fbpx

Speak to a trained member of the Mermaids team. 08088010400

MPs show overwhelming support for GRA reform at Westminster. Kai O’Doherty (they/them), Head of Policy and Research at Mermaids, asks when will the Government act?

On Monday 21 February 2022, Westminster held a debate on reform to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), triggered by a petition signed by over 130,000 trans rights supporters.

In addition to impassioned, supportive cross-party speeches from MPs, the Minister for Equalities, Mike Freer MP, committed the Government to some further specific reforms on language and spousal veto – but with the wider population’s overwhelming support for reform, both in and outside of the House, how much longer can the Government delay change?

There is clear cross-party support for reform, with over 15 MPs attending on Monday and by far the majority of those in attendance were calling for the GRA to be updated. Multiple MPs spoke to the real lived experiences of their trans constituents, and the difficulties we face in living our lives with dignity and respect under the current GRA process, and ongoing political climate generally. 

What MPs said

MP’s echoed how broken the GRA process is (the process that allows some trans people to change the sex on their birth certificate, through the issuing of a Gender Recognition Certificate, or GRC). At the time of the GRA consultation for England and Wales in 2018, fewer than 6,000 trans people had successfully obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, compared to Government estimates of 200,000-500,000 trans people living in the UK – that’s less than 3% of trans people. The system is clearly inaccessible and not fit for purpose. 

We thank those MPs who re-centred the conversation on the nightmare that trans people face when going through the outdated process. The requirement for multiple pieces of medical evidence and diagnosis, the requirement to prove you have been “living as that gender” for two years, and the need for spousal consent present trans people with often humiliating, time-consuming and backwards bureaucracy to navigate. 

Even the Minister for Equalities himself dispelled myths of GRA reform relating to the Equality Act 2010 protections, a common fear tactic used by opponents, and MPs reiterated that the GRA is simply about a trans person changing their legal sex on their birth certificate.

What the Government committed to

Mike Freer MP, the Minister for Equalities, committed in his speech to making the process “kinder and gentler, and more supportive and patient-led” by:

  • “amending a specific reference to ‘disorder’ via a remedial order as soon as possible”.
  • removing “what is known as spousal veto” through the implementation of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.
  • reviewing “intrusive nature of the information that might have to be required for a panel”.
  • “ensuring that the whole client/patient…process [via GICs, mental health services and GPs] is streamlined and made faster, more effective and client-led”.

While these reforms are welcomed, the question remains: when will the Government put their words into action, and reform the GRA as has been promised since 2018?

If the wider population, the majority of MPs attending the debate, and even the Minister himself agree that “trans people deserve the dignity of being known as their true selves” – when will this clear public mandate be fulfilled?

What can you do?

Write to your MP, explaining why you care, and urge them to hold the Government to account for their commitments for reform.

You can also support trans kids and their families by signing up to our newsletter, signing up for a fundraising challenge or getting in contact. We have so much more to do, and we need your help!

In a shameful act of trans exclusion, the Equality and Human Rights Commission yesterday (Wednesday 26 January) failed our community, calling for gender identity to be removed from the proposed ban on conversion therapy legislation in the first instance to allow for further “scrutiny”. The Commission also wrote to the Scottish Government to further delay its work to update the Gender Recognition Act.

The ban on conversion therapy and gender recognition has endured several years of “scrutiny” and will be subject to more throughout the respective legislative processes. These years of public discourse have resulted in trans people and communities being falsely positioned as dangerous and predatory. It has created damaging and misleading narratives which are now well embedded within mainstream discourse and the EHRC is demonstrating that it appears to have been captured by anti-trans rhetoric which seeks to derail UK and Scottish Government plans. 

Systemic oppression of the trans community

Both of these actions continue a systemic oppression of the trans community – seemingly ever-increasing, and exacerbated by a powerful anti-gender movement that has swept through Europe, including the UK, as recognised by international human rights authorities. 

