Written evidence submitted by Tessa McInnes [GRA0652]

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence on a) how the GRA and EA interact; and

b) are the sex exemptions clear and useable, or is better guidance needed?

 

Personal Submission

 

I have personal experience of how the GRA and EA fail to be understood; are being misrepresented and mis-applied. In particular I have experience both professional and personal of how single-sex services and data gathering are being discarded in favour of a deeply confused, undefined and discriminatory pursuit of ‘inclusivity.  In my experience, single sex exemptions under the Equality Act are wholly ineffective because there is no positive duty to use or even consider them.

 

 

Summary

  1. There is a widespread lack of consensus as to what ‘’transgender’ means.    Most of the UK public may conflate ‘transgender’ with ‘transsexual’ and may assume that to be transgender entails a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  They would be surprised, perhaps, to learn that the UK’s monopoly holder on Equalities training and foremost transgender lobby group, Stonewall, defines Transgender far more widely (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/what-does-trans-mean); that this includes, amongst other individuals, those who have a preference for dressing in clothes heavily associated with the opposite sex; and autogynaphiles (https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/ ); or that some 80% of those who call themselves ‘transgender’ have not, and have no intention to have, surgery.  Many organisations including LEAs, central govt and the NHS have received Stonewall training.  This means that many have adopted the principle of self identification without knowledge of the law or considering the impact on protected groups. This means that law is not applied correctly or consistently.

 

  1. There is a widespread lack of understanding amongst most institutions and organisations as to how EA sex exemptions work. There is also a deep anxiety that applying sex exemptions to ensure equality amongst protected groups, will trigger accusations of ‘transphobia’. Many organisations are systemically, culturally sexist. It is so normalised in society that it is largely invisible – or “unconscious organisational bias”.  This, too, leads to the deprioritising of sexual equality measures and a lack of consultation with women on how changes in policy might affect them. Our needs and rights are discounted. Given the prevalence of systemic sexism and the ‘chill factor’  of fear of being accused of being ‘transphobic’, organisations are not using the EA sex exemptions to achieve sexual equality.

 

  1. Lobbying by transgender activist groups and widespread misunderstanding as to how the GRA and EA interact, has led some organisations to consult only these groups without also consulting groups which represent females, leading to unbalanced policies which creates a hierarchy of rights and prioritises one group at the significant cost to women and girls. This will only worsen the already prevalent under-representation of females in the public spheres and make it impossible to track and remedy discrimination against them.

 

The interaction of A. and B. and C. above, mean that the sex exemptions are almost entirely unutilised. To have the effect intended (that of ensuring fairness and safety between the sexes) they must be given greater legal force and more, and more robust, guidance issued as a matter of urgency to preserve fairness, safety, privacy and dignity for girls and women. In particular I should like to see the requirement to consult with representatives of all affected groups and wider use of equality impact assessments.

 

Case Study 1: Sport

 

 

  1. Background

A bit about me:  I was until September 2020, a volunteer Woman’s Officer for British Cycling (BC). I continue to be a member of BC. I am also a Welfare Officer for a BC-affiliated club and a member of another affiliated club. I am a life-long cyclist: amateur competitive, recreational and commuter.  I resigned as Woman’s Officer as I cannot work for an organisation that is not transparent about its policies, that considers itself unaccountable to its members and to the sport;  and that  takes opportunities away from girls and women.

 

  1. Furthermore I cannot  encourage girls and women into racing where they will be competing against males. This is unsafe (males are faster, heavier, stronger  - cycling is not a contact sport but crashes are an accepted risk in racing) and demonstrably unfair (there is undeniable, overwhelming evidence that males retain an unsurmountable physical advantage over females (see link 2 below); but even if they did not, males competing in women’s sport would inevitably exclude women by taking some of the precious handful of spaces on professional female teams, when females are already hugely underrepresented). BC now offers no female-only opportunities, recreational or competitive.  It is not open and honest about this – on the contrary, it is hostile and evasive when questioned. This is exclusionary and unequal treatment, given women’s historical exclusion from professional and amateur sport and their continuing lack of representation.

