Here it is in full:
I’m writing to you as someone who has been in touch with my office about the status of trans people in the UK – whether you have been in touch recently about the recent Supreme Court ruling, to express your concerns about single sex spaces or simply to ask for more information about my work on this issue.
I want to acknowledge the toxicity in the public debate around trans rights – and recognise that many in public life have sought to exploit that. I have always rejected the polarisation that comes from those who use women’s bodies as their battlefield for a ‘culture war’ – whether in my work to promote abortion rights, to tackle discrimination against mothers or to support reform of gender recognition processes. I do not see these as conflicting, but complementary objectives. I know that not all residents will agree with this, and so want to be open with where I stand.
Specifically, last weeks’ Supreme Court ruling regarding the Equality Act raises more questions than it answers about how best to balance the rights of those who are transgender to access services with those who are not. Specifically it sets out that the concept of sex in the Act is based on biological sex- it also sets out that transgender people should retain protection against discrimination. In doing so, the ruling clarifies how the courts should read the 2010 Equality Act- and consequently raise serious questions about the viability of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). This is because the GRA states that those who have a gender recognition certificate (GRC) ‘become’ the sex of that certificate, ‘subject to the provision’ made by the Act or any subsequent Act which includes the Equality Act.
There will no doubt be substantial further legal debate over the impact of this ruling- having read the ruling in full I want to let you know the questions that I have. These are the issues I will be seeking to raise because I believe that politics must not absent itself from these issues. Firstly, it is now not clear what rights securing a GRC offers if the sex on the certificate someone who ‘becomes’ this is defined by biology. In making their ruling the judges highlighted it is not legal to ask someone to present a GRC when accessing services. They also stated no one who is transgender should be treated differently whether they have one or not. Given this, we need urgent clarity as to what impact ‘becoming’ someone of a different gender now has. Indeed, those who brought the original case argued that those who were biologically male could become women under the GRA legislation as it did not require any form of surgery to be performed- and that it was now a redundant Act. Whilst the judges rejected this argument, it is not clear how and when a GRC now influences service provision, if at all.
Secondly, it is not clear how this ruling will be interpreted on a case by case basis as the court requires. Single sex spaces have always been possible to arrange and protected– the Equality Act has always enabled the exclusion of someone of a different biological sex on a proportionate basis. This was and is the case for both women’s refuges and women’s sport. The ruling now means it is important to confirm what ‘proportionate’ means and how this will be interpreted and if it will be expanded. There has been much speculation on public toilets, all women shortlists, female representation on public and private bodies, changing rooms and more- this change could affect these matters and the guidance issued to those responsible for them.
In the aftermath of this ruling, I spoke out about this impact and the need not just for lawyers but politicians to do better in resolving these tensions. You can find my statement here:
From your correspondence I’m very aware of many transgender residents of Walthamstow who are fearful that they may face more hostility and discrimination as a result of recent developments – and also of residents who want to be able to discuss the value of single sex spaces and how to provide them but are concerned this will lead to abuse. I will always uphold the right of transpeople to identify themselves as such without being asked to justify this status, and I continue to recognise – as I always have - biological sex as a source of direct discrimination.
The complexity of biological sex and assigned gender are not theoretical discourses or social media clickbait. They are lived experiences for many who now fear the political manipulation of this ruling, and the erosion of hard fought for progress on women’s equality. Already the abuse and poisonous nature of discussion of this ruling by both parliamentarians, campaigners and the press has made it almost impossible to navigate what happens next- that is in no one’s interest. I have a track record of speaking out in support of those who disagree with me on a range of concerns to be heard without fear but with accountability- I will continue to do that.
As and when there are updates on this matter I will share them with you – and especially if and when there are opportunities for public engagement either via parliament or directly through Government. Please also feel free to share this with any other local resident you know is interested in this matter.
Thank you once again for writing to me – whether you agree with my approach or not, I value the candour and concern that residents have shown on this issue.
Stella