Nicola William director of Fair Play for Women introduces her organisation as defending the existing rights of women and girls.
Everyone has a sex, some people have a gender identity and we should not conflate these things

Sex is binary and we should be able to make decisions based on sex.

Racquel Rosario Sanchez spokesperson for Filia. We are here to defend women's human rights. We talk about reproductive rights, lesbian rights, immigration issues. We are a very board charity.

We come to this because thousands of women have told us that this is a problem and that we need to stand up

Women's Place was founded to give women a voice on law reform which effect women.

Has had 27 physical meetings most of which related to the GRA reform. We continue to hold webinars on a range of related topics

Firs Question: How suitable is the GRA in its current form

Nic Williams: How the govt recognises legal sex status. In the past the state only recognised birth sex. Now the state breaks the connection between legal sex and birth sex.

Legal sex has now become an umbrella term including those born female but also those born male.

The cost of that inclusion is that excludes and disadvantages those who were born female.

Will GRA reform make the existing problems for women and girls worse?

Filia: GRA was intended to address problems for those who have severe gender dysphoria. Expansion of definition of transgender impacts of women and girls

Current political debate has broadened the definition to the point at which the GRA has become unsuitable.

What is your view of the time taken by the Government to respond to the consultation?

FPFW: There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. GRA reform is a small aspect of the concerns held by women and girls.

There has been a paradigm shift that gender identity should replace sex. The issue is not about the delay

The consultation broke the stranglehold and then women were seen as valid stakeholders.

The discussion needed to happen but the problem still exists so more discussions will be necessary. We need to work together to solver

Filia: We don't want to rush something so important.

What do we expect from the state and the government?

It has has allowed for democratic discussion which would have been prevented if there had not been consultation.

The gap allowed for democratic discussion

Otherwise lobby groups such as Stonewall could have imposed a police which would have been to detriment of half of the UK - women and girls

WPUK: the government only realised that women were stakeholder in late 2017, women had not given evidence in 2015 for example.

Submissions to the consultation had to be weighed. Delay is understandable.

The debate has been toxified by the no debate stance.

The EHRC and other organisations that have a duty to foster good relations have not opened up the space. It has been left to grassroots women's organisations.

We have had to take personal risks, meetings have been attacked.

That is not good for democracy

FPFW: We did a street campaign with leaflets. Talking to people about this.

When we spoke to people about this, rather than being called transphobic and hateful we were actually praised by people saying thank you for explaining the real issues

The problem with this issue is that alone who wants to talk about the interplay of sex and gender identity is somehow hateful.

We wrote guidance to help answer the consultation and we also had a one click response.

This was something that the other side did as well and it was important that we were also counted.

It's no surprise that the well funded pressure groups were able to mobilise majority support but it was a surprise was how much small new grassroots groups could actually mobilise

This should be ringing alarm bells about what public opinion actually is on this issue.

From a standing start we generated a very significant response.

WESC: What discussion did you have with the GEO?

We had 2 meetings to discuss our issues with staff and we made a written submission

What is your view of the Government's proposed changes arising from the consultation on the GRA?

Judith Green WPUK: It is right and proper that a process that has been in place for 15 years should be subject to a review and we broadly welcome the Gov proposals to simplify and reduce the barriers to a GRC

The Minister has made it really clear that the law enables single sex services and protections for women on the basis of biological sex.

That is important because many organisations have made policies which have leapt ahead of the law and which are in breach of the Equality Act

We would like a clear statement about single sex services and the interaction with the GRA

Filia: We agree with WPUK that there has to be balance between the rights of those seeking self id and those seeking single sex spaces for women and girls.

But we also want to take a moment to consider the Gov and kindness

We want bureaucracy to be kinder to all citizens and all people. We know that obtaining a GRC is not burdensome compared to disability benefits or residency/ citizenship paperwork

We do a lot of work with immigrants and refugees. The Government should be kind to them too. Simpler, kinder process to all women and girls

Filia: We recommend that the fee should be retained. Citizenship is over £1000. It is comparable to a passport or something like that.

FPFW: The fee is not a key issue. The principle of streamlining the process and making it easier - no reason why this should not be looked at.

We must not get confused. We do not want to see an expansion of the number or type of people who can get access.

The Trans umbrella includes children, people without gender dyspohira, people who have not lived in role. Expanding the eligibility would increase the number of people changing their sex .

Yes streamline but don't change the eligibility categories.

