Tagged: Gender Recognition Act

Gender recognition process urgently in need of reform, say MPs

A new report on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act was published on 21st December

The Beaumont Society welcomes a new report produced by the Women & Equalities Select Committee of the House of Commons. The Society’s President Dr Jane Hamlin was one of the witnesses called to be questioned by the Committee.

Despite taking two years to do so, the Government has failed to adequately respond to its own consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004, leaving a gender recognition process which is unfair and overly medicalised. In its new Report, Reform of the Gender Recognition Act, the cross-party Women and Equalities Committee describe the Government’s response to the 2018 consultation as ‘minimal’, and calls for urgent reforms to be made to the Act.  


Drawing on evidence from both trans rights and women’s rights groups, representing voices for and against reform, the Report considers the Government’s proposed amendments to the 17-year-old Act. Calling on Government Ministers to ‘properly engage’ with the Committee’s scrutiny, the Report makes a number of recommendations for meaningfully reforming the legislation, including the de-medicalisation of the gender recognition process, the removal of the spousal consent provision and the requirement to live in the acquired gender.  


The Report also considers the interplay between the GRA and the 2010 Equality Act, calling for consistency across the two and for greater clarity to be provided on exceptions, enabling employers, service providers and sports bodies to operate with confidence within the law.  


The Committee calls on the Government to: 


·       Remove the requirement of a ‘gender dysphoria’ diagnosis from the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate, thus de-medicalising transition, as was supported by former Prime Minister Theresa May when commissioning the consultation. Instead, the focus must be shifted to a system of self-declaration. 


·       Remove the requirement for trans people to have lived in their acquired gender for two years- which, says the Report, ‘risks entrenching outdated and unacceptable gender stereotypes’, as well as the need for spousal consent. Instead, the Committee recommend, the body issuing the certificate must be given the power to issue annulments at the same time.  


·       Conduct a review on the- currently opaque- Gender Recognition Panel which approves applications for Gender Recognition Certificates, considering whether it would be appropriate to replace with the Registrar General for England and Wales. In the meantime, steps must be taken to make the operation and role of the panel more transparent.  


·       Urgently publish new guidance, incorporating worked examples and case studies, which would clarify where single-sex and separate-sex exceptions can be applied to the 2010 Equality Act. This is particularly relevant where, for example, women’s refuges and other service providers are left unclear as to whether the exclusion of trans people from certain spaces is in violation of the law.  


·       Develop a specific healthcare strategy for transgender and non-binary people, including training for GPs around treating trans and non-binary patients and improved access to support services. 


·       Commit to continuing to implement the LGBT Action Plan. The Committee expressed concerns that the plan seems to have been abandoned by the current Women and Equalities Minister, and seek clarity as to if, and why, this is the case. 


Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: 


“The Government took nearly two years to respond to the consultation on an Act that was written at the turn of the millennium. The GