Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

BYOU Wigan Borough’s LGBTQ+ Youth Voice Group

BYOU

We are an LGBTQ+ youth voice/engagement group based in Wigan Borough supporting young people 13-19. We are supported by the Local Authority. We meet to campaign, support and engage the LGBTQ+ Youth community offering a safe and confidential space. We link with local, regional and national partners.

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

BYOU feel any proposed changes don’t support the term ‘kinder and more straightforward’ this is because they don’t make a difference and nothing has changed.

Young people have suggested that the process isn’t straight forward and makes it hard for those who wish to pursue this.

It’s acknowledged by young people in BYOU that the government is making attempts to change this for the better however at present we are unsure on what’s actually changed to make this process “kinder and more straightforward” given that the fundamental elements of the process remain the same: the recognition panel, the requirements for extensive evidence, etc.

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?

Young people acknowledged that charges are applied for other documents of ID and for changes to be made, however in this case the charge is extortionate and does not consider other fees incurred by applicants. Thus outpricing for many who may wish to apply for this.

BYOU understand a levy may be needed and urge the government to consider waving fees for evidence or letters provided as essential documents for this application. Equally any cost for the GRC should be in line with other documentation i.e a new/replacement birth certificate to keep it fair and equitable. i.e £11 as stated on gov.uk

Should the requirement for a diagnosis of be removed?

BYOU support The Proud Trusts comments on this matter as outlined in their submission which read:

“...In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended that the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be demedicalised. It found that “The medicalised approach regarding mental-health diagnosis pathologises trans identities; as Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

such, it runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants.”1. As an alternative, it proposed a system of self-declaration, as exists in other jurisdictions such as the Republic of Ireland. It is disappointing that the government has failed to act on this recommendation.”

BYOU felt enabling this took LGBTQ+ rights back 50 years where it was deemed a Mental Health issue to be gay in the same right that a required assessment and diagnosis for this is required. It reinforces and enables services to treat those who identify as trans differently under a flag of Mental Health, a service which fails to identify and support those most at need in a timely fashion.

Further reinforced by The Proud Trust:

“A Gender Dysphoria diagnosis requirement is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the NHS is failing in its provision for trans healthcare, creating a major roadblock for trans people wanting to obtain legal recognition of their gender. The current average waiting time for a first appointment at a Clinic is an astonishing 33-36 months. In the 2016 inquiry it was found that the NHS treats trans people as second-class citizens, failing to meet its requirements under the Equality Act.

Under the current system, trans people wishing to obtain a GRC must undergo a long, burdensome, and demeaning process of medical assessment. It is unacceptable that trans people should be required to traverse such difficulties in order to gain legal recognition of their gender.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, the medical requirement in the GRA pathologises trans identities. By not stipulating that a trans person undergo surgical intervention, the GRA was progressive for its time. However, by requiring a diagnosis of ‘Gender Dysphoria’, it places judgments about a person’s identity in the hands of medical professionals. Doctors are, in effect, given the role of deciding whether a trans person really is who they say they are. Being trans is not an illness, but a matter of personal identity. While trans people often seek medical care, doing so should not be a prerequisite for having their identity recognised. This is accepted as true in almost every other instance. No medical diagnosis is required to change your name or your passport, or to have your identity recognised at work or in any other aspect of public life. To require a medical diagnosis is to deny many trans people the recognition, legally, that they already have in every other area of their life, unless they undergo a lengthy, intrusive, and pathologising process.” Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

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

Young people think living as your preferred gender for two years at least could provide challenges for those who are inhibited by external circumstances such as family/waiting lists/support pathways etc all which can cause significant harm.

A requirement of time directly opposes the equality act which states a person Is protected when:

Gender reassignment

“(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

There is no time frames of lived changes proposed or acknowledged as part of the act and therefore the proposal of 2 years goes some way to discriminating and moving “the goal posts”

The term acquired gender is something that young people in group found triggering as though they had “picked” this up along their life course. The group felt their assigned birth gender took more precedence than their identifying gender. This is unfair and terminology such as this can seem demeaning and not in keeping with that used by trans people.

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

The current declaration has a number of flaws. We have alluded to some in other aspects of this document. One that is of particular concern is the exclusion of non-binary people. Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

If these issues were addressed there would be nothing wrong with using a declaration as part of the process of application for legal gender recognition.

It is important that any future committee consult and involve LGBTQ+ groups/service providers to develop any literature and documentation which use the correct terminology and definitions. This should again be considered when developing future equality monitoring where the consideration for the inclusions of other gender identities and sexual orientations can be had. This again should be done without a prerequisite of evidence.

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?

In short, young people feel that to continue the requirement of spousal consent removes the power of individual choice, creating a pathway to potential abuse of power. This is a fundamental breach in the human rights of the individual in particular article 10. Freedom of Expression. Where in other aspects of life is this considered acceptable and a necessary measure?

It goes someway to creating and reinforcing a power imbalance in relationships. Gaining consent of another implies this is a choice, mutual decision-making process. It is not.

Young people don't understand why you need your partners consent to be able change who YOU really are.

