|
Memorandum submitted
by Paul Thomas (E 53)
1. Introduction
The purpose of this submission is to
argue for protection for the wider transgender community rather than just the
tiny minority of transgender people proposed in the Bill under the definition
of Gender Reassignment.
2. About me
I am a transgender (but not transsexual)
person. Like most transgender people I sometimes present as male and sometimes
present as female so I refer to myself as a dual-role transgender person. I have been going out and meeting other
transgender people for just over twenty years. I have, until recently, run a
transgender support group. I have also been involved in helping with diversity
training for Staffordshire Police Force. This took the form of a series of
face-to-face workshops with course attendees. Like many transgender people I
have been the target of harassment and threats of violence.
3. About dual-role transgender
people
Dual-role transgender people are people
who sometimes present in their birth sex and sometimes in the opposite sex.
Whilst there are some amongst the dual-role transgender population who strongly
self-identify with the opposite sex, most dual-role transgender people identify
to a greater or lesser degree with both sexes. There are probably at least one million
dual-role transgender people in the UK.
Many dual-role transgender people
suppress their needs in order to try to comply with the various pressures from
society and family, but it should be recognised that this suppression is due to
fear of harassment, discrimination or rejection rather than an arbitrary choice
and comes with an associated emotional cost to the transgender person.
Dual-role transgender people are also rightly worried that their families will
become the targets of discrimination and harassment.
4. Specific comments about the
Bill
4.1. Scope of who is and who
isn't protected
Whilst welcoming the move away from a
medical model, I am disappointed that most transgender people and their
families still appear to be excluded from protection.
4.2. Evidence of
discrimination
As I understand it, it is normal practice
to have to demonstrate that wide-spread discrimination exists before the
Government will act to legislate against it. I do not believe that insisting on
that proof before legislating to protect dual-role transgender people is
appropriate in this instance for the following reasons:
l What
we're asking for is a tiny extension to an existing bill rather than a specific
Act to ban discrimination against dual-role transgender people. To insist on a
high level of proof is dis-proportionate with respect to the time and effort
involved in extending a small part of an existing bill.
l Dual-role
transgender people are, of necessity, very good at hiding their transgender
status. This reduces the opportunity for discrimination against them. We know
that discrimination against transsexuals, although illegal, is wide-spread and
those who discriminate against transsexuals are just as likely to discriminate
against other transgender people given the opportunity. In fact, given than
much of that discrimination would currently be legal I'd say they'd even more
likely to discriminate.
l Insisting
on proof of wide-spread discrimination against dual-role transgender people
places them in an impossible situation of having to put themselves and their
families at risk. Is it reasonable to require someone to put their child's
safety at risk in order to prove what most people would acknowledge to be
likely to happen?
l Whilst
it is down to the individual whether or not and to whom they disclose their
transgender status (just as it is for one's sexual orientation or faith), it
cannot be acceptable that transgender citizens of this country are forced to
continue to live their lives in fear of discovery. That simply hands victory to
the transphobes, impoverishes and brutalises our society and makes a mockery of
the notion of equality.
4.3. The name of the protected
characteristic
I don't think that Gender Reassignment is
an appropriate name for the protected characteristic. It is a term which
already has a meaning in law in terms of protecting transsexual people who
undergo a medical process and I believe that using the same term for the
proposed non-medically reliant protected characteristic will cause un-necessary
confusion.
4.4. Unlawful or offensive
behaviour
I was upset to see a tabled amendment to
clause 7 which said:
"d) a person who has a gender identity
that is different from that expected of a person of their recorded natal sex,
provided that behaviour is not unlawful or offensive."
Whilst welcoming the widening of the
definition, I was upset by the phrase "provided that behaviour is not unlawful
or offensive". This pre-supposes that dual-role transgender people are likely
to act in an unlawful or offensive manner which simply isn't true and unjustly
stigmatises such people.
4.5. Issues with defining the
protected characteristic
I recognise that it may be difficult to
draft a definition of the protected characteristic to encompass dual-role
transgender people without potentially covering people such as female
impersonators. This should not be used as an excuse to not protect dual-role
transgender people because
a) what real harm would it do if female
impersonators fell within the definition?
b) for all anybody knows some female impersonators
may indeed also be transgender
c) discrimination would still
be on the basis of a perceived protected characteristic and so should be
outlawed
Better to cast the net a bit too wide than
not wide enough.
4.6. Single-sex shared
facilities
I am uneasy about the exemption from
discrimination with respect to single-sex services in clause 25. A scenario
which illustrates this well is where a publican might refuse to allow a
male-to-female transgender person to use the Ladies loo. The transgender person
would then have to choose between using the Gents, thus running a significant
risk of being assaulted, or to leave the pub. This would allow the publican to
discriminate against transgender people without having to openly refuse to
serve them. To avoid such potential loop-holes any exceptions must be
restricted to the absolute minimum and very tightly defined.
4.7. Suggested amendment to
clause 7
Below is my suggestion for clause 7.
"7
Gender variance
(1) A person has the protected
characteristic of gender variance if the person
is proposing to undergo, is
undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of
a process) for the
purpose of expressing the person's gender identify by changing
physiological or
other attributes of sex on either a permanent or temporary basis.
(2) A reference to a transgender
person is a reference to a person who has the
protected characteristic of gender variance.
(3) In relation to the
protected characteristic of gender variance-
a)
a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is
a reference to a transgender person;
(b)
a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a
reference to transgender
persons."
June
2009
| 