Submission to Women and Equalities Committee on Reform of the Gender Recognition Act

Written evidence submitted by Women’s Human Right Campaign (GRA1393)
Submission to Women and Equalities Committee on Reform of
the Gender Recognition Act

From: Women’s Human Rights Campaign (WHRC) UK
27 November 2020

Who we are:

The Women’s Human Rights Campaign is an international organisation based
in the UK. It was set up in early 2019 to promote the Declaration on Women’s
Sex-Based Rights which argues that
women’s hard-won human rights are undermined or overturned by the
admission of men who consider that they have a female gender identity to the
category of women. These rights that are abrogated by the admission of men
include the right to women only sports and the right to single sex spaces such as
women’s refuges and women’s prisons. The WHRC has been signed by 12,704
individuals in 124 countries, and by 281 Organisations.

Introduction

The Declaration argues that including men with a female gender identity in the
category women threatens women’s human rights. Women’s human rights in
the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW), 1979 are based on sex. Discrimination against women is
defined in Article 1 of CEDAW as any ‘distinction, exclusion or restriction
made on the basis of sex’. The UN understands sex to be ‘the physical and
biological characteristics that distinguish males and females’ (Gender Equality
Glossary, UN Women).

Gender is defined by UN agencies as sex stereotypes, i.e. ‘the roles, behaviors,
activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time considers
appropriate for men and women… These attributes, opportunities and
relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization
processes’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women). The Convention calls for
the ‘elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are
based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on
stereotyped roles for men and women’ (Article 5). We consider that the practice
of transgenderism clearly falls under this article because it is based on
stereotyped roles for men and women.

In recent decades a confusion has been created as to the meaning of sex and
gender. The adoption of sex stereotypes by a person of the sex to which they are
Written evidence submitted by Women’s Human Right Campaign (GRA1393)
not usually attributed has, under the influence of campaigners for ‘transgender
rights’, come to be seen as an innate condition which entitles a person to be
counted as a member of the opposite sex. This has resulted in the introduction
into law of the category ‘gender’ in a way which is profoundly troubling for
women’s equality.

Men who claim a female ’gender identity’ are being enabled to access
opportunities, services, spaces and protections set aside for women. This
constitutes a form of discrimination against women, and endangers women’s
fundamental rights to safety, dignity and equality.
This has been a particular problem for lesbians because, as the Declaration
states, ‘The concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to challenge individuals’ rights
to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex rather than ‘gender
identity’, enabling men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to seek to be
included in the category of lesbian, which is a category based upon sex’. This
undermines the sex-based rights of lesbians, and is a form of discrimination
against women.

Executive summary

The WHRC submission focusses on the way in which any legislation which
enables men with female gender identities to enter the category of women
threatens women’s human rights. It argues that the introduction of the concept
of ‘gender identity’ to legislation in any way is in violation of the UK’s
obligations as a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Violence Against Women (CEDAW) on two grounds:

1 ‘Gender identity’ consists of sex stereotypes and CEDAW commits state
parties to the elimination of sex stereotypes rather than their incorporation into
the law.

2 The introduction of men into the category of women through gender
recognition certificates or in any other way threatens women’s human rights to
dignity, safety and opportunities such as sex segregated sports, facilities and
spaces.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004

The WHRC argues that the GRA should be repealed because:

  • It does not define gender.
  • This creates great confusion and leads to the
    idea that men and women can change sex, especially because a gender
    recognition certificate, perhaps more accurately described as a ‘sex
    stereotype certificate’, enables a person to change their sex markers on
    official documents.
  • It creates confusion for other important legislation such as the Equality
    Act 2010 (EA) which, though it is based on sex and not gender, still
    contains the statement that changing ‘gender’ amounts to changing ‘sex’.
  • The EA includes the category of ‘gender reassignment’ but, confusingly,
    it suggests in its definition of ‘gender reassignment’ the idea that it is
    possible for a person to ‘reassign’ their biological sex ‘A person has the
    protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing
    to undergo …. a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of
    reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes
    of sex’ (Equality Act 2010, 7 (1)).
  • It gives protection in law to ‘gender’, which, according to the UN consists
    of socially constructed roles which derive from the subordination of
    women and consist of harmful sex stereotypes. The Convention on the
    Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
    calls upon state governments to work towards eliminating sex stereotypes
    as a prerequisite for women achieving equality.

The Government’s response to the GRA consultation:

Since the position of the WHRC is that the GRA is fatally flawed by giving
protection in law to sex stereotypes, it is hard to answer the questions in this
section. When the GRA was passed it was treated as if it was of no importance
to anyone except a small group of persons who would apply for certificates. In
fact, because it allows men to gain certificates saying that they are of the female
sex, it had, and continues to have, immense implications for women’s human
rights. This was not considered at the time. There was no impact statement as to
how it would affect women, and women’s organisations were not asked for
input. It enables members of a group of persons, men, adult human males,
which does not constitute a category of persons requiring specific protections to
represent themselves as members of a group of persons, women, adult human
females which does require specific protection from men.

