Alsalem’s recommendations include a call to ensure that “female categories in organised sport are exclusively accessible to persons whose biological sex is female”. To this end, she calls for the return of sex screening, noting that at the last Olympic Games to have sex testing, in Atlanta in 1996, most female competitors wanted it to continue. 

The report says:

“In cases where the sex of an athlete is unknown or uncertain, a dignified, swift, non-invasive and accurate sex screening method (such as a cheek swab) or, where necessary for exceptional reasons, genetic testing should be applied to confirm the athlete’s sex. In non-professional sports spaces, the original birth certificates for verification may be appropriate. In some exceptional circumstances, such tests may need to be followed up by more complex tests.”

If the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had followed this protocol, it would have avoided the debacle in women’s boxing at the Paris Games in August, and protected all those affected. Either the two boxers at the centre of the row, Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting, would have demonstrated they were female and eligible, or they would have been excluded before the first bout. 

Alsalem lays out the impact of her recommendations on athletes who may have a disorder of sex development. Sports bodies shouldn’t subject anyone to invasive sex screening, she writes, and shouldn’t force anyone to lower testosterone levels to compete in any category. Sport can be made fully inclusive without such measures, she points out, either by creating new open categories for people who do not wish to compete in the category of their biological sex or by converting the male category into an open category. 

The IOC opposes sex screening, favouring self-declaration supported by passports. But the international federations for the three largest Olympic sports, athletics, cycling and swimming, have already protected their female categories and adopted open categories to ensure fair, safe sport for women and girls, just as Alsalem recommends. Several other sports in the UK and internationally have also done so. 

The biggest sport that is still failing to protect its female players is football. The international body, FIFA, and the UK bodies, the FA, Scottish FA and FA Wales, have been reviewing their policies for some time. Meanwhile, male players are widely reported across women’s football, including in women’s professional soccer in the USA. As football is a contact sport, this creates problems for safety as well as fairness. 

UK reports have shown how one male player can affect numerous women and girls. The FA currently allows male players into women’s football if they suppress their testosterone, a medical intervention Alsalem rejects as both invasive and ineffective. 

The FA has approved 72 trans-identifying male players to compete in women’s football in England, up from 50 when the policy review began two years ago. Its then-director of women’s and girls’ football, Baroness Sue Campbell, told a group of MPs at a meeting in April this year that this was a small number when compared with the number of people who play football overall – thereby tacitly acknowledging that admitting male players to female categories harms women and girls. It is unclear how many male players would have to be admitted to the women’s game before the FA thought the harm became too great to ignore.

The post UN special rapporteur calls for sex screening in women’s sport appeared first on Sex Matters.

The planned guidelines are set to  cover: 

• provision of gender-affirming care, including hormones
• health workers education and training for the provision of gender-inclusive care
• provision of health care for trans and gender diverse people who suffered interpersonal violence based in their needs
• health policies that support gender-inclusive care
• legal recognition of self-determined gender identity.

WHO announcement, December 2023

Following complaints about the short deadline it was extended to 2nd February 2024. 

Several groups have submitted detailed comments including Sex Matters, Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG), Fair Play For Women, Genspect, LGB Alliance, the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), Transgender Trend, Thoughtful Therapists and With Woman, as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls.

Highlights from the submissions

Sex Matters

Sex Matters wrote from a human-rights perspective, and said that in trying to appease trans-rights activists WHO risks undermining its own governance, purpose and culture: 

• The mandate and make-up of the group do not reflect WHO’s principles of human rights, universality and equity, or its commitment to be guided by the best available science and evidence.
• If WHO is considering the efficacy and ethics of medical intervention to support the desire of people to live as the opposite sex, it must recognise that there are conflicts with the rights of other people, including their freedom of belief and expression.
• None of the proposed panel members has experience in considering other people’s  human rights in relation to transition, and many in fact have a track record of disregarding them. 

CAN-SG

The Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender is a network of clinicians from the healthcare professions mainly in the UK and Ireland. They argue that the WHO’s approach is out of touch with the latest medical evidence and understanding.

• WHO’s apparent assumption is that “gender-affirming care” is safe and effective: this is incorrect and has therefore been abandoned by Finland, Sweden and England explicitly in children and adolescents. 
• WHO’s framing of self-determined gender identity as a human right for trans people ignores its harmful public-health consequences when people claim access to the rights of the opposite sex, and its undermining of accurate data collection, and therefore efforts to tackle inequality. 
• The guideline development group represent groups on only one side of the debate. Five of the eight clinicians on the panel have held prominent positions in the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Read the CAN-SG submission.

