Written evidence submitted by Women and Girls Equality Network (WAGEN) to the Transgender Equality Inquiry

Written evidence submitted on behalf of Women and Girls Equality Network (WAGEN) by Dr Julia Long

About Women and Girls Equality Network (WAGEN)

We are a network of academics, professionals and activists, with a wealth of expertise and experience covering the following areas: academic research and scholarship, particularly in the field of male violence against women; equalities policy, projects, resources and guidance; youth work; support services for women and girls who have experienced male violence; education; community development; developing and delivering campaigns for women’s equality and campaigns to eliminate all forms of male violence against women and girls. We are happy to provide details of our membership and publications on request.

Submission: Executive summary

• Women’s inequality and male violence against women and girls
• Key concerns regarding transgenderism and its impact on women and girls
• Premises of transgenderism
• Terminology and definitions
• The need to protect and ensure women-only spaces and services
• Transgenderism and male violence against women and girls
• Recording violence perpetrated by men identifying as women
• Transgenderism and children
• Access to ‘gender reassignment’ procedures

1. Women’s inequality and male violence against women and girls. Whilst we fully agree that individuals identifying as transgender need protection from discrimination, we note that this Inquiry fails to acknowledge the needs of women and girls, and in particular fails to address any potential implications for women and girls in relation to the promotion of transgender rights. The rights of individuals identifying as transgender must be accommodated in ways that do not conflict with or impinge upon the rights of women and girls. We note the ongoing inequality, economic disadvantage, harassment and violence experienced by women and girls, often along with further inequalities resulting from discrimination on the grounds of race, class, age, disability, sexuality, caring responsibilities and other equality categories. Women continue to experience discrimination across all areas of life including employment, childcare and economic status, and the Government’s spending cuts have disproportionately affected women in terms of employment; wages; pensions; access to services; benefits and tax credits (Fawcett, 2012). Women experience particularly high levels of employment discrimination in relation to pregnancy and maternity (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2005; Maternity Action, 2013). In addition to pervasive and systematic discrimination, male violence against women and girls remains a grim reality in the lives of many women, with two women killed in England and Wales each week by a male partner or ex-partner; 85,000 women raped and over 400,000 women sexually assaulted annually; and over 137,000 women in England and Wales living with the consequences of female genital mutilation (End Violence Against Women Coalition, undated).  The vastly increased accessibility and availability of online pornography and the expansion of the global sex industry has served to normalise narratives and practices of sexual violence against women. We note that the UK has yet to ratify the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. In the context of all of the above, it is imperative that this Inquiry considers the rights of women and girls in relation to issues of transgender equality.

2. Key concerns regarding transgenderism and its impact on women and girls. We have two serious concerns regarding transgenderism in relation to women’s and girls’ equality. Firstly, we believe that some of the notions, beliefs and practices which transgenderism promotes are antithetical to women’s and children’s interests. Secondly, we are concerned to ensure that women’s and girls’ right to access female-only spaces and services is protected.

3. Premises of transgenderism. The transgender agenda is generally based on one of two premises: either that it is possible to change from one sex to the other, or that an individual is ‘really’ somehow the other sex, and has been so since birth, in spite of their biological anatomy and chromosomal constitution. We consider both premises to be problematic, as outlined below: 

1. Claims around ‘changing sex’. It is clearly impossible to change biological sex. Men who seek to be reassigned as female, for example, continue to have XY chromosomes, and do not possess female sex organs. Rather, individuals who claim to be transgender seek to achieve certain physical modifications and transformations via various cosmetic, sartorial, medical and surgical interventions, in order to resemble the other sex in certain regards. This often involves a heavy reliance on stereotypical notions of femininity and masculinity – eg the wearing of ‘feminine’ clothes, hairstyles, make up and shoes - which of course have no bearing on whether someone is female or not, and which many women either reject or have no interest in.

2. Claims around innate gender / sex identity. There is an absence of convincing scientific evidence that an individual is somehow ‘really’ male or female in spite of their actual physical and chromosomal characteristics. Such a claim relies on the erroneous notion of the possession of an innate ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’, either in the form of a ‘sexed’ brain or some kind of male or female essence, at odds with one’s actual body. The notion of a sexed brain has long since been discredited and denounced for its poor science and inherent sexism (Fine, 2010; Rippon, 2010) and indeed such a notion is at odds with the well-established concept of neuroplasticity, which refers to the brain’s ability to reorganise itself by forming new neural connections throughout life in relation to factors such as environment and behaviour (Maguire et al, 2006; Doidge, 2007).  According to Professor Gina Rippon of Aston University, “Advances in brain science show that our brains are exquisitely plastic throughout our lives and the notion that there is some kind of predetermined/fixed/universally agreed endpoint for people who are biologically male or female is mistaken.”[1] If claims of a ‘sexed’ brain at odds with an individual’s body can therefore be refuted, claims relating to an innate femaleness or maleness of a transgender individual appear to rely on a mysterious, unspecified essence, which similarly lacks any kind of scientific credibility.

