Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

Women and Equalities Committee – Reform of the Recognition Act inquiry Introduction

The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom”. We are a nondenominational Christian charity supported by over 50,000 individuals and churches throughout the UK. We hold to the mainstream Christian belief that people are made male or female in God’s image.

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

The Committee’s Call for Evidence wrongly implies that making the gender recognition process more “straight forward” is to make it “kinder”.

A kinder process would be far more cautious about the claims of applicants. A growing number of vulnerable young people are identifying as . They may sincerely believe that they are the opposite , but that belief is unlikely to last. These individuals need careful and cautious assessment. It would be a huge mistake for the law to validate their belief. It is not kind to lead young people towards a decision they could regret for the rest of their lives.

There are many who once identified as transgender but now look at a more “straight forward” process as being less kind and more damaging. Scottish detransitioner Sinead Watson, for example, describes a self-declaration system as “dangerous”.1

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

Removing the current requirements from the Gender Recognition Act 2004 would have serious consequences. These safeguards should be retained or strengthened.

Jeopardising the safety of vulnerable young people

The rapid rise in young people identifying as transgender is well known. The 3,000% increase in gender dysphoria referrals to the Clinic is only the tip of the iceberg.2 There is a much broader trend affecting both children and young adults, involving a growing range of ‘gender identities’.

1 BBC Scotland, The Nine, ‘Gender Recognition Act: Sinead’s story’, 10 February 2020, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p082wx9n as at 27 November 2020 2 ‘Referrals to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) level off in 2018-19’, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, 28 June 2019, see https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about- us/news/stories/referrals-gender-identity-development-service-gids-level-2018-19/ as at 27 November 2020; ‘Referrals to GIDS, financial years 2015-16 to 2019-20’, Gender Identity Development Service, see https://gids.nhs.uk/number-referrals as at 27 November 2020 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

The view that “you don’t need dysphoria to be trans”3 is prominent in online trans networks. People see crises of identity, trauma, body dysmorphia or other mental illness as evidence of being trans. Many would seize the opportunity for affirmation that a self-declaration system would present. Changing the law to drop the diagnosis requirement would make legal endorsement available to those who would be most harmed by it. They need help facing their problems, not encouragement in a false self-diagnosis.

The current wave of detransitioners suggests many of them will come to regret their transgender identity. Proper assessment is vital. The requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria by two doctors must be retained.

The requirement to live in the ‘acquired sex’ should also be retained, and even extended, to protect vulnerable individuals. It is crucial to give enough time for genuine reflection and reconsideration. Some transgender people now feel trapped in the opposite sex, and resent the fact that they were affirmed too quickly.4 It often takes years for people to decide to reverse their , not least because of the ‘honeymoon phase’ that often follows social or medical transition.5 The following cases highlight how long it can take regret to develop:

 Scottish detransitioner Sinead Watson took testosterone from 2015 after a 12-13 month waiting list, and received a double mastectomy in 2017. She describes an immediate “period of bliss” and believes she would have continued pursuing surgery had she not realised that transition was not addressing her underlying problems. She marks the beginning of her regret to her 27th birthday in January 2018. From the beginning of her transition until the decision to reverse took around three years.6

 The English detransitioner and founder of the Detransition Advocacy Network, Charlie Evans, identified as a man for nearly ten years before detransitioning.7

‘Pique Resilience Project’ is a group of four American young women who used to identify as transgender:

 Dagny identified as non-binary and as a from age 15 to 19, receiving testosterone for two years before deciding to detransition.

 Jesse identified as a trans man from age 16 to 19, and as non-binary both at age 15 and 19. She received testosterone for 14 months before detransitioning.