This is a pivotal moment in our history when we should expect our “impartial” Equality Watchdog to see through the blatant distraction techniques of a very vocal minority and uphold the proposed outright ban on conversion therapy and improvement to gender recognition in Scotland. They have not.

Instead, they have continued to push the erroneous idea that sex based rights and trans rights are at odds with one another and have actively invited further delays and restrictions to our liberties, freedoms and protections. Trans people accessing recognition and protection is legally possible without the charade of a rights-battle or “polarised debate”. When it comes to our human rights, there should be no debate. 

Is the EHRC fit for purpose?

The EHRC recognises on their Twitter that we are in “changing times” and they’re right about that – but the change is one of regression. It is worrying to see yet again that it’s institutions like the EHRC – organisations that we should be able to depend on – are in fact actively suggesting acts of regression that only work to refuse social, economic, and political progression for our community, which is truly damaging. Make no mistake – if they succeed in delaying, restricting and/or removing the rights of trans people – this sets a dangerous precedent for all. 

Until we as a community see a significant investment, meaningful engagement and progressive action taken by the EHRC towards progressing trans rights, we see no merit in further dialogue. We must also question the authority the EHRC has and ask whether it is fit for purpose and we call on the Government and international bodies to urgently review the EHRC and ensure that trans people’s rights are effectively supported by this institution. 

The UK can no longer rest on its history as an “LGBT+ rights pioneer”. We fall woefully behind other countries at a time when, ironically, we’re fast approaching the international LGBT+ conference, Safe To Be Me, which the UK is hosting. If the UK Government really wants trans people to feel “safe to be”, then they must show leadership and not to be deterred. 

We will be shocked if the EHRC’s submission manages to change the UK’s position on a ban on conversion practice. Irrespective of this, we felt a duty to call them out. We are also pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government has today made their position clear, stating “our support for trans rights does not conflict with our continued strong commitment to advance equality and to protect and uphold women’s rights.” Go Scotland. 

What can YOU do?

Adding your voice will help ensure the EHRC continues to be part of a minority viewpoint. We are, however, one organisation and to truly make change, we now urge everyone who is outraged by the Commission’s conduct to act.

1. Fill in the consultation for the ban on conversion therapy.

2. Write to your MP to tell them how you feel. 

3. Write to Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon. 

4. Donate and sign up to our newsletter to support Mermaids’ work in actively speaking up for trans, non-binary and gender diverse young people and their families. 

We will always keep speaking up for our community. Remember, we are here for you.

If you’ve been affected by the recent news around conversion therapy, Galop‘s National Conversion Therapy Helpline is open Monday – Friday 10am – 4pm. Call 0800 130 3335 or email [email protected].

Analysis from Mermaids’ legal and policy team into a new report by the Women and Equalities Select Committee into proposed changes to UK Gender Recognition legislation

We welcome the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s (WESC) report released today (Tuesday 21 December 2021) that reviews the Government response to proposed reforms to Gender Recognition legislation in the UK. 

You’ll see that the WESC examined the Government’s proposals, gathering evidence on whether the Government’s proposed changes are the right ones and whether they went far enough.

The Commission were exploring what changes, if any, should be made to existing legislation, in order for current legislation to improve transgender equality. 

The Committee’s report is not a short document and we have done our best to pull out some of the key recommendations of the Committee.

