Thank you for your message about the petition entitled: Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex and the upcoming debate on 12 June.
Firstly, I very much want to attend the debate on 12 June. To my frustration, it clashes with a session of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member. If there is any way that I can get to both, I will do so.
I have taken careful note of your message, the contents of the petition and the Government's reply. I note that the Cabinet Office response explains that, under the 2010 Equality Act, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified.
My view is that changing the law so that ‘sex’ is defined as 'biological sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act would gravely undermine trans-people's rights, including to go about their lives in privacy and dignity. I also note that being trans does not make someone a threat to others, and that trans people are often subject to serious employment or other discrimination, ridicule, harassment and hate crime. It is vital that there are proper mechanisms in law to protect a trans person's privacy should they want or need it.
I am aware of the response from Kishwer Faulkner, the current EHRC Chair, to a letter from the Women and Equalities Secretary, Kemi Badenoch MP that discusses this potential change to the Equality Act. Some, but not all, of the potential negative consequences of such a change are set out in stark terms in the EHRC Chair's own letter, including rights for trans women on:
- equal pay;
- direct sex discrimination;
- indirect sex discrimination
I am deeply concerned that changing the Equality Act risks allowing discrimination against trans people in a whole range of circumstances where it is currently illegal. Putting “biological sex” into the law would also seem to be totally unworkable in real terms and to risk removing privacy and dignity for trans and cis women. It's clearly not acceptable to ask someone accessing services if they can prove their biological sex, on the basis of eg how they might look. Neither is it acceptable to expect someone to out themselves.
It would also result in what I think are some unintended consequences, for example if access to some spaces is determined according to what’s on someone’s birth certificate then trans men, including those who have had gender reassignment surgery, would be using women’s toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards. That would undermine the trans person’s privacy and dignity and be quite different to what I think those seeking to change the Equality Act have in mind.
It is deeply disappointing that the EHRC Chair appears not to have considered the extensive negative ramifications of their position, including that trans people would no longer have legal assurance of being treated as the correct gender. Nor does the EHRC Chair appear to have acknowledged that there are elderly trans people who have been accessing correctly gendered services for decades.
It remains a great sadness to me that women's and trans rights are now characterised by some people as being on different 'sides' in 'a culture war'. My view is this is detrimental to all women, both trans and cis. I remain of the view that it is both necessary and possible to promote and protect improved trans people’s rights, whilst at the same time defending and advancing hard won women’s rights. We are living through a time of great cultural change when it comes to gender and nobody has all the answers yet.
Whilst we have a different position on this issue, I am grateful for your continued engagement on this and am always interested in your views. Please do check my social media feeds and they work for you for updates and information about what else I am doing to represent you on a range of other topics.
Hearing from constituents is hugely important to me so thank you so much for getting in touch.ge about the petition entitled: Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex and the upcoming debate on 12 June.
Firstly, I very much want to attend the debate on 12 June. To my frustration, it clashes with a session of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member. If there is any way that I can get to both, I will do so.
I have taken careful note of your message, the contents of the petition and the Government's reply. I note that the Cabinet Office response explains that, under the 2010 Equality Act, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified.
My view is that changing the law so that ‘sex’ is defined as 'biological sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act would gravely undermine trans-people's rights, including to go about their lives in privacy and dignity. I also note that being trans does not make someone a threat to others, and that trans people are often subject to serious employment or other discrimination, ridicule, harassment and hate crime. It is vital that there are proper mechanisms in law to protect a trans person's privacy should they want or need it.
I am aware of the response from Kishwer Faulkner, the current EHRC Chair, to a letter from the Women and Equalities Secretary, Kemi Badenoch MP that discusses this potential change to the Equality Act. Some, but not all, of the potential negative consequences of such a change are set out in stark terms in the EHRC Chair's own letter, including rights for trans women on:
- equal pay;
- direct sex discrimination;
- indirect sex discrimination
I am deeply concerned that changing the Equality Act risks allowing discrimination against trans people in a whole range of circumstances where it is currently illegal. Putting “biological sex” into the law would also seem to be totally unworkable in real terms and to risk removing privacy and dignity for trans and cis women. It's clearly not acceptable to ask someone accessing services if they can prove their biological sex, on the basis of eg how they might look. Neither is it acceptable to expect someone to out themselves.
It would also result in what I think are some unintended consequences, for example if access to some spaces is determined according to what’s on someone’s birth certificate then trans men, including those who have had gender reassignment surgery, would be using women’s toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards. That would undermine the trans person’s privacy and dignity and be quite different to what I think those seeking to change the Equality Act have in mind.
It is deeply disappointing that the EHRC Chair appears not to have considered the extensive negative ramifications of their position, including that trans people would no longer have legal assurance of being treated as the correct gender. Nor does the EHRC Chair appear to have acknowledged that there are elderly trans people who have been accessing correctly gendered services for decades.
It remains a great sadness to me that women's and trans rights are now characterised by some people as being on different 'sides' in 'a culture war'. My view is this is detrimental to all women, both trans and cis. I remain of the view that it is both necessary and possible to promote and protect improved trans people’s rights, whilst at the same time defending and advancing hard won women’s rights. We are living through a time of great cultural change when it comes to gender and nobody has all the answers yet.
Whilst we have a different position on this issue, I am grateful for your continued engagement on this and am always interested in your views. Please do check my social media feeds and they work for you for updates and information about what else I am doing to represent you on a range of other topics.
Hearing from constituents is hugely important to me so thank you so much for getting in touch.