I just got a response to the email I sent my MP requesting that she attend today's meeting. I am not happy. I do not feel like this is a person I can vote for anymore. I shall spend the rest of the evening replying to it as she is apparently "very open to hearing your [my] views"
Thanks for getting in touch with me recently regarding Fair Play for Women’s drop in session in the House of Commons on 16 October 2018 on proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) and the rights of women.
A number of constituents have contacted me to express their concerns about proposed changes to the GRA. I do understand that this is a highly emotionally charged issue, and appreciate that many people feel they have not been listened to during this process.
As you’ll probably know, the Government is currently consulting on proposed changes to the GRA and you are able to feed into this consultation until 19 October 2018. I would urge you to fill this in to ensure your views are heard: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004.
Before proceeding I would like to stress that I have read every individual email about this issue, and I know that many people have found debating this topic stressful because of the strength of feeling on both sides. Later in this email, I will lay out my response to the individual concerns that have been brought to my attention, but before doing so, I think it’s helpful to give an overview of my position.
In the description for the Government’s consultation on the GRA, it is noted that: “Trans people are able to receive legal recognition of their acquired gender through a process set out in the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004. Since the GRA came into force, only 4,910 people have legally changed their gender. This is fewer than the number of trans respondents to the Government’s LGBT survey, who were clear that they wanted legal recognition but had not applied because they found the current process too bureaucratic, expensive and intrusive.”
The current system of changing one’s gender legally requires a person to:
· Be diagnosed with gender dysphoria (discomfort or distress caused by a mismatch between biological sex and gender identity)
· Provide a report from a medical professional detailing any medical treatment
· Provide proof of having lived for at least two years in their acquired gender through documents such as bank statements and payslips
· Sign a statutory declaration saying they intend to live in their acquired gender until death
· Gain the consent of their spouse if they are married
· Pay a fee of £140
· Submit documentation to a panel, who they are not required to meet in person.
The major reform that has been proposed to the GRA is to introduce a process of self-identification, or self-ID. This would allow people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) through a simple administrative process, in order to demedicalise and streamline current processes. Jeremy Corbyn has stated that the Labour Party supports such reform to the GRA, and announced in May that self-identifying trans women could run for women’s officer positions, and run for office on All-Women’s Shortlists (AWS). The Labour Party’s Women and Equalities team has confirmed that its discussions about the GRA are ongoing, to ensure that all viewpoints are heard, considered, and addressed.
I agree that the current process is overly bureaucratic and medically intrusive. I have spoken to trans people (not just trans women) who feel the current system of legal recognition is unfit for purpose. While the current process requires a person to show they have lived in their chosen gender for two years, delays within the NHS mean this process often takes far longer, prolonging the mental suffering many trans people experience as they wait.
This is not to say that the experiences of cis women (women born as women) and trans women are the same, because clearly they are not, and we do need to have far more detailed and robust conversations about women’s services such as rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, as well as sex-specific spaces such as changing rooms, toilets, and prisons. I do think trans women should be able to access these services and spaces, but there needs to be more detailed processes, guidelines, and checks to ensure those who could pose a risk to women cannot enter.
The issues that my constituents have brought to my attention in meetings in person and via email are:
· The impact proposed changes would have on the rights of women – specifically in relation to sex-specific spaces, as mentioned above
· The distinction (or lack thereof) between sex and gender/gender identity
· The risk of violent men entering women’s spaces
· The aggressiveness of some trans activists and use of the term ‘TERF’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) as a slur / women generally being silenced in the debate
· Trans women being able to run on AWS and apply for women-only posts
· Trans women being able to participate in women’s sports
I have detailed my response to these concerns below, in my own personal view. I do completely understand that this is a contentious issue and wish to maintain open dialogue with constituents regardless of whether we are in agreement or not, otherwise we will not be able to move forward with developing strong, well-rounded policy on this.
Sex-specific spaces
I feel it is worth clarifying that any changes to the GRA will have no impact on the Equality Act 2010, which allows service providers to offer separate services to men and women, or to one sex only, under certain conditions. The Government notes that “these services can treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently, or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Importantly, a service provider’s starting point should be to treat a trans person in the gender they identify with, and to allow them to access services for that gender unless by doing so they would be unable to provide that service to other service users. This means it can’t be a blanket ban, or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis. For example a female-only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the trans person.”
This law will not change, regardless of any changes made to the GRA. I believe it is right that trans women should be able to access women’s services unless they are found to pose a risk to other women, or, as the statement above says, a trans woman being present would prevent the service from being able to support other service users. There are already checks and risk-assessments in place to ensure anyone who could pose a danger to women could not access women’s spaces, but as recent cases in women’s prisons have highlighted, these processes have allowed some people who have been violent towards women to harm women, and so, are not fit for purpose. These processes and checks must be strengthened if we are to move to a system of self-ID. It is worth noting, however, that trans women already have access to such services legally, whether they have a GRC or not.
