because the state introduced the law to make it so and provided them with amended birth certificates.