We argue that the process of receiving a sex stereotype certificate should not be
made easier, rather the possibility for men to enter the category of women in
this way should not be possible.

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

We do not accept that the problem of ‘gender dysphoria’ should be treated by
encouraging men to believe that they can change gender/sex. Whilst legislation
that enables this to happen exists, however, we consider that the requirement for
the diagnosis should remain because it limits the numbers of persons who can
qualify.

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

This should be retained as a minimum. Many men who cross-dress do so only
occasionally and there is then a continuum of their involvement in the practice
up to those who decide to do so fulltime. Some of the latter then decide to go
back to part-time or change their minds about the whole enterprise. Removing
or reducing this requirement is likely to encourage more dilettantes to apply for
certificates.

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

Presently the statutory declaration states that ‘the trans person’ should state
‘their intention to live in their acquired gender until death’. Gender consists of
sex-stereotyped clothing and appearance and can, of course, be changed at any
time. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to go on adhering to sex stereotypes
for a lifetime. However, whilst the legislation is on the statute book it seems
reasonable to retain this requirement to deter prospective applicants.

There is considerable evidence that transition can be temporary and both men
and women are increasingly seeking to detransition (Caspian, 2019; Marchiano,
2020). Particularly this is the case in relation to women. There are now
numerous support groups internationally for women who regret transitioning
and return to seeing themselves as women and, usually, lesbians.

The harms of transition to health and social functioning, to career and family connections and
friendships can be considerable and there should be adequate social and medical
support for people who have been encouraged to transition by the existence of legal approval.

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?

The spousal consent provision exists in the legislation as a way to protect women. It is entirely reasonable that women should have the power to prevent
their male or female partners from legally changing their sex markers while they are still in relationships with them. Otherwise the wives and female partners could find themselves apparently in same or opposite sex relationships that they
had never consented to.

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

The WHRC considers that the age limit should not be lowered.

The women who are detransitioning generally began their process of transitioning as teenagers.
The changes they have undergone are devastating to their physical health as
well as their social networks and careers. There is a good deal of evidence that
brains do not mature until the early twenties and this supports raising the age
rather than lowering it.

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

The introduction of ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ into legislation affects all women and children and the impact on all women and children should be
considered. The WHRC considers it to be a mistake to approach the issue of ‘gender identity’ as if it just refers to a small handful of people who are suffering from a problem with this. An impact assessment of how any proposals will affect women and children should be conducted.

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

No, it does not. The Scottish Government’s proposed Bill removes the requirements that exist in the 2004 Act to assess the seriousness of the applicant and introduces self-identification. The practice of self-identification creates serious challenges to women’s human rights by increasing the numbers of men who may seek to enter women’s spaces such as refuges, prisons and other services, and acquire opportunities assigned to women to, for instance, increase
political representation. These threats to women’s rights already exist with the present conditions of the GRA but would be substantially increased with a move to self-identification. Also, the Scottish Bill allows for children below the age of 18 to apply for a certificate whereas the WHRC argues here that the age should be raised rather than lowered.

Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:

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

The number of persons in the UK identifying as trans is estimated by the UK
government at 200,000 to 500,000 (Government Equalities Office, 2018). The
number of those who had in 2018 been issued with a certificate, however, was
low at 4,910. Transgenderism is a social and historical construction not a
biological one, and will increase or decrease as a result of social forces. The
idea that a person can be ‘transgender’ is now much more accepted and a
certificate is not necessary for such persons to acquire social tolerance and
access to desired spaces and services. In this way the GRA may be becoming an
irrelevance.

The forces that construct transgenderism include:

  • The development of a body of theory called queer theory which has
    established in the academy the notion that sex is mutable and promoted
    the idea that transgenderism is transgressive and progressive.
  • The development of the pornography industry of which one tenth consists
    of transgender pornography for men (Jeffreys, 2016). As Genevieve
    Gluck points out, ‘In recent years, the transgender pornography category
    has soared in popularity. According to Pornhub’s metadata, both “trans”
    and “transgender” porn searches have more than quadrupled in the three
    years between 2014 to 2017 and, by 2018, trans was ranked the fifth
    highest search term of the year’ (Gluck, 2020).
  • A recently developed and rapidly proliferating category of pornography
    called sissy hypno hypnotises men to feel as if they are women for the
    purpose of sexual excitement. There is considerable evidence from selfreporting by the consumers that this hypnosis can make them feel as if
    they are transgender. Gluck found that, ‘there are countless threads posted
    to reddit questioning if gender dysphoria is brought on by exposure to
    pornography and the development of a sissy fetish’ (Gluck, 2020).
    Andrea Long Chu also talks about this in his book, Females (2020).
  • The normalisation of men’s cross-dressing by medical professionals who
    until the last few decades understood this practice to constitute the sexual
    paraphilia of transvestism, has popularised and encouraged the practice.
  • Legal recognition, increasing recognition by many arms of the state and
    organisations, and much positive coverage in the media has also
    encouraged the practice.