WPUK: We don't think that lack of means should ever be a barrier. In principle we support no or low fees.

Women look at the 95% reduction as extraordinarily generous when compared to other processes. In the Domestic Abuse Bill no concession was made by the government

with regards to no recourse to public funds.

Fee can already be waived and this is already done for the majority of applicants.

WESC: 78.6% of respondents to consultation wanted to remove requirement to live in gender for 2 years partly because it was seen as humiliating and dehumanising. It also proved difficulty to provide evidence for young people who may not have bills in their name for example.

What's your view of this requirement?

WPUK: We think that living in acquired gender should be removed. We do not believe that living in a gender makes any sense. It ascribes sexism and sexist stereotypes into law.

There is no correct way to live as a man or a woman.
That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a period of reflection and what is called living in role could be replaced. to show consistency and commitment

WPUK: The idea of "living in acquired gender" is putting sexism into the law.

Filia: We understand that the requirement is a sexist concept. What is living as woman = is that living as a working class woman with work and kids or is it about femininity and sexist stereotypes?

Go back to the purpose of the GRA. It is for those who have been diagnosed with GD. We need clear evidence of commitment. Otherwise there is no justication for a GRC.
How do you justify this legal fiction if there is no requirement to prove anything about it?

FPFW: The rules and process was set up to address a problem for transsexuals who had v severe GD and some sense of having lived in role was part of the way to defining that group of people.

The problem with removing it is that you open it up to a group who haven't

shown any commitment.

Removing the eligibility requirement would increase the number of people able to change sex.

When the GRA was devised it was about a fair balance between different groups of people. The important thing was that the small numbers meant that the impact

could be tolerated. It is a balance

If we start to increase the no of people eligible then this changes the fair balance.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: last question to Raquel. You say stat decl wouldn't generally prevent abuse - explain?

We don't have self-ID yet, but many organisations are implementing it already, and that is impacting negatively on women. We don't think requiring you to sign a paper is going to prevent abuse.

Kim Johnson: question on age limits, to Judith. Explain why you don't want the age limit for applying for GRC to be lowered?

WPUK the huge increase in numbers of referrals of young people especially girls should cause curiosity. There's an ongoing inquiry under Hilary Cass looking at this. It would be reckless to change the law to add to medicalisation and pathologising of gnc issues.

Do you know why there's been an exponential increase?

There needs to be research on that. There are no simple answers. But anything that has that large an increase - we're talking about 5,000% increase in a short space - that needs proper research.

FiLia: Our position is that the age limit shouldn't be lowered because there is research that shows that the brain is not fully developed until about 25. The pre-frontal cortex that regulates emotion and risk taking is not fully developed.

When it comes to the intervention of the state, we have to be careful. As a feminist organisation we not only interact with women but also with girls. We are hearing from them that being a girl is tough. There is male violence, pressure to conform, demands society makes.

It's not surprising to see this surge in girls who think they can escape patriarchy. We want to say to these girls the problem is the patriarchy. But there are lobby groups telling them the problem is the other way around.

Minimum age at the moment is 18 - are you saying it should be older? No, we think it should not be lowered.

Nicola Richards: what's your view of the spousal consent provision?

WPUK: we think it should remain. Both parties have rights. Before same sex marriage, a person who was married could only get an interim GRC because there was no way to convert a hetero marriage into a same-sex marriage. It was only with equal marriage that consent became an issue

It's important because women should not be trapped in marriages entirely changed from the marriage they entered. An interim GRC allows either party to annul the marriage.

When you have an interim GRC neither party is trapped in the marriage. It's often talked of as a spousal veto, but that's inaccurate - it doesn't stop anyone getting a GRC or medical treatment. It's a consent to convert the marriage into a same-sex marriage.

It's also said that annulment is as if the marriage had never existed. That's not right: it's a situation where the marriage can be voided. It creates an exit in a very small proportion of cases.

How would you respond to the 84.9% of respondents to the consultation who opposed retention of the spousal consent?

That's 84.9% of those who answered - quite a lot didn't answer the question at all. The clause has been misrepresented as a spousal veto.

FiLia: Women who want to retain this refer to it as a spousal exit clause. It's not a right to deny a trans person their desire to live in a certain way.

But why wouldn't you retain it? Marriage is a contract between two people. One of those people has to have the option to say under these conditions this doesn't work for me any more.

It's about taking into account that that partner who is not transitioning has a right to have a say in their own identity.

