Scottish GRA Reform Bill Submission

Do you agree with the overall purpose of the Bill?

No

Should applicants for a GRC require a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or supporting documentation?

Yes

Should the period of living in an acquired gender be reduced from 2 years to 3 months (with an additional 3 month reflection period)?

No

Do you agree with the introduction of a 3-month reflection period before a GRC is granted?

Don't know

Do you agree with the removal of the Gender Recognition Panel from the Process, with applications instead being made to the Registrar General?

No

Should the minimum age for applicants be reduced from 18 to 16?

No

Do you anticipate any negative impacts from the provisions in the Bill?

Yes

Please provide any further comments you have about the provisions in the Bill. 1. Do you agree with the overall purpose of the Bill?

No. We believe that the current legislation provides the appropriate checks and balances for those wishing to transition and for the communities and institutions that are impacted by that transition. We agree with the observations made by the EHRC, namely that the waiting times for gender identity services are too long and need to be improved, but we believe that transgender people will be better served through careful resourcing of these services, not by bypassing the need for medical considerations of transition.

2. Should applicants for a GRC require a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or supporting documentation?

Yes. We believe that the requirement for a medical diagnosis is a crucial stage in the process, acting as a safeguard for the person transitioning as well as a protection for women’s and children’s rights. It is estimated that less than 1% of the Scottish population have a medical need to transition, removing the requirement to prove a medical need changes the nature of the process, as well as significantly widening the pool of applicants.

We should be asking ourselves why a person would seek to transition if they were not suffering from gender dysphoria?

3. Should the period of living in an acquired gender be reduced from 2 years to 3 months (with an additional 3-month reflection period)?

No. In the first instance, we would submit that living in an ‘acquired gender’, is predominantly reliant upon outdated and harmful gender stereotypes, that we should be seeking to dispel rather than to reinforce.

Secondly, changing gender is a huge and significant undertaking, and not one that can realistically be committed to in such a short time-frame. The NHS Gender Reassignment Protocol advises that after a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (the assessment for which should take place over several months) there should be a 12 month experience prior to any long-term decision on surgery; we submit that such a time period should also apply to any legal changes, to allow the patient to be certain of the permanent life-changing decision they are making.

We have learned from the growing population of detransitioners that many felt the process to be too quick, or not in-depth enough, and there wasn’t sufficient opportunity to explore other reasons for their symptoms. They are often sadly left with irreversible changes to their bodies and reproductive systems. We need to find ways to reduce the risk of this mistake, not exacerbate it.

4. Do you agree with the introduction of a 3-month reflection period before a GRC is granted?

We agree with the principle of a reflection period before a GRC is granted, but only in line with the extended timescales we have outlined in the question above.

5. Do you agree with the removal of the Gender Recognition Panel from the Process, with applications instead being made to the Registrar General?

No. The Gender Recognition Panel brings important expertise and experience allowing them to scrutinise applications before making the decision. To remove them from the process would turn it into a purely administrative process, which ignores the significance of transition for the applicant and other stakeholders.

6. Should the minimum age for applicants be reduced from 18 to 16?

No. A FOI Request from For Women Scotland, evidenced an unprecedented 705% increase in referrals for Scottish children to the Sandyford Young People’s Gender Service between 2013 and 2019. This mammoth increase in child referrals to gender clinics is a huge cause for concern, and should be the subject of urgent review, not a relaxation of the rules.

Evidence shows that there are a plethora of reasons for children and teenagers expressing discomfort with their sex, or their bodies. This includes having ASD, being lesbian, gay or bisexual, suffering trauma, discomfort with puberty.

Young people are also more susceptible to external influence, of which there is an abundance on social media, in schools and in social groups. It is for these reasons that the medical strategy is to create a neutral space for self-exploration, which becomes meaningless if during this time the patient acquires a GRC.

We also believe, taking the above into account, that at 16 a person is incapable of signing a meaningful declaration that they intend to live the rest of their life in an acquired gender. This in no way serves to disrespect or dismiss the experiences of young people, but is reflective of the stage of their cognitive and emotional development.

7. Do you anticipate any negative impacts from the provisions in the Bill?

We believe that the proposals poorly serve both the trans community and other stakeholders, significantly women and children.

Removing the need for medical input, removing scrutiny from the Gender Recognition Panel, and decreasing the time requirement to a mere 12 weeks, hugely increases the risk of regret, detransition and a lifetime of consequences that could have been avoided with proper due process.

What some might see as barriers, others see as protections, both for the person seeking a GRC, and for those who might be at risk from those who seek to abuse the system. We do not believe that the threat of criminal repercussions for a false declaration will deter those determined predators, some of whom are already successfully clearing the existing hurdles so that they can access women in prisons and hospitals.

8. Please provide any further comments you have about the provisions in the Bill

We have members and associates on both sides of the border, and many have expressed concern about the need for clarity about how any new law in Scotland should interact with the current law and protections in place in England and Wales.

The Bill as drafted requires an applicant to have had their birth registered in Scotland, or be ordinarily resident in Scotland in order to be eligible; this latter criterion is not defined. We believe that the lack of clarity around what constitutes being ordinarily resident, particularly when combined with the proposed shortened period for living in the acquired gender, provides a shortcut for those resident elsewhere in the UK to gain a GRC that is an invitation for abuse.