4. Terminology and definitions. Terminology and definitions around transgenderism are extremely confused and problematic. At the heart of the problematic terminology around transgenderism lies the confusion between sex and gender. Whilst ‘sex’ refers to biology (whether an individual is male or female), ‘gender’ is a social and cultural concept (referring to ideas and practices of masculinity and femininity, as discussed below). However, legislation on transgenderism conflates these two categories (as in the terms ‘gender reassignment’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender recognition certificate’) perpetuating the idea that specific practices of masculinity or femininity are intrinsically associated with specific sexed bodies (hence the phenomenon of transgender individuals seeking certain physical modifications and recognition as the other sex). Clearly this is not the case: it is perfectly possible to embrace or reject stereotypical notions of gender, whilst acknowledging one’s biological sex as a material reality.

1. What is ‘gender’? In order to make sense of transgenderism it is necessary to begin with a clear understanding of the concept of gender. Whilst in popular discourse gender tends to be understood at the individual level as a matter of personal expression or identity, a sociologically and politically informed understanding locates gender in the context of a male-dominated society.  Once the term is thus contextualised, it is very clear that gender is in fact part of a social system which serves to maintain male domination and female subordination. ‘Femininity’ refers to the range of behaviours, attributes and norms which collectively indicate women’s subordinate status (eg, cultural imperatives around women’s physical appearance), while ‘masculinity’ refers to the behaviours, attributes and norms which signify male dominance (eg, cultures around militarism or male-dominated sports such as football). Once we understand gender in this context, the problems of the concept of transgenderism become apparent. Feminists are engaged in a struggle to eliminate oppressive gender norms and practices, since they perpetuate male dominance and female subordination. Transgenderism by contrast apparently seeks to maintain a gender system, but simply to allow people to move along the spectrum from one end to another. And obviously, even if one wishes to change gender (eg, to reject masculinity in favour of femininity), it is of course perfectly possible – if politically reactionary - to do this without claiming to actually change one’s sex, which as stated above is a biological impossibility. It is perfectly possible for a man to adopt the trappings of femininity without making any claim to actually being female (and clearly, the trappings of femininity do not make any individual either female or male). Transgenderism therefore involves a set of reactionary beliefs and practices which are likely to be antithetical to women’s interests.

2. Further problematic terminology. There are many other examples of problematic terminology associated with transgenderism, the implications of which are potentially very serious for women and girls.  Predominantly, these terms seek to deny or erase the material reality and lived experience of women as adult human females. Examples in the field of reproduction and reproductive rights abound, including replacing the term ‘woman’ with terms such as ‘persons with uteruses’ and ‘menstruating persons’[2]; replacing the term ‘breastfeeding’ with ‘chestfeeding’[3] (to accommodate f-m transgender persons who wish to deny the presence of their breasts); reference to the penis as a ‘lady-stick’ or reference to m-f transgender persons as ‘women with penises’ (these references are extremely common on social media). Worryingly, adult human females are now being constructed as a subset of women, as the term ‘cis’ (non-trans) has entered the Oxford English Dictionary OED. The disparaging term ‘TERF’ (‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ – used as a slur by transgender activists[4]) is also now being proposed for inclusion in the Collins Dictionary. We are also extremely concerned to hear the term ‘transphobic’ being used to render women’s articulation of our experiences as female-bodied unspeakable, and to shut down debate and discussion.