3 ‘You Don’t Need Dysphoria to Be Trans’, Eli Erlick, YouTube, 12 November 2018, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC7LgV9duHc as at 27 November 2020; ‘Expert Q & A: Gender Dysphoria’, American Psychiatric Association, see https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender- dysphoria/expert-q-and-a as 27 November 2020 4 The Sunday Times, 12 July 2020, see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-detransitioners-what-happens- when-trans-men-want-to-be-women-again-fd22b7jhs as at 27 November 2020 5 Board of Directors Part One Agenda and papers, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, 23 June 2015, , pages 49-55; BBC Scotland, The Nine, ‘Gender Recognition Act: Sinead’s story’, 10 February 2020, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p082wx9n as at 27 November 2020; BBC News online, 1 March 2020, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51676020 as at 27 November 2020; Anonymous, ‘Our Voices Our Selves – Amplifying the Voices of Detransitioned Women’, in Moore, M and Brunskell-Evans, H (Eds.) Inventing Transgender Children and Young People, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019, page 172 6 ‘What the Hormones Didn’t Change | a Detrans Story, with Watson,’ Benjamin A Boyce, YouTube, 14 January 2020, see https://youtu.be/M0zWaNdkp7Y as at 27 November 2020 7 Sky News, , 5 October 2019, see https://news.sky.com/story/hundreds-of-young-trans-people-seeking-help- to-return-to-original-sex-11827740 as at 27 November 2020 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

 Helena identified as non-binary and transgender as a teenager, received testosterone aged 18 and 19 before detransitioning.

 Chiara identified as a trans man from ages 16 to 19 before desisting.8

Danger to women

A self-declaration system is a danger to women. It inevitably undermines female-only spaces. The prison service’s use of self-identification meant a legal and physical male – a known sex abuser – was in a women’s prison, enabling him to commit two sexual assaults.9 This case encapsulates the risks of a system without the safeguards in the 2004 Act.

Abolishing ‘man’ and ‘woman’

A legal sex change under the 2004 Act requires evidence of 1) the presence of gender dysphoria, and 2) a two-year commitment to ‘living in the acquired sex’. So a biological male can be legally considered a woman if he has both the alleged internal experience and the external performance of a woman. This radical redefinition separated legal sex from biology.

Getting rid of the current requirements would go even further. Legal sex would not be defined by objective biology, internal experience or external performance. A self-declaration system would effectively abolish male and female. The Scottish Government’s draft Bill is a clear example of this. Under the Bill, being a ‘man’ or being a ‘woman’ in Scotland will be open to anyone who says they intend to be a ‘man’ or ‘woman’ for life.10 If man and woman are defined according to intention alone, the categories are meaningless.

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

The minimum age for applying for a GRC must not be reduced. It would be dangerous because of the immaturity of under-18s (reflected in other laws) and the current social context outlined above. The recent rise in trans-identification mainly involves young people.

Cognitive development

Those under 18 are still developing in significant ways. They may be experiencing intense gender dysphoria and have strong convictions about legal recognition, but many cannot think critically about why they feel this and how it might be resolved. The University of Rochester’s Health Encyclopedia says that 16-year-olds “may be able to use logical operations in schoolwork long before they can use them for personal problems” and “when emotional issues come up, they can cause problems with a child’s ability to think in complex ways”.11

8 ‘About’, Pique Resilience Project, see https://www.piqueresproject.com/about.html as at 27 November 2020 9 online, 11 October 2018, see https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white- how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison as at 27 November 2020 10 Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill [CONSULTATION DRAFT], December 2019, Section 4 11 ‘Cognitive Development in the Teen Years’, University of Rochester Medical Center Health Encyclopedia, see https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P01594 as at 27 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

Recent evidence takes this further. The Scottish Sentencing Council commissioned research into the cognitive maturity of younger people. The review found that the adolescent brain continues to develop into adulthood and does not reach full maturity until at least 25.12 The research found that brain development may be delayed or hindered by factors such as mental disorders or distress.

The intensity of gender dysphoria is often seen as validating an individual’s opinions and demands. But, according to this research, distress compromises development and leads to greater risk-taking and poorer decision-making. For the sake of the young people involved, their demands should be treated with great caution.

Transgender adolescents

The recent rise in transgenderism has particularly involved under-18s, especially girls. There are serious concerns about the role ‘social contagion’ is playing. Research confirms that peer pressure, YouTube and social media play a significant role in the rise of transgender identity.13 It has been compared to self-harm and eating disorders. This is particularly concerning because of the many psychiatric co-morbidities that affect transgender adolescents – anxiety, eating-disorders, self-harm and autism are all common. Such underlying problems increase the risk of social contagion. Effort should be focused on helping vulnerable teenagers, not offering easier gender recognition.

