Gender Self-identification

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I begin by expressing my full support for the trans community and their right to live openly and authentically. Every individual in our country must be allowed the freedom to live their truth free from discrimination and fear, and to be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

I am especially proud that City of Wolverhampton council, which is based in my Wolverhampton West constituency, made history back in 2016 by electing the first transgender councillor to office. That moment was not only a milestone for our city, but a powerful symbol of what can be achieved when inclusion and equality are not just discussed but put into practice. I am sure that my city of Wolverhampton will continue to lead the way in promoting acceptance and equal rights for all.

In an intervention earlier, I mentioned the UK Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers. As a member of the Justice Committee, I have had the opportunity to inquire further into that decision. The decision confirmed that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, “sex” refers to biological sex, and that trans women, even with a gender recognition certificate, are not considered to be women under the Act’s provisions on sex-based protections and rights. The ruling does not strip trans people of their right to be protected from discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair treatment.

The decision has created a legal distinction between biological sex and legal gender, and that has obviously created a lot of confusion and uncertainty in areas such as access to single-sex spaces. The Government must find a way to uphold the rights of women and trans people without pitting them against each other, as has happened in the past. It is crucial that the Government recognise that transitioning is not a choice, and that the transitioning process often comes with a deep and difficult journey of self-understanding and acceptance, with the associated stress and emotional strain of coming to terms with one’s new gender identity.

The law is not static, and it never should be. It evolves with society, and society itself evolves through empathy and understanding others. I am pleased that the Government have committed to a wider range of support for the trans community, including a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and a review of adult gender identity services. However, we have a duty to ensure, through further legislation, that trans people are given proper legal recognition of their gender, and that we demonstrate respect and compassion toward all our communities. This is not about special treatment: it is about equal treatment and sending a message to everyone in our country that they have the right to live freely and proudly as who they are, and not as we think they are. Consequently, we need to reassure transgender people in our communities that they have the right and the ability to live as their authentic self, free from fear and discrimination.