Fair Play For Women

Fair Play For Women, a campaigning and consultancy organisation which raises awareness, provides evidence and analysis and works to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls in the UK, asked the group to reconsider its mandate, its focus and its make-up.

• The group has a bias towards an interventionist approach, which is one increasingly being called into question by experts.
• The proposed focus of the guideline has a bias in outcomes built into its specification: but gender affirmation and medical intervention for gender issues are highly contested, particularly for children. 
• The proposed focus includes legal recognition of self-determined gender identity, which is not a healthcare issue, nor a legitimate part of the mandate for this group or one it is qualified to address.
• The timeline for the group is insufficient for a rigorous review that will generate a robust and reliable set of guidelines. 

Read Fair Play For Women’s submission.

Genspect

Genspect, an international interdisciplinary professional and educational organisation devoted to advancing a healthy approach to sex and gender, listed grave concerns about WHO’s plans alongside comprehensive references. 

The composition of the panel: 

• includes at least 10 people who are trans, but not a single detransitioner to give the case against “gender-affirming care” despite significant numbers who feel they were harmed by it 
• does not include any legal experts, nor anyone with expertise in professional mental health or in autism or neurodiversity. 

The guideline focus and the panel both show bias:

• in favour of gender-affirming care, with no acknowledgement of significant professional disagreement worldwide or the complex clinical presentation of trans and gender-diverse individuals.

• in favour of legal recognition of self-determined gender identity, a complex and controversial issue that has proved problematic – particularly in Ireland, where Genspect is partly based – with no acknowledgement of its impact on the safety and dignity of women and girls.

Genspect urges the WHO to pause this process; revise the guidelines to recognise diverse viewpoints; make the group more diverse in views and experience; and make the process transparent and balanced.

Read Genspect’s submission.

LGB Alliance

LGB Alliance, a UK-based charity formed to advance lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, said that the WHO consultation “exemplifies the conflation of healthcare with politics”, breaches WHO’s own rules and risks causing harm to young people, particularly those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual. 

• The announcement of this consultation breaches WHO’s own rules for guideline development – there is inbuilt bias both in the composition of the group and in the focus of the announcement. 
• In promoting the idea that it is possible to change sex and supporting the use of experimental off-label medical treatment and radical surgery, WHO is promoting false and irresponsible messages to children and young people.
• Lesbians seem to be of little concern to WHO, especially in its lack of awareness of the growing number of young lesbians undergoing unnecessary and irreversible medical and surgical interventions. 

Read the LGBA submission.

UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences

Reem Alsalem responded in her capacity as the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, to raise serious concerns, saying that the February meeting should be postponed until these problems can be addressed.

• The composition of the development group has significant unmanaged conflicts of interest, and the majority of the members clearly have strong, one-sided views: not one appears to represent a voice of caution for medicalising youth with gender dysphoria or the protection of female-only spaces. 
• The group seems to have been three-quarters formed before consultation began. It is clear that members were invited from several transgender advocacy organisations, but not from those with differing views, nor from patients harmed by access to hormones or parents of youth with post-pubertal onset of gender dysphoria.
• WHO’s response to widespread concerns implies that conflicts of interest in the panel should be reported by the public; WHO’s handbook says that responsibility rests with WHO. 
• WHO is advocating for legal recognition of self-determined gender identity without considering its human rights-related impacts on wider affected groups, or the legitimate need for female-only spaces, and the right of all women and girls to a life in dignity, safety and security that is free from violence.

Read the Special Rapporteur’s submission.

SEGM

The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine suggested that flaws in the process posed a critical risk to the credibility of WHO guidelines, flagging: 

• a biased guideline panel composition
• an inappropriately handled public comment period
• the rushed guideline development process overall.

Further issues were raised:  

• The language of the announcement did not appear to be neutral, suggesting that ideological decisions had been made before the panel had even met. 
• Members of the group have significant conflicts of interest in one, two, or all three of the areas highlighted by WHO in its own guidance for panel selection.
• Members have made statements that seem to be unsupported by evidence. 

There is a high risk of bias in the group due to:

• strong pro-transition views held by the GDG members
• lack of any individuals or professionals concerned about the unfavourable harm-benefit profile of youth gender transition
• lack of independent methodological expertise.

