• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Fair Play For Women

Fair Play For Women

  • Prison
  • Sport
  • GRA
  • Language
  • Changing rooms
  • Resources ▼
    • Take action! Here’s how
    • Key facts
    • UK law
    • Science
    • Sex vs gender
    • Consultation submissions
    • Materials
  • About Us ▼
    • Review of 2022
    • Our aim
    • Our beliefs
    • Our spokeswoman
    • Our history and achievements
    • Our supporters
    • News
      • Newspapers
      • TV Interviews
      • Radio interviews
    • Contact
    • Donate
You are here: Home / GRA consultation / Fair Play For Women give oral evidence on GRA reform to Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC)

Fair Play For Women give oral evidence on GRA reform to Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC)

26th April 2021 by FPFW

GRA Reform WESC

Fair Play For Women was invited to give oral evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC) on 21 April 2021, as part of its inquiry into reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA reform). We have now also followed up some of the questions asked with written answers.

This analysis highlights the problem with the narrow focus of the consultation undertaken for GRA reform. The only reforms under consideration have been to simplify the application process in part by removing some eligibility criteria. No consideration has been given to any reform necessary to address the consequences of the Act, both foreseen and unforeseen. This was a missed opportunity and a result of not including all stakeholder groups from the start. Changes to the legal implications of having a GRC (in terms of privacy protections and scope of exceptions) may have enabled a modified GRC to be extended to everyone under the trans umbrella without detriment to others. This was not considered. The existing problems, described below, were not even acknowledged. As such the only fair balance that could be struck in light of increased ‘detriment’ and the weaken argument for ‘why’ a GRC is needed today was to reject calls to expand eligibility to additional groups.

“What evidence is there that trans people, particularly transgender women, present a threat to women and girls?” [Elliot Colborn MP]

  • The vast majority of sexual crime is perpetrated by the male sex. In contrast female sexual offending is rare. Only 1% of sexual crime is committed by the female sex. This is clearly evidenced by official prison statistics.[1]
  • Most males don’t commit any sexual crime but we can’t tell which individual males present no risk to females. Therefore, to ensure ‘unsafe’ males are excluded there is a need to exclude all males to provide a safe ‘male-free’ space for women when needed.
  • Transgender women are members of the male sex who identify as women. There is no evidence that identifying as a woman changes a male person’s propensity to commit sexual crime.
  • If identifying as a woman reduced male propensity to commit sexual crime to female levels we would expect this to be reflected in prison statistics. At the last count, there were only 125 female sex offenders in prison in England and Wales. If transwomen commit sexual crime at the same rate as women, we would expect no more than 1 or 2 transwomen in prison for sexual crime (when adjusted for the fact that the transwomen population is only 1% of the size of the female population).
  • Freedom of information requests made by Fair Play For Women have revealed there are over 70 male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales who identify as women [2]. This is strong evidence that males who identify as women commit sexual crimes at a higher rate than female.

 

“…..or that reform of the GRA could lead to trans people presenting a threat to women and girls” [Elliot Colborn MP].

  • Currently, most of the 70+ male sex offenders who identify as women are housed in the male prison estate. If the eligibility process for acquiring a GRC was changed to a self-declaration system it would mean any male, including these 70+ male sex offenders, could obtain a GRC and would be considered “female for all purposes” as stated in the GRA2004.
  • According to current HMPPS policy “female for all purposes” includes being located on the female prisoner estate. High-risk male-born prisoners may be accommodated in a separate accommodation unit but will be allowed ‘supervised association with women’ during the day where possible[3]. While the physical safety of female prisoners can be achieved through ‘supervision’ the potential for psychological harm due to ‘association’ with male sex offenders cannot be ruled out.
  • If an additional 70+ sex offenders are relocated to female prisons this would increase the total number of sex offenders in women’s prisons to around 200, such that a third of ‘female’ sex offenders would have been born male.
  • This problem has already arisen in Ireland following the introduction of a GRC system based on self-declaration. There are currently three male-born prisoners in possession of a GRC located on female wings in Irish prisons[4] [5] [6]. At least two of those three obtained a GRC after committing serious violent or sexual crimes but before sentencing and transfer to prison.

 

 

“We have heard from women’s refuges and other women’s support services that they have been able to enact the Equality Act where they felt that an individual had presented harm or a danger to women and staff in that setting. So we have heard examples of where it is possible for organisations to enforce those rights.” [Angela Crawley MP].

