If the latest inquiry into Gender Recognition Act (GRA) reform by the Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC) is to be productive and worthwhile, it needs to be conducted in a genuine spirit of inquiry and neutrality. Our analysis of the questions asked in the first two hours of oral evidence suggests there is still work to do. Everyone was asked how to make things better for trans people, while the needs of women were not raised with trans panellists. The sympathetic tone and framing of questions to the transgender panellists was in marked contrast to the challenging approach taken with the academics asked to represent women’s concerns. The framing and tone of questions revealed an underlying stance that self-ID was necessary and any discussion to the contrary leads to the trans community being harmed and ignored.
Empathy and gratitude
For the first hour, MPs on the committee asked a series of gentle, empathetic, and sometimes leading, questions of the trans witnesses. They expressed sympathy with their position, and did not challenge or request evidential back-up for a single claim. That their sympathies lay with trans people and not women was clear from the start.
Committee chair Caroline Nokes asked:
“Is the fee in your opinion the biggest issue or concern about the current process or is there another area that you would specifically like to highlight as being the biggest worry for trans people who were seeking that certificate?”
Peter Gibson’s questions were based on the premise that the needs of trans community had simply been ignored by the government rather than fairly balanced alongside all stakeholder groups in society:
“Could you outline to us what impact that being ignored in the government’s proposals will have on the trans community?” and
“if you could outline for us, your views on what the impact on the trans community would be by this being ignored as a result of the consultation.”
At times, they sounded not much like MPs asking questions and a lot like pro-trans activists. This, from Kim Johnson:
“Several other countries including Denmark, Ireland and Norway have brought in a statutory gender recognition process based on self declaration, which has been recognised as a global best practice by a number of our own trade unions and prominent trans rights campaign groups. This has been recognised as far quicker and more transparent and more accessible than our current process. Can you outline the barriers, if any, that exist to prevent us adopting a similar model?”
From Nicola Richards,
“Do you see that waiting lists coming down by any other way other than scrapping the panel and the process as it is?”
When Peter Gibson mentioned gay conversion therapy and asked “do each of the panellists believe that such a ban on conversion therapy should also include a ban on conversion therapy for trans people?” he surely knew the answer would be a simple “yes” all round. Perhaps it would have been more useful to ask what constitutes conversion therapy in the context of trans-identifying people. Perhaps even, a week after the Keira Bell vs Tavistock judgement, asking whether there is sometimes a conflict between gay identity and trans identity, such that trans affirmation can look like gay conversion.
After an hour, committee chair Caroline Nokes expressed her thanks:
“Could I take this opportunity to say thank you to all of our panellists for coming and giving evidence today. It is hugely appreciated, your answers have been incredibly helpful and the message given about the level of exhaustion, and I think it was Alex who used that word, received loud and clear. I really appreciate you contributing today and I’m sure all of the committee members do, so thank you very much and we will now move on to the second panel.”
Women’s concerns are dangerous
Their sympathy and gratitude ran out rather sharply at this point, with the next set of witnesses. Questions got a lot longer, perhaps because some MPs were stating trans positions more than they were asking questions. Questions were framed by the underlying assumption that women voicing concerns was harmful to the trans community.
This from Angela Crawley (part of an even longer statement-question):
“We have touched across quite a lot of the sensitivities around this discussion and I appreciate points that have been made by the panel about seeing, in any sense, in any way they are articulating a point that may then be construed as transphobic. Obviously this debate has become quite polarised, I think it’s fair to say, a very emotional perhaps quite emotive for people, there is obviously a paradox to that, an implication that someone would obtain a gender recognition certificate, or for example self id under the proposals and that they would abuse that privilege as such or that legal recognition to act in a predatory manner or a violent manner. How would you reconcile this kind of disparity that implies essentially that perhaps someone could pick that up wrong and imply that all trans people are potentially violent or dangerous or predatory, because I think we need to take some time, to take some of the tension out of this debate and address those concerns.”
When Professor Kathleen Stock explained that, just as excluding men from women’s spaces does not suggest all men are predatory but that we have to exclude the many innocent ones to focus on the problematic few, no one is accusing all trans people of being potentially violent or dangerous or predatory, Angela Crawley’s response was dismissive and asserted once again the existence of a dangerous narrative:
“Thank you Kathleen, I think my point was more to address that dangerous narrative, that obviously implies that trans people are potentially all dangerous and potentially predatory and I think to take some of the pain out of that discussion.”
Kate Osborne also reflected in the ‘harm’ caused by consulting the wider public on the proposed reform:
What steps do you think the government should have taken to mitigate the harm that’s clearly been caused as a result of opening this consultation?