Read the SEGM submission.

Transgender Trend

Transgender Trend is a UK-based organisation, set up in 2015 to call for evidence-based healthcare for children with gender distress and for fact-based teaching about sex and gender in schools. Its response to WHO was brief but to the point, flagging: 

• the unevidenced assumption that an affirmative, medicalised approach is the correct one, with no reference to any other options (which calls WHO’s motives for this exercise into question)
• the lack of independent professionals or anyone cautious about “gender-affirming care” on the panel, which mostly consists of trans activists with unmanaged conflicts of interest and goes against WHO’s own guidance
• a rushed and shoddy process that risks a guideline that is ideologically biased, based on shaky evidence and unfit for purpose – in contrast with the rigorous Cass Review in the UK
• a model of care that is attracting worldwide consternation and professional re-evaluation 
• a risk of the guideline failing professional, public and political scrutiny, discrediting the guideline and causing reputational damage to WHO itself.

Read Transgender Trend’s submission.

Thoughtful Therapists

Thoughtful Therapists is dedicated to ensuring the use of ethical, exploratory therapy for all clients and especially those suffering from gender related distress.

Its response urged the steering group to read CAN-SG’s statement, and raised further points:

• The legal recognition of self-determined gender identity is a highly contested political area and does not fall within this remit stated in the WHO’s own handbook for guideline development: it should be removed from the scope.
• Analysing the technical skills of the panel revealed a lack of impartiality – all the panellists are pro-affirmation to varying degrees – and no evidence of any expertise in impartiality or experience of literature reviews or grading research studies.
• The panel does not include diverse perspectives: too many panellists are transgender or non-binary and many have been senior members of highly pro-affirmative organisations – will they recuse themselves if their papers form part of the evidence they are asked to interpret?
• There are a number of panellists from countries where LGBT+ rights are criminalised or subject to discrimination, who specialise in HIV/AIDS prevention rather than transgender healthcare. 

Read Thoughtful Therapists’ submission.

With Woman

With Woman is a grassroots collective of female midwives, healthcare workers, allied professionals, academics, peer counsellors, advocates and volunteers in the field of maternal and child health.

This organisation described the panel’s lack of any expertise in maternity and child health as a major gap given the number of young girls identifying as trans and the life-long consequences for maternal and child health that “gender affirming care” will have on them. It noted concerns about:

• the taking of testosterone during pregnancy with no evidence-based guidance
• bilateral mastectomies on girls as young as 13 with no discussion of how this will preclude future breastfeeding (with poorer outcomes for both mother and infant)
• the high risks and unpredictable results of phalloplasty
• the removal of the uterus or ovaries presented as healthcare

and the impact of any of these on future pregnancy and motherhood.

Read the whole letter from With Woman.

Petition signed by 11,846

A petition organised by the LGBT Courage Coalition (LGBTCC), a US organisation that opposes the censorship of critical voices in the issue of pediatric gender medicine, has been signed by nearly 12,000 people strongly objecting to the bias of the panel and the WHO’s stated plan to promote hormones and self-identified gender, and asking it to cancel the group’s first planned meeting and go back to the drawing board.

The post Who should develop guidelines on transgender healthcare?  appeared first on Sex Matters.

It urges the United Nations to give Alsalem the protection and the facilities she needs to do her job. 

In her role as Special Rapporteur, Alsalem has drawn attention to the intimidation and threats made against women for expressing the opinions that women are female and need female-only services and protection from sex-based discrimination. Now she is being subjected to the same abusive treatment – including a recent open letter coordinated by the Association for Women’s Rights in Development.

She raised concerns about the Scottish Government’s proposal to enable sex change by self-declaration.

For this, she has been intimidated, attacked, and threatened with dismissal.

The letter says:

“An attack on her is an attack on us, and it is an attempt to silence us through silencing her.”

Initiated by the European Network of Migrant Women, the letter is endorsed by the representatives of nearly 800 civil society organisations, groups and national platforms, as well as more than 2,600 individuals, from 60 states. Alsalem is speaking at the 53rd session of the council in Geneva on 22nd and 23rd June, and the International Council of Women plans to present the letter during today’s session. 

The post Let the UN Special Rapporteur on VAWG deliver her mandate appeared first on Sex Matters.

This is the third time Stonewall has tried to get GANHRI to censure the EHRC, and this time it has the UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Victor Madrigal-Borloz singing the same tune.

