Written evidence submitted by Bond [GRA1966]
The Government’s response to the GRA consultation:
What is kinder, who has to be so and at what cost? ‘Transition’ should be a process that requires careful consideration and a deep thought process as it is a life altering commitment for an individual to make.
What does ‘to have lived in their acquired gender’ mean or look like? Name change? Painted nails? There is no ‘gender rule’. Gender is a social construct. It would be far better to be breaking down or even better removing the barriers of ‘gender’ and for there to be a balanced and accepted view of all presentations of the two sexes.
No, it does not need reforming, it needs retaining. It is not fair to gaslight someone who has entered a marriage / civil partnership as a hetrosexual whom then suddenly finds themselves in a completely different relationship (through the newly ‘acquired gender’ of their spouse/partner) than that of the original commitment, without them being able to declare their interest / objection before being legally bound into this ‘new’ relationship.
No, it should not be lowered. It is recognised that young adults do not finish fully developing emotionally, psychologically and physically until around age 25yrs. To make a process even easier for a young adult to commit to a life altering event which is irreversible is not the ‘best interests’ (or ethical) position to take.
Given the evidence of an extraordinary increase in the amount of young (primarily female) people (being extremely vulnerable to peer, social and adult led pressure) to ‘transition’, the impact will be devastating on many, young, impressionable people’s lives, through committing to a process which is irreversible, along with setting them on a path of life long surgery and medication to create an ‘acquired gender’ which is undeterminable language in the first place.
Some consideration for the effect on women, if the process becomes as easy as ordering an online certificate, given the evidence of some males propensity to access women’s single sex provisions for nefarious reasons.
Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:
Yes there are challenges in the interaction of the GRA 2004 and the EA 2010 due to the terminology. The Protected characteristic of Sex as a class is extremely important. When sex and ‘gender’ (which relies on stereotypical behaviour and a stereotypical presentation or an ‘innate feeling’) are conflated, it creates many problems.
Yes, as there is a definite requirement for single sex spaces, there is clear and definitive position of enacting this provision.
The EA does adequately protect ‘trans’ people alongside and as much as all the categories are protected.
‘Trans’ people have many issues in accessing health services because the NHS system does not retain a record of the person’s birth sex once a GRC ‘transition’ has occurred, therefore invites to certain medical health checks that pertain to a sex category are not issued, which can and has caused health issues to be missed in some cases.
There is no legal definition of ‘gender fluid’ and non-binary so this question makes no sense.