Gender Self-identification

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 701159 relating to transgender people self-identifying their legal gender.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to bring forward this very important debate. I am grateful to the petitioner, John Baic, and the more than 127,000 people who signed the petition, including 132 from my South Cotswolds constituency. The petition calls for a simple principle: that trans people should be able to self-identify their legal gender without needing an intrusive medical diagnosis; and for trans people to live with dignity, not bureaucracy, and with compassion, not suspicion. This means allowing someone to change their legal gender through a statutory declaration. That already works effectively in countries such as Ireland, Argentina and Denmark, and it does not remove safeguards; false declarations remain a criminal offence.

What self-identification does is remove unnecessary medicalised hurdles that dehumanise trans people and delay access to legal rights. Many trans people already live full time in their affirmed gender, without ever applying for a gender recognition certificate, precisely because the process is so inaccessible. The current system does not stop people from transitioning; it simply makes their lives harder—so much harder.

The Liberal Democrats have long supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to make it less bureaucratic and intrusive. Our party policy is clear. We support removing the requirement for medical reports, recognising non-binary identities in law and ending the spousal veto—the very proposals that the Conservatives brought forward in 2018. We also believe in a wider approach, expanding access to timely, high-quality healthcare and putting an end to all forms of conversion practices.

I am sure the hon. Lady will know that when setting out last month’s Supreme Court judgment, Lord Hodge counselled against reading the judgment

“as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.

None the less, it has caused immense distress to the trans community. Does she agree that now is the time for the Government to commit to a clear timetable for allowing transgender people to self-identify their legal gender, so that they can live with dignity and respect, which is a basic human right?

Dignity and respect are exactly what we are talking about, and I absolutely agree. For us, this is not about abstract debates, but about real lives, human beings and the fundamental human right for someone to live safely, freely and in their own truth. Yet today we find ourselves in a situation where one of society’s smallest minorities is being targeted with hostility and violence.

According to the 2021 census, only 0.5% of adults in England and Wales identified as trans or gender diverse, yet entire newspaper front pages and hours of political debate are dedicated to their existence. This toxic and hostile debate has real-world consequences. According to the Office for National Statistics, hate crimes against trans people have risen by close to 200% since 2018. In 2023, of the nearly 5,000 transphobic hate crimes reported, only 126 led to prosecution—less than 3%. That is not acceptable. Nearly half of all trans and gender-diverse individuals have experienced sexual assault. Trans women without access to gender-affirming care are significantly more likely to attempt suicide—one in five will try. While this is often painted as a culture war, the human cost is painfully real.

It deeply saddens me to hear some of those statistics. Does the hon. Member agree that what we say in this House matters? It ripples across communities, and regardless of what side of the argument someone is on or where they sit on the issue, at the centre of the argument are people. Does she also agree that we should do our utmost to protect the trans community and make sure that they have the same rights as everyone else, and can live in dignity?

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.

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?

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”.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am struck by not only the Supreme Court ruling, but the interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is causing extreme distress for a number of my constituents. I am having to rely on Margate Pride’s own advice to businesses to reassure them about things in the ruling and the guidance—they should be taking into account that it is not legally binding and does not change the law, and that businesses should not feel pressured to rewrite or roll back their trans-inclusive policies based on the draft guidance alone. This situation, in which interim guidance from the EHRC is causing more stress and anxiety than the initial ruling, is not acceptable for anyone. Anybody who thinks that the Supreme Court ruling is drawing a line or making things clear is greatly mistaken.

I absolutely agree. This already vulnerable group, many of whom struggle with mental health issues, are struggling even more as a result of the confusion arising from the ruling.

I was quoting a trans person who responded to the survey. They continued:

“When discussions of safety have been in Parliament, there is a complete lack of empathy for the invalidation and fear trans individuals are experiencing.”

I say to that person and other people in the trans community that I hope they are witnessing the empathy that is being expressed in this Hall today.

The Government must modernise, simplify, clarify and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law and bring in a new process, as they promised at the last general election. We are being told the current system is robust, but how can a system be robust when over 31,000 people are still waiting just for their first appointment at a gender identity clinic? Some will wait for more than seven years. Many will never make it through the process—not because they lack the seriousness, but because the bureaucracy is unbearable, as is the toll on their mental health. Public Health England said that over a third of trans people have attempted suicide at least once. A human tragedy is unfolding as a result of the lack of suitable support and enough resources to see trans people through the process.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. In the Supreme Court ruling, the judge said that the Equality Act 2010 applies to trans people. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have been failing trans people for many years in this country, despite the fact that they are covered by the Equality Act? That has to change.

I wholeheartedly agree that equality means equality, no matter who the individual concerned may be. Even the Government’s much-lauded £5 GRC fee is meaningless when the necessary private medical reports, blood tests and hormone prescriptions cost thousands. This is simply inaccessible to many people. It is not a system of integrity, but one of delay, expense and quiet exclusion leading to quiet desperation.

Meanwhile, there are some rays of hope. Organisations such as the Trans Legal Clinic are stepping in to fill the gap. Founded just three years ago, the clinic now supports trans people across the UK with legal issues relating to discrimination, housing, gender-based violence and access to care. Its staff are unpaid, its clients often arrive in crisis, and its work is saving lives. Its message to us as parliamentarians is clear: legal recognition reduces suicide risk. Gender recognition reform would directly improve mental health outcomes. We need to get past this toxic debate and focus on the urgent reality of trans people who face violence, homelessness and systemic neglect.

I will end this speech with a simple reflection. There are, as far as I am aware, no trans MPs in this Chamber, but we all have trans constituents, and we all have the capacity to imagine. Imagine waking up tomorrow exactly as you are—same body, same mind—but the world is treating you as somebody that you are not. They call you by the wrong name. They dismiss what you say because they do not see beyond the gender issue. That is the daily experience of many trans people in the UK.

The hon. Lady has made a comprehensive opening statement on behalf of the Petitions Committee, so I thank her for that. Does she agree that trans voices are often left out when we talk about these issues and have this debate? We need to remember that there are humans on the other side of this, and we need to listen to our trans community when we make decisions that directly impact their lives.

I have worked closely with a member of my team who is a trans person in preparing this speech. It has been eye-opening for me, as a cis woman, to find out so much about the toll on members of the trans community as they try to navigate these impossible systems. I could have put so much more in this speech that would only arouse even more compassion. In my own small way, I am doing what I can today to try to be that voice for the trans community, which, as the hon. Member said, is not heard enough in this debate.

To any trans person listening to today’s debate: please know that even in a Parliament where your voice is still too often missing, there are people who see and hear you, and who will fight for your right to be yourself. As parliamentarians, we have a choice: we can stoke fear and division or we can show leadership. Let us choose dignity and compassion. Let us choose to recognise people for who they are as individuals, and give them the legal recognition and protection they deserve.

I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will not set a time limit, but if hon. Members keep their speeches to around seven minutes, everyone will get to make a meaningful contribution.

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?

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?