Sex Matters has written a letter in response together with 24 organisations. We call on GANHRI to support Great Britain and the EHRC in protecting civic space and everyone’s human rights: 

“We hope that as international institutions and experts on different aspects of human rights you will stand up for the principles of protecting everyone’s human rights and of engaging in constructive dialogue, and not take the accusations about the UK’s national human-rights institution at face value.”

A timeline of intimidation

GANHRI is the international body which accredits national human rights bodies against the UN’s Paris Principles. As well as assessment, its mandate is also to protect human-rights institutions from threats, reprisals and acts of intimidation, including physical attacks and smear campaigns. 

While these threats most often come from the state, they can also come from non-state actors. We have compiled a timeline of the intimidation directed at the EHRC.

March 2021

EHRC tells Stonewall it will not be renewing its membership of the Stonewall Champions Scheme

Several other regulators and Whitehall departments have also left the scheme, mainly citing “value-for-money” considerations.

23rd April 2021

EHRC intervenes in Forstater v CGD Employment Appeal Tribunal

Karon Monaghan KC, representing the EHRC, argues that the original tribunal the employment judge “adopted the wrong approach when determining whether the Claimant’s [‘gender critical’] belief fell within the scope of s.10 of the Equality Act”.

18th May 2021

Stonewall and 38 organisations publish a letter criticising the EHRC for intervening in Forstater

They say:
“… We are frustrated that you then chose to intervene in a case to say that so-called ‘gender critical’ beliefs should be a protected philosophical belief.
“It was a kick in the teeth to trans people to see the EHRC appear to put their organisational weight behind a movement that has only contributed to rising hate for trans people in communities, creating a policy environment where it is harder for trans people to access their rights. That the EHRC chose to add their weight to this intervention has sent a deeply damaging message to trans people about their validity and worth. This intervention has lost the trust of trans people and LGBTQ+ people more broadly.”

28th May 2021

EHRC responds

Kishwer Falkner says: “Defending the right to believe that sex is immutable in no way impacts on our commitment to uphold the rights of trans people.”

10th July 2021

Judgment in Forstater v CGD finds gender-critical beliefs to be worthy of respect in a democratic society

26th January 2022

EHRC publishes cautious position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in Scotland 

It raises concerns about the potential consequences of self ID and says:
“We consider that more detailed consideration is needed before any change is made to the provisions in the Act. The potential consequences include those relating to the collection and use of data, participation and drug testing in competitive sport, measures to address barriers facing women, and practices within the criminal justice system, inter alia.”

26th January 2022

EHRC publishes cautious position on proposed legislation banning conversion therapy

It recommends that legislation should initially focus on banning conversion therapy attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation and that legislation to ban conversion therapy attempting to change a person to or from being transgender should follow “once more detailed and evidence-based proposals are available which can be properly scrutinised”.

26th January 2022

LGBT Foundation “severs ties” with the Equality and Human Rights Commission

It says the two statements “are extremely damaging and cannot be supported in any circumstances” and “EHRC can no longer call itself a true human rights organisation.”

26th January 2022

Liberty calls for the EHRC’s status as an NHRI to be reviewed

“For the EHRC to make such a damaging intervention calls in to question whether it is serving its purpose and Liberty supports the calls for the EHRC’s status as a national human rights institution (NHRI) to be reviewed.”

26th January 2022

Stonewall demands a review of the EHRC’s accreditation as an A-status National Human Rights Institution

“We believe the EHRC is no longer fit for purpose.”

2nd February 2022

VICE reports that “EHRC met privately with anti-trans groups”

VICE complains that the EHRC held meetings with gender-critical groups Fair Play for Women and LGB Alliance.

10th February 2022

Stonewall-led coalition submits complaint to GANHRI

Signatories include the Good Law Project, Liberty, Gendered Intelligence, TransActual, Mermaids, Trans in the City, GIRES, Sparkle, Trans Safety Network, LGBT Consortium, LGBT Foundation, Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland, Galop, Feminist Gender Equality Network, Steph’s Place UK, and the Outside Project.

“We believe that recent statements made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Great Britain’s NHRI, indicate that they can no longer be considered compliant with the Paris Principles, and are no longer fit for purpose as a National Human Rights Institution.” 

1st April 2022

GANHRI rejects Stonewall’s complaint

EHRC says: “We are pleased that the Sub-Committee on Accreditation assessed evidence of our independence and effectiveness and upheld our position, declining a special review of our work.

