Gender Self-identification

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I will focus on the text of the petition by talking specifically about what a gender recognition certificate is and is not needed for. A person does not need a gender recognition certificate to update their driving licence, passport, medical records, employment records or bank account, and they do not need one to go into a toilet or changing room—nor do they need a birth certificate to go into a toilet or changing room, I hasten to add.

The point of a gender recognition certificate is to allow someone to update their birth or adoption certificate. That allows them the human right of privacy. A gender recognition certificate allows someone to get married or form a civil partnership in their affirmed gender. Again, it allows them that privacy; it allows them and their partner to have the correct genders on their marriage or civil partnership agreement. A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to update their marriage or civil partnership certificate.

A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to have their affirmed gender on their death certificate. Imagine if your partner, father, mother or child died and they had to have the wrong gender on their death certificate. Imagine how that would compound the misery you are already feeling.

Those are the things that a gender recognition certificate allows someone to do. It might also change their pension entitlements, which is really important for people who are not getting the correct pension entitlements, particularly if their partner dies.

People can apply to have a gender recognition certificate even if they have not had any surgery or treatment. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the issues with gender-affirming care and gender identity clinics, and the extremely long waiting times even for initial appointments. Imagine if people did not have to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis to apply for a gender recognition certificate; they would not even need to see the gender identity clinic should they not wish to.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that other jurisdictions have implemented the self-declaration of legal gender without any detriment, and without any of the debates we have had in this country even without those reforms? For instance, Ireland has had an Act providing for the self-declaration of legal gender for 10 years. Is it not time that we moved with those other jurisdictions?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said, there is still a legal requirement not to lie, with powers to punish people who lie when applying for a gender recognition certificate.

Across these islands, very few medical practitioners are competent, trained and working in this area. If we freed up some of their clinical time, the people who need gender-affirming surgery and treatment would get it far more quickly. The queue would shorten because those seeking a gender recognition certificate would not need a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The Government could also choose to put other rules in place, and there are already other rules for getting a gender recognition certificate. The petition focuses on the gender dysphoria diagnosis, but it does not focus on the fact that people have to provide two years’ worth of evidence. The Government could still require that people provide evidence for every three-month period in at least the previous two years showing them using the title of Mr, Mrs or Ms, showing them using their new name, and proving that they have been living in that gender. The Government could still require all that while taking out the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which would make things so much better for people.

As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds and a number of other hon. Members have said, what has happened around the Supreme Court ruling has made things even more complicated and confusing for people—it has not provided clarity. We are now in a weird limbo situation where huge numbers of pubs, restaurants and shops, which are just trying to do their best, do not know what they have to do. They have the interim guidance, which is frankly not very clear, the Court ruling and the Equality Act to look at, but they do not know what toilets they should be providing.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I have heard the argument that the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of “sex” within the confines of the Equality Act 2010—I have inquired further into this as a member of the Justice Committee—and it is now for the Government to legislate further to protect trans people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading is that the Supreme Court tried to work out what was in the minds of the politicians who passed the Equality Act in 2010. That is a difficult thing to do, because I cannot say what is in my mind right now, never mind 15 years ago. The Supreme Court tried to interpret that, and it came down on the side of saying that the politicians were talking about biological sex when it comes to single-sex spaces, for example. Actually, the Equality Act mainly focuses on things like discrimination rather than single-sex spaces, which are a tangential side mention in the Act.

My understanding is that someone can now only be discriminated against on the basis of biological sex or on the basis of their transgender identity, so not their transgender gender but their identity as a transgender person. That removes a huge amount of protection for transgender people. I am massively concerned, and I think the only way we will get clarity is if the Government step up and make a change to the Equality Act.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Equality Act was well written to deal with intersectional issues when they arise, that the guidance around it was very clear, and that this Supreme Court ruling has muddied that. As she says, the Government may need to step in to resolve this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree, and the court ruling made it clear that the Scottish Government had acted in line with the EHRC’s guidance, but that it was the guidance that was wrong, because it should have been done on the basis of biological sex, not gender.