The question should be why shouldn't that clause be there.

FPFW: This is another situation where other people are affected. Important to listen to all stakeholders. The stakeholders are the people who are in the marriage - people who want a GRC and their spouses.

Trans widows are the stakeholders here. No-one should be trapped in the marriage.

Q: What support is currently available to spouses, and what more would you like to see?

There is nothing at present other than informal support through message boards etc. There needs to be non-judgmental non-directive support. Partners of usually husbands who are transitioning are usually expected to support the transitioning partner.

There is often hostility to partners who are distressed or who find aspects of the transition pushing at their boundaries.

To give an example of that, we spoke to a woman whose husband was cross-dressing part-time. She wanted to speak about pressure on her sexual boundaries. In the course of that she referred to her partner as "he," and that provoked a walk-out.

The counsellor then said she couldn't help because she couldn't deal with domestic abuse. So the woman was being told she was abusive.

Then she went to another organisation, but again it wasn't possible for her to speak about her issues in her terms.

Women should not be expected to rewrite their own histories. They are entitled to speak about their own experiences including experience of abuse.

There is also a need for legal advice.

Q: You said it was usually male transition - do you have any numerical data? No. The tribunals and courts reports would probably be able to give that breakdown.

We know that 11% are married or in a civil partnership. I don't know whether they break that down by sex - I hope they do, because it's important to be able to answer a question like that.

But female to male transition with a GRC is an earlier age group, for the most part.

Q: You talk about attempts to coerce or deceive a woman into remaining in a relationship. What evidence do you have for that?

There was a lively discussion of this in the trans community when the GRC came in. Stephen Whittle wrote some interesting blogs in which he describes the situation of a trans person who is married not wanting to tell their spouse they are going to transition.

Coercion is in the social expectation that the right thing to do is for a wife to stand by her husband. We know that one in 4 women experience domestic abuse in their lifetimes. In terms of stats, I don't think there's research but there's personal testimony.

So is the answer that you don't have evidence?

No, there's evidence from Whittle, and from individual women, and there is my own observation of the social and cultural context which pushes women in a particular direction. But there is not good statistical evidence.

But the same can't be said of trans men?

This is a situation where sex matters. When we talk about coercive control, that has a sex dynamic. There are far fewer relationships with a trans man married or in a civil partnership and transitioning.

Do you have evidence for that? I've already said I'll send that.

Angela Crawley: What is your view of self-id?

FPFW: A GRC allows someone to change their birth certificate and to hide their sex. There's a fundamental problem with how single sex spaces work. The EqA provides for single sex spaces based on birth sex.

If there's also a separate law that allows people to hide their birth sex, there's a conflict.

So although on paper we have single sex spaces, they can't be implemented.

Aren't there exemptions under the EqA? They can't be used if you can't distinguish between people who are born female and born male.

If a service provider wants to provide a single sex space, how do they distinguish between females who were born female, and those who weren't? So we've seen that because it's a complicated law, SPs don't want to provide single sex spaces any more and they are being lost.

So they are providing neutral spaces, or single *gender* spaces, or just giving up.

FiLia: We are having 2 conversations at once. We have a lot to say about existing rights under the EqA. One is about what could happen if self-ID were enshrined in UK law, and what is already happening because of the policy capture across the UK.

It is already illegal to discriminate against transsexual people. What we are witnessing is that we need not only clearer guidance on the single sex exceptions, but also strengthening of those exceptions.

Because of the climate of fear, women who want to use those exceptions are intimidated.

I can give an example of a group at Bristol University. We created a group for conversations between women. That is perfectly legal. But Bristol SU is saying we can't operate as a single sex space because that would violate the rights of people to self-identify into our space.

That's not the law, but because of policy capture by groups like Stonewall we are being sanctioned for enacting those protections.

WPUK: I want to give another example of where self-ID is already interfering with women's spaces. Harrogate Turkish Baths wanted to get rid of single sex sessions. There was an uproar among users because they wanted the sessions to remain.

They had mixed sessions as well. They consulted, and decided to retain single sex sessions, but in order to have equal sessions, they would double the number of male-only sessions and reduce female-only sessions.

But demand from women for single-sex sessions was much greater. So they've misunderstood the law.

And they have changed the rules about attire to ask women to be more covered up, because they feel that in those sessions there may be someone of the opposite sex. So they're actually saying these sessions may be mixed sex.

There's completely proper accommodation within the EqA that allows them to run single sex services, but they are not understanding them very well.