“As we launch our new strategy, we are reaching out to organisations that have been critical of the EHRC, encouraging them to put aside past disagreements and to work with us and other like-minded organisations to protect everyone and to achieve a fairer society for all.”

4th April 2022

EHRC publishes new guidance on single-sex and separate-sex services

The guidance confirms that it is lawful and legitimate to provide female-only spaces and therefore to exclude men who identify as women from them. 

5th April 2022

Several organisations release statements condemning the guidance

“This new EHRC guidance is appalling and harmful. It encourages bigotry and discrimination. Its ‘examples’ include invitations to organisations to blanket ban trans women from exercise classes and women’s toilets on a ‘biological’ basis.” Trans Legal Project

30th May 2022

Translucent submits a 61-page complaint to GANHRI

Translucent (previously called “Steph’s Place” and a signatory of the Stonewall complaint to GANHRI) makes a new complaint including accusations of “collusion with ‘anti-trans’ groups and individuals”.

1st June 2022

Stonewall resubmits evidence to GANHRI

Together with the Good Law Project and 30 other civil-society organisations, Stonewall’s lawyers send a letter and submissions to GANHRI, calling for the EHRC to lose its A status. It complains that EHRC Chair Kishwer Falkner “has spoken in support of anti-trans ‘gender critical’ beliefs and appears to have liaised disproportionately with ‘gender critical’ groups in her capacity as Chair” (citing the VICE article of 2nd February 2022). It complains that “the EHRC is now, like the government, substantively out of step with mainstream civil-society organisations in its stance on equality and human rights” and again raises the EHRC’s position on conversion therapy, and its new single-sex services guidance. 

2nd September 2022

A trans-rights protest group undertakes a dirty protest outside EHRC’s offices

Masked representatives of the anonymous group Pissed Off Trannies (POT) ceremonially deliver the urine to the EHRC offices in Westminster, London and stage what they described as a “piss-in”, leaving over 60 bottles of urine outside the offices of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and pouring urine over the entrance. One of the protesters pours urine over himself. 

14th October 2022

GANHRI re-accredits EHRC as an ‘A status’ organisation

This follows a routine assessment. The assessment report includes recommendations that the EHRC:
• widens its human rights protection mandate
continues to address human rights issues across all relevant areas
• cooperates with civil society organisations
ensures pluralism and diversity in its board membership
• advocates for formalising the selection and appointment process of our Commissioners
• advocates for amendments regarding the provisions for dismissal of Commissioners
• advocates for greater financial autonomy from central government 

16th December 2022

Victor Madrigal-Borloz claims that self-ID is an international human rights imperative

The UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity writes to the Scottish Government claiming that “legal recognition of gender identity” via self-identification is an “international human rights imperative”.

3rd April 2023

EHRC Chair Kishwer Falkner writes to the Minister for Women and Equalities on clarifying the Equality Act

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.
“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.
“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.”

9th May 2023

Stonewall publishes a third letter to GANHRI together with 35 organisations 

“This is not an institution that has listened to civil society, to the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Accreditation or to its own national committees. It is not demonstrating a commitment to the human rights of all persons, nor is it functioning in a pluralistic, independent and effective manner as mandated under the Paris Principles. It is a failed institution, it is harming the trans community in Great Britain, and it is undermining the status of independent human rights institutions and systems. 

The letter is signed on behalf of Claire’s Trans Talks, Equality Network, Feminist Gender Equality Network, Gendered Intelligence, GIRES (Gender Identity Research and Education Society), Global Butterflies, Hidayah LGBT, Intercom Trust, Kite Trust, LGBT Consortium, LGBT Foundation, Live Through This, London Friend, Mermaids, Ozanne Foundation, Proud Trust, Sparkle – The National Transgender Charity, Spectra, Star Support LGBTIQ+, Translucent, Stonewall, The Outside Project, Trans Activism UK, Trans Actual, Trans in the City, Trans Media Watch, Trans Safety Network, and Yorkshire Mesmac.

11th May 2023

 Victor Madrigal-Borloz disparages EHRC in UK mission report

As the timeline shows, the EHRC has been the subject of a protracted campaign by a group of civil-society organisations clustered around Stonewall – which is a powerful institution in the UK, influencing employment policies that cover 25% of the UK workforce, including until recently the EHRC itself and much of the public and voluntary sectors.