The case of toilets and changing rooms is a difficult one, as I appreciate that people are concerned about trans people’s bodies being in these spaces. I do not have a definitive answer on this; I do think trans people should be able to use a sex-specific changing rooms but also think adjustments would need to be made to these spaces to make this viable and safe, such as more individual cubicles. I do also appreciate concerns about how self-ID would work in such situations.
Distinction between sex and gender/gender identity
I understand many people are frustrated at the interchangeable use of these terms, given that sex is a biological category, assigned at birth on the basis of a person’s anatomy, while gender refers to socially and culturally constructed roles, and gender identity typically refers to a person’s identification of their gender based on internal awareness. But I think trans women deserve to be acknowledged as women regardless of whether they have have fully-transitioned or still the characteristics of male bodies (and I do believe that using this as a main point of argument denies the identity of trans women). In a health setting it may be necessary to also take into account a person’s sex, because of sex-specific health risks, for example.
The risk of violent men entering women’s spaces
This is, of course, a risk under self-ID that cannot be ignored. As I have already said, we need to ensure the checks and risk-assessments that are currently in place to prevent those who pose a danger to women are strengthened to prevent cases where women have been harmed by trans people who have a history of violence against women. It goes without saying that I condemn this violence in the strongest terms. At the same time, it is a tiny minority of trans people who have harmed women in women’s spaces – there are violent people in every demographic group, with heterosexual, cis men being the most likely to enact violence against women. Equally, trans people are themselves far more likely to be victims of violent crime, with 41% of trans men and women saying they have been victims of hate crime in the last 12 months. I am not denying the risk a very small number of trans people may cause in sex-specific spaces, but there are procedures that can be improved and developed to prevent this – and the same goes for cis men pretending to be trans under self-ID.
Aggressiveness in debate / use of the term TERF
It is completely wrong that women are being silenced for expressing their legitimate concerns about self-ID and there are questions that still need answering about how many processes would work under self-ID. It is only right that these questions are posed, and it is unacceptable that people have faced abuse for doing so. We must discuss these issues in a respectful way in order to ensure any proposed changes to the GRA do not compromise the safety and rights of women. Many of those raising concerns have been feminist advocates for many years and have fought hard for women’s rights. They have valuable insight and experience to bring to this debate. They should not be silenced and I do think the term TERF is sometimes being used as a blanket means of shutting down debate. I think this is unfair and want everyone to be able to talk about this openly.
Trans women and AWS/women’s posts
Labour supports trans women running on AWS and I think this is right. Trans women have different experiences of womanhood that deserve to be heard and shared, and there is a lack of trans representation in our politics that needs to be addressed. One way of approaching concerns about trans women taking posts reserved for women is to reserve spaces on schemes or in roles for women and trans women, so that cis women and trans women are included and supported, though because I believe trans women are women, I do think trans women should be able to run for women’s posts, too. I am currently a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where, until recently, the Women’s Committee was chaired, very effectively, by a Green MP from Belgium, Petra de Sutter, who is a trans woman.
Trans women in sport
As above, as I believe trans women are women, it follows that I believe trans women should be able to compete in women’s sports, subject to the obvious caveats about self-ID and meeting the sports’ rules, otherwise, it undermines them being acknowledged as women legally. This lecture on including trans people in sports raises some really interesting points on this: .
As debate thus far in the public sphere has largely focussed on the points above, I thought I should add some questions for which I do not yet have answers which I think still need addressing in relation to the GRA debate:
· Under a process of self-ID, what period of time should people have to wait before receiving a GRC?
· How should a trans person’s gender identity be handled and acknowledged in a health setting in the context of health conditions that affect only men or women, or are more prevalent in women than men, such as breast and prostate cancer?
· How can we improve risk assessments, checks, and protections for trans people entering sex-specific prisons, refuges, and rape crisis centres?
I think it is vital these questions are answered before any proposed changes to the GRA go ahead (which, in any case, would be subject to a Parliamentary vote).
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend Fair Play for Women’s event in Parliament as I had a very full diary today, but I will continue to engage with constituents on this who are for and against changes to the GRA, and have also read some of Fair Play for Women’s resources online for context.
Please rest assured that my Labour colleagues and I take your views incredibly seriously and we will continue to meet with groups on all sides of the debate when deciding our policy perspective. I welcome your questions and your thoughts and am grateful to everyone who has taken the time to contact me about this in such detail so far. I certainly do not claim to have all the answers and am very aware of the need to think carefully about this issue. I remain very open to hearing your views.
Thanks once again for sharing your thoughts, and please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have further questions.
Yours sincerely,
Kerry McCarthy