UK Law

UK law widely recognises that under-18s are not mature enough for certain decisions or roles. In the UK, under-18s cannot:

 Buy alcohol in licensed premises  Buy cigarettes  Stand for election as an MP  Serve as a juror  Get a tattoo  Buy fireworks or possess them in a public place  Have a credit card  Place a bet

The GRA should be consistent with this, to protect young people from themselves. The age limit must not be lowered. If anything, from the evidence above, the age limit should be increased. Many who no longer identify as transgender stopped doing so after the age of 18. So while they might have chosen to ‘change sex’ at 18, they would not have done so at, for example, 21 or 25.

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

November 2020 12 O’Rourke, S, Whalley, H, Janes S, et al, ‘The development of cognitive and emotional maturity in adolescents and its relevance in judicial contexts’’,The Scottish Sentencing Council, University of Edinburgh, January 2020, pages 1-15 13 Littman, L, ‘Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria’, PLOS One, 14(3), 2019 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

A statutory declaration alone would be a weak safeguard. The requirements for medical diagnosis and a number of years living as the opposite sex should be retained.

However, the declaration does mean applicants have to confirm that they understand what they are doing and intend it to be permanent. This helps to reflect the scale of the decision. Removing the statutory declaration would do away with the statement that the change is intended for life. This would encourage an understanding of sex as fluid, further trivialising it.

However, the statutory declaration should also be reversible, because of those who regret their decision to transition and want to return to identifying as their birth sex. The Scottish Government has proposed harsh penalties for ‘false declarations’, which has caused concern. Scottish detransitioner Sinead Watson worries how an initial legal sex change might be viewed in the light of attempts to go back:

“They say that it’s illegal if someone is caught lying about their gender identity… But that’s scary in and of itself because what does that mean for detransitioners? How can you tell the difference between someone lying about it for nefarious purposes and someone who genuinely came to regret it like I did? Would I be committing an offence by detransitioning?”14

Although a statutory declaration helps emphasise the seriousness of the initial change, detransitioners must be free to reverse their declaration without fear of legal consequences.

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 current requirement for someone to obtain their spouse’s consent to their marriage continuing before they can obtain a legal sex change is entirely reasonable and appropriate.

Marriage rests on promises made between two individuals, solemnised and celebrated. The breaking of these promises is always painful and disruptive. Fundamentally altering the nature of the marriage (i.e. by changing it from an opposite-sex marriage to a same-sex marriage in law) violates the promises on which it existed in the first place. At the very least, a spouse should be asked whether they consent to this. The transgender person should not be able to override the other person’s wishes.

Millions in England and Wales opposed the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2014.15 It would be unacceptable for one party to a marriage to be able to take the other into a legal arrangement they morally oppose.

The grief of spouses of those who come out as transgender after years of marriage must not be forgotten. Such people are in deep pain but their needs are often ignored.16

14 ‘Detransition and the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill’, ImWatson, YouTube, 28 December 2019, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-PNRE22vw as at 16 March 2020 15 ComRes, Coalition 4 Marriage Same Sex Marriage, 14-16 November 2012 16 ‘Trans Widows’, see https://www.transwidows.com/index.php/transwidows/ as at 27 November 2020 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

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

No. The Scottish Government’s proposed Bill is deeply problematic. To summarise the main faults with this Bill:

 The Scottish Bill enshrines an empty definition of sex. A woman is defined as someone who intends to be a woman – ultimately making the legal sex-change a meaningless procedure.  The requirement to ‘live in the acquired sex’ for three months is not defined, nor is evidence of this period required.  An initial three-month period and subsequent three-month ‘reflection period’ do not allow for the time it takes for regret to develop in detransitioners.  ‘False declarations’ remain undefined. Arguably, under a self-declaration system no intention to ‘change sex’ can be deemed false or illegitimate – every statement of intended permanence is valid. However, it would be wrong if detransitioners were accused of having made ‘false declarations’.  The Scottish Bill’s proposal to lower the age limit to 16 is dangerous. All the countries mentioned in the Scottish consultation where minors can change legal sex also have additional requirements for these applicants. The draft Bill, however, makes no mention of additional requirements, or even of parental consent for children below 18.