 As Stonewall itself says in its annual report, the aim of the scheme is to “transform institutions”:

“We know that our work with governments, businesses and educational establishments fundamentally alters their practices and culture, and makes them agents of change for their partners, suppliers, customers – and wider society.”

The first time Stonewall complained to GANHRI was on 26th January 2022, after the EHRC published recommendations that more research and consideration was needed on plans for gender-recognition reform in Scotland and on a conversion-therapy ban related to gender identity. GANHRI dismissed these claims. 

Stonewall resubmitted them on 1st June 2022 with a lawyer’s letter, supported by the Good Law Project (which is also leading the challenge against the charity commission, trying to have LGB Alliance’s charitable status removed).

GANHRI dismissed Stonewall’s submissions for a second time and the EHRC was awarded an “A” rating on 22nd October 2022. 

Undeterred, Stonewall and associated organisations such as Translucent is trying one more time with what might now be seen as a vexatious complaint. 

Stonewall’s third-time lucky approach may have been spurred by the extraordinary decision by the UN Independent Expert on SOGI to cut across GANHRI’s recent assessment and suggest that the EHRC is not operating according to its mandate.

Imagining human-rights obligations, and ignoring others

This is the second time Mr Madrigal-Borloz has tried waving the UN stick at the UK government. 

On 16th December 2022 he intervened in the debate on gender-recognition reform in Scotland, sending a last-minute letter claiming that legal recognition of gender identity via self-identification is an “international human rights imperative” with which the UK government must comply. The Scottish Parliament’s Human Rights Committee invited him to address them – for a second time, having said that it had no time to hear from female users of women’s domestic-violence shelters. We wrote at the time that this claim was nonsense.

It seems that in the cold light of day the Scottish Government’s legal advisors agree, since there is no mention of Mr Madrigal-Borloz’s claimed international legal obligation in their response to the government’s S.35 order.

Misusing the mechanisms of the UN to try to bedazzle and bully lawmakers undermines respect for human rights and for independent human-rights institutions.

We hope that GANHRI will recognise that Stonewall does not represent the whole of UK civil society, and is against the pluralism that GANHRI seeks to foster. We hope it will speak up in solidarity with the EHRC, which is doing its job of protecting everyone’s human rights.

The post We call on GANHRI to protect civic space  appeared first on Sex Matters.

Madrigal-Borloz concludes that the UK’s “Equalities and Human Rights Commission” (sic) is “wholly unbecoming of an institution created to stand up for those in need of protection and hold governments to account for their human rights obligations” because of its advice that the government should consider clarifying the meaning of sex in the Equality Act. 

Madrigal-Borloz urges the British people to “Keep calm. Examine the evidence. Respect Diversity”. Let’s examine the extent to which he follows his own advice. 

Keep calm?

Among the claims the Independent Expert anonymises and amplifies unquestioningly are that there have been “rampant surges in hate crimes”; that young children and teenagers in Northern Ireland are growing up in total ignorance because schools “can essentially choose to teach absolutely nothing in relation to RSE” and, most concerningly, that “kids are killing themselves” because of horrendous waiting lists for “gender-affirming care”. 

He makes no attempt to verify these claims. Here are some facts.

• There is no evidence that hate crimes are “rampantly surging”. When it released the latest hate-crime statistics, the Home Office said: “It is uncertain to what degree the increase in police recorded hate crime is a genuine rise, or due to continued recording improvements and more victims having the confidence to report these crimes to the police.” It said that the recent annual increases were thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording and the removal of the designation as National Statistics of police-recorded crime, as well as a general bounce-back in crime levels as normal life resumed following the end of COVID-19 restrictions.
• Provision of sex education is mandatory across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. There is a minimum content order, and some schools can work within their ethos as to what exactly is taught. Although there are debates about what should be taught and how content should be overseen, there is no evidence that children in Northern Ireland are leaving school in total ignorance about sex. 
• The claims about suicide are irresponsible and not based on evidence. It is often argued that children who identify as transgender are at risk of suicide if not affirmed. This is not backed up by evidence, and the commonly cited studies are weak. Figures from the Tavistock GIDS show that four patients were known or suspected to have died by suicide between 2010 and 2020, out of about 15,000 patients undergoing treatment or on the waiting list. While this rate is higher than for adolescents of similar age, this cohort is known to suffer from mental-health comorbidities that raise the risk of suicide, and the figures shed no light on whether medical transition would reduce that risk.

