Gender Self-identification

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

In 2016, the Scottish Government announced their intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland and to introduce self-ID. Years followed, and Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in 2022. Since then, according to statistics that started to be published in 2023, waiting times for gender identity clinic appointments have been increasing. In June that year, 5,273 people were waiting for an appointment, with 45 people waiting longer than five years. At 31 March 2024, that had increased to 5,640, with 184 people waiting longer than five years. Transgender identity-aggravated crime charges have also doubled, from approximately 40 in 2016-17 to more than 80 in most years since 2021, which is unacceptable and must be acted on and improved. The Bill is not improving the lives of transgender people.

Many people have faced abuse, intimidation and threats for expressing any concerns about or opposition to self-identification. I know people whose careers have suffered, or who have been cancelled or dismissed, and respected academics who have been targeted. I have witnessed placards inciting violence, and sexually aggressive language towards women. We currently have the terrible situation of nurses being taken to employment tribunals for standing up for their rights, which are provided for in the Equality Act 2010. Those threats and that intimidation are almost always targeted at women.

During the passage of the Bill, Scottish Ministers repeatedly said it was the most consulted-on Bill in the history of devolution. However, consultation is only meaningful if the feedback is listened to. One of the areas ignored by Scottish Ministers was prison placements. Self-ID was already being implemented in the prison estate across the UK. The issue was raised in the House in February 2019 after a woman was sexually assaulted in HMP New Hall. The then UK Government ordered a policy review; the Scottish Government did nothing. That is just one example where the Scottish Government ignored warnings, leaving them to defend the indefensible.

In the Supreme Court case brought by For Women Scotland, Scottish Ministers argued that, for the purpose of sex under the Equality Act, a woman would be a biological woman, a person who had a gender recognition certificate identifying as a woman, or a person who self-identified as a woman. Had the Scottish Ministers won, it would have meant that the rights of one protected characteristic would prevail over the rights of another—again, a concern raised during the consultation that was not listened to and that has been borne out in practice.

In one example from March this year, councillors who strongly support self-ID attempted to defund Edinburgh Women’s Aid. Their reason for doing so was that it provided some services that did not include trans people. That women’s project provides single-sex services, refuge and support for women, and a lawful exemption is provided for in the Equality Act.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that threat to the funding for Edinburgh Women’s Aid was an absolute disgrace, and that we should be ashamed that it was even discussed in Edinburgh?

[Tracy Gilbert]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Were those councillors really saying that trans people wanted to see vital support for women fleeing violence and abuse withdrawn? Those politicians do not represent the views of any trans person I have met.

Self-identification has an impact on a number of protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. Of course we must do more to help and support trans people to live healthy, happy and fulfilling lives, and we must bring respect and dignity to all. Trans men and women remain protected by the Equality Act 2010, proudly introduced by the last Labour Government, and they must have appropriate services and protections from discrimination in the workplace—but those should never come at the expense of other protected groups.

We all know from the Sullivan review that data has not been collected accurately and that institutions continue to blur the lines between sex and gender, which is leading to gaps in provision for all people across communities. Replacing sex with gender identity erases biological difference, which is critically important for medical and health issues, criminal justice, education, sport and the rights of lesbians and gay men, to name but a few areas.

In conclusion, it is vital that we have open communication with trans people to move this conversation forward. We all have a responsibility to remove the toxicity from this debate. This is not about winning or losing; it is about how we provide trans people with services and help them to live dignified lives, but with the understanding that sex is not an identity, and gender and sex are not the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Furniss. Is it not fitting that we have had a change of gender in the Chair during this debate? It is quite incredible.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who is not in his place just now, summed up so much when he said that being trans is not a choice. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds made an incredibly important point that applies to everyone when she said that everybody has a right to be themselves. In my maiden speech, I made the point that I would be there for everyone in my constituency. In the last Parliament, many people across the UK did not feel that they could approach their MP to discuss this issue. That is something that should shame us all.

I consider myself an ally of the LGBT community, not least because I am the proud father of a gay woman. I hope that we will hear today from the Minister about the implementation of our manifesto in this area. This time last year, on so many doorsteps in Edinburgh South West, I was pointing to that section of the manifesto and saying, “This is our commitment,” so hopefully we will see it sooner rather than later.

I want to talk about two people I spoke to on the doorstep last year. Without doubt, the person I spoke to longest was the mother of a trans woman. It was incredibly moving. She talked about how, as her daughter moved through puberty, she struggled to come to terms with herself, and about the problem that that caused her. Her daughter believed that if she did not eat, it would delay the onset of puberty. It led to her almost dying. That told me that perhaps there is a case for puberty blockers; in an absolute minority of cases, where they could save a life, they are really important. That girl is now a woman. The last I heard, she was leading a full life, thanks to her quite incredible mother.

A few weeks after that, I spoke to the mother and father of two teenage girls. They were concerned about this debate, because they were worried that their daughters would go into a toilet and be confronted by a trans woman or—worse still, as they saw it—by someone masquerading as a trans woman. It is tempting to view those two sets of parents as opposed to each other, but in fact they had so much in common: they both loved their children and just wanted the best for them.

Quite naively, I dreamed that the solution was perhaps to get the parents together so that they could see the issue from different perspectives and find common ground. Scottish MPs will know that that was incredibly difficult in Scotland, because the debate in Scotland became incredibly toxic. I do not know how bad it was in England, but it could not have been worse than it was in Scotland. The thing we should be ashamed of is that it became difficult to talk about the issue in social circles, because nobody knew what perspectives people had or how strong their feelings were. It does not support the rights of a minority group when we cannot even talk about their rights in those settings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) said that we need a respectful debate. That is right. It is good that the EHRC’s consultation around the Supreme Court’s ruling has been extended to six weeks, and I hope that it is open and inclusive. I also hope that, as well as people suggesting to the EHRC how they think the world should be, we find space to listen to one another, because that is what has been missing from this debate for the past five years or so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Can the Minister explain the timeline in a bit more detail? When can we expect this to come to Parliament? When will the formal guidance be agreed and issued?

[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.