 

  1. History

Last year, I was approached by three Breeze Ride Champions (trained female volunteers).

 

  1. The defining criteria of Breeze Rides is that they are female-only.  They exist to encourage women who might otherwise forego cycling, into cycling.  Transwomen are not excluded from the same opportunity because BC also runs identical mixed-sex rides, where transwomen can attend or lead in their chosen gender.

 

  1. The 3 Champions (now 5) and I put our concerns to British Cycling (BC):

 

BC’s policy of allowing any male on the basis of their self-identification alone, access to Rides. This is in direct conflict with its information on its website as to who these rides are for and who may attend them (expressly ‘female only’ led and attended – see link 1);

 

  1. During our communications, BC :

 

  1. Despite being the national governing body for cycling (one of the UK’s most successful and high-profile sports, world-wide) BC has issued a new transgender policy in which it has committed, with no public information, to a policy of making no distinction in any category between females and males who wish to self-identify as women.  This position:

 

  1. Male sport  continues, unaffected.

 

  1. Cycling, as I have observed over many years, is a liberating opportunity (and can be a career) for women.  It is an antidote to anxiety and fear. It is empowering. It is an opportunity to use and improve their bodies in a wholly positive, non-objectifying way. As Sport England found in its extensive research that led to the creation of the This Girl Can Campaign, anxiety and fear are two of the biggest inhibitors of women taking up sport. Add to this anxiety around sporting activity the following facts:

(Refuge.Org.UK).

 

  1. This means that a very significant number of women wanting to attend women-only rides will be survivors of, or be experiencing domestic and/or sexual violence.

 

  1. Yet BC carries out no trauma awareness training with its staff.

 

  1. As one of the UK’s foremost experts on gendered violence, Karen Ingala-Smith  explains:

 

“It is not unusual for women who’ve been subjected to men’s violence to develop a trauma response. ..Women experiencing trauma after violence and abuse will, like most of us – almost always read someone who might be the most kind and gentle trans identified male in the world – as male; and they may experience a debilitating trauma response as a result. It’s not their fault, it’s not a choice and it’s not something they can be educated out of. It’s not hate.  It’s not bigotry. It’s not transphobia. It is an impact of abuse and they need space, support …. not an increased confrontation with a trauma inducing trigger , which is why I am particularly concerned at BC’s policy of not being open and transparent about the fact that Breeze Rides are not female-only and at its abandonment of all female-only opportunities. 

 

  1. An unacknowledged organisation-wide policy of forced teaming and compelled belief at BC will lead to women self-excluding.  It is cruel and a staggering offence against safeguarding by a NGB to gaslight women into attending sessions that they are told are female-only, only to find that they are not, and then being under social pressure not to protest.

 

  1. BC’s mechanistic response (“if any problems arise refer to us and we’ll raise a case”;) is problematic for victims and in breach of the law because:

 

  1. I do not believe that any National Governing Body (NGB) should be unaccountable. All NGBs should demonstrate that with any new, significant policy they have consulted:

and have undertaken a comprehensive equality impact assessment.

 

  1. I ask the Committee to recommend that use of EA single sex exemptions in sport at all levels should be mandatory unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

 

  1. As the US Education Department recently stated: a policy of allowing male athletes to compete in female sports: “denied female student-athletes athletic benefits and opportunities, including advancing to finals in events, higher level competitions, awards, medals, recognition, and the position of greater visibility…. and other benefits”.  BC’s unpublicised policy of reserving no female-only sports will exclude girls and women from opportunities to excel in sport.   One does not increase the visibility of one group by making members of another, protected group invisible and denying this protected group the opportunities which historically have been  denied to them. BC has not, at any time, even so much as considered using the single sex exemption and female athletes have no way of encouraging BC or any other NGB, to use them. The exemptions are virtually useless as a way of ensuring balance and fairness, therefore.