Examine the evidence?

The Independent Expert’s report lacks the footnotes that might enable readers to examine for themselves what he considers as “evidence”. To give just three examples: 

• A majority of the population supports self-ID? This is misreporting. The Independent Expert states that “a majority of the population supported the removal of medical requirements” for legal sex change, saying that this was a finding of the UK Government’s consultation on GRA reform in 2020. However, this consultation did not involve a representative sampling exercise and does not provide conclusions about the views of “the majority of the population”. In fact, when surveys are done using representative sampling they show that only 17% of the population support allowing people to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate without a doctor’s approval. 
• 76% increase in hate crimes over three months? This is mystery data. The Independent Expert says that “a leading nongovernmental organization” showed him data which “indicated a 76% increase in hate crimes targeting trans persons just over the last three months alone”. This is much higher than official figures. Which organisation? How does this organisation define “hate crime”? Why is the figure so much higher than those reported by the police and CPS? The Independent Expert gives no source for his information. 
• “Gender-inclusive approaches to trans women”. This misunderstands research. In Scotland, he says, “a women’s rights organization examined the performance of 173 social housing providers, 73 of which agreed to implement gender-inclusive approaches in housing that included trans women. Yet only a few years later, the organization informed the Independent Expert that just 9 of those providers were gender-inclusive on paper, and only 6 or 7 remain so in practice.” What does any of this mean? Although no reference is given, these appear to be figures from a recent report by Scottish Women’s Aid called Policies Not Promises A review of Scottish social landlord’s domestic abuse policies. It is about social housing landlords’ approach to domestic violence, which it says is “carried out predominantly by men and directed at women and girls”. While the guidance states that policies should apply to anyone experiencing domestic abuse, including men, lesbian, gays, bisexuals, transgender people and gender non-binary people (LGBT+), this is not a study focused on “gender-inclusive approaches” to trans-identifying men in accommodation for women. 

Throughout the report the Independent Expert makes vague references to “evidence” without citations. At the same time he makes no mention of evidence that was given to him during his visit – about the Cass Review and the associated NICE evidence reviews, the experience of detransitioners, the importance of single-sex services and lesbians driven out of associations and public spaces for not accepting the transwomen-are-women mantra. 

Respect diversity?

The Independent Expert met with several “gender critical” groups during his visit – Sex Matters, Fair Play for Women, Safe Schools Alliance, Labour Women’s Declaration, For Women Scotland, LGB Alliance, Lesbian Labour and the Gay Men’s Network. 

We highlighted how gender-identity laws destroy clear sex-discrimination protections, damage freedom of speech and belief for everyone, and have a detrimental impact on the ability of women (including lesbians, women from ethnic and religious minorities, older women and disabled women) and gay men to participate fully in public life. We told him about the serious concerns about the “gender affirmation” approach to children and young people with gender dysphoria. (Notes from Sex Matters, LGB Alliance, Safe Schools Alliance, Lesbian Labour.)

In his report he dismisses all of these concerns in a single short paragraph, saying “abundant work of the mandate” has addressed them already. It has not. 

He says his mandate will consider submissions only if they are evidence-based and fall within the framework of international human-rights law. This paragraph is the one place in the report where he qualifies the “lived experiences” he has heard about. He presents our lived experience of silencing and cancellation as nothing more than “accusations”.

This is despite the fact that there have already been cases based on international human rights that have confirmed the facts and the law on this. He met with one of the people (Maya Forstater) who won a claim of belief discrimination, and heard about others. He was asked to watch a short video about detransitioners, who surely have a claim that their human rights were infringed when they were sterilised and had their sexual function destroyed. He refused to watch it. 

The representatives of Sex Matters, Fair Play for Women, Safe Schools Alliance and Labour Women’s Declaration asked him to take a group photograph at the end of our meeting, as he did with other civil-society groups. He refused, accusing us of having been personally abusive towards him on social media. We do not know what he was referring to, and he did not tell us (but here are all the tweets). 

He was happy to take group photographs with many other groups.

His respect for diversity does not appear to extend to diversity of belief or opinion.

Taking rights seriously

His report makes it clear that he is simply not taking human rights seriously, and is making the same mistake as the Centre for Global Development (see Forstater v CGD [2021]) and Humberside Police (see Miller v College of Policing [2021]).

