Gender recognition law reform 'positive for transgender community' in Northern Ireland

[IwantToRetire]

Reform of gender recognition laws would have a "significant positive impact" for NI's transgender community, a Stormont report has found.

The research was commissioned in May 2021 by Conor Murphy when he was finance minister.

A group at Queen's University Belfast conducted the review of NI's current legislation.

It has now been published by the Department of Finance and makes a series of recommendations.

It says that transgender people who responded to the research who had gone through the GRC process said it was "long, complicated, dehumanising, costly and exclusionary".

It recommended that any policy change should take into account "the physical and mental health consequences of undergoing the gender recognition process, with the aim of supporting applicants to navigate the process safely".

It added, however, that women's safety has "emerged as a strong argument against reform and should be taken into account" when considering a policy change.

There are also concerns about access to women-only spaces and services, including hospital wards and refuges.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63949943

The process of applying for a GRC is "long, complicated, dehumanising, costly and exclusionary". I'd be very interested in a comparison of the GRC process with some other applications, such as citizenship or disability benefits.

As for the claim that "potential harm is unlikely to be substantial" - that needs serious backing up. Or do they mean "only affects women, so it's not important"?

Off to read the full report...

I recently received citizenship after 14 years living in a Scandinavian country. The process was long, dehumanising and exclusionary, presumably because the powers that be want to ensure their own citizens are protected from an influx of casual incomers abusing the systems in place to support those who are already citizens.

It added, however, that women's safety has "emerged as a strong argument against reform and should be taken into account" when considering a policy change.

Now this IS a new development. It’s very far into the article, almost an afterthought, but its inclusion feels like a significant shift.

I would be interested to know whether it’s an afterthought in the actual report, as is suggested by the framing in the article, or whether it is actually given proper weight in the report itself and the BBC are misrepresenting the situation. That article, and in particular the headline, looks about as biased as it’s possible to be.

Going through the methods sections first.

"Focus Groups

5.2.1. Overview and Methods

This chapter presents the perceptions and experiences of transgender people and members of staff from transgender support organisations of the process of applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) as well as the requirements needed to obtain a GRC. Three focus groups were conducted during the period of November 2021 – January 2022. The focus groups were designed as follows:

• One focus group with young transgender, non-binary, gender variant and/or gender questioning individuals, age 16-25, living in Northern Ireland. This age requirement was in place to capture the experiences of young people who are currently engaging with, or have recently engaged with, specific services for young people. The young people who are age 16 or 17 are not currently allowed a gender recognition certificate but they were invited to reflect on the process as part of the focus group discussion.

• One focus group with older transgender, non-binary, gender variant and/or gender questioning individuals of age 26 or over.

• One focus group with staff/volunteer representatives of the principal transgender sectoral organisations and groups in Northern Ireland. These organisations have been chosen as they not only offer support to transgender individuals and their families, but they also have experience of advocating for the rights of transgender people and for policy change and will therefore be familiar with the GRA.

Participants were recruited through following organisations, which are the principal stakeholders in the LGBTQIA+ sector in Northern Ireland:

• Transgender NI
• Sail NI
• The Rainbow Project
• Focus – The Identity Trust
• GenderJamNI
• Belfast Butterfly"

Hmm.

"Surveys

5.3.1. Overview

Two anonymous surveys were launched and shared across several channels on social media and relevant stakeholders - one for the LGBTQIA+ community and another for those not identifying as part of the LGBTQIA+ community."

An OK start, although we've already seen that the 'stakeholders' group is rather 1-sided.

"Survey design and dissemination

[Snip]

The surveys were separately designed for respondents from the LGBTQIA+ community and for those not identifying as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. [...] For both samples, we asked questions about their perceptions of the requirements to obtain a GRC (8 questions) as well as the impact of a potential change in the GRA (9 questions). Additionally, all respondents we asked to rank according to their preference, six potential policy options. The LGBTQIA+ respondents also answered 6 questions about their experiences with the GRA as well as 16 questions about their personal wellbeing/mental health, using validated scales for depression and anxiety. The respondents who do not identify as LGBTQIA+ also answered 21 questions assessing psychological correlates of their beliefs (perceived threat, symbolic threat, conspiracy thinking, perspective taking, self-efficacy)."