I am aware that I am pushing up against the time limit, but lastly, I am concerned about the direction of travel with the EHRC. It would be sensible to have an independent body look at making these decisions. Given the EHRC’s current positioning and the comments it has made—and given that, a few weeks ago, I was at a celebration of 15 years of the Equality Act and a number of people from LGB Alliance and Sex Matters were invited to that celebration, but there was only one transgender person in the room—I am concerned that the EHRC is not able to be an unbiased arbiter of the law on this issue.

Actually, I think the EHRC has an impossible job right now, because we cannot interpret the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. It does not make sense unless we tell everyone that they must have three toilets—if we are defining all toilets as single-sex spaces, and if businesses continue to be required to have single-sex toilets. The easiest way to solve this would be to say that every business should have unisex toilets for everybody, because then everyone could access every toilet.

However, I do not think we want to get to that position, so the Government have only two options. They can either talk to the EHRC and ensure that it is being completely unbiased, or they can change the Equality Act so that its meaning is totally clear, including on the definition of sex. That way, it would be clear that we are actually trying to protect human rights, particularly the right to privacy and the right of trans people to die a dignified death in their affirmed gender, if that is the phrase we want to use. I think we are failing right now, and changes need to be made to protect our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

We talk a lot about the needs of trans women but very little about the needs of trans men. I am deeply concerned about the impact on trans men who might be forced to go into women’s toilets. Many of them do an amazing job of masking and appearing to be men. I am sure that most of us know people but have no idea they are trans men, because so many have fantastic facial hair—more so than some men I know—and incredible muscles and tattoos. Imagine being a trans man who is told that they have to go to a women’s refuge. Imagine being the women in that refuge when a trans man comes in and says, “I have to be here because I’m still treated as a woman.” That is just offensive.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If a trans person has to out themselves every time they go to the toilet, does the hon. Member believe, like me, that that fundamentally conflicts with the right to privacy under the European convention on human rights?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am shocked daily by the indignity that we are imposing and the impact on the human rights of people who are trans.

Let me share some just some of the words used by trans people about the current gender recognition system: “traumatic”, “intrusive” and “over-medicated”. I am pleased that one of our Liberal Democrat Members in the other place is looking at how we can remove the need for a spouse to consent. How can it be compliant with the human rights of a trans person if their spouse has to consent to their getting a gender recognition certificate?

The recent Supreme Court ruling has made life as a trans person so difficult, and calls into question the value of a gender recognition certificate. If trans people who have undertaken all that is required to achieve that status are still to be treated as though they remain in the sex that they were assigned at birth, what is the point of a gender recognition certificate? Self-ID seems to be the only viable alternative. If self-ID is not to be progressed, what assurance can the Minister give our trans constituents that a gender recognition certificate will become easier and quicker to attain? If a trans person has gone through many years of distress, treatment, cost and trauma, they deserve to be honoured and respected, and their legally acquired gender should be recognised.

I recently recruited a member of staff, who unfortunately did not stay with me very long because they found the whole process quite traumatic. The day before they were due to start, they emailed me to tell me that they thought I needed to know that they were trans. I was so upset that they felt the need to do that. What sort of world are we in when someone has to share that private information with me, as their employer, and then is so traumatised by it that they decide they cannot work in the role after all? I felt absolutely sickened. The Good Law Project recently stated that

“given the current hostile direction of travel in the UK…we do not think it is without risk to be on a State list of trans people.”

Let me go back to something the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said about death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than a parent losing a child, particularly in a violent death or a death by suicide, which we have seen in recent years, or losing somebody who has lived their life for many years in their acquired gender, and then not to be able to lay the person they love to rest in the gender in which they lived. There is no greater indignity than that. I beg the Minister: if we do nothing else, let us change it so that people do not need a gender recognition certificate for their death certificate. That is absolutely inhumane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I think that it is a matter of fact that biological sex is crucial when it comes to correct service delivery and approach. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but when it comes to the understanding of treatment, it is important for there to be a distinction. But I understand the point.