Key recommendations

  1. The report recommends a few changes to Gender Recognition legislation, including removing the requirement to live in an affirmed gender for a period of two years, removing the requirement of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and removal of the spousal veto. 
  2. The report calls for a review to be conducted of whether the Gender Recognition Panel could be removed and replaced with the Registrar General for England and Wales, and for interim plans to improve transparency around the Panel’s operation be made.
  3. The report calls for better guidance on the single-sex and separate-sex exceptions and urges the GEO and EHRC to publish such guidance “immediately”. 
  4. The report calls on the Government to set out and commit to placing the application process online in the next six months, alongside providing a non-digitised route for those who do not have access or do not wish to apply online.
  5. The report found that the length of time the Government took to respond to it’s own consultation (in 2018) is “unacceptable”. It concludes that this delay exacerbate tensions between an already polarises group of stakeholders and also caused real distress to many within the transgender community. 
  6. The report acknowledged that the GEO’s mention of “new clinics’ within their GRA reform” announcement last year “served only as a distraction from the lack of any real change to the gender recognition process”. 
  7. The report recommends that the requirement for “spousal veto” should be removed insofar that spouses should be given the option to remain married/in a civil partnership or have it annulled. 
  8. The report that the minimum age for those able to access legal gender recognition should remain at 18. 
  9. The report has also recommended that section 22 of the GRA be amended to only apply when the disclosure of a person’s GRC status has been disclosed in a “deliberate and knowing” manner. 
  10. The report calls for improved healthcare provision for transgender, non-binary and gender diverse people. 
  11. The report calls for the Government to respond to clarify within 12 weeks on its intentions around legal identification for non-binary people and for the EHRC to conduct research to provide for legal recognition within this parliament. 
  12. The report asks for the Government and EHRC to provide worked examples of exemptions to Equality Act protection for trans* people to ensure clarity regarding single-sex spaces, employment and sports. 
  13. The report calls for a distinction to be made between sex and gender when collecting data and to ensure that distress for trans* people is minimised when such data is collected. 
  14. The report calls for the Government to immediately sign up to the LGBT Action Plan and reinstate the LGBT Advisory Panel. 

“Welcome and needed”: An analysis by Lui Asquith (they/them), Director of Legal and Policy

After years of difficulty that arose from the public consultation on GRA reform within which the law was confused and rights were erroneously put at odds with one another, we have a report from the Women and Equalities Select Committee that brings us hope and a request for action from this Government. 

It’s a document that isn’t perfect, but what we are seeing here is movement and a willingness from the WESC to say the Government has not got it right and that it needs to do better for trans people. The Committee hasn’t gone lightly on the Government and this is a very much needed nod to a future where trans people can be. 

LGBTQIA+ rights have always been difficult to acquire (that’s a reality, not an excuse to further reject our civil liberties) and what we see within this report is a committee that is willing and ready to hold our Government to account on trans equality matters, which is both welcome and needed.

Unfortunately the Committee didn’t go so far as to recommend a lowering of age around legal gender recognition, which we know to exist around the world already. What I would say to that is, it’s not surprising given the scaremongering that’s happened around trans youth particularly within the UK, but I do believe that this report is a step towards one day achieving self-ID for trans children and young people. 

I do believe that this report is a step towards one day achieving self-ID for trans children and young people”

The decision around a refusal to support under 18s to self-determine their own identity is both a by-product of how we approach the child voice more generally within the UK together with a imposing a cis-normative expectation on youth, which many have to carry with them for the rest of their life. 

Young trans people are people over and above anything else and they deserve the right to make their own decisions once they have the capacity to do so, just as any other person does. We can already see in other areas of law that being under 18 doesn’t mean you don’t have that capacity to make decisions for yourself – we should be allowing all young people to enjoy these human liberties. LGBTQIA+ rights and our approach to it needs to include those under 18 otherwise we are only serving one part of the population.

In a crucial move, this report says no to the pathologising of trans people and pushes the Government to consider what it can do for non-binary people. 

It also doesn’t hide away from commenting on access to healthcare and calls for: “improved support to help young people seeking to transition, especially mental health support. Young people should have access to services which work in tandem with gender identity clinics and allow them to discuss and explore their feelings about transitioning in detail. We welcome the work being undertaken in the Cass Review and look forward to reading its findings.” 

At Mermaids, we have been witnessing an ocean of distress that has been coming from a lack of healthcare provision for young trans and gender exploring people. We are relieved that this has been plainly acknowledged within this report. We have young people waiting several years before they are seen and supported and it isn’t good enough – it needs to change and this report agrees. 

