Written evidence submitted by LGBT+ Labour (GRA1419) 27th November 2020 Submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Summary This is the LGBT+ Labour submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. LGBT+ Labour is an affiliated socialist society of the Labour Party, and we have submitted this response in order to represent and advocate for our trans members. Overall, we find that the changes proposed by the Minister for Women & Equalities to legal gender recognition to be insufficient. The process will still be costly, invasive, unnecessarily long and undignified. We suggest the adoption of the reforms suggested by the Committee, such as the removal of requirements around lived experience, a medical diagnosis and spousal consent would greatly improve the process. However, we also argue that more progress needs to be made outside of an amendment to the GRA. These include improved services for trans survivors of sexual/domestic violence, trans workers and tenants, as well as clarification and reassurance for trans people on the protections they have under the Equality Act. We believe this inquiry takes place in the context of government failure. Three years passed between the government announcement that it was exploring reforms to the GRA (in the direction of a self-declaration model), and its eventual decision not to reform the Act. Over these three years, scare stories and misinformation around GRA reform (especially regarding its relationship to the Equality Act) have gone unchallenged by the government. This has given a space for toxic debate and abuse to thrive wherein trans people (including trans members of LGBT+ Labour), their families and allies have been subject to vile transphobic abuse. We note that those opposed to GRA reform are a vocal minority. The result of the government’s consultation on reform showed that over 70% supported reform and self- declaration. Despite this overwhelming support the government decided against pursuing reform, meaning that the toxic environment that has prevailed since the government consultation was announced will continue indefinitely. We hope the Committee will conclude that the government decision not to pursue reform was unwise, and that this inquiry will hold the government to account for their failure to support trans people in this area. Written evidence submitted by LGBT+ Labour (GRA1419) Part One Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”? Yes, but the reforms are nevertheless insufficient. Making the process less expensive will reduce barriers for some trans people, and the process being more internet-based will streamline it for some trans people. However, the process may still be difficult for those who lack consistent digital access (especially if multiple documents are being scanned and sent). The reforms are insufficient because the cost of obtaining a GRC is just one barrier, and the lack of commitment to reducing other barriers will maintain those barriers. These include the requirement to document two years spent in the “acquired gender”, the requirement to obtain a diagnosis for gender dysphoria and the requirement to stay in the “acquired gender” for the rest of one’s life. The latter requirement in relation to utilising statutory declaration is especially harmful to non-binary people. All of these requirements are unjust and unnecessary, and present barriers to trans people claiming their right to legal gender recognition. 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? Yes. The fee to obtain a GRC should be abolished or lowered as much as possible. The original fee of £140 is very expensive and is a barrier to many trans people who wish to obtain a GRC but for whom it is out of reach financially (or else it becomes a much lower priority). Administrative processes often do incur a certain cost which can be passed onto those requesting certain documents from government agencies. However, the fee for a GRC is de facto even more expensive because the process internally is more costly. The cost of convening a panel (made up of legal and medical officers) inflates the cost to the government. Moving towards a system of self-declaration would make the process for government cheaper per application because of the reduced labour costs, much of which is currently passed onto the applicant. This is especially important because the other costs of obtaining the documents necessary to succeed in one’s application for a GRC are quite high cumulatively. While the cost of a GRC is £140, it becomes much higher in total when gathering the necessary evidence is taken into account as well. This typically includes passports, driving licences, medical reports and solicitor’s fees. A further way to remove these barriers would be to exempt trans people from the costs of renewing official documents so they match their “acquired gender”. Trans people should not need to pay to have legal recognition of their identity. If there is to be any charge it should be no higher than the charges the government schedules for data protection applications or fixed at £10 and waived for those with low income. This opinion Written evidence submitted by LGBT+ Labour (GRA1419) was reflected in the government’s GRA reform consultation, with 58.5% of respondents were in favour of removing the £140 fee Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed? Yes. The requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria places many barriers in the way of trans people exercising their right to legal gender recognition. A requirement for a diagnosis in and of itself is demeaning for trans people, as it defines us exercising our freedom in relation to gender identity and expression as pathological. While there have been steps internationally to depathologise this process, the ICD-10 diagnosis of “transsexualism” (still influential in gender identity clinics today) is still defined as a “disorder”. More steps have been made to depathologise this process, including the proposed ICD-11 shift to “gender incongruence”, which is not classified as a mental disorder. Given the medical understanding of transition-related healthcare is shifting away from an inherent understanding of transness as a diagnosable condition, it is unfair to trans people to maintain this diagnosis as a requirement in obtaining legal gender recognition. This is especially the case for those who don’t require any support from a GIC in order to live their lives in comfort. There are further barriers caused by a requirement for diagnosis. One is that even if a diagnosis for gender dysphoria/incongruence is desired and sought in order to access transition-related healthcare, the waiting lists for gender identity clinics are currently so long that they are a barrier in and of themselves. The long waiting times for Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) appointments to obtain a diagnosis adds months or years to the minimum two years requirement unless a patient can afford a private appointment. It was reported by the BBC earlier this year that there were 13,000 people waiting for their first GIC appointment, with waiting times longer than 18 months in most places and often above 30 months. Diagnosis is also a barrier for those who struggle to obtain a diagnosis or simply do not wish to. A medical report to obtain a GRC is not issued at the first appointment as at least one further appointment is required adding at least three months and usually six months. Furthermore, there are those who have accessed HRT through internet pharmacies rather than a GIC, there are many trans people who are read as their “acquired gender” without recourse to transition-related healthcare, and there are those for whom disablism presents barriers to accessing a diagnosis. In the case of the former, many GICs will not see patients if they know they have already been taking hormones unsupervised. Thus, there are many patients who are taking hormone treatment but will not be able to obtain a GIC medical report to that effect. The populations above are significant in numbers. They are often living their everyday lives unobtrusively and would benefit from legal gender recognition being demedicalised. This opinion was reflected in the government’s GRA reform consultation, with 80.3% of respondents in favour of dropping the requirements for medical report to obtain a GRC. Written evidence submitted by LGBT+ Labour (GRA1419) Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years? Yes, the requirement should be abolished. First, the principle in and of itself is nonsensical. What proves that one is living as a man or a woman or a non-binary person? It either forces applicants to provide administrative evidence that doesn’t prove anything other than a name and title change in most cases or proves that one adheres to gender stereotypes. Neither these requirements establish anything meaningful about one’s life as a trans person or about one’s life in the “acquired gender”. Second, obtaining the necessary evidence can be expensive (as highlighted above), arduous in the amount of time it can take to gather the evidence, and relies on a paper record that many trans people struggle to pull together. This is especially the case for those who can’t change their names due to an unsafe home situation, those who have experienced homelessness and those who due to disability struggle to maintain the necessary records. Regardless, any time frame that can be suggested is ultimately arbitrary.