Consider single-sex spaces such as refuges and NHS provision—screening programmes, for example: the protection and privacy of people, including women and girls, is paramount. However, as the hon. Lady just said, that must be balanced by the needs of others, so third spaces and understanding are also important. As I have already said, practicality is important. As many Members have said, this is not a zero-sum game for anybody, whether that is women and girls, and their safe spaces. As we have also heard, there must be suitable spaces for disabled people. This issue is about rounded equality for all. I truly believe that is vital.

We know that the Labour Government have not always necessarily agreed with the judgment in the recent case. Of course, Scottish Labour backed the SNP’s self-ID plans in Holyrood. Those were challenged in the Supreme Court and shown to be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.

As we have heard again today, some people still have strong views about self-ID, which I recognise. However, for those concerned about the gender recognition certificate process, I highlight that that had already been reformed following feedback, which was rightly listened to. The then Government agreed with the GRC process, because it was hoped that it would create a balance between significant checks and balances within the system. But as we have heard today, different people take different stances.

In light of the ongoing debate and the Supreme Court judgment, it is now for this Government to find a way to clarify how they intend to implement their manifesto commitment to modernise and simplify the GRC process without compromising the rights of women and girls. Those buzzwords signify an intent to change, but what people living this right now want to know is the detail. Hopefully, the Minister will today start to clarify matters or begin to set a timetable for proposals to be scrutinised by the House, the public and all the different voices in this debate. That is crucial, because there is public concern that the Government may be introducing self-ID by the back door—not deliberately, but perhaps through processes that some may see as careless and others may see as suitable.

I address a specific point. It is a concern that Government Ministers have admitted that the Passport Office does not accurately record sex. A passport is one of the most recognised and commonly used Government issued IDs with a sex marker. Can the Minister say why the Government have not sought to remedy the situation? It clearly leaves a potential route for self-ID, creating uncertainty for service providers trying to comply with the law under the Equality Act. Today, we are talking about clarity; all concerned need clarity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The shadow Minister is making the case that biological sex is incredibly important for things such as medical procedures—absolutely. However, I am not sure how she thinks that the marker on someone’s passport has any relationship with that. If, as has been argued, biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed, surely it does not matter what someone’s passport, driving licence or even birth certificate says? There is, apparently, some magical way of ascertaining people’s biological sex that nobody has yet told me about, unless it is a DNA test. Why does biological sex matter on a passport if, as a number of people have said, it is immutable and cannot be changed anyway?

[Mims Davies]

The previous Government commissioned Professor Alice Sullivan to ensure that the collection of data on sex and gender was consistent across Government. As I was saying, it would be good to know whether the Government will set out a timeline for implementing fully the recommendations from the Sullivan review. I understand the point made by the hon. Lady and other Members, but it is important for people to understand data collection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Some of this depends on the EHRC’s work and the time it takes to respond to the consultation; I know that we all want it to do so effectively. It is a matter on which I am sure the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, who is unable to be here today, will update the House in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West will understand that on one hand, we are saying it needs to be longer, and on the other hand we want clarity. What is important is that it is a consultation in which all voices can be heard. I think he will appreciate the assurance that the updated code will be laid in Parliament and will be there for scrutiny and consideration by both Houses. That will be an important part of the process.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When the Minister encourages the hon. Member for Llanelli to update us on the timelines, will she encourage her to update us with information on what the scrutiny process will be? I might have missed it, but I do not know whether it is subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. If a statement could be made to the House explaining both those things, that would be helpful for all of us.

[Seema Malhotra]

That is an important consideration, and I will raise it with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Laws remain in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment, as the Supreme Court pointed out. It is important to state that protections for gender reassignment under the Equality Act have not been affected.

