Dear MP,
I ask you to please oppose the changes being proposed regarding the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 with regard to self identifying as the opposite sex for the following reasons listed below. I would also ask you to argue that sex as a protected characteristic in the EA 2010 be maintained.
- Law should reflect science and reality
The proposals suggest no less than a re-categorisation of sex based classification to that of gender identity. This is a change to the legal basis of our common understanding of man and woman. As such this is a legitimate and proper discussion about balancing rights and thinking through consequences
The revisions do not reflect science or reality. Under the proposed changes the individual’s perception of their identity would be prioritised above the reality of their biology and above the reality of whether others might deem them to be male or female.
The law in the country should not reflect an ideology that is not rooted in reality. There is no current science that says there is such a thing as a male or female brain. Therefore the ideology that a person can be born in the wrong body is not correct. While some people feel deeply uncomfortable with their body, it does not prove that there is a mis match between their brain and body. Men and women have different sexual reproductive roles and this is where the differences between the sexes begins and ends. Sexual stereotypes such as strength / weakness, pretty /clever, artistic / scientific are not about the sex of a person they describe characteristics that society has attributed to those of the differing biologies. These roles should not restrict the life chances of either sex by forcing those who don't conform to the stereotypes to transition to being the other sex through surgery and drugs. To encourage hatred of a person's body through the law is unfair and wrong. The current trans banner covers a wide range of people who present as the opposite sex. What the proposed law seeks to do is to define people who identify as the opposite sex as actually being the opposite sex. This is clearly not true.
To allow people to change records of their biological sex on their birth cert without any regulation is illogical and rash.
- Safety and dignity for those defined as trans
Society should provide safety and dignity to those who are different to the majority of the population (trans people currently account for 0.03% of the population) but it should over write the protections of the rest of society in particular women and girls who make up 51% of the population.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 provided a wide range of provisions which successfully did this but still provided some protection to the rights of women, girls and gay and lesbian people and children.
Under the GRA 2004, people are currently allowed to register as the opposite sex but need to be over 18, have a documented diagnosis of gender dysphoria (being uncomfortable with the sex of their body), have lived for 2 years presenting as the opposite sex, declare that they wish to live for the rest of their lives as the opposite sex and pay £140 for a certificate. No certificate is required for surgery and financial help can be applied for regarding the fee dependent on circumstances. If they are married, they need to get permission from their spouse to get the certificate (This is fair as when someone marries another person, they do so on the basis that they are of a particular sex)
Under the Equality Act 2010 there is protection for people in the process of presenting permanently as the opposite sex, these people are noted as transsexual people.
The main objection to the current process by the trans activist community is that they do not think there should be regulation in the process of being treated as the opposite sex. They do not think a health care provider should have any role in mediating those who wish to be treated as the opposite sex in legal terms. They wish for people to be able to change the sex of their passport and birth certificate on their own without any external moderation.
A large part of this relates to the access to free surgery and hormones via the NHS. At present there is a contradiction in the argument presented. On one hand, transactivists claim that surgery and hormones are necessary to alleviate the mental anguish of the mental illness gender dysphoria (hating the sexual characteristics of one's body and suffering from anxiety and depression as a result). However, they simultaneously claim that hating the body one has and wishing to surgically and hormonally alter it is not a mental disorder. If it is not a mental disorder, then it does not seem fair that the NHS should pay for elective surgeries and hormones. Many people are very unhappy with their bodies and faces and would wish to have elective cosmetic surgery paid for by the state to make themselves feel better, but it is rightly not deemed a fair way to spend public tax money. What the changes to the law would allow for 'informed consent' where a person could self define their dysphoria and identity and would not need healthcare professional to intervene in the process before the NHS would fund cross sex hormones and surgery. Both of which carry health risks.
The treatment of people with gender dysphoria by our society via the medical profession is very important. We have a duty of care to treat people with mental health issues properly. It is widely documented that a very large number of people suffering from gender dyphoria were sexually abused. Many others were from deeply homophobic backgrounds and were rejected on the basis of not adhering to strict sex stereotypes.
The NHS and the medical profession at large should be helping these people resolve their traumas through counselling and therapy before simply handing over powerful drugs and life altering surgeries that the afflicted person believes will be a panacea for their mental anguish.
Rates of suicide in transsexual people are highest a few years after they have had surgery. This is also true as an aside to women who have had breast augmentation. What can be inferred from both cases is that surgery does not adequately address the reasons that people request surgery. It seems humane and sensible to see if there is a less invasive and more helpful way of solving their mental health issues.
By forcing people by law to accept a something which is patently untrue, i.e. that human beings can change sex, a negative image of people who wish to present as the opposite sex is being created. A number of high profile transsexuals have already spoken out against these changes for this reason. Simply removing any regulation from this process is not going to make trans peoples lives any easier, it will in fact create more divisions between them and the rest of socieity.
- Effect on girls and women's safety and opportunities
The 2010 Equality Act enshrines rights for women and girls to be free from discrimination including sexual harassment and to have sex specific protections in law. These include the right for certain occupational roles to be legitimately categorised as female only in order to protect the privacy and dignity of women. Such roles include rape crisis counsellors or are in occupations with access to female intimate spaces. We believe these sex based protections are invaluable.
Separate sex facilities exist because 98% of sexual offences are committed by men. Male rates of violence remain the same even when the men transition to being identified as female. Please see link ( Dhejne et al, 2011).
‘Women-only services (gender-sensitive services) help female survivors to feel physically and emotionally safe. Furthermore, evidence and experience from the sector show that female survivors prefer to access services that are provided by women in a women-only environment.’ (Women's Aid, 2014)
I am also concerned that measures to increase opportunities for girls and women will be taken away if boys and men are allowed to 'identify' as a girl or woman. For instance, biological men who 'identify' as girls or women would dominate women's sport due to their different biology - larger size, and greater physical strength and stamina. Data collection relating to sex inequality will be rendered meaningless. This is not a hypothetical situation, there are daily accounts of male born competitors who were ranked low as men who come back to win when they play as women.
For instance measurements of the gender pay gap, or the prominence of women in high-level roles in business would be skewed by inclusion of men who climb the career ladder as men, but then later on claim to be 'women'. It is widely known that being pregnant and giving birth to children account for much of the discrimination that women face. Things that a male born person will never experience.
Scholarships and awards for girls and women could go to boys and men, rather than the girls and women they were intended for to increase their representation and opportunities.
In the Labour party this year, two men who recently in their 50s started to identify as women after a lifetime as men were granted two of the Jo Cox leadership for women grants. Unfair incidences such as these will be enshrined in law.
The collection of crime statistics will become meaningless, such as the case of a rapist being reported in the media as a 'woman' because he 'identified' as a woman, despite being a biological male capable of rape.