They also have an issue around staff where they could use genuine occupational requirements, but they are not doing so.

Q: Why do you support retaining the requirement for medical diagnosis and why do you think that's fair to all stakeholders?

FPFW: Changing your sex legally is a serious step. No-one is trying to stop anyone self-identifying their gender. And trans people have protection under the EqA.

So what is it that trans people want when they ask for self-ID? We're concerned that when that's conflated with the legal status of sex, if someone gets their birth certificate changed, they are female for all purposes apart from specific circumstances.

There are problems with that that we're now seeing. For instance, a prison guard searching a female prisoner must be born female. But if that person has a GRC it's legal for them to do that if they're born male.

Surely that wasn't intended. So there are real consequences of having a birth certificate changed, so there need to be criteria.

Q: We'd all agree there's a need to update the legislation. You've argued that increasing the number of people able to change legal sex will cause problems - can you elaborate?

Birth sex matters to women and girls. It makes it very difficult to implement single sex exemptions. There's an issue around the privacy rules that come into play. They don't just have a certificate to say they are the opposite sex.

It also makes it a criminal offence to reveal that someone has a GRC [only if the information has come to you in an official capacity].

Q: Raquel, you say self-ID would put dignity, privacy and safety of women and girls at risk - what mean by that?

FiLia: What we hear from women about those who want to use the exemptions is that it takes courage to say we want to draw this line. Women say they are facing threats, intimidation, abuse - just because they want to follow the law as it is at present.

Also gender ID has no settled meaning. It is a very intense debate in academia what this means, is it fixed or not, etc. Our position is we don't want to make permanent legislation based on such contentious issues.

Women's Research Centre asked about their needs. Over 97% said women should have the choice of attending a female-only service. When this research was conducted, the definition of woman was very clear. No-one was questioning that.

Self-ID will muddle those concepts. Women who experience male violence need women-only spaces.

Q: We can all agree on the prevalence of male violence. Would you agree that transwomen are also vulnerable to the same issues. Is it possible for a women's refuge to provide services to transwomen facing the very same violence?

The application of single sex exemptions doesn't stop any service provider providing a mixed sex space. Trans people also face violence - we welcome the meeting of their needs. Of course we know that under patriarchy men abuse women and transwomen.

But rates are not equal. The last trans person to be murdered in the UK was in January 2019. Once every 3 days a woman is murdered by a man in the UK.

We haven't had fatal violence against a transwoman for 3 years but a woman is murdered every 3 days. And that is the extreme end of violence against women. So we need spaces where women can talk about that.

What we're seeing is those very few spaces being taken away from women.

Filia: I got one statistic wrong. [Sorry - missed this.]

Elliot Colburn: What is the evidence that transwomen are a threat?

I can't comment on active cases but there are cases in prisons.

Do you have statistics showing a higher threat from TW?

We don't say that. We say the same pattern of male violence remains whether you transition or not. The single-sex exemptions exist, and they bar all men including the non-violent ones.

WPUK: There's a fundamental misunderstanding about the function of single sex spaces. To think about my own experience of using a group therapeutic space for survivors of CSA.

In terms of physical safety there's no issue - but in terms of ability to do the work in that space, it was important that we were all women. These things happened to us, to our female bodies.

Not wanting to do that in the presnce of male people isn't an insinuation about the threat they might pose. It's not casting aspersions on those people. It's just saying it's one of the situations where sex matters.

You shouldn't make women pretend not to notice. It's not about saying a trans person would come to that space with a bad intention - but that that person's presence would affect the dynamic.

FPFW: a female-only space is only that if all males are excluded. We can't tell which males present a threat and which don't: so we exclude all males.

No-one is saying people should be excluded because they are trans. We want to exclude people because they are male.

Criminality is much more prevalent in males than females, especially sexual violence.

If TW's pattern of sexual offending were the same as women's we'd expect one TW sex offender in prison. But there are 70.

We're not saying TW are more dangerous than men; just that there's no evidence they are less dangerous.

If we had self-ID, what would that mean for the 70 TW sex offenders in prison? They could get GRCs and move to female prisons.

All males must be excluded from women-only spaces, including TW.

Q: What guidance do you want to see?

FPFW: Exclusion is required to be justified. Stonewall and EHRC says there's a very high bar for that justification. But there's been no discussion with other groups. The EHRC has gone beyond what's in the law and added its own 'best practice.'