The ruling does not impact how a GRC is issued to change a person’s legal sex for certain purposes, nor does the ruling change its significance. There has been considerable debate on this, so I will make some comments on it, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that this is an ongoing debate. However, as we have heard in this debate, it is important to recognise that trans people deserve the right to get married, to have dignity in death, to access pensions and to live their lives in the same way as anyone else.

We have said that we will look at gender recognition reform. Our immediate priority, as laid out in the King’s Speech, is to make sure that we have a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, to strengthen hate crime protections for trans people, and to improve healthcare for trans people. It is also important to recognise that discussions continue with trans organisations and the trans community. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli will continue to have those discussions.

Any process that allows people to change something as fundamental as their legal sex must have appropriate and proportionate checks and balances. I have heard the different views today, but it is important for me to say—I do not believe this is new information—that the Government do not support self-identification because, as we set out in our manifesto, we believe in protecting the robustness of the process and its legitimate application. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is important in this process.

We all recognise the challenges in accessing NHS services, and it is important to say that the Government are committed to ensuring that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need when accessing NHS services. We are all aware of the delays, which have been happening for far too long. NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, but in the light of the Cass report’s recommendations, NHS England also launched an in-depth review of adult services led by Dr David Levy in August 2024. The review will assess not only the quality, effectiveness, safety and patient experience of each service, but their stability and whether the existing model is still appropriate for the patients they care for.

I can also confirm that, as part of our agenda supporting LGBT+ people, the Government will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that conversion practices are abuse. They do not work, and they can and do inflict deep and lasting harm on victims. The continuation of such acts in our society—a society largely accepting of LGBT+ people—must be challenged. The previous Government failed to act, but this Government will not fail.

That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to publish draft legislation for a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are working hard to draft measures that offer protection from these harmful practices, while also respecting the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am looking for an update on the timeline for the conversion practices ban and on what the scrutiny might look like. I understand that it is being published in draft, which is very much appreciated—the Online Safety Act 2023 really benefited from being published in draft—but what scrutiny will happen, and what is the timeline for the initial publication of the draft?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member may not be surprised to hear me say—indeed, I pre-empted her question—that there is not much I can update her on, other than to say that it is a priority for the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. When it is possible to update the House, she will very much want to do that. It is a priority and she is continuing to work on it.

I briefly mentioned Dr Levy’s review of adult gender services in NHS England. We want to ensure that all trans people can get the high-quality care they deserve, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referred to that, too. Also, we remain committed to implementing the recommendations set out in the Cass report, working with NHS England as it continues to improve children’s and young people’s gender services, and ensuring that those services provide the right healthcare, safeguarding and support for children and young people. That means making sure that they are based on the best available evidence and expert clinical opinion.

To briefly refer to the Supreme Court judgment again, I recognise that recent years have seen an increasing focus on the definition of sex in the Equality Act and access to single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court has given its judgment on that point, and the Government have been consistently clear that single-sex spaces must be protected, but we also know that trans people must be protected, and their safety and wellbeing is a matter for all of us. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to protect all members of society, and I hope that with the processes we have, we can now work better together to do just that.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Rainbow Map, and they were right to do so. We were ranked in first place in 2015 but went down to 22nd place this year, and that is a matter of concern. The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold a clear, robust and expansive legal and legislative framework. We are working to advance the rights afforded to LGBT+ people, including, as we have spoken about, by bringing forward legislation in relation to conversion practices and strengthening protections against hate crime. We recognise that there is always more to do.

As we look forward to the future, the Government’s mission remains constant: to create a fairer, more inclusive society. That entails listening actively rather than imposing viewpoints, and it requires people to stand up for those who are marginalised even when those actions prove politically difficult. This debate has been an important contribution to that. More importantly, it involves remembering the core principle—that equality is not a zero-sum game; it elevates us all. We take pride in our achievements and our values, and we will not let complacency or the intent for division take root. Our commitment is to continue listening, learning and fighting for a society where everyone, regardless of their identity or who they love, can live with safety, dignity and hope.