Lui was quoted throughout the report, following their oral evidence session in March 2021

  • On the supposedly “new” clinics referred to by the Minister Liz Truss’ in their announcement of the “reforms” last year following the consultation: “Similarly, Lui Asquith, Director of Legal and Policy at Mermaids, a charity supporting transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children and young people, told us that ‘they are not deemed new clinics’ and that Mermaids ‘understand them to be pilot schemes’.”
  • On the spreading of misinformation around the GRA and Equality Act 2010: “Lui Asquith from Mermaids, told us: ‘The delay added fuel to the confusion, which we referred to earlier, between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act. Incorrect information was put out. At the time, it added to the idea that this erroneous information was correct. That was a huge problem…’ We were repeatedly told about the negative impact of the Government’s delayed response on many transgender people. Lui Asquith told us that, during this period, there was a ‘dangerous move to questioning the existence of trans people within this country’, and that there was ‘no unequivocal message from the Government to say, ‘This is where we stand. We include trans people and we will not tolerate intolerance’. This was reiterated by Nancy Kelley from Stonewall, who said that the length of time the consultation was open for and the length of time it took for the Government to respond, ‘allowed anti-trans mobilisation to happen’”. 
  • On the lack of action taken by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in support of GRA reform: “At Mermaids, we hear about a feeling of a lack of advocacy from the commission. Obviously, the commission is commissioned to stand up for those with protected characteristics, one of which is those subject to the gender reassignment section. Quite frankly, those who are protected by that section currently do not feel as though the commission is standing up for them as much as they would like. There is huge disappointment, but there is a commitment to wanting to work with the commission and change that. I suppose the feeling around the commission, certainly from the trans population, will only change through public action. We hope to see that in  the near future.“
  • On why those under 18 years old should have access to legal gender recognition: “’We believe that those who are under 18 should also have access to legal gender recognition. From a very clinical perspective, it would simply allow this system to align with other state systems, the obvious example being the passport system. If a young trans binary individual wishes to change their gender marker, there is the opportunity for them to do that. This system is currently incompatible with other state systems’. They continued by setting out what impact the lack of legal recognition can have on young trans people: ‘The indirect impact of the current system not acknowledging young people strikes to the heart of the well-being of young trans, non-binary and gender variant people. It has an impact on their everyday because it simply increases the risk of young people being outed unwantedly in their everyday life, school settings, healthcare settings and general social settings. This exposes an individual to a risk of harm, harassment and discrimination that we simply should not allow for in wider society.‘”

Find out more about our legal and policy work here.

This is a guide to help inform people should they wish to respond to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s inquiry. It is drafted in a way to guide and support the reader to feel equipped and empowered to respond, in their own words, to the current inquiry, which has a deadline of 27 November 2020.

Download PDF version here.

What is the inquiry?

  • The Women and Equalities Select Committee (‘WESC’ or ‘the Committee’) is asking the public to offer their thoughts on the Government’s response to the GRA reform consultation for England and Wales. It also wants to know if more needs to be done to support the trans, non-binary and gender-diverse communities.
  • The purpose of the inquiry is to examine the work of the Government Equalities Office. The information obtained can be used to hold the Government to account.

What is the Women and Equalities Select Committee?

  • The Women and Equalities Select Committee is a cross-party committee of MPs appointed to scrutinise the Government on equality matters.  
  • The Committee examines the work of the Government Equalities Office (‘GEO’).
  • It holds the Government to account on equality law and policy, including the Equality Act 2010 and cross-Government activity on equalities.

How is this inquiry different from the GRA Consultation for England and Wales?

  • The Gender Recognition Act 2004 public consultation (‘GRA Consultation’) for England and Wales brought by the Government Equalities Office (which is different to the Women and Equalities Select Committee) ran from July to October 2018 in response to the Committee’s Transgender Equality report which was published in 2016.
  • The GRA Consultation was a way for the Government Equalities Office to hear from the wider public on what they felt the GRA reforms should include.
  • The Government Equalities Office’s Consultation was responded to by over 100,000 individuals and organisations and the Government Equalities Office committed to making only a few small, yet positive, reforms to the GRA 2004 in September 2020. See our full response to the Government Equalities Office’s response, HERE.