 

  1. If BC is permitted to continue to prioritise self- identification over sport, we will never see the next Laura Trott.

 

Case Study 2: Professional Body

 

  1. In 2020, my  professional body, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), issued a new Equality Diversity and Inclusivity questionnaire(EDIQ) to its members. One of the stated purposes of this questionnaire is to track differences and inequalities between the sexes.  However, in order to confirm that I am female, I was compelled to also affirm that I adhered to a belief in self-identification.  While I respect everyone’s right to hold personal beliefs, it is of equal importance that no one should be compelled to state a belief they do not hold.  Moreover, the way that the relevant questions were set out seemed designed to produce a specific result – that is, give the impression that a much wider section of the profession holds certain philosophical beliefs than might actually be the case. This way of organising questions is also in conflict with the latest guidance from the Office for National Statistics. I expressed my concern to the SRA that its questionnaire did not include sex as a stand-alone question, in conflict with the latest guidance from the ONS; and disproportionately foregrounded gender.  Nor was ‘gender’ defined, thus leading to confusion and a conflation with ‘sex’.

 

  1. During a meeting with the SRA it revealed that it had not consulted any woman solicitor groups (despite women being a protected group under the Equality Act 2010 and a group that would be directly affected by the SRA’s skewed data recording) only transgender lobby groups; and that it had not considered that the design of the questionnaire could have profound implications for the accurate regarding of how different EA-protected groups are represented in the profession. Like BC, SRA had not carried out any equality impact assessment.

 

  1. The SRA admitted that most respondents would understand the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ to be interchangeable. So, if the SRA wishes to gather data on both these important but different characteristics, it needs to define and make an express distinction between the two, so that respondents understand what it is that they are affirming.

 

  1. The needs of females and the needs of transgender individuals are quite different and if diversity data is to be useful, questionnaires need to reflect this.  It is well-evidenced that statistically, women earn less, have lower pensions and spend more time as carers. They may need time off work for maternity  leave, illness in pregnancy, carer’s leave, or menopause-related symptoms.  Menopause symptoms can last for years and can be severe.  Transgender individuals may need time off for medical appointments.

 

  1. The data that the SRA will gather from the 2019 questionnaire cannot be relied upon to inform policy on women because it puts transwomen and women in the same category, thus, unintentionally, skewing outputs on crucial measures such as salary and job seniority. 

 

  1. The largest groups of self-identifying people in the UK are adolescent girls and middle aged men.  The SRA informed me that there are twice as many self identifying individuals in the legal profession as in the general UK population.  While this is a positive sign of diversity in the legal profession, it makes it even more critical to be accurate, scientific and distinct in data gathering.  The SRA also told me that in one law firm alone, ten people self-identified as transgender, of which the firm itself was hitherto entirely unaware.  Most if not all of these individuals will be middle aged men (and therefore likely to hold senior roles with higher salaries). If the SRA data records these individuals as female, this would produce a significantly inaccurate result, suggesting sexual parity gains made by females in that law firm which do not exist.  This would be an exercise in ‘whitewashing’ sexual inequality (albeit unwittingly), both for that firm and for the legal profession.  Unless the questionnaire is changed, these ‘false positives’ will be repeated firm by firm. 

 

  1. The SRA’s approach has never been considered by the Office for National Statistics. 

 

  1. For a summary of why what the SRA has done discriminates against women and is unsound, I recommend Joan McAlpine’s statement on the 2021 Census. https://twitter.com/joanmcalpine/status/1101251118611525633?lang=en

 

My sport, which means so much to me, and my profession  no longer offer me female-only recognition. This matters because my identity is being subsumed and erased; my membership of a protected group is impossible to protect and uphold; my history (and I should not have to disclose this, but I feel I have to) of sexual violence is not given equal consideration. I should not have to justify my right to female-only spaces and opportunities; I should not have to ‘earn’ them by revealing distressing, highly personal details to male strangers - or anyone.

 

The Sex Exemptions are not protecting me or many other girls and women.

 

Links:

 

               BC advert content for Breeze Rides:

 

Our goal is to create a collective of strong female role models to become a driving force behind British Cycling’s wider #OneInAMillion ambition to get one million more women cycling by 2020…

The assessed one-day course qualifies you to deliver guided bike rides for groups of female adults of all levels of experience and ability.

 

  1. The latest evidence on male innate advantage:

 

 

November 2020

6