Women and Equalities Committee - special post

The Women and Equalities Committee of the UK parliament are holding hearings into the reform of the Gender Recognition Act. This was another tiring element of an exhausting year, in which the government ignored the results of their own enquiry into simplifying the pathway for people like me to secure legal recognition of our gender - which is currently a dehumanising and expensive process.

The evidence they have published seems to have stopped, and it's difficult to see what the criteria upon which they accepted and published was. My evidence, which took me a lot of time and emotional energy (which I can ill afford at the moment) has not been published; whereas 'evidence' which makes statements about 'sex based rights' - which is a concept unknown to law and in context meaningless.

One submission tells the harrowing story of a woman assaulted by a cisgender man. Male on female violence is abhorrent, but has no bearing on transgender women - she does not allege that a trans person was responsible, but her conclusion that Trans Women should be punished for the sins of transgender men has apparently been accepted

This was the opening salvo - why is this being accepted in place of carefully though through submissions which talk to the substance of the enquiry?

I have been the victim of misogyny on a number of occasions, I am a biological woman and have been punched in the face by a man in an unprovoked attack, breaking my nose, because of his hatred for women yet although the police caught him and tried to prosecute him the CPS refused as they said “it wasn’t in the public interest”; misogyny is so rampant that London CPS see a man breaking the nose of a woman as not of interest. Although I was treated at the royal free I still suffer than breathing problems years later because I still have a deviated septum. The CPS didn’t bother to inform me they decided to drop charges, I discovered it from the police.

As the committee seem not to be interested in what I have to say, I'll publish it here. I don't want to have wasted my time and energy needlessly.

My name is Emily Hamilton, I am a transgender woman who commenced transition in 2019, following 35 years of being ‘closeted’ – I now work for equality across all sectors of society, and have a special interest in the mental health of the transgender community.

I have submitted this evidence to give my experience and opinion on the current position for Transgender people in the UK, recognising that the last year has been torrid for the community, in part due to external factors – the Covid 19 pandemic, but also the bungled response to the GRA Reform enquiry and the increasingly hostile governmental and media environment for the transgender community

Question 1: Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”?

In reading the proposals, the first point I would make is that they are somewhat opaque and fail to adequately address the results of the public consultation. If the goal is ‘kindness’ then the reduction in the filing fee falls very far short; the costs to acquire a GRC stem largely from the collation of ‘evidence’ which is required as a result of using the courts and tribunals service to determine someone’s identity in a way which excludes the individual from appearing in person. In fact, that this is the only category of society that finds itself in this position is inherently dehumanising – who else requires paperwork from an anonymous panel to be able to live their lives authentically?

The move to an online filing service is frankly something which should be in 2020 a matter of course, and not as a result of a public consultation.

If the government were to actually act to make the process kinder and straightforward, it would abandon the nonsense of anonymous panels making judgements based on the applicant’s ability to produce reams of paperwork from multiple years and move to a basis of statutory declaration, as many other countries have done successfully without issue.

Question 2: Should a fee for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate be removed or retained? Are there other financial burdens on applicants that could be removed or retained?

The addition of a fee of this size suggests that Trans People are being asked to fund a service that is inefficient and not fit for purpose. It would be appropriate, perhaps to charge an administrative fee similar to that paid for birth registration upon the production of a duly sworn statutory declaration. Trans people did not ask for the courts and tribunals service to create the bureaucracy of the GRC process, and should not be invited to pay for it either.

Question 3: Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?

The World Health Organisation removed the pathologisation of Trans Identities in 2019, and as members of that organisation we have got until 2022 to address our own systems and processes to recognise this clearly articulated fact. To demand that trans people either wait for obscene amounts of time on the NHS to receive such a diagnosis, or have to pay large sums for private diagnosis is simply not worthy of a modern society like ours. As a Trans person, I am not a ‘diagnosis’ – I am a human being, who happens to be a woman and transgender, I do not need a clinician to tell me who I am, but I do need clinicians to support me with the medical interventions that being born as a transgender person require. This is the same need that any citizen of the United Kingdom should expect, yet Transgender people are forced into a pathway of proving their identities before life saving care is offered. Despite my reaching the brink of taking my own life I am on a pathway with (at time of writing) a 174 week waiting list, for FIRST appointment, which will not see me getting my diagnosis until nearly 280 weeks after referral. Only then will I get anywhere near the clinical support I have asked for. The diagnosis requirement needs removal, funds for counselling for people who are questioning their gender need to be made available and primary care clinicians need to service the needs of their Trans patients in the same way they do for their cisgender ones.

Question 4: Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?

I can understand why this requirement was originally made, however, the lack of supportive care for transgender people in the UK (with NHS support currently standing at 4 years for referral) means the putting on hold of lives for many many years simply to satisfy an arbitrary and outdated requirement. Transitioning is a difficult and emotional process without the addition of further restrictions – the lack of access to cross sex hormones, which make the process of safely transitioning is for many an insurmountable hurdle, and the toxic environment, caused in part by the government mishandling of this process and the ignoring of the results of the public enquiry mean that the safe ability of trans people to live their lives publicly without discrimination or fear of attack is compromised. The requirement therefore requires deletion – a statutory declaration with all the seriousness it entails should be enough

Question 5: What is your view of the statutory declaration and should any changes have been made to it?

I believe that the statutory declaration is the right instrument for declaring a change of gender from that assigned at birth, it is an accessible method, and carries the weight of the law behind it. The challenge that it is open to abuse is absurd – the largely anti trans-woman narrative that cisgender men will use this method to gain access to women for nefarious purposes holds up to no logical scrutiny, and is not borne out by the experience of those in countries like the Republic of Ireland

`I support the use of the full weight of the law against people who may seek to subvert the use of the statutory declaration to preserve the seriousness of the step taken in making one.