This inquiry is the Women and Equalities Select Committee asking the public their opinion on the Government Equalities Office’s work. (Confusing, we know!)

How Can I ‘Give Evidence’?

  • You can submit your ‘evidence’ (i.e. your answers to the questions) via the Government website HERE.
  • Your evidence is the written responses to these questions.
  • There are 16 questions you can respond to.
  • You can respond to as many or as few questions as you like.
  • You don’t have to live in England or Wales to respond to the questions.
  • Should you wish to respond, please see this link which sets out how to format your response.
  • Ten of these questions focus exclusively on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (‘SECTION 1’).
  • The remaining six are much broader in scope (although two are still related to the GRA) (‘SECTION 2’).
  • We, below, provide guidance in relation to what you may wish to address in a response to each question.
  • We always encourage people to provide their own, personal lived experience to a submission should they feel comfortable and safe in doing so.
  • Please ensure you write your submission anonymously should you not wish you/anyone mentioned to be identifiable. Written submissions from anyone aged under 18 will be automatically anonymised.

The Questions

SECTION 1

Question 1:   Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”?

  • See the ‘proposed changes’ HERE
  • In short, the Government announced that it would be moving the process of applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) online and the fee will be reduced from £140 to “a nominal amount”.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think these proposals are adequate and whether you think more can be done to reform the GRA to make it ‘kinder and more straight forward’.

Question 2:   Should a fee for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate be removed or retained? Are there other financial burdens on applicants that could be removed or retained?

  • The Government has announced the fee will be reduced from £140 to a “nominal amount”.
  • There has been no clarification to date on what ‘nominal amount’ means specifically.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think there should be a fee to the application at all. If you think there should be, how much do you think it should be? What should ‘nominal’ look like to you? You can also offer your thoughts on other financial difficulties that can arise as a result of the GRA process and whether reform could help with these.

Question 3:    Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?

  • Currently, the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) requires the applicant to evidence a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
  • To prove gender dysphoria, reports must be submitted from two registered medical practitioners, and at least one of the practitioners must practice in the field of gender dysphoria (alternatively, a registered psychologist practising in this field can also submit a report).
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think it is right that trans people should have to fulfil such medical requirements in order to obtain legal gender recognition.

Question 4:   Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?

  • Currently, the GRA requires a trans person to provide evidence that proves they ‘have lived in their acquired gender’ for at least two years. 
  • This means that a trans person must send evidence to show that they have been living as either a man or a woman at least two years.
  • Common examples of items you can include are: Passport; Driving licence (both counterpart and photo ID parts); Payslips or HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) documents such as a P60 or P45; Utility Bills; Bank statements; Letters from employers, colleges, universities, doctors or other professional organisation; Student loan documents; Academic certificates or documentation. (This is not a definitive list.)
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think this requirement is a good thing or not, together with your reasons why.

Question 5:    What is your view of the statutory declaration and should any changes have been made to it?

  • Currently, the process under the GRA requires a trans person to submit a ‘statutory declaration’ of their intention to live in their acquired gender ‘until death’.
  • A statutory declaration is a form statement made affirming that something is true to the best knowledge of the person making the declaration. It has to be signed in the presence of a solicitor, Commissioner for Oaths or notary public, usually for a fee.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think the requirement of a statutory declaration is a good thing or not and your reasons why.

Question 6:   Does the spousal consent provision in the Act need reforming? If so, how? If it needs reforming or removal, is anything else needed to protect any rights of the spouse or civil partner?

  • Broadly, currently a married/civil-partnered trans person who wants to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate must either obtain the consent of their spouse, or end their marriage/civil partnership. This provision is often called the, ‘spousal veto’.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think this requirement is a good thing or not and your reasons why.

Question 7:   Should the age limit at which people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be lowered?

  • Currently, you must be 18 and over to apply for a GRC.
  • This excludes all binary-trans people under the age of 18 from being able to get legal recognition of their gender identity, despite the fact that many 16 and 17 year olds can obtain passports and driving licences with the correct gender marker on.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think the current age limit is a good thing or not and your reasons why.

