Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

Just another of your straw men for which you are famed by many.

I haven't advocated for Isla Bryson to be in a women's prison. I've explicitly stated that violent trans prisoners should be nowhere near women's prisons.

And no, the question I asked isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife question", but I take your refusal to answer it as a tacit admission that the underlying point could legitimately apply to you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well I'll just have to cope with you thinking I'm a bigoted transphobe whose postings are deliberately engineered to stay just the right side of being a reportable hate crime. C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

[classic33]

Men in women's spaces are the issue regardless of how they identify. It's not hate speech to discuss how that impacts women.

If it is really just about men in women's spaces, why have you singled out one section?

Why have you misrepresented what I have said, and its been a case of having to explain you'd got it wrong, for me. You've ignored the fact by simply refusing to answer. A cancer clinic, in your mind, is for women only. Cancer doesn't care who it gets, but you seem to feel that the vocal venomous voices in the hospital were correct, I didn't deserve to be treated if it meant that their dignity was ever intruded upon. I always thought that hospitals treated the condition first, maintaining dignity and privacy for the patients as part of their treatment.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I haven't. We've covered all sorts, from prisons, to language, to sport. I have never said that the antagonism you say you felt from women at the cancer clinic was fair. I suggested that it was a space where women might feel uncomfortable seeing a man on his own, but a general waiting room isn't a single sex space and you should have been treated the same as anyone else.

I might not agree with you but I do appreciate that your views on this issue have come about from your personal experiences, and the fact that life hasn't always treated you kindly. You obviously feel very let down by both the way institutions and individuals have responded to you over the years and I'm genuinely sorry that things have been so difficult for you.

 

[classic33]

I haven't. We've covered all sorts, from prisons, to language, to sport. I have never said that the antagonism you say you felt from women at the cancer clinic was fair. I suggested that it was a space where women might feel uncomfortable seeing a man on his own, but a general waiting room isn't a single sex space and you should have been treated the same as anyone else.

I might not agree with you but I do appreciate that your views on this issue have come about from your personal experiences, and the fact that life hasn't always treated you kindly. You obviously feel very let down by both the way institutions and individuals have responded to you over the years and I'm genuinely sorry that things have been so difficult for you.

On that first point, one thing has run through everything, GRC holding men* who are using/entering female spaces. Not men as a whole.

I was told that the women's attitudes were formed the same way mine was with regards treatment. I remained quiet, whilst listening to those who were quite vocal on the treatment I shouldn't be receiving.
When you've been sent a set of directions, and floorplan, telling which doors to use on which floor, and all because of the need for secrecy(No need to ask for directions from anyone, staff included.) let me know how you felt.



*Not a wording I'm happy using, but it sums up your side of the argument.

 

[icowden]

I haven't advocated for Isla Bryson to be in a women's prison. I've explicitly stated that violent trans prisoners should be nowhere near women's prisons.

But isn't it the case that if the Scottish Bill were passed, there would be a genuine legal channel to challenge the state's prevention of someone who is now legally recognised as a woman from going to a woman's prison?

If they have a GRC they are a woman and should be treated as such. Isn't that what the bill says?
If that is the case then, under the equalities act - why should they be treated differently when sentenced to prison.

Is it because they aren't a woman? In which case, what point the GRC?

 

[monkers]

Wiki has a fairly comprehensive entry on the Isla Bryson case ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case

 

[multitool]

But isn't it the case that if the Scottish Bill were passed

It passed last year.

Good to see that, as ever, you are all over the detail.

 

[Unkraut]

It passed last year

It hasn't passed into law because the UK government has blocked it.

 

[multitool]

It 'passed' in the Scottish Parliament. It doesn't need to be passed anywhere else. What it needs is Royal Assent, which it is not being granted.

But yeah, who needs precision in a discussion on law.

 

[Bromptonaut]

But isn't it the case that if the Scottish Bill were passed, there would be a genuine legal channel to challenge the state's prevention of someone who is now legally recognised as a woman from going to a woman's prison?

If they have a GRC they are a woman and should be treated as such. Isn't that what the bill says?
If that is the case then, under the equalities act - why should they be treated differently when sentenced to prison.

Is it because they aren't a woman? In which case, what point the GRC?