We need to look at the impact on all groups to determine how high that bar should be.

WPUK: EHRC has had to correct its guidance in response to concerns from women. What they haven't done is proactively disseminated those updates, so that is necessary. They have also continued to give guidance which has been interpreted in problematic ways.

Chief Statistician in Scotland has said that it was likely to be unlawful to collect data on sex, so we commissioned a legal opinion on that question. That advice said it was perfectly appropriate to collect data on sex.

We went to EHRC and told them about this. They agreed with our legal opinion, but they declined to put the record straight with the people who had perhaps misinterpreted what EHRC had said.

That's not a helpful way to clarify the law. EHRC's remit is to promote equality and uphold the EqA. We've been disappointed that they haven't chosen to give evidence to this inquiry. They simply resubmitted their 2018 submission.

FiLia: This committee has already asked EHRC to issue further guidance. The guidance they have issued is conflicting and confusing, e.g. in relation to cross-dressers.

When seeking to clarify this complicated issues, some of the stakeholders are going to be those women in prison, in refuges. It would be excellent if WESC could seek their views as well. Women in sports. All those spaces where sex does matter.

Want to refer the committee particularly to the work of researcher @MForstater.

Government should seek the honest views of people. Women who work with women desperately want clarity so that they can use the right to single sex spaces.

Q: You've all come from a place where you say you're not anti-trans. How do we make the GRA work better for trans people while addressing your concerns?

FPFW: What are the problems facing trans people? They can self-ID. There is hate crime protection. There is anti-discrimination protection in work and education etc. So what is the problem that needs to be solved?

We heard that it should validate people's identity. But is that what a birth certificate is for? We say no.

If there are ways to make it easier, let's do it, but don't increase the numbers who can change their sex - and let's understand the problems.

WPUK the wording in the GRA is confusing. It would help to have the expectations set out better. There's a clause that says "for all purposes" and then it's followed by "except for the exceptions" - it might be helpful to reference the other legislation.

That would help people to understand how the GRC operates. I think s.22 needs to be urgently reviewed so there can be a balance. Privacy should be protected but where one needs to know biological sex there needs to be a way of getting an answer.

FiLia: we agree with FPFW and WPUK. It's paramount that we don't obliterate the rights of women for the sake of self-ID.

We recommend there needs to be guidance that spells out that acquiring legal recognition of gender doesn't mean they are entitled to the sex-based rights of the opposite sex.

Trans rights are human rights which is why they are already protected. But in the protection of those people who desire a GRC we don't need to trample on the rights of women and girls.

Kate Osbourne: Do you think there should be statutory definitions of sex and gender?

FPFW: The idea that legal recognition of gender changes a person's sex creates a conflation of sex and gender. We can all understand that someone has a gender ID, but biological sex is not changed by a legal document.

FPFW: Everyone knows what sex means. The GRA has made a disconnect between legal meaning of sex and common understanding. So when it comes down to basic signage, if there's a sign on a door saying 'female only' I expect - and consent - only to find women there.

But now it's not clear what that means. Women have lost the ability to talk about our needs. We need to stop conflating the two.

FiLia: our position is that the government should hold the minimum info about citizens. There's a very real tangible reason why we do that. Sex has concrete consequences.

It has consequences for how we experience diseases. Gender is the hierarchy that exists to legitimise power of men over women.

We are firm in our opposition to the idea that the government should be registering those things. Especially on concepts like gender ID that have no settled definition even among experts.

Some written evidence has called for clarification of definitions of gender reassignment and trans - agree?

WPUK: Definition of trans is consequently evolving. It would be out of date before the ink was dry. The protections offered by gender reassignment as drafted are already very broad.

Q: In your written evidence you say there's growing concern about prevalence of gender ideology.

FiLia: Concept of gender reassignment is already relaxed - it does not need to be expanded further.

Stonewall definition of trans - when it comes to sexist stereotypes, we all reject those. These stereotypes should not be enshrined in law.

We are concerned about gender identity policies being imposed internationally. I'm not from UK, but we are hearing from women in other countries that these policies are not being enshrined in law in a democratic fashion.

They are being imposed in secrecy, without proper scrutiny.

The concerns we have is that - this session is fine, we can express our views and everyone is polite. But when women come to our conferences we hear a collective sigh of relief - they say finally we can speak.

Because when they speak about these things in their workplaces, they are abused, threatened, and called bigots. That's unacceptable.

Order, order.