Scottish Government publishes its analysis of responses to its GRA consultation

[DrSusan]

It's here:

www.gov.scot/publications/review-gender-recognition-act-2004-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise-report/

Not read the whole thing, but I note 60% of respondants support self ID. I can't see the timings of this consultation in the report, I presumed it predated the English one? I also see that a complaint was made about the lack of involvement in women's interest groups in the process, but see FPFW mentioned as having responded. Does anyone have more clarity about the timings and process that they went through?

Timeline is described here, and there's a link to the original consultation:

consult.gov.scot/family-law/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004/

It closed in March this year when Scotland was very much pro trans, largely due to high profile campaign groups and government mantra, hence notably higher than rest of UK. Wonder if the differences would be so big now.

From the Q&A:

Q. Does the consultation propose any changes to exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 in relation to single sex services?
A. No.

Does anyone know of any services which remain single sex? I'm talking about now, let alone after self-id comes in (which I think it will).

The Scottish consultation, unfortunately, slipped through before the RUK one and was largely positioned as an LGBT issue. TBH, I'm quite amazed and relieved that respondents have picked up on the potential conflict with women's rights!

What relationship, if any, does the Scottish GRA consultation have to the English one? Do they affect each other in any way? Could self ID pass in Scotland while being shelved/scrapped in England?

i dont think it is so much pro trans in Scotland but more that this flew right under the radar of most people.I think if they were to consult again they would get a very very different response.

irnbru is right there was little or no publicity about this consultation, it was clearly designed to whoosh thorough on the QT.

I only heard about it on here.

Anyone I've talked to about self id is totally WTF, so I doubt think the general public is pro self id.

And organisations like Engender ("Scotland's feminist organisation") stitched women up in collaboration with Scottish Trans by producing a joint statement saying TWAW and there's nothing to see here. No consultation with members or with the general public. After the consultation was open, they advertised a public meeting jointly with Scottish Trans, then cancelled it, presumably because they could see they were going to get their arses handed to them by people attending. Engender's main funder is the Scottish Government. Go figure.

Badstyley it could - it's a devolved issue and there is no reason it couldn't be different. But there is a growing realization amongst MSPs that this interacts with EA and there are potential conflicts.

Engender are a disgrace!

GRA reform is devolved but the EA isn't (as far as i understand it) so that's a further area of conflict. Although that might be what you're referring to Alice

Not sure my BP can take reading this!
60% of respondents may support self ID but this is not representative of the general public. Only 1 person I have spoke to about it knew about self ID. The only ppl I know who completed the consultation (which was imo awful) were my family members who I shared the link with.

Yes, sorry DrS, I was unclear but, yes, that was what I meant. They are aware that there is confusion on the definition of sex and gender and they can't overwrite EA (as UK wide) but similar issues regarding the definition of sex in any reformed GRA could arise unless the legislation is robust.

The important thing with regard to responses is that 60% also acknowledge to impact on women & there is a call for assessments. This needs to be pushed!

Alice I'm not sure that's true. I think it's just 60% of those who answered question 15 in the consultation on impact assessments. So 60% of the 1,180 who answered that question. Although the wording (on pg 97) is a bit unclear. But TBH given that over 60% support self ID, it would be surprising if 60% also acknowledged the impact on women!

I seem to remember that one of the professional bodies for solicitors/advocates (can't remember which one) submitted an excellent and very carefully argued GC response. Lass posted a link to it back in March - if she reads this, perhaps she could re-post if she has it bookmarked.

Think you might be referring to the Faculty of Advocates response Fermat, which can be found here:
www2.gov.scot/Topics/Justice/law/17867/gender-recognition-review/review-of-gender-recognition-act-2004-list-of-orga/published-responses-from-organisations

I assume the consultation was just a box-ticking exercise, since reform of the GRA was in the 2016 SNP manifesto.

We will review and reform gender recognition law, so it’s in line with international best practice for people who are Transgender or Intersex.

