Gender Self-identification

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I associate myself with the hon. Member’s remarks.

Let us take the example of Joelle, a trans woman who died of an eminently treatable cancer after waiting for eight days on a general ward, because clinicians could not agree whether she should be placed on a men’s ward or a women’s ward. The delay in treatment cost her her life. That is not to mention the recent Supreme Court ruling and the devastating impact that its implications are having on trans people, who are just trying to get on with living their lives.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have many constituents who have been really affected by the Supreme Court ruling. I highlight one who works in the ambulance service; she has breasts and uses women’s changing facilities without any issue. Were she to be forced into using other facilities, it would declare to everybody her transgender status. She has lived as a woman and has a gender recognition certificate. Dos the hon. Member agree that this legal ruling creates a real mess that needs sorting out?

[Dr Savage]

I am keenly aware of the distress that the Supreme Court ruling has caused. It seems to fly in the face of common sense when somebody who is clearly living life as a female would, under this ruling, have to go into male spaces. It beggars belief. The ruling hurts not only trans people, but any woman who does not conform to feminine norms, who may be challenged on entering a women’s space. This is not just a legal roll-back for trans rights, but a roll-back for women’s rights.

A recent survey response from a parent said:

“I’m primarily worried about my trans daughter’s safety as a result of the ruling. I’m also worried about my cis daughter’s future and the increasing pressure to conform to restrictive gender stereotypes.”

A trans person responding to the same survey said that they felt:

“Stress, anxiety and uncertainty for the future. More and more I feel like I am having to shrink my life for my own protection”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate.

Although, as MPs, we must respect the independence and authority of the judiciary, the recent ruling does not solve anything. Let us be clear that the ruling does not absolve us from our ongoing responsibility to the trans community—our duty to respect, support and advocate for their rights remains as vital as ever.

I am deeply troubled by the rhetoric that has taken hold in recent years, which has been appropriated by those seemingly seeking to sow division and manufacture culture wars at the expense of people who already face hardship and discrimination in our society. It is disheartening to see figures including the Leader of the Opposition appear to wear their transphobia as almost a badge of honour. We must not forget that our words in this House matter and can really impact the most vulnerable. Like many Members, I came into politics to champion minorities and to give a voice to the voiceless. It is vital that we remember the power we hold to raise the tone of debate, rather than lowering it, and to support the vulnerable, not scapegoat them.

Trans people simply want to live in peace, not to be demonised or turned into a convenient political target during times of national difficulty. Our constituents, by and large, are not fixated on which toilets people use. They want change, improved lives and well-funded services. I am concerned by the growing narrative that improving trans rights somehow threatens the rights or dignity of women and girls. I will not deny that in places such as the Prison Service there have been troubling examples of individuals playing the system to gain access to women’s spaces. We must acknowledge and address those concerns seriously.

But when I hear some Opposition Members declare themselves to be champions of women’s rights—well, they might if they were here—I ask not only where they are now, but where they have been for the last 15 years. When violence against women and girls skyrocketed, where was the legislation? When women’s shelters were chronically underfunded, where was the outrage? When domestic abuse cases surged while court access diminished, where was the action? When male perpetrators played the legal system to harass their victims, where was the advocacy?

I do not raise those matters just to score political points, but to prompt reflection. If a person’s defence of women’s rights surfaces only in opposition to trans rights, I question whether it is truly about supporting women or simply a way to target trans people under that guise.

I stand not to provoke argument, but to urge every hon. Member in this Chamber to remember the human beings behind our words, and their families, their communities and their lives. Hate crimes against trans people are rising. We are failing in our duty as MPs if we do not accept some responsibility for the tone and consequences of our discourse.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Many people have been in touch with me who are very frightened because of the Supreme Court ruling. Does he agree that not only do we need to speak here but that the Government need to make sure the interim guidance is quickly firmed up as proper guidance, because the interim guidance is causing confusion and fear for so many people?

[Mr Quigley]

I agree entirely. As we have seen many times over the last 14 years, words matter. Ultimately, the petition before us is rooted in compassion, dignity and basic respect—principles that are unmistakably British. Respect for others, fairness and standing up for the vulnerable are values in which we rightly take pride. I hope that we can all agree on the simple truth that trans people are not the enemy and that the power we hold in this place must be used to uplift, not to vilify. My message to all of us here today is that we should not lose sight of that responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading is that the Supreme Court tried to work out what was in the minds of the politicians who passed the Equality Act in 2010. That is a difficult thing to do, because I cannot say what is in my mind right now, never mind 15 years ago. The Supreme Court tried to interpret that, and it came down on the side of saying that the politicians were talking about biological sex when it comes to single-sex spaces, for example. Actually, the Equality Act mainly focuses on things like discrimination rather than single-sex spaces, which are a tangential side mention in the Act.

My understanding is that someone can now only be discriminated against on the basis of biological sex or on the basis of their transgender identity, so not their transgender gender but their identity as a transgender person. That removes a huge amount of protection for transgender people. I am massively concerned, and I think the only way we will get clarity is if the Government step up and make a change to the Equality Act.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Equality Act was well written to deal with intersectional issues when they arise, that the guidance around it was very clear, and that this Supreme Court ruling has muddied that. As she says, the Government may need to step in to resolve this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree, and the court ruling made it clear that the Scottish Government had acted in line with the EHRC’s guidance, but that it was the guidance that was wrong, because it should have been done on the basis of biological sex, not gender.

I am aware that I am pushing up against the time limit, but lastly, I am concerned about the direction of travel with the EHRC. It would be sensible to have an independent body look at making these decisions. Given the EHRC’s current positioning and the comments it has made—and given that, a few weeks ago, I was at a celebration of 15 years of the Equality Act and a number of people from LGB Alliance and Sex Matters were invited to that celebration, but there was only one transgender person in the room—I am concerned that the EHRC is not able to be an unbiased arbiter of the law on this issue.

Actually, I think the EHRC has an impossible job right now, because we cannot interpret the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. It does not make sense unless we tell everyone that they must have three toilets—if we are defining all toilets as single-sex spaces, and if businesses continue to be required to have single-sex toilets. The easiest way to solve this would be to say that every business should have unisex toilets for everybody, because then everyone could access every toilet.

However, I do not think we want to get to that position, so the Government have only two options. They can either talk to the EHRC and ensure that it is being completely unbiased, or they can change the Equality Act so that its meaning is totally clear, including on the definition of sex. That way, it would be clear that we are actually trying to protect human rights, particularly the right to privacy and the right of trans people to die a dignified death in their affirmed gender, if that is the phrase we want to use. I think we are failing right now, and changes need to be made to protect our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and why we should be extremely worried about what is happening to our record on LGBT rights. In him, his constituents have an excellent champion for their local LGBTQ+ community.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Under the previous Trump Administration, the British Foreign Office issued a travel warning to trans people because of the so-called bathroom ban—well, the actual bathroom ban—in parts of the United States. Yet now we are in a position where many trans women and trans men are very frightened about using toilets. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is needed?

[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.

[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?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. The gender recognition certificate is often destroyed by trans people because they have their new birth certificate. The certificate itself is not always an extant document.