Gender Self-identification

Tim Roca Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I rise in support of the petition, and more broadly in support of the rights and dignity of transgender people in the UK. Let us be clear: we are debating not just a petition, but people’s lives.

In Macclesfield, we have a fantastic LGBTQ+ community, where people show solidarity with each other, including recently through Stride for Pride, which was run by the owners of Yas Bean. Solidarity is incredibly important; the LGBTQ+ community hangs on a history of solidarity with each other, and the need for it has never been clearer than in recent years, with a surge in the number of recorded transphobic hate crimes. According to Home Office data, such crimes have more than doubled since 2016. That is not a culture war; it is real harm. It is fear, isolation and violence, felt by people who are simply trying to live as themselves.

While that is happening, our international standing in LGBTQ+ rights is falling. As Members have noted, this year the UK dropped even further down the ILGA-Europe rainbow map, which ranks countries by their equality laws. In 2015, we were first—what an incredible thing to be proud of. Last year we dropped to 16th; as of a few days ago, we are 22nd. We have fallen behind countries we once led, and we have not gone backwards by accident. I fear it is because our political will has begun to fade.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out how we are falling behind many of our allies around the world. Does he share my concern that, for the first time, the UK is the only country in western Europe to be rated amber rather than green? It was a Labour Government who took forward LGBT rights in the past, and this Labour Government ought to do the same.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and why we should be extremely worried about what is happening to our record on LGBT rights. In him, his constituents have an excellent champion for their local LGBTQ+ community.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Under the previous Trump Administration, the British Foreign Office issued a travel warning to trans people because of the so-called bathroom ban—well, the actual bathroom ban—in parts of the United States. Yet now we are in a position where many trans women and trans men are very frightened about using toilets. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is needed?

[Tim Roca]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a good point about how urgent action is needed.

Almost all Members have touched on the recent UK Supreme Court ruling, which has created so much uncertainty about the legal rights of trans people, particularly trans women, under the Equality Act. Let me be clear: I am not questioning the existence or legitimacy of single-sex spaces. The Equality Act rightly allowed for such spaces in reasonable circumstances, particularly where privacy, dignity or safeguarding required it, but its principle was balanced. In my view, the Supreme Court judgment reinterpreted that balance in a way that completely undermines the legal clarity that we had before, and raises new concerns about consistency in application. That interpretation appears to directly contradict the spirit and purpose of the Gender Recognition Act, which was passed to give trans people full legal recognition in their acquired gender.

The judgment not only strips away legal certainty for trans individuals, but risks making the GRC, as Members have pointed out, a symbolic document with little practical effect. The critical question—I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) wants to intervene.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I was going to let him make that critical point before intervening. It is fair to say that nobody is comfortable with the heated way in which the debate has taken place over the past few years, but does he agree that, in fact, women’s sex-based rights have been ignored for many years and not enforced? That has led us to the place where we are today. There must be space for respectful discussion, to find a way to improve the rights of trans people while also respecting the hard-earned and hard-won rights of women.

[Tim Roca]

Where I agree completely with my hon. Friend is that this debate—as has been pointed out already—has become incredibly toxic. We are seeing, with Reform and others, an attempt to import American-style politics to our country. We need a rational, reasonable debate that safeguards the dignity of all people, so I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point.

The critical question I was coming to was this: what is the purpose of the GRC now? For many years, we were told that the GRC was the legal mechanism by which a person’s acquired gender would be recognised in law, but many people are now left wondering whether a GRC still confers the rights and recognition it was meant to. If a trans woman with a GRC can still be excluded from single-sex spaces and services, what legal certainty does that document offer? Why are we asking people to go through a lengthy, intrusive and often dehumanising process to obtain one?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. The gender recognition certificate is often destroyed by trans people because they have their new birth certificate. The certificate itself is not always an extant document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As other colleagues have pointed out, the sky did not fall in when these reforms, also passed in so many other countries across the world, took effect. We heard from hon. Members today about the EHRC’s first proposed guidance following the ruling, which allowed just two weeks for consultation—two weeks to respond to complex legal changes that affect fundamental rights of our constituents. That is simply not good enough; it risks shutting people out of a conversation about their own lives and protections. Although I welcome the fact that the period has now been extended, it should never have been that short in the first place.

Trans people are asking for clarity, dignity and fairness. They deserve to know where they stand under the law, to walk down the street without fear, and to have representation in this place that does not question their right to exist.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Parents of trans people have contacted me about not only their fear, but their children’s fear in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is not clear what they should tell their precious children, and agree that this is an unacceptable state of affairs? Does he agree that we should ask our fellow citizens to ask themselves: “What would I advise if my own child were trans?”, and even, “How would I like to be treated if I were trans?”. If we cannot answer those questions, clearly the situation we find ourselves in is completely unacceptable.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes that point extremely well. It is so depressing to hear of the fear that many of our constituents up and down the country have expressed to us, and the chilling effect that the judgment has had. I believe my hon. Friend’s constituents have in him a wonderful champion and supporter of the LGBTQ+ community.

We cannot keep deferring justice and letting misinfor- mation fill the gaps where leadership should be. We cannot let this debate be led by the most toxic voices. It is time for Parliament to lead with compassion and evidence, not confusion and delay, because trans rights are human rights, and this country is better than the fear that we see taking hold.