5. The need to protect and ensure women-only spaces and services. As stated in point 1 above, any developments in government policy and legislation must protect women’s right to separate spaces - include women’s toilets, changing rooms and women-only activities, clubs and societies - and to specialist women-only services. The need for women-only services – particularly for women who have experienced male violence - is well-established, both in terms of research and personal testimony (see, for example, Women’s Resource Centre, 2007; Lewis & Sharp, 2013; Hewitt, 2015; Lovinglilystevans, 2015). Women-only charities working with vulnerable and marginalised women have legitimate concerns about legislation being misused to force them to employ or provide services to people who were/are biological males. It might be useful to note that similar assumptions were made under Canadian legislation until they were challenged by women’s organizations and employment lawyers[5].  Following this challenge, Canadian law was amended to allow any group protected under Section 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Code to restrict its work to a sub-group of the group it was created to serve.  In this case, it means that a women's charity may limit its services to women who are biologically female, rather than serving individuals who are, or have been, biological males.  It is imperative that in the UK context any legislative and policy developments enshrine the rights of female-born women and girls to access and utilise spaces and services specifically designed for female-born women and girls, alongside any provision designed to be used by individuals who were / are biological males.  There are, of course, numerous reasons why the rights and interests of biological females must be protected, one of which involves the need to protect women and girls from potential violence perpetrated by men claiming to be women, as in the case of Christopher ‘Jessica’ Hambrook, who under a particular Toronto law was admitted to two women’s hostels in Toronto on the basis of his claiming to be a woman. Hambrook went on to perpetrate crimes of sexual assault and criminal harassment against women in the shelters.[6]

6. Transgenderism and male violence against women and girls We recognise that individuals who identify as transgender may experience violence from men, and fully agree that appropriate support services should be available in this event. However, men who have transgendered also perpetrate violent crime, often against women and girls, and recognition of this needs to be built into any legislative or policy developments. Two research studies independently demonstrate that men who have transgendered commit violent crime at the same rate as non-transgendered men.  A Swedish longitudinal, cohort study conducted over 30 years found that the rate of convictions for criminal violence perpetrated by m-f transgendered individuals was at the same level as for non-transgender men. (Dhejne, C et al, 2011). The second study looked at m-f transgendered individuals in California’s male prison population in 2009. This study found that a fifth of these individuals were registered sex offenders. The proportion of sex offenders within the m-f transgender category was in fact 6% higher than the proportion of sex offenders in the general male prison population. The proportion of m-f transgenders serving life sentences occurred at a similar rate (13.3%) to that of men in the general prison population (Sexton, Jenness and Sumner, 2009). In addition to these academic research studies, there are a significant number of men convicted of murder or other violent crimes, who subsequently seek ‘gender reassignment’ in prison: cases include Robert Kosilek, Donna Perry, Paris Green, Paul Wayne Luckman and Paul Denyer.[7] There are numerous cases of m-f transgendered individuals perpetrating crimes of sexual harassment and sexual violence against women and girls,[8] and cases of m-f transgendered individuals committing sadistic murders, including the cases of Kryzie King[9] and Luis Morales / Synthia China Blast.[10] High-profile British m-f transgender Frank / Kellie Maloney has admitted to attempting to strangle his wife[11]. Ample evidence of violent threats and abuse directed at women on social media by transgender activists is available online: such abuse commonly includes phrases such as ‘Die in a fire’, ‘Die cis scum’ and using the term ‘TERF’ as a slur (as in ‘round up every terf and all their friends just for good measure and slit their throats one by one’), sometimes accompanied by extremely graphic and threatening imagery.[12]

7. Recording violence perpetrated by men identifying as women A significant problem is emerging in relation to maintaining accurate statistical records of male violence, in that violence perpetrated by m-f transgender individuals is increasingly being reported as perpetrated by women.[13] Should this become the case in terms of official statistics, there is the likelihood that the extent of male violence will be underestimated and that violence perpetrated by females will be overestimated. This has very serious implications in terms of understanding, combating and preventing male violence. Similarly, pressures on the media by transgender activists to not mention the transgender status of transgendered individuals risks misrepresenting the behaviours of women more broadly, as in media reporting of the case of Chloe Jennings-White, a m-f transgender individual who was reported in the press as a woman seeking to become a paraplegic.[14]

8. Transgenderism and children Children are currently growing up within a context of extreme polarisation in terms of the expected attributes and behaviours of girls and boys. The commodification and marketisation of childhood, and in particular the sexualisation and hyper-feminisation of girls, means that children develop in a context of extremely rigid and harmful gender stereotypes, roles and influences, which have serious consequences in terms of their aspirations and preparation for adult life. It is unsurprising that many children do not fit easily into these socially-enforced gender roles. However, the increasing tendency to interpret such children’s behaviour in terms of them being transgender is extremely alarming. Given the very serious psychological and physical harms involved in the ‘transgendering’ of children (Jeffreys, 2014: 123-141), we would strongly argue for initiatives within education, social services, health and child development to focus on rejecting harmful gendered norms and stereotypes, and supporting children to understand that a full and diverse range of attributes, interests and behaviours is available to both girls and boys.