In his report he suggests that politicians answering the question “What is a woman?” could fail the Rabat Plan of Action test of the boundary between free speech and hate speech. But he neglects to note that the Rabat Plan of Action states that there is a “high threshold for defining restrictions on freedom of expression”. This is the same high threshold defined by Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Which is the same threshold in the “Grainger Criteria” for interpreting what it means to be “worthy of respect in a democratic society” in respect of the protected characteristic of belief in the UK’s Equality Act. 

Victor Madrigal speaks of respecting human rights, yet he refused to stand beside those who have been stigmatised and discriminated against because of their beliefs, and who are dedicated to standing up for human rights.

Instead he alleges that “hateful and hurtful public political discourse” (such as asking what a woman is) has “caused profound and wide-ranging damage to the mental health of trans people”. He quoted one person as saying “I can’t emphasize how vulnerable I and other trans people feel at the moment right now. I know so many trans people who feel so scared that they do not leave their homes.” Others, he said, talk of suicide and self-exile. 

These are not rational responses to the current political discussion. As the EHRC has said in response to a recent letter by Stonewall:

“It is disappointing that trans people are being given the message that the potential change would make it impossible for them to live their day to day lives safely and with dignity. Such unfounded remarks simply generate more fear and concern among a community that already experiences too much discrimination.”

The Independent Expert’s visit to the UK was a missed opportunity for an international human-rights expert to learn more about how a country with strong equality laws, a culture of democracy, freedom and tolerance and a diverse civil society is trying to find a way to balance human rights. 

The Independent Expert states that “those who he met declared themselves unable to suggest a winning formula for making inroads in a situation that has been driven to a state of such acrimony”. This is simply false. We handed him a winning formula:

He chose to reject this, deciding instead to amplify irrational fears among mentally vulnerable people, and to use those fears as a cudgel to attack the democratic culture of the UK. 

The post Response to Victor Madrigal-Borloz’s report on the UK appeared first on Sex Matters.

Mr Madrigal-Borloz argues that “trans women are women and arbitrary obstacles to legal recognition of gender identity violate State human rights obligations”. We disagree.

The request for input suggests that his aim is not to protect freedom of belief but to constrain it, in favour of gender ideology. Our response starts by imploring him to start the inquiry with respect for the universal human rights of freedom of belief, including the freedom to manifest beliefs. The idea that there are marginalised “SOGI” people on one side and people with “harmful” beliefs on the other is a misrepresentation of human rights and of reality. Many gay, lesbian and bisexual people do not share his belief that “trans women are women”.

We highlight discrimination against people with “gender-critical” beliefs, and the legal cases in the UK that have challenged it. And we argue that conflating violence and discrimination, and defining recognising sex as discrimination, is a move that leads to protection freedom of belief being unjustly overridden.

If a man wants to wear feminine clothing, grow his hair, change his name and take on mannerisms associated with women (and vice versa for women who want to adopt stereotypically masculine self-presentation), or to have cosmetic surgery or take sex hormones, he should not be subjected to violence or discriminated against in services such as housing, transport and financial services, or in employment.

But other people are not required to believe (or pretend to believe) that he has changed sex, or that he shares a defining inner sense with women.

We highlight the conflict of interests between men who want to use female-only spaces and the women who rely on them for privacy, dignity and safety. It is not unlawful or illegitimate to exclude men (all men, including those who want to be women) from female-only spaces.

We note that the connection he makes between enabling legal sex change and combatting violence is spurious and unevidenced. In the UK the Gender Recognition Act was not passed to address violence, but after a case relating to the right to marry (an issue now superseded by same-sex marriage) and the qualified right to privacy of information. Argentina, which passed the world’s first gender self-ID law in 2012, has seen 82 trans people die by violence since then, while in the same period there have been five deaths of trans people by violence in the UK, none of which was linked to having or not having a GRC.

Where the rights of individuals conflict, just resolutions require good-faith, honest debate, and clear rules and laws, not vitriol and vilification. Protection against violence and discrimination for everyone depends on functioning civil and criminal justice systems, and on laws that can be understood and trusted. This in turn depends on democratic institutions, which cannot function properly in the absence of freedom of belief and freedom of expression.

Picture credits: www.flickr.com sallypayne, www.flickr.com alessiacross, Nicole Jones

The post Freedom of belief matters appeared first on Sex Matters.

The post Freedom of belief matters appeared first on Sex Matters.