Nicola Richards came back three times to challenge a statement about risks to women, each time dismissing the answers and instead asserting that women’s concerns were having a ‘damaging effect’ on the trans community.
“So I just wanted to go back to something you said Rosa about predatory males and how the same stats carry over from males to transwomen in terms of statistics of abuse on women, do you have any statistics to give us to prove that?
“Just because a couple of times you’ve mentioned this, about how there’s hard facts that prove that this is the case, it’s just that so far throughout the whole session you haven’t given us any stats to prove that.”
“Would you accept however to make the assumption that you know these are predatory males and predatory transwomen, that that has a quite damaging effect without robust data as you’ve pointed to without the stats.”
Solutions for trans people but not for women
Repeatedly the MPs asserted that there were difficulties for trans people and asked the women what should be done. They did not ask the trans academics what should be done for women.
Angela Crawley:
“What are the consensus of women’s views around what they feel would perhaps alleviate the fears and concerns but would also address some of these inequalities that are faced by trans community?”
Similarly, Sara Britcliffe:
“Written evidence to this inquiry suggests that many trans people feel the current system of gender recognition infringes on trans persons’ human rights to self declare. How can the government best support the human rights of trans people and the human rights of women?”
Bell Ribeiro-Addy:
“In light of the government’s response to the consultation on the GRA, what do you think the solution is to making the GRA work better for trans people whilst addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by women and about single sex spaces and do you know any examples of gender recognition legislation in other countries perhaps that are widely supported by trans people whilst also mitigating those concerns?”
The inequalities faced by trans people were never identified. It would have been reasonable to ask the same question to the first panel of witnesses, but no one did. Questions that should have been asked to both panels or neither.
Trans people have been ignored
At one point in the proceedings Kate Osborne asked:
“Bearing in mind your responses there, in written evidence, some trans people have said that they felt that the government equalities office were more prepared to listen to the views of women’s groups during the consultation. Can I ask you for your response to that, would you agree, or not and why?”
Peter Gibson picked up Professor Sullivan’s point about privileged access by the trans lobby:
“Could I just return to Alice in respect of part of her earlier evidence in regards to the consultations that Liz Truss the equalities minister took into account in advance of the announcement, the implication from your comment was that women’s groups were disadvantaged or ignored outright as opposed to the trans lobby, for want of a better expression. Is it your view that the trans lobby was advantaged in Liz Truss’s announcements as a result of that?”
… but only so he could disagree with her reply:
“So no advantage was given to them despite your protest that they were listened to a number of times more than others”
When she explained that they had advantageous access though perhaps had not got what they wanted from it, his response was:
“But thank you for clarifying. No advantage was given to them.”
“Transwomen are women”
Peter Gibson could have elicited some useful information by asking these witnesses the same “ban on conversion therapy” question he’d asked earlier. But no. He asked this:
“Could you each confirm for me your views on whether a trans woman is a woman and whether a trans man is a man please”
This was not a neutral question asked in the spirit of inquiry. It was a deliberate and public test of ideological purity. Would the women recite the trans mantra or would they instead reveal themselves as the evil witches they really are.
Professor Alice Sullivan made an insightful and perhaps the most poignant response of the session.
There is a distinction between sex and gender identity and we need to see them as distinct. I think the slogan “transwomen are women” has been really unhelpful. Grown up mature adults do not think in slogans.
There might be context where we want to treat transwomen as though they were women and transmen as though they were men, and other contexts where that’s not appropriate. We need a sensible discussion about those different contexts.”
Less heat more light?
There are more oral sessions to come. We do not yet know who will be invited to give evidence to the committee. Only a small fraction of the written evidence has been accepted and uploaded onto the WESC website, none of the submissions from the main gender critical women’s groups so far.
However, such was the depth of knowledge, rationality and sensitivity evident in the oral evidence supplied in the second session, we remain hopeful that some of the committee have the ability to change their opinion and may start to question their preconceptions, assumed transphobia and moral certitude regarding self declaration of sex and the GRA.
We often hear politicians, including party leaders, calling for “more heat less light” in this “toxic debate”. This is their chance to put their words into action. By opening up yet another inquiry on trans rights they have a clear responsibility to facilitate open and honest discussion of the issues.
They must not mess this one up.
Read more:
Why is GRA reform bad for women and why should you care?
What have transgender rights got to do with women?