9. Access to ‘gender reassignment’ procedures The risks and harms of medical and surgical procedures involved in ‘gender reassignment’ (Jeffreys, 2014: 58-72) along with the questionable premises on which the practice of transgenderism is based should give the Committee cause for serious reconsideration of the provision of such interventions and related provisions under the NHS. In addition to harms done to individuals – increasingly attested to by ‘detransitioners’ who regret undergoing such serious interventions (Jeffreys, 2014: 72-79) – the cost implications of this harmful practice are not trivial. The number of ‘sex change’ or ‘gender reassignment’ surgical procedures carried out under the NHS in the UK trebled over the decade from 1999 - 2009.[15] These procedures are estimated to have cost the NHS £10 million, a figure which is likely to continue to rise with increased media representation and celebrity cases of transgenderism. This expense comes a time when the NHS is under huge financial pressure and there are cases of people being denied life-saving medication due to cost factors. While ‘gender reassignment’ interventions are usually justified in terms of lessening psychological distress and depression in transgender individuals, not all experts agree that ‘gender reassignment’ necessarily produces a positive outcome for the individual concerned. For example, Dr Paul McHugh - former chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital - argues that gender reassignment fails to address underlying problems of psychological distress and depression.[16]

Recommendations

1. Ensure that any legislative and policy provisions developed with regard to transgender rights in no way impinges on or erodes the rights of women and girls, particularly with regard to accessing female-only spaces and services.

2. Amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to address the problematic premises, language and terminology of that Act and subsequent policies and legislation.

3. Amend the Equality Act 2010 to strengthen protections for women and girls (ie biological females), particularly with regard to enshrining the right to access female-only spaces and services.

4. Ensure that women’s discussion of their own bodies and experience is protected as free speech, and that a feminist critique of transgenderism can in no way be constructed or interpreted as ‘hate speech’ or ‘hate crime’ under the law.

5. Ensure that official statistics record social phenomena involving transgender individuals accurately (for example, both as perpetrators and victims of crime), and that media reports specify where an individual is transgender.

6. Develop policy across all relevant government departments to address dominant gender stereotyping, with a view to promoting an egalitarian and non-gendered culture where children are less likely to view themselves or be seen as ‘transgender’ if they do not conform to society’s definition of appropriate gendered behaviour.

7. Review the provision of ‘gender reassignment’ and all related medical and surgical interventions under the NHS, in the light of a full consideration of harms, risks, testimonies from detransitioners and psychiatric experts, and cost factors.

References

Dhejne C, Lichtenstein P, Boman M, Johansson ALV, Långström N, Landén M (2011) ‘Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.’ PLoS ONE 6(2): e16885. 

Doidge, N (2007). The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. London: Penguin

End Violence Against Women Coalition:  http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/about-violence-against-women

Equal Opportunities Commission (2005). ‘Greater Expectations: Final Report of the EOC’s Investigation into Discrimination Against New and Expectant Mothers in the Workplace.’ Manchester: EOC  

Fawcett Society (2012). ‘The Impact of Austerity on Women.’ Fawcett Society Policy Briefing. London.

Fine, C (2010). Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences. London: Icon Books

Hewitt, R (2015) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/when-i-was-raped-it-was-female-only-spaces-helped-me-recover

Jeffreys, S (2014). Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge 

Lewis, R & Sharp, E (2013): http://www.feministtimes.com/whats-so-safe-about-feminist-women-only-space/

Lovinglilystevans (2015). ‘Trans* Women in my PTSD Group and Performing Femininity’.

https://lovinglilystevans.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/trans-women-in-my-ptsd-group-and-performing-femininity-2/

Maguire E A, Woollett K & Spiers H J (2006). ‘London Taxi Drivers and Bus Drivers: A Structural MRI and Neuropsychological Analysis.’ Hippocampus 16: 1091-1101.

Maternity Action (2013). ‘Overdue: A Plan of Action to Address Pregnancy Discrimination Now.’  London: Maternity Action

Rippon, G (2010) ‘Sexing the Brain: How NeuroNonsense Joined Psychobabble to Keep Women in their Place’. Lecture presented at British Science Festival, Sept. 2010.

Sexton L, Jenness V & Sumner J M (2010). ‘Where the Margins Meet: A Demographic Assessment of Transgender Inmates in Men’s Prisons.’ Justice Quarterly, 27:6, 835-866

Women’s Resource Centre. (2007) ‘Why Women Only?’ Available at: http://thewomensresourcecentre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/whywomenonly.pdf

21 August 2015

1