No. As I explained at post #938 the bill does not change the status of a GRC. It's effect would be exactly the same as one obtained under the current legislation. What the bill does is simplify the process for obtaining a certificate by :

1. Removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria;
2. Reducing the time an applicant needs to live in their acquired gender from 2 years to 3 months, and
3. Reducing the minimum age to 16 which tallies with a general move from 18 in Scotland (eg for voting in Scotland only elections)

Entirely separately the Outer House of the Court of Session has found that Scottish Government policy that people with a GRC are women for the purpose of being appointed to positions reserved for females on public bodies is legitimate. That has been interpreted as meaning Transwomen with a GRC are women for all purposes and that might translate into them being entitled to be placed in the female estate in Scottish prisons.

The point of the GRC is to allow birth certificates to be amended to the applicant's acquired gender. They can then, for example, marry in their acquired gender which was the right, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, that the 2004 UK legislation was designed to address.

If anybody thinks the account above/in post #938 is wrong then please correct me.

 

[monkers]

I don't think the bolded bit is necessarily correct.

People with a GRC now cannot insist on a women's prison. The Bill makes no difference to that; all it does is simplify the process for getting a GRC.

There is though a fly in the ointment. At the same time as arguing the Bill made no difference to the Equalities Act's exceptions, which allowed the Prison service to send Transwomen to the male estate, another bit of Scottish Government was arguing that it could appoint Transwomen with a GRC to 'women only' places on public bodies. That was upheld by the Outer House of the Court of Session where a Womens' Rights group sought a review of those appointments.

I suspect the decision of the Outer House will be appealed by the group that brought the action in the first place.

You've asked for comments on this post. This is nearly perfect. I'd like to clarify a couple of points though with you if I may and add some further explainers.

People with a GRC now cannot insist on a women's prison.

They never could. They could state their preference but not insist. The case-by-case risk assessment allocation remains the same. The Equality Act 2010 allows 'discretion over rights' by the prison service for the purposes of allocation.

The WHO no longer considers GD to be a mental health condition and accordingly have been urging member states to remove the medicalisation of the process of transition. The UK is behind the curve when compared to other countries. To say that more clearly, since there is no diagnostic test for GD, it is all self-ID. The usual medical supervision for hormone treatments etc is left unchanged and remains in place not just for two years but for life.

So yes you are correct, the effect of Self-ID is to shorten the process to state recognition from one of 2 years to one of 6 months in the Scottish BIll (I noticed you saying three earlier - but that's pedantry). The Equality Act 2010 remains unchanged including on the discretion for allocation to prisons, but the court ruling which is now case law provides further guidance.

 

[Bromptonaut]

So yes you are correct, the effect of Self-ID is to shorten the process to state recognition from one of 2 years to one of 6 months in the Scottish BIll (I noticed you saying three earlier - but that's pedantry). The Equality Act 2010 remains unchanged including on the discretion for allocation to prisons, but the court ruling which is now case law provides further guidance.

AIUI it's 3 months living in the acquired gender before applying. Then there is a further 3 months 'reflection period' before the application is enacted by the Registrar General and becomes effective.

I thought I read somewhere that either the time in acquired gender or the reflection period was longer for applicants under 18 but I cannot find it again now.

 

[monkers]

AIUI it's 3 months living in the acquired gender before applying. Then there is a further 3 months 'reflection period' before the application is enacted by the Registrar General and becomes effective.

I thought I read somewhere that either the time in acquired gender or the reflection period was longer for applicants under 18 but I cannot find it again now.

That's the one - sorry for the pedantry.

From memory only I think that there may have been a proposed amendment to the Bill regarding the age thing - one amongst many, but wasn't taken up.

 

[icowden]

No. As I explained at post #938 the bill does not change the status of a GRC. It's effect would be exactly the same as one obtained under the current legislation. What the bill does is simplify the process for obtaining a certificate by :

OK

Entirely separately the Outer House of the Court of Session has found that Scottish Government policy that people with a GRC are women for the purpose of being appointed to positions reserved for females on public bodies is legitimate. That has been interpreted as meaning Transwomen with a GRC are women for all purposes and that might translate into them being entitled to be placed in the female estate in Scottish prisons.

So which is it? Is there is a risk that not allowing someone with a GRC to be placed in a womens prison would then sue for infringment of their human rights under the Equality Act? Shouldn't that scrutiny be carried out and amendments made *before* a loophole is created?

The point of the GRC is to allow birth certificates to be amended to the applicant's acquired gender. They can then, for example, marry in their acquired gender which was the right, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, that the 2004 UK legislation was designed to address.

So is a Transwoman a woman if she has a GRC or not?