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

The group proposed the reduction in age to 16. Young people acknowledged the challenges this may pose in regard to the Children’s Act etc. however a blanket age of consent should be considered to ensure the rights of all, bringing into consideration the UNHRCC.

The clear lack of consistency for young people is confusing enough without the additional constraints of age for voting, getting married, joining the army and having a child/family. However, changing documentation details and this being controlled by a parent/guardian preventing someone from living the life they choose.

It would be essential for the government to produce evidence on why this must remain at 18 and not change to 16 should a change not be considered.

Young people are less likely to have multiple forms of identification and may need to use their birth certificate to identify themselves, often leading to them being “outed” as trans inappropriately. Young people feel their lived experience of going to college or university and having to relive their “story” has a direct negative impact on their general mental health and wellbeing and could be remedied by the effective use of a GRC. Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

There have been inquiries and an evidence base that state young people who access relevant intervention i.e GIDS have better outcomes for their mental health and wellbeing significantly impacting on their puberty earlier is in young people’s experience better than waiting.

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

The proposals do not go far enough to have any desirable impact. This does not go far enough to engage and enable the communities to offer their support, given it could be said that the changes are inadequate and are more system based rather than being focused on people.

The proposed changes do not promote equality given the clear dismissal of gender fluidity and associated identities. Thus disabling the applicant to have any control over their individual process, this is disempowering thus impacting on the number of applicants. The minimal changes proposed will have no impact on increasing applications.

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

The government should reflect on the initial enquiry that was produced in 2016. This inquiry identified a number of changes and considerations.

Young people may be left feeling inadequate, second class citizens, under supported and unrecognised unless through a medical pathway. This is something that must change.

Recognise other gender identities, create visibility and address social inequalities within your proposal.

The panel of “experts” should be removed from the whole process. A panel where people make judgments as though in a courtroom, sometimes sentenced as “not trans enough”. Resulting in a person feeling imprisoned in an identity they do not identify with.

One young person stated:

“I feel like I'm testing my worth doing anything involving me being trans. Why do I have to prove anything to anybody? saying it should be enough.”

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

BYOU wish to express their support in the Proud Trust’s submission comments:

“The Scottish Government’s proposals tackle one of the major problems with the current act: demedicalising the process and making it easier for trans people to correct the gender on their birth certificate would be a huge step forward for trans equality. Not having the correct documents subjects trans people to additional burdens that they would not otherwise face, and opens the door for discrimination. By removing obstacles such as requiring a medical diagnosis, the Scottish bill would reduce the burden placed on trans people, providing them a much simpler and less intrusive way of correcting their documents. Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

It is, however, disappointing that the Scottish Government’s proposal does not intend to provide legal recognition to non-binary people.”

Wider issues concerning equality and current legislation:

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

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?

BYOU believes there should be clear education and awareness raised about the importance and success of gender-neutral spaces including in school and how this has worked to target inequalities.

BYOU urge the government to follow up on this and conduct a thorough research piece to myth bust and establish the issues at the core of this particular question. BYOU request this is carried out in several settings including those used by the LGBTQ+ community.

Young people express a simplicity in the movement to make settings accessible, enabling free use of facilities relevant to their needs. This would empower individuals and challenge the status quo of societal norms and the irrational fear or inherent social transphobia.

There is a shared concern over how the Equality Act is taught and represented in education settings and how this contributes or challenges hate and discrimination.

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

Trans* is an overarching and inclusive term, at present Gender fluidity/Neutrality is not covered or protected within this act and it is essential that those who self-identify and express a wish to be visible are given the mechanisms to do so. Given the GRA is now 16 years old and the Equality Act is 10 years old it would be prudent of the government to review these on a regular interval bases to update accordingly, recognising the ever changing societal norms.

What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services? Written evidence submitted by Karen Campbell and Scott Williams [GRA1019]

It is the experience of some BYOU members that support services can be overwhelmed by trans people/issues this can lead to a display of transphobic behaviours/language. At times through a lack of understanding/training. This is reinforced by the need for a dysphoria diagnosis as part of the GRC process. Trans is not a mental health issue, there are however social issues, comorbidities such as dysphoria that need addressing, these should be seen as separate issues and not that all trans people must be dysphoric throughout their whole life. Its not fair and not true. We experience difficulty and challenge in different ways and a person-centred approach should be taken.

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

Given that the current legal landscape does not recognise the existence of nonbinary and genderfluid people in any way, we would argue that reforms are needed urgently to allow nonbinary people to have legal recognition as such. There is no provision in the Gender Recognition Act for non-binary recognition; it simply allows a change of female to male or vice versa. The UK currently does not have gender-neutral markers on passports (such as ‘X’ markers) as several other countries have done, notably Germany and Canada.

There is a larger question surrounding the data held on identifying documents and if it is genuinely necessary to include a person’s gender as part of this. However, to better support the rights of non-binary and genderfluid people, we would suggest at minimum the following: non-binary recognition enshrined in the law and the Gender Recognition Act be updated or replaced to reflect this; an update to the UK passport system to allow people to define as nonbinary (such as the aforementioned ‘X’ gender marker); wide-ranging updates to healthcare protocols both in trans-specific healthcare and wider primary or GP care; and demedicalising the process of gender recognition for all trans and nonbinary people.

November 2020.