Question 6: Does the spousal consent provision in the Act need reforming? If so, how? If it needs reforming or removal, is anything else needed to protect any rights of the spouse or civil partner?

It is difficult to think of another aspect of personal autonomy and identity which may be governed by another except for those who are minors or who have been adjudged as incapable of making decisions for themselves. The acquisition of a GRC should be no different.

However; the rights of a spouse in the event of a partner transitioning do require protection. In this case I believe that the laws surrounding divorce are sufficient to cover these rights. However, a transgender person should not be prevented from personal autonomy under the veto of another.

Question 7: Should the age limit at which people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be lowered?

If a young person is capable of making determinations about their healthcare ‘gillick competence’ then the same should apply for the legal recognition of decisions made in consequence of accessing that healthcare. In short the rights of identification should not be reserved solely for the over 18s. Doing so means that young people are left open to abuse and social ostracism without recourse to relief.

Question 8: What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?

Very little in real terms, the burden and cost of evidence remains discriminatory, dehumanising and burdensome; the process lacks transparency and all too many times is rejected in an arbitrary manner. Nothing in these proposals addresses these issues

Question 9: What else should the Government have included in its proposals, if anything?

The wholesale removal of the intervention of a panel for determining GRC provision and instead moving to a statutory declaration basis and the issuance of GRC/Birth Certificate as a matter of administration.

Question 10: Does the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill offer a more suitable alternative to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004?

It is certainly a better and more humane approach to supporting people going through gender transition. The reduction to (in effect) 6 months of ‘living in gender’ is significantly less onerous (given the inordinate delays to securing clinical assistance in transition) and the reliance on statutory declaration as means of legally changing gender on official documents works better – for all the reasons I have already explained.

The lack of support for non-binary people is a notable absence, however, and should be considered.

Question 11: Why is the number of people applying for GRCs so low compared to the number of people identifying as transgender?

There is a simple answer to this question. It is expensive and dehumanising and many people do not have the resources or mental energy to put themselves through the process.

Question 12: Are there challenges in the way the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact? For example, in terms of the different language and terminology used across both pieces of legislation.

The two pieces of legislation are in theory complementary – however, the poorly actioned elements of the GRA and the onerous process of achieving a GRC buts up against the EA 2010 in terms of the confusion as to what a GRC should be used for. Too often rights of trans people are predicated on the ownership of a GRC and adjusted birth certificate where this is specifically unrequired by the text of the EA. The answer is to enforce the EA properly, not to fiddle at the edges of it to satisfy anti trans lobby groups and further marginalise and exlude transgender people.

Question 13: Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?

There needs to be a simple clarification – in my view. Trans women are women, and trans men are men. There has been a toxic environment over the last year, in part fuelled by government and members of the houses of parliament, but also by a media – apparently receiving briefings on proposed changes to the Equality Act which were not consulted on.

The very limited circumstances where sex at birth become relevant need to be classified, with a sense of humanity. As an example; hospital wards and rape crisis facilities – in both instances, the transgender person is accessing support at a time of crisis, to suggest that cisgender people will masquerade as the opposite gender to gain access to these services is simply absurd, and has no basis in fact. Similarly, the expectation that trans people be excluded from public life by prohibiting their use of public toilets, changing facilities in retail premises and sports facilities is based on fearmongering and bigotry; government ministers have raised the spectre of such facilities being closed off to trans people without the basis of any quantified risk or evidence of harm. On the contrary, the harm is all on trans people, and disproportionately transgender women who report higher incidences of urinary tract infections from the fear of using public toilets. I have personally found myself embarrassed when in public from a fear of being challenged aggressively using public conveniences and have watched with shock as members of the house of lords have lobbied major retailers to try and prevent me from doing something as simple as trying on clothing before I purchase it. The goal of excluding me and other trans people from public life is not consistent with a developed country with a commitment to universal human rights, and falsely pitting trans rights against women’s rights diminishes both.

Question 14: Does the Equality Act adequately protect trans people? If not, what reforms, if any, are needed?

If properly applied, the EA 2010 provides significant protection to transgender people and rightly does not insist on surgical intervention or medical transition to have commenced; in a situation where such support is so woefully provided this would be a grievous injustice. The issue comes from the constant sniping at the protections from those in the legislative body and the media, confusing the issue and making my life less safe. The poorly coded messages from the minister for women and equalities recently in which she used the expressions ‘trans people and women’ (some women are trans) as if they are competing groups and the emphasis on ‘single sex’ facilities as a means of excluding trans people is troubling and causes me and others in the trans community significant anxiety.

Question 15: What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services?

I can only speak from my experience of attempting to access gender transition through the NHS – the provision is woefully poorly set up. It is still operating on an ‘interim pathway’ from 2013 – which is unacceptable, wait time for me is currently 174 weeks against an NHS constitution promise of 18 weeks. This is opening me to costs to try and self fund my care (whilst my tax and NI does not seem to be discounted commensurately) and leaves me unable to secure surgical interventions for approximately 7-8 years from point of asking for help from my GP. What other health need in society would this be considered as appropriate?

Question 16: Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and non-binary people? If so, how?

I am not non – binary, but as much as my human rights to identify myself appropriately, this is a right which should not be denied to this part of our society. If we believe in universal human rights, it seems impossible to suggest why rights to this community should be denied