PA Wire/GETTY Images
We wrote last week, prior to the election, on the positions of the main parties on trans rights. As we, amongst the majority of the population and polls predicted, the Labour Party rode to a landslide victory.
But, what does that mean for trans rights?
A useful starting point would be to consider the Labour Party manifesto, within which includes a pledge to fully back the Cass Review and implement it in full, and a vow to deliver a full “trans-inclusive” ban on conversion therapies.
They also pledged to “modernise, simplify, and reform” the process of changing gender. Their plans are vague but indicate reducing the number of doctors in the process from two to one, maintaining the requirement of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Considering their manifesto pledges first, they do not leave us hopeful. We of course welcome a legal ban on conversion therapies, which have increasingly been used as a way to target people exploring their gender identity. However, their vow to implement the Cass review in full, is deeply worrying. The report calls for restrictions on gender-affirming care and social transition, including a recommendation to block transgender adults under the age of 25 from entering adult care.
As we noted in our response to the Cass report, we believe the report is based on weak medical evidence, and is in direct contradiction to studies by prestigious bodies, such as Cornel University and the medical journal, The Lancet, who all substantiate gender affirming care as lifesaving preventative care.
On the same note, although Labour argue they wish to modernise the process to legally change your gender in the UK, it falls far short of a legal gender recognition procedure based on the self-determination of the person. Countries who have implemented a form of self-ID include Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Worryingly, it also appears that Labour want to retain the requirement for a medical report, continuing the trend of the over medicalization of trans identities.
Even more worrying are the comments made by the newly appointed Prime Minister and his cabinet, outside the realm of their manifesto. In a comment made prior to the election, and one mirroring a policy outlined in Reform UK's manifesto, Starmer vowed to ban “gender ideology” from being taught in schools.
In another attack on trans rights, again prior to the election, Starmer said he backs banning trans women from using female hospital wards. Legally speaking, this is direct conflict with Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, which confirms a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is “proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Therefore, “banning” trans women from using “female” facilities is a blatant breach of equality law unless Labour can show it falls within one of the Equality Act's limited “exceptions”, something which on the face of it, would be somewhat difficult.
Unfortunately, post election, things have arguably gotten worse, with Health secretary Wes Streeting indicating that the Labour government will extend the Tories’ controversial emergency ban on puberty blockers for trans youth.
Puberty blockers have become incredibly controversial, often taking centre stage in the trans “debate”. The argument that they are inherently dangerous, a gateway drug to transition, and medically unsound has become ever louder. In contrast, the medical journal, The Lancet, noted the following:
“Puberty blockers are falsely claimed to cause infertility and to be irreversible, despite no substantiated evidence. The dominance of the infertility narrative, usually focused on child-bearing ability, perhaps reveals more about conservatives' commitment to women's role as child-bearers. Puberty blockers are framed as pushing children into taking hormones, whereas the time they provide allows for conversations with health providers and parents on different options.”
Clearly, we are not scientists, we are lawyers, but the fact we have a government who in both rhetoric and action, are using the law to generate more obstacles for trans people, and further medicalize their identity, is frightening.
Trans healthcare saves lives, and often the pathway to that care runs through the law, and that law is becoming increasingly misused and misinterpreted.
We at the LGBTQ+ Law Clinic know we are one part of a network of organisations and individuals bracing for this reality. And we will ensure we are up to the task. If you require advice, contact us.
Comments