Question 8:    What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?

  • The ‘proposed changes’ are the changes referred to in the GEO’s response (see Question 1).
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about what, if any, impact the proposed changes will have on those who may want to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. It also gives you an opportunity more broadly to explain whether you think the changes would impact trans people more generally.  

Question 9:    What else should the Government have included in its proposals, if anything?

  • The ‘proposals’ are the changes referred to in the GEO’s response (see Question 1).
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about what else you think the Government could have included in proposed changes to GRA, if anything.  If you can, explain why these are important to you.

Question 10: Does the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill offer a more suitable alternative to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004? 

The Scottish Government’s proposed Bill (the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill) proposes the following:

  • to reduce the requirement of ‘living in your acquired gender’ from 2 years to 3 months, with an additional reflection period of 3 month months, so overall reducing the current requirement to 6 months;
  • to lower the age a person can obtain a GRC from 18 to 16 years old; to abolish the current requirements for medical evidence to be submitted to a Gender Recognition Panel,
  • and instead relies on a system of ‘statutory declaration’ (see question 5).
  • The Bill does not extend access to obtaining a GRC to those under the age of 16, or to non-binary individuals, who continue to be excluded from accessing legal gender recognition
  • Further information around the Scottish Government Reform Bill proposals can be found here.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think the Scottish proposals are better than the ones within the GEO’s response, for England and Wales. Give reasons where you can.

SECTION 2

Question 11: Why is the number of people applying for GRCs so low compared to the number of people identifying as transgender?

  • The National LGBT Survey (2018) published found that only 12% of trans respondent who had ‘started or finished transitioning’ had a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about why you think so few trans people are applying for a GRC.

Question 12:   Are there challenges in the way the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact? For example, in terms of the different language and terminology used across both pieces of legislation.

  • ‘Gender Reassignment’ is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, which is the main piece of legislation that protects those with a ‘protected characteristic’ from unlawful discrimination. 
  • Under the Equality Act, ““A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.
  • The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is the piece of legislation that covers the process by which trans people can change the gender marker on their birth certificate to match their gender identity, subject to a certain criteria.
  • The protections provided for those with the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ under the Equality Act 2010 are not dependent upon the individual having changed the gender marker on their birth certificate.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact and if you do, whether you think this interaction brings challenges. You can also refer to specific pieces of language either or both Acts use.

Question 13: Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?

  • The Equality Act 2010 protects trans individuals from unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation (on the basis that they have the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’).
  • The Equality Act 2010 also allows certain service providers to legally discriminate against a trans individual if such a decision can be shown to be a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. 
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think the protections in the Equality Act 2010 are sufficient and whether you think further guidance is required to explain the current protections.

Question 14: Does the Equality Act adequately protect trans people? If not, what reforms, if any, are needed?

  • The Equality Act 2010 protects “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex” from unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation (on the basis that they have the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’) in environments such as the work place, school, when accessing a public/private service etc.
  • You will see that an individual does not have to have a Gender Recognition Certificate or to have gone through any form of medical intervention to be protected by the Act. Further, a person does not have to be 18 years old to be protected. 
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think the Equality Act 2010 provides enough protection for all trans people, in its current form. See the full section HERE.

Question 15: What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services?

  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can provide the Committee with an insight into the issues trans people face in daily life when accessing, or attempting to access, support services. This may include reference to access to healthcare, including public services and facilities, domestic violence and sexual violence services.

Question 16: Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and non-binary people? If so, how?

  • Non-binary and gender-fluid people are currently excluded from accessing legal gender recognition in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. There is also only a ‘male’ or ‘female’ option on passports and driving licences.
  • YOUR SUBMISSION: Here, you can write about whether you think there are further reforms that could happen to ensure non-binary and gender-fluid people feel their rights are supported in wider society. Explain with reasons, where possible.

You can find the link to the inquiry here: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 Inquiry. The deadline to submit evidence by is 27th November 2020.