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.

Transgenderism is a work in progress. The language that is being developed to
apply to the practice in which mostly men adopt the sex stereotypes usually
associated with women is in flux and will constantly change because, unlike the
terms man and woman, it has no material basis. The practice is the result of ideas in people’s heads that change according to different social and historical forces and the influence of different groups of transactivist campaigners. This is exacerbated by the fact that ‘gender’ is never defined in legislation. The UN
definition above which sees gender as consisting of sex stereotypes would not
fit well with the GRA 2004 or the Equality Act 2010 because it would make both look foolish.

Gender needs to be defined in legislation in such as way that
it cannot be confused with sex but this would clash with the ability to legally change ‘sex’ by means of a ‘gender’ recognition certificate.

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?

The Equality Act is unclear because it contains the unclear category ‘gender reassignment’ which the GRA determinedly confuses with change of ‘sex’. One result is that it has been misinterpreted to mean that men should be able to access single sex services. Presently a legal challenge is underway by the Authentic Equality Alliance which is seeking a Judicial Review of guidance by
the EHRC which states: ‘Where someone has a gender recognition certificate
they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services.’ This is not in accordance with
the Equality Act and has led to most women’s services being made mixed sex with the loss of protections for women and women’s human rights. This
urgently needs to be addressed so that women’s protections can be reinstated.

Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and
non-binary people?

If so, how?

The concepts ‘gender-fluid’ or ‘non-binary’ have been produced by popular culture and may not exist in the future. People who consider themselves members of these categories are not a special sort of person but simply those
who refuse to adhere to the sex stereotypes usually associated with their sex.

Very many persons refuse these stereotypes who do not adopt these particular labels. Many are feminists and lesbians. There should be no discrimination against any persons for refusing to adopt the sex stereotypes associated with their sex and this would obviate any need to include such categories in
legislation. What is needed is legislation to outlaw the imposition of sex stereotyped clothing or behaviour on any persons in the workplace or schools, for instance, because this is a form of discrimination.

Recommendations

  • The Gender Recognition Act 2004 should be repealed.
  • It should not be made easier for people to gain gender recognition
    certificates.
  • Gender should be defined in all the instances where it occurs in legislation to make it clear that it does not in any instance refer to ‘sex’.
  • There should be an inquiry into the ways in which the Equality Act 2010
    can be made clearer as to the protection of women’s rights to single sex
    spaces, services and opportunities.
  • There should be an inquiry into the ways that women’s agencies and services have been forced to admit men in order to access funding or in response to incorrect guidance so that protection can once more be
    afforded to women.

References

Caspian, James, (2019, 23 October). Why Detransitioners Frighten Trans
Activists. Spiked. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/23/whydetransitioners-frighten-trans-activists/

Gluck, Genevieve (2020, forthcoming 28 November). Pornography’s Influence
on Transgenderism: The Proliferation of Sissy Hypno on Social Media.
Feminist Current.

Government Equalities Office (2018). Trans People in the UK. Assets
Publishing Service.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att
achment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

Jeffreys, Sheila (2016). Transgender Pornography: the Bimbofication of
women. In Brunskell-Evans, H. (Eds.) The Sexualized Body and the Medical Authority of Pornography (1st ed., pp. 155-174). Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.

Marchiano, Lisa (2020, 2 January). The Ranks of Gender Detransitioners is
Growing. We Need to Understand Why. Quillette.
https://quillette.com/2020/01/02/the-ranks-of-gender-detransitioners-aregrowing-we-need-to-understand-why/

Submission to the Report on Gender, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Gender is a harmful social construct, which is called in CEDAW, ‘stereotyped
roles’. Indeed, Article 5 of CEDAW says that ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate
measures’, ‘To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with
a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or
on stereotyped roles for men and women.’ Sex stereotypes are not something to be
celebrated but to be abolished in order to create women’s equality.

Submission to Women and Equalities Committee on Reform of the Gender Recognition Act

The WHRC submission focusses on the way in which any legislation which
enables men with female gender identities to enter the category of women
threatens women’s human rights. It argues that the introduction of the concept
of ‘gender identity’ to legislation in any way is in violation of the UK’s
obligations as a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Violence Against Women (CEDAW)

Open letter: Stop the harassment of women in academia

University of Melbourne must oppose all forms of targeted harassment against staff members engaged in the protection of women’s sex-based rights! To: Prof Duncan Maskell (Vice Chancellor) and Prof Russell Goulborne (Dean of Arts)   We are