  • Angela Crawley had asked me to elaborate on a claim made by FPFW in our written submission that “Any reforms that increased the number and range of people able to change the sex on a birth certificate would exacerbate issues with single sex spaces”. In the session I explained how getting a GRC allows someone to change the sex written on their birth certificate. This causes problems for service providers who want to lawfully restrict a space or service only to people born female. This is because there would be no documentation that a service provider can ask to see that would enable them to distinguish between someone who was born female and someone who was born male but has a GRC. Both will have identical birth certificates saying they were born female. So even though it can be lawful for the service provider to treat these two people differently they can’t reliably tell them apart based on documentation alone.
  • In response Angela raised doubts over whether service providers do actually have a problem, but then due to time constraints moved straight to another question and panel member. Angela had made an important observation so I would like to provide the Committee with some additional clarity on this point.
  • Currently, most transwomen do not have a GRC and so the majority will have a birth certificate that confirms they were born male. This means in most cases, even if a transwoman chose not to freely reveal their birth sex was male, a service provider could still confirm they were born male by asking to see their birth certificate. Being able to confirm birth sex in this way means it would be clear to that service provider that this particular transwoman could be lawfully excluded if necessary. As such it is possible that some service providers will have been able to enact the single-sex exceptions. However, this does not mean service providers will never encounter problems.
  • The problem for service providers that I raise in my evidence relates specifically to when someone has a GRC. Their birth certificate no longer accurately records their birth sex so cannot be used to confirm if they can or cannot be lawfully excluded by the service provider. This scenario is currently rare because fewer than 3000 male-born people have a female birth certificate. However, it follows that the more people who acquire a GRC the more common this problem for service providers would become.
  • Transgender advocacy groups claim the GRA has NO impact on single-sex spaces[7]. My example shows why this claim is incorrect. A system based on self-identification would mean anyone who identifies as transgender could become indistinguishable on paper from someone born the opposite sex. This would exacerbate an existing problem for service providers who want to implement the single-sex exemptions.
  • I would ask the Committee to reflect on the practical difficulties faced by service providers who wish to lawfully provide female-only spaces based on birth sex. How can a service provider use a law that is based on treating people differently because of birth sex if another piece of legislation can make birth sex unknowable? If a law is difficult to use, in part because some aspects are unworkable, then a service provider will be less inclined to attempt to use it at all. The result is less female-only service provision for women and girls to choose from if and when they need or want it.

 

 

“You argue that the government decision not to change the eligibility criteria for a GRC… is fair and balances the needs of all stakeholders. Given that many trans people support a system of self-recognition why do you feel this is fair in any way to all stakeholders?” [Angela Crawley MP]

  • Fairness is about striking a balance between the benefits acquired by members of one group and the cost incurred by members of another. Therefore, benefits need to be understood in terms of ‘who’ receives them, ‘why’ they might need them, and the ‘detriment’ to others.
  • When this balance was struck in 2004 the ‘who’ was restricted to a small group of severely dysphoric adults with a history of living in role as the opposite sex and en route to full genital reassignment surgery. The ‘why’ was because in the absence of other protections in law, the best way to prevent discrimination was for these people to hide their true birth sex. It was also illegal at the time for a transsexual woman to marry a man because marriage was restricted to partners of the opposite sex. Changing legal sex status therefore made marriage to a man possible. The ‘detriment’ to wider society was acknowledged by legislators at the time but it was considered tolerable and offset by the greater good of the benefits to a small group of people[8]. Nevertheless, it was still considered necessary to mitigate this ‘detriment’ by including a number of ‘exceptions’ into the legislation.
  • Today, any reforms to the GRA must again be assessed in terms of ‘who’ benefits and ‘why’, and any ‘detriment’ to others. The circumstances have changed in all three ways meaning that a new fair balance must now be struck.
  • It has been proposed that the definition of ‘who’ benefits should be expanded. However, the justification for ‘why’ someone needs the benefit has reduced over time. (Same sex marriage is no longer illegal and new laws protect all transgender people – not just those eligible for a GRC – against hate crimes and discrimination). The benefits are no longer sufficient to offset the existing ‘detriment’ to others.
  • Meanwhile, the existing ‘detriment’ to others has become clearer and would be expected to increase further if the benefit is extended to additional groups under the transgender umbrella. Legislators did not (and could not) foresee all the ‘exceptions’ that would be needed to be written into the GRA. For example, exceptions to prevent a male prison guard being lawfully entitled to search a female prisoner if they have acquired a GRC. Or an exception to allow data collectors to exclude ‘sex acquired by a GRC’ when asking “what is your sex”. Moreover, the existing exceptions have proven difficult to implement and are now rarely used. As such it would be clearly wrong to makes any changes to the process that would make the ‘detriment’ to others worse.