It seems likely that they'll go ahead with lowering the age as well:

Enabling young people to make informed choices about their gender and sexual identity is about supporting them to be themselves so that they might fulfil their potential

I've not read all of it, but there is some really good stuff in there. In my biased opinion the arguments against seemed much saner than those for.

I'd really hope that the relevant people read this thoroughly and think about what they are reading.

Other issues raised included that the consultation paper fails to distinguish between sex and gender. It was argued that, determined by an individual’s sex chromosomes, biological sex cannot be changed, irrespective of surgery or other medical treatments. In contrast, gender was suggested to be a social construct – comprising a set of characteristics or behaviours that society has come to view as masculine or feminine. Some respondents thought that, rather than reinforcing these concepts, effort should instead be put into eradicating gender stereotypes altogether.

This is a very important point. The consultation paper was basically useless if it 'fails to distinguish between sex and gender' because that is the crux of the whole bloody thing.

I filled this in and may be counted in that 60% because I said I was quite happy for people to identify as whatever gender they liked as long as that did not affect their legal sex.

Sorry, the bolded section above is from "Comments by those who did not agree with the proposal" pg. 4.

I'm glad this bit was in:

^The consultation paper was sometimes suggested to not be neutral in
approach and it was also suggested that the questions were asked in such a
way as to affirm the Scottish Government’s position. Questions about detail
surrounding possible changes were sometimes seen as indicating that a
decision to proceed has already been taken. There were also suggestions
that the consultation paper was too long, too complicated, or lacked important
definitions.^

At the end of the report - these are the "Going Forward" points, recommended for future consideration.

Quoting the report below

Suggested actions or points for the Scottish Government to consider

7.41. It was suggested that the 2004 Act is widely misunderstood and misquoted and that any reforms should include plans for dissemination of clear and accurate information regarding its purpose, limits and consequences.

7.42. There were also suggestions that the 2004 Act should be repealed, both from those who disagreed with the idea that sex/gender can be changed at all, but also from respondents who suggested it to be unnecessary in the light of the availability of same sex marriage or protections for gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010.

7.43. With respect to the Equality Act 2010, it was argued that existing exemptions should be reviewed, retained or strengthened. It was also suggested that some organisations may already be reluctant to use these exemptions because they fear accusations of transphobia.

7.44. It was also suggested that review of the 2004 Act should include consideration of changes that would be required from local authorities and the public sector, particularly in relation to service provision.
Examples included for the NHS and in relation to allocation of housing.

7.45. Increased provision of professional support and counselling services for children experiencing difficulties relating to gender was proposed as was improved funding for Gender Identity Clinics.

7.46. Education on gender identity, for schools but also for the wider public, was seen as important for improving understanding and reducing stigma. The need to raise awareness for employers was identified, as was training on trans issues for staff working for a range of bodies including the NHS, social services, local authorities and the police.

I can't bear to look tonight. I did this consultation, it was awful. Most of the questions made no sense if you didn't already agree self-ID was the way to go.

And the equality impact assessment

DrSusan if the GRA is devolved and Scotland goes for self-ID and/or lowers the age limit, does the rest of the UK (or just England?) have to honour Scottish GRCs? Could we see lots of people (including children!) nipping up to Scotland to get their certificate?

I'm imagining a whole new industry for Gretna Green.

The above Faculty of Advocates response didn't open for me but this does:

arb.advocates.org.uk/media/2720/final-faculty-response-gender-28-february-2018.pdf pdf

60% in favour is actually a lot lower than I would have expected, considering the targeted circulation and lack of general awareness.

That is not to say it will actually go through in Scotland, though I would not be surprised.

In the UK we had over 53,000 responses of which 20,000 were definitely gender critical (the rest unknown so far). Compare to 1,180 total in Scotland it goes to show how much awareness was gained after (too late after) the Scottish consultation.

What we need to be sure of in England is whether a Scottish GRC will have the same value here or basically, can an English person hop over to Scotland for a day, get a GRC and come back?