Gender Self-identification

Tracy Gilbert 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 ---

[Olivia Blake]

I have been here talking about migrants and other communities who have been victimised and used as scapegoats repeatedly over the past 15 years. It has been sad to see; unfortunately we are seeing it across the globe, but we should all be standing up against it. We should be dealing with people’s daily concerns, rather than using rhetoric, as we do far too often.

As we have heard from colleagues today, trans people will not feel protected right now. They are navigating rising levels of hate, extending delays to healthcare and increasing uncertainty about how existing laws apply to their lives. They are being told that their identity—their sense of self—is something that we can debate, question and deny. I think that is wrong and I urge all people outside the House who are looking at the interim guidance not to have knee-jerk reactions to that but to fully take part in the consultation. That consultation should be 12 weeks long, as previous consultations have been. For something that will mean such a big change for individuals, the EHRC has got the consultation period wrong and needs to extend it even further.

I just think this is quite sad. It is right that people have a way to self-identify their legal gender. That matters for many reasons. I think a lot of politicians, sadly and wrongly, think, “Isn’t it a shame that trans people are trans people?” How completely wrong is that? Too many people live in fear, with false statistics, about the risk that people pose to women—

[Tracy Gilbert]

Does my hon. Friend agree that trans women and trans men should have services and provision on that basis, and that sex and gender are two very separate things?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on leading the debate with such a powerful speech on behalf of the 120,000 people who want us to consider the petition carefully. I thank them for bringing the voice of the trans community into this Chamber. They need to be heard. More than that, they need to be listened to.

For the past six to eight months, and in fact the past three and a half years, this debate has been a big part of my life. That is not just because I am a Scottish MP— I recognise what the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was talking about—but because I have been at the centre of the formation of Liberal Democrat policy on this issue. The revised policy that we came up with sets out our continued commitment to self-ID. The Conservative Government’s 2018 proposals to reform the gender recognition process, which we first endorsed in 2014, are at the heart of it.

The proposals would remove the requirement to provide medical reports confirming a gender dysphoria diagnosis, as well as the spousal veto—a horrible requirement for the person applying for a GRC to provide a statutory declaration of consent from their spouse. Applicants would still have to prove that they have lived in their affirmed gender for at least two years and make a legal declaration that they intend to live permanently in that gender for the rest of their life—put simply, self-ID. It would be clearer, simpler and less intrusive.

However, that is just the paperwork. It is not really what this issue is about. Over the past year of listening to various groups and hearing their views on what is needed to protect the trans community and the LGBTQ community in general, I have learned that it is, more than anything else, about valuing people. It is about recognising their worth, their human rights and their right to live a life free of victimisation, discrimination, fear and anxiety. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds said, this is not about an abstract debate, but about real lives and real people.

That is where I begin to struggle with many of the things that have been said over the past three years. This is about people who are living in distress that has been caused by the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC interim guidance. For so many of them, that has meant that the lives they have led, in some cases for decades, quite straightforwardly, simply and happily—recognised by their peers—have been thrown into doubt. Suddenly it seems that in this country, rather than making progress and protecting people’s rights, we are regressing.

We have had this toxic debate for three years in Scotland; I suppose in some places it has been much longer. We have had three years of pitting one vulnerable group against another: on the one hand the rights of women, and on the other hand the rights of the trans community. To me, it is utterly ridiculous to pit against each other two vulnerable groups who are both afraid and continually victims of discrimination and violence. We are completely losing sight of the damage that we are doing to both groups.

I completely understand and sympathise with the arguments put forward by those who fear that women could be vulnerable to attack in certain circumstances and single-sex spaces unless we protect them. Of course we should protect them, but that is not anything to do with the rights of the trans community. They are not the problem, and their rights should not be impacted by the rights of women. One person’s rights should never be contingent on another’s, and yet that is what we have done. The statistics we have heard are frightening; hon. Members have outlined how we have made people from the trans community into targets. It saddens me to my core that the debate around fundamental rights—maybe those of your friends, your family, your neighbours or your work colleagues—has been so toxic.

Just recently, a friend of mine whose child is trans told me that since the ruling she now worries about how they are expected to go about their life every day and do simple things that we take for granted—like going to the toilet at work, for goodness’ sake. Funnily enough, not so long ago she told me how wonderful it was, now that they had completed their transition, to see them happy in themselves, living the life that they had always wanted to live. That is why I believe that we need to think seriously about self-ID. We need to think seriously about how we can put an end to the confusion and the anxiety that are being felt by too many people in this country.

Just think for a moment: what if we had been talking about your child, brother, sister or friend? Yes, there are questions that we have to overcome about prisons and single-sex spaces, but those problems should not come before protecting the rights of anyone. Somehow that has been lost in the toxic debate, but we have to stop. We have to change the narrative around this issue. It is clear today that people want us to find a way forward, stop rehearsing bitter arguments and look for ways to help one another, help people find a way forward and allow everyone to be free to live the life that they want to lead.

I remember a time not unlike this one, when another campaign of fear—the threat of HIV and AIDS—made life insufferable for the gay community in this country. That we would now live in a society that embraces same-sex relationships and allows us all to be free to love who we love was unimaginable then, but we have changed. My generation—my friends—went through hell then. Well, now another generation needs our help and support in protecting their rights. If we do not protect their rights, we risk losing all our rights. Women’s rights, children’s rights, men’s rights, minority rights and trans rights are all human rights. If we do not protect one, we risk losing them all.

I ask the Government to examine what they are doing at the moment. A friend of mine said to me today that we should judge our society by how we treat our vulnerable minorities. I ask the Government to do that: to look at the legislation, look at how it is treating our vulnerable minorities, and ask themselves if that is acceptable. Or, if they are prepared to put an end to the confusion, the anxiety and the fear—

[Tracy Gilbert]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s giving way on that point. When she talks about vulnerable categories, does she include women, lesbians and gay men?

[Christine Jardine]

I think I have made it absolutely clear that I include women and I include all the LGBT community. But what I object to, with every fibre of my being, is those vulnerable groups being pitted against each other. I think we all do.

Every vulnerable group in this society deserves the protection of not just their Government but their community. I ask the Government to think about that and think about whether it is time to allow trans people in this country to have the same freedom as others. That is not a privilege, but a right. I mean the same freedom to live the life that they want to live—the life that they would have in Ireland, Germany, Iceland and so many other countries. We are falling behind and letting our people down.