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

The suggestion that a huge demand for GRCs is being thwarted by a cumbersome or ‘medicalised’ process is wide of the mark. A large proportion of trans people are simply not interested in a legal transition to the opposite sex. Gender is increasingly seen as plastic, with dozens of options, or even more. These claims about identity are well outside the scope of biology and law. Those saying their gender is ‘demi-girl’, ‘demi-boy’, ‘bi-gender’, ‘genderqueer’ or ‘poly-gender’ are not going to be interested in a GRC. The law cannot accommodate a plastic view of gender, and should not try to.

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

One of the problems with giving legal recognition to non-binary identity is that there is no one definition of non-binary. And not everyone rejecting the terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ identifies as non- binary or gender-fluid. Trans activist group Mermaids claims that “there are as many as there are people in the world. So you could argue there aren’t just 100 genders – there are around eight billion.”17 If the law were to recognise a category, why not a fourth and a fifth, and so on? As above, this is not something the law can accommodate.

17 ‘Are there 100 genders?!’, Mermaids, YouTube, 12 September 2019, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzgNL0LYoQE as at 27 November 2020 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

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.

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment at the beginning of the process and without any medical involvement. However, a person can only obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate after they have lived in their assumed gender for two years and can show medical evidence of gender dysphoria. This difference is not a challenge. It reflects the very different types of legal recognition provided. The 2004 Act makes a change in legal sex, whereas the 2010 Act ensures a person is not discriminated against on the basis of their decision to ‘change sex’. Greater safeguards are wholly appropriate for someone to be legally recognised as having changed legal sex.

One issue in how the two Acts interact concerns the requirement in Section 9(1) of the 2004 Act that, once a gender recognition certificate is issued, “the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender”. This is sometimes misinterpreted to mean, if it was followed through, that clear exceptions in the 2010 Act are nullified. There must be a clearer understanding that section 9 of the 2004 Act does not prevent lawful difference of treatment on the basis of biological sex, such as under provisions protecting single-sex services (Schedule 3, paragraph 28 of the 2010 Act).

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 2010 requires that service providers must usually provide services to trans people in accordance with their preferred gender. However, exceptions at part 7 of Schedule 3 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 23 permit the provision of services or communal accommodation separately to biological males or females without it being unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. These exceptions operate when certain conditions are fulfilled, including considerations of reasonableness and proportionality.

The current rules allow situations to be considered according to what is reasonable and fair in each case. This is better than a blanket rule forcing service providers to operate in ways that may be unsuitable for a variety of reasons.

There is scope for improved guidance on the operation of the exceptions mentioned above, provided such advice is carefully drafted and makes these valuable protections more, not less, accessible. Guidance should help to explain the interrelation, within Schedule 3, between paragraphs 26 and 27, and how paragraph 28 on gender reassignment engages 26 and 27.

Guidance must ensure, for example, that those who operate women-only spaces (or any single-sex spaces) are more confident of their position. Since the exceptions have not been taken into account, those providing accommodation or facilities to minors have often come under pressure from public bodies to compromise safeguarding. This undoubtedly lies behind the trend towards gender-neutral toilets, which the Government has identified as causing a problem for women and the elderly in particular.18 Written evidence from The Christian Institute [GRA1621]

Any new advice or guidance in this area would need to clarify the protections and not further weaken their effectiveness.

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

The protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ in the Equality Act 2010 is already very broad. It applies when a person “is proposing to undergo… a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex”.

The definition should not be further broadened in a way that would separate the protected characteristic from a person’s commitment to change gender. Retaining this aspect of the current definition is important to ensure the integrity of its meaning. A person should not be able to move in and out of the definition at will. A degree of seriousness or commitment needs to be attached, including for reasons of legal certainty. The public needs to be able to reasonably ascertain when a person has the protected characteristic.

November 2020

18 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Press Release, Government review to boost the provision of toilets for women and men, 31 October 2020, see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-review-to-boost-the-provision-of-toilets-for-women-and- men as at 27 November 2020