 

Read more:

Fair Play For Women’s full written submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee inquiry on GRA reform 2020

Looking back at the Fair Play For Women GRA campaign 2018

In brief: Why is GRA reform bad for women and girls?

 

References:

[1] MOJ Offender Management Statistics obtained for 31st March 2019 show that 99% of the 13359 sex offenders in prison in England and Wales were male (13234 prisoners). Only 1% of sex offenders were female (125 prisoners). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

[2] Under a Freedom of Information request (#20061502) made by Fair Play For Women on 15th June 2020 it was revealed that 76 of these 129 male-born transgender prisoners had at least one conviction for sexual offending. The convictions included 36 convictions for rape, 10 for attempted rape and 21 sexual assaults. https://fairplayforwomen.com/foi-200615022-data-final/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender

[4] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/transgender-woman-to-be-sentenced-for-assaulting-three-men-1.4489730 “The court heard Kavanagh of Priory Hall Whitehall Road, Kimmage Manor, Dublin has transitioned to a woman since the assaults took place and is now known as Shauna Kavanagh. A gender recognition certificate was handed up in court.”

[5] https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenager-in-custody-charged-with-threats-to-kill-two-people-39563823.html

[6] https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners/ “When before the court last July, the prisoner was in possession of a gender recognition certificate.”

[7] https://fairplayforwomen.com/campaigns/gra-reform/

[8] https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-rights-get-part-2-changing-legal-sex-status/

 

Filed Under: GRA consultation

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Biological sex
  • Children
  • Gender Identity
  • Male violence
  • Scottish GRA reforms
  • Silencing women
  • Policy guidance

Our materials

  • Our factsheets
  • Our short films and animations
  • Our memes
  • Our research

Our latest articles

  • Testosterone suppression in sport: time to drop the Roberts study
  • World Athletics new transgender policy fails women
  • Statement on the UK government move to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill
  • Rowing policies make no sense
  • A progress report on the fight to restore fairness in female sport

Archives

Footer

Prisons, crime and protecting women

  • The facts about transgender prisoners
  • Prisons timeline – how did we get here?
  • Karen White & prison review
  • Sex attacks in female prisons
  • Refuge shelters deeply worried
  • How do women in prison feel about sharing with transgender prisoners?
  • Can you believe what you read about sexual and violent crimes?
  • The judicial review of prisons policy
  • Factsheets

Sport and the human body

  • A progress report on the fight to restore fairness in female sport
  • Biological sex differences
  • Chromosomes, sex and gender
  • The science and statistics behind the transgender debate
  • Guidelines for single-sex sport policy
  • Testosterone suppression in “elite athletes” – what do we know?
  • Safeguarding in sport still matters
  • Male inclusion leads to female exclusion
  • What you can do

Making policy and the law

  • Scottish government is forcing sex self-ID on whole of UK.
  • The Equality Act 2010 and women’s rights
  • GRA reform
  • Advice and guidance for policy makers
  • Changing room policy advice
  • What can I do now?
  • Take Action: Say NO to letting Sex Self-ID in through the back door.
  • Public opinion on the tension between women’s rights and trans demands

© 2023 · Fair Play For Women

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt out if you wish. Read More

Accept Decline Cookie Settings
I consent to the use of following cookies:
Cookie Declaration About Cookies
Necessary (2) Marketing (1) Analytics (4) Preferences (0) Unclassified (4)
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
wpl_user_preference fairplayforwomen.com WP GDPR Cookie Consent Preferences 1 year HTTP
YSC youtube.com YouTube session cookie. 52 years HTTP
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE youtube.com YouTube cookie. 6 months HTTP
Analytics cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
_ga fairplayforwomen.com Google Universal Analytics long-time unique user tracking identifier. 2 years HTTP
_gid fairplayforwomen.com Google Universal Analytics short-time unique user tracking identifier. 1 days HTTP
vuid vimeo.com Vimeo tracking cookie 2 years HTTP
IDE doubleclick.net Google advertising cookie used for user tracking and ad targeting purposes. 2 years HTTP
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
We do not use cookies of this type.
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
_gat_UA-109881507-1 fairplayforwomen.com --- Session ---
GASessionCookie fairplayforwomen.com --- Session ---
rtc linkedin.com --- Session ---
_wpfuuid fairplayforwomen.com --- 11 years ---
Cookies are small text files that can be used by websites to make a user's experience more efficient. The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission. This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.
Cookie Settings