Interesting supplementary questions.

"The weblink was distributed by the research team via the School and University media (news report on QUB website) and social media (i.e., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram), as well as via stakeholders that we contacted during focus group and interview recruitment. This resulted in a convenience sample, with respondents self-selecting for completing the survey."

A self-selecting sample of an already weighted group. They note the problem of self-selection, but not the intrinsic bias in the starting group.

Survey responses were analysed in 3 groups, where data allowed: LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIA+ but not T, not LGBTQIA+.

"5.4. Interviews

We extended email interview invitations to 52 representatives from major stakeholders in Northern Ireland. In response, representatives from 9 organisations (Northern Ireland Humanists, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Iona Institute Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, HERe NI, the Women’s Resource and Development Agency, the University and College Union, and the Scottish Government) completed an email interview."

Finally, on page 91 of 106, we get an actual attempt to speak to a women's group. Hurrah!

But also the Scottish Government. Oh dear.

Thanks for reading through. I haven't had time since I posted the link. Also not in NI so suspect I might miss some of the implications.

But really, really bad / sad if no women's groups were consulted.Given how public the debate has been about this you would have thought they would do that, even if only in a tokenistic way.

Sorry just seen the one women's group emailed.

Depressing.

Will be really strange if only England, until Labour get into power, holds out.

The good (potentially, in this case - usually it's a pain in the proverbial) thing about NI is that everything becomes divided along sectarian lines. If one side takes position A, the other side will argue for position B as a matter of principle. For example, SF ended up campaigning for abortion, which is not what you'd expect from a party with a largely Catholic base - but thr DUP were anti, so SF went pro.

And even getting the MLAs into Stormont at all is virtually impossible. So the chances of any reform actually happening as a result of this report are microscopic for the foreseeable future. Hopefully by the time they do get around to considering the question, sanity will have prevailed.

Report comment on transgender children:

"once they socially transitioned, the rate of retransition to their original cisgender identity was very low (around 7%) according to recent longitudinal research which followed up with them 5 years after their initial transition.

The retransition rates are low for all age groups, but retransition is more likely for those who initially transitioned before the age of 6, suggesting that transitions past the age of 6 are relatively reliable over time."

Five years is a very short follow up. In this research a 7 year old would be only just hitting puberty when they leave the study.

I'll try not to just paste the entire report in para by para, but there's so much to pick apart.

"Qualitative analyses revealed that the motivations and arguments made by the two sides are fundamentally different. Those supportive of GRA reform make arguments based on equality law and human rights, whereas those who do not support changes tend to make arguments based on concerns about potential harmful effects, women's rights regressing, and women's safety."

Are women's rights and safety not matters of equality law and human rights?

"Women’s safety issues and potential harm to women and girls has emerged as a strong argument against reform and should be taken into account when considering a policy change."

Good.

But...

"Evidence from other jurisdictions using self-declaration (e.g., Republic of Ireland) and women’s organizations in Northern Ireland who have already allowed transgender women’s access to their spaces (e.g. Women’s Resource and Development Agency) show that there have been no negative incidents with transgender women harming women as a result of self declaration."

Really?

I mean really really.

Or is this a matter of weasel grammar (the harm wasn't explicitly the direct result of the self declaration; or 'harm' has been given a very specific definition), not asking women, not listening to women when they speak up, and making it clear that speaking up is not welcome.

For example, I know there are women in Limerick prison who would disagree, and I'm sure they can't be the only ones.

Oh, FFS. I'm only on page 9.

"Some jurisdictions are successfully adopting a third gender option which would be appropriate for both non-binary and intersex individuals."

No. Just no. People with DSD conditions are not a third sex.