Well, it likely does, it just not the point I'm making here.
It does, however, relate to some of the claims you made earlier, it's that rhetoric that is being pushed back on by the majority of the LBGT community and also many women's groups (many of whom in Scotland were in favor of the bill, including Scottish Womens Aid, the lead domestic abuse organization in Scotland).
That's a good question, but there is definitely a question mark as to how well understood and reported such abuses are. I also think that by making it far easier to legally change gender (with an anticipated ten-fold increase in Scotland), that it's a fairly safe assumption that cases of fraud will also increase dramatically as well.
That's an assumption you're better than, to even speculate that you would need to have something to support it, and even if the status quo remained the overall decrease in public harm would be the far more significant factor, given that the trans community is one of the most at risk groups in modern society.
Again, it depends on what you define as 'significant', and in the absence of proper data (or indeed a proper mechanism by which one collects such data), one can only go on the cases that are known about.
Which is an utterly tiny number in relation to the total trans community.
The Equalities Act does provide some safeguards for single-sex services and spaces insomuch as specific individuals can be restricted from accessing them for a legitimate reason, but this assumes a foreknowledge of a specific person's unsuitability for such a space - i.e. the presence of such provisions in the law doesn't prevent abuse of the system, it merely allows for something to (possibly) be done about known risks.
That's not correct and I've already cited the relevant section in this thread, here it is again...
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
...it's not limited to specific individuals.
Perhaps more importantly, however, is how single-sex services and spaces etc. will be able to continue or be set up in the first place in the face of increasing activism and legal challenges. It may well be that vulnerable women and girls find it harder to access safe spaces and single-sex services as a result of it being harder in general for such things to exist at all.
Both Scottish women's aid and Rape Crisis Scotland disagree as both backed the bill, and no evidence for such a claim exists. That something 'might happen' based on no evidence is not a reasonable position from which to limit people's rights, particularly when groups who would be directly impacted if it were true aren't making any such claim (quite the opposite).
None of this is helped by the vague language in the GRR bill itself of course, which leaves the door wide open to potential abuse, and also muddies the waters in terms of how anyone with a legitimate concern or grievance might challenge a suspected fraudulent gender change - or conversely, it will also make it much easier for a fraudulent person to challenge the decision of a single-sex service to deny them that service.
It's no vaguer than the language used in the legislation in place in over ten counties, none of which have seen such claims come to be reality. The Scottish bill would have brought the country in line with the UNHRC's best practice, right now we are a long way from that, and the reality of that is 85% of young trans people in the UK have self-harmed, and 45% have tried to take their own lives, and the current GRA is a significant factor in that. Scotland's bill would have unquestionably saved a significant number of lives, and reduced the risk of harm to many, many more.
www.theguardian.com
