Gender Self-identification

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Roca]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a good point about how urgent action is needed.

Almost all Members have touched on the recent UK Supreme Court ruling, which has created so much uncertainty about the legal rights of trans people, particularly trans women, under the Equality Act. Let me be clear: I am not questioning the existence or legitimacy of single-sex spaces. The Equality Act rightly allowed for such spaces in reasonable circumstances, particularly where privacy, dignity or safeguarding required it, but its principle was balanced. In my view, the Supreme Court judgment reinterpreted that balance in a way that completely undermines the legal clarity that we had before, and raises new concerns about consistency in application. That interpretation appears to directly contradict the spirit and purpose of the Gender Recognition Act, which was passed to give trans people full legal recognition in their acquired gender.

The judgment not only strips away legal certainty for trans individuals, but risks making the GRC, as Members have pointed out, a symbolic document with little practical effect. The critical question—I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) wants to intervene.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I was going to let him make that critical point before intervening. It is fair to say that nobody is comfortable with the heated way in which the debate has taken place over the past few years, but does he agree that, in fact, women’s sex-based rights have been ignored for many years and not enforced? That has led us to the place where we are today. There must be space for respectful discussion, to find a way to improve the rights of trans people while also respecting the hard-earned and hard-won rights of women.

[Tim Roca]

Where I agree completely with my hon. Friend is that this debate—as has been pointed out already—has become incredibly toxic. We are seeing, with Reform and others, an attempt to import American-style politics to our country. We need a rational, reasonable debate that safeguards the dignity of all people, so I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point.

The critical question I was coming to was this: what is the purpose of the GRC now? For many years, we were told that the GRC was the legal mechanism by which a person’s acquired gender would be recognised in law, but many people are now left wondering whether a GRC still confers the rights and recognition it was meant to. If a trans woman with a GRC can still be excluded from single-sex spaces and services, what legal certainty does that document offer? Why are we asking people to go through a lengthy, intrusive and often dehumanising process to obtain one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

I think it is very problematic if we go down that track for all services. I think that the equality right and how it was interpreted previously were correct, and that people should be excluded where there is a need for that. It should be on the basis of a balance, and I think that is true for all protected characteristics and when they come into conflict.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Olivia Blake]

No, I will make some progress if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I have only a little time.

The idea that it is a shame or somehow sad that people are trans is completely and utterly wrong. As has been said, trans joy exists. The many trans people and non-binary people I know live joyful lives. We should celebrate those lives, rather than suggesting that it is a mental health condition even though the WHO has said it is not. Creating a protracted, medicalised route just to get a piece of paper that says that one’s correct gender is really problematic and something that we should continue to question. This is why the right to self-identify one’s legal gender really matters. It is about the basic freedom to live as oneself. That means being able to go to the local supermarket or local café and not be fearful of being challenged when going to the bathroom. It is about being able to live without intrusive medical gatekeeping that means that it takes years and years for people just to get to that point.

We know that we are out of step internationally here. We know that the health advice has moved on, just as the thinking about hysteria moved on from the time when women got categorised as having that. Many groups of people have been wrongly categorised as mentally ill just for being themselves. We need to get away from the gatekeeping, outdated bureaucracy and humiliation that we have heard about again and again in consultations about the process as it stands.

The EHRC’s recent guidance on sex and gender in single-sex services has created further concern among my constituents, as well as charities, schools and employers who want to act properly but now feel unclear about their responsibilities. We need clarity that reinforces inclusion, not ambiguity that creates fear. I am pleased that Labour committed in our manifesto to making the GRC process simpler, but the recent judgment is very concerning. It risks undermining the existence of these certificates in themselves if we are not careful and if the guidance goes the wrong way.

Trans healthcare, too, is an area where we need action urgently. Current NHS waiting times and the indefinite ban on puberty blockers are leaving people in limbo for years. This is not just a policy challenge. It is a public health issue and one that requires compassion, evidence and leadership. I hope that the puberty blockers trial is as wide as possible and as scientific as it can be.

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for allowing me to speak for this long. Rights are not a zero-sum game. We cannot protect one group without protecting another; we need to strengthen the whole. I urge Ministers to continue listening to trans people, to ground decisions in evidence, and to act with the courage that true equality demands and make sure that instead of us just standing up here, we have proper consultation, which has the voice of trans, non-binary, intersex and all people represented in the evidence that it hears, and that that is taken on board.

We do not want a situation where we are trying to police people going into toilets, which could be problematic to those who do not fit or conform to gender stereotypes, as we have heard. This is not just about toilets; it is about dignity—dignity in death, as we have heard, and dignity in having privacy and the ability to have that joyful life that we all want everyone to have.