Appendix: Transcript of questions asked
Session 1. Witnesses:
Professor Stephen Whittle OBE, Professor of Equalities Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Vice President and Head of Legal Services, Press for Change; Professor Alex Sharpe, Professor at the School of Law, University of Warwick; Dr Ruth Pearce, Research Coordinator, Trans Learning Partnership, Visiting Researcher in the School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds
Caroline Nokes (Chair) 14.30
It would be really helpful if you could explain to us briefly how the process of obtaining a GRC currently works.
Is the fee in your opinion the biggest issue or concern about the current process or is there another area that you would specifically like to highlight as being the biggest worry for trans people who were seeking that certificate ?
Peter Gibson 14.33
Could you outline to us please the process for obtaining a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and what that process involves
Almost ⅔ of the respondents to the governments survey said that the requirement for the diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed. Could you outline to us what impact that being ignored in the government’s proposals will have on the trans community?
And turning to Alex…if you could outline for us, your views on what the impact on the trans community would be, by this being ignored as a result of the consultation.
Theo Clark 14.44
To pick up on my colleagues point about the government consultation, I also note that 78.6% of respondents were in favour of removing the requirement to live in the acquired gender for a period of time before applying for a GRC, I’d like to ask the panel what the challenges and concerns are regarding this requirement.
Some of the evidence submitted to the enquiry and the government consultation also suggested specifically that the 2 year requirement was too long, so I’d be interested to know your opinion on what you think is the appropriate amount of time for someone to live in their acquired gender.
Kim Johnson 14.55.
The question is about the role of the gender recognition panel in the application process. There has been some suggestion from the evidence that we have received that it’s not transparent enough so I’d like to know what your feelings are around that, and if any changes are needed and what changes you believe should be made to that panel.
Several other countries including Denmark, Ireland and Norway have brought in a statutory gender recognition process based on self declaration, which has been recognised as a global best practice by a number of our own trade unions and prominent trans rights campaign groups, this has been recognised as far quicker and more transparent and more accessible than our current process. Can you outline the barriers, if any, that exist to prevent us adopting a similar model?
Nicola Richards 14.59
Will the government’s proposal of reducing the fee to a nominal amount and placing the process online make the process of applying for a GRC kinder and more straight forward?
Do applicants know what the fee is used for but also are there other financial burdens that could be removed or retained.
Will the opening of the 3 new gender clinics help reduce waiting times for gender identity clinics?
Do you see that waiting list coming down by any other way other than scrapping the panel and the process as it is?
Do you think the changes should have included a change in spousal consent and what changes would you have wanted to see for non binary people if any
Angela Crawley 15.13
What country should the UK look towards for best practice when considering how to protect?? the legislation relating to both gender identity and expression
Alex, in your article entitled “Will Gender self identification undermine women’s rights and lead to an increase in harm, ” you argue there is a mistaken understanding of the proper legal relationship in the GRA and the Equality Act and that harm claims lack proper evidential basis.
Peter Gibson 15.25
The government has been vocal in its support for a ban on conversion therapy for gay men and women, do each of the panellists believe that such a ban on conversion therapy should also include a ban on conversion therapy for trans people?
Caroline Nokes (Chair). 15.26
Could I take this opportunity to say thank you to all of our panellists for coming and giving evidence today. It is hugely appreciated, your answers have been incredibly helpful and the message given about the level of exhaustion, and I think it was Alex who used that word, received loud and clear. I really appreciate you contributing today and I’m sure all of the committee members do, so thank you very much and we will now move on to the second panel
Session 2: Witness:
Professor Rosa Freedman-Professor of law, conflict and global development, University of Sussex. Professor Kathleen Stock – Professor of Philosophy, University of Sussex. Professor Alice Sullivan Professor of sociology, university college, London
Sara Britcliffe 15.27
Prior to the governments response on the GRA consultation, what were some of the concerns you had about changes to the GRA legislation, especially regarding self identification and access to single sex spaces
Some of the written evidence that we received argues that some women are scared to speak out about concerns they have over single sex spaces, why do you think that is?
It’s been argued that reforms to the GRA would have no impact on Women’s spaces because section 7 of the equality act means Trans Women are legally able to access Women only spaces already, what is your view on how the GRA and equality act interact in that regard?
What is your understanding of how confident those who operate single sex spaces, like women only support services feel applying the equality act exemptions?
Written evidence to this inquiry suggests that many trans people feel the current system of gender recognition infringes on trans persons’ human rights to self declare. How can the government best support the human rights of trans people and the human rights of women?
Rosa, just coming back to you. In an article you wrote in 2018 on “What would changes to the GRA mean”, you argue self identification may conflict with the rights of other vulnerable groups particularly women and members of religious groups. Can you just expand on that please.
Angela Crawley 15.53
We have touched across quite a lot of the sensitivities around this discussion and I appreciate points that have been made by the panel about seeing , in any sense, in any way they are articulating a point that may then be construed as transphobic, obviously this debate has become quite polarised, I think it’s fair to say, a very emotional perhaps quite emotive for people, there is obviously a paradox to that, an implication that someone would obtain a gender recognition certificate, or for example self id under the proposals and that they would abuse that privilege as such or that legal recognition to act in a predatory manner or a violent manner, how would you reconcile this kind of disparity that implies essentially that perhaps someone could pick that up wrong and imply that all trans people are potentially violent or dangerous or predatory, because I think we need to take some time, rather take some of the tension out of this debate and address those concerns.
Thank you Kathleen, I think my point was more to address that dangerous narrative, that obviously implies that trans people are potentially all dangerous and potentially predatory and I think to take some of the pain out of that discussion.
Could I just ask Rosa one last question because I think you rightly identified that the GRA does need to be updated and I think you indicated earlier the disparities between language, both in the GRA, which we would also agree is outdated and the equality act exemptions and whether the language of those two provides sufficient legal protection for both trans people and for women, so I wanted to ask specifically what exactly if not a less medicalised approach, if not self id what are the consensus of womens view around what they feel would perhaps alleviate the fears and concerns but would also address some of these inequalities that are faced by trans
Kate Osborne 16.07
What is your view on the government’s response to the GRA consultation and why do you think the government decided against self identification, we’ve touched on the issues that you see with it, but if you have any insight into why you think the government decided against it .
Bearing in mind your responses there, in written evidence, some trans people have said that they felt that the government equalities office were more prepared to listen to the views of women’s groups during the consultation. Can I ask you for your response to that, would you agree, or not and why?
What else if anything should the government have included in its proposals
In the written evidence, received by this committee, many people have argued that a nearly 2 year gap between the government opening the consultation and responding to the consultation has resulted in misinformation and harm. Would you agree with that and if so could you tell me why?
What steps do you think the government should have taken to mitigate the harm that’s clearly been caused as a result of opening this consultation?
Thankyou, I mean what I would say is there certainly by harm there seems to be harm between trans groups and women’s groups, so certainly within that context if I can put that question to Rosa
Bell Rebeiro-Addy 16.21
In light of the governments response to the consultation on the GRA, what do you think the solution is to making the GRA work better for Trans people whilst addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by women and about single sex spaces and do you know any examples of gender recognition legislation in other countries perhaps that are widely supported by trans people whilst also mitigating those concerns
The next question is to Kathleen. In your article can you change your gender, in relation to the word gender you stated that over history the word has come to be used in relatively many senses, each referring to different things. This is part of the reason arguments are often so toxic, could you expand on what you meant by this
Do you think there needs to be a legal definition for gender in our legislation. Last year the ONS and the UK government defined gender in a particular way, you may be aware of it, but do you think there needs to be a legal definition for gender and if so why?
Nicola Richards 16.30
So I just wanted to go back to something you said Rosa about predatory males and how the same stats carry over from males to transwomen in terms of statistics of abuse on women, do you have any statistics to give us to prove that ?
Just cos a couple of times you’ve mentioned this, about how there’s hard facts that prove that this is the case, it’s just that so far throughout the whole session you haven’t given us any stats to prove that
Would you accept however to make the assumption that you know these are predatory males and predatory transwomen, that that has a quite damaging effect without robust data as you’ve pointed to without the stats
No it’s just this is a select committee, it would have been helpful to have those statistics but we’ll look out for those.
Peter Gibson 16.34
Could I just return to Alice in respect of part of her earlier evidence in regards to the consultations that Liz Truss the equalities minister took into account in advance of the announcement, the implication from your comment was that women’s groups were disadvantaged or ignored outright as opposed to the trans lobby, for want of a better expression. Is it your view that the trans lobby was advantaged in Liz Truss’s announcements as a result of that.
So no advantage was given to them despite your protest that they were listened to a number of times more than others.
Thank you for clarifying. So no advantage was given to them
Could you each confirm for me your views on whether a trans woman is a woman and whether a trans man is a man please.
Sarah Britcliffe 16.40
Alice we’ve spoken about the data quite a lot and you argued that the data provided should be encouraged to collect data on respondents sex as distinct from gender identity, is it possible for that to be done in a way that doesn’t undermine both the GRA and the those that have obtained a gender recognition certificate.
You can help to defend female rights by making a donation. Fair Play For Women receives no formal or government funding to support the vital work we do. We rely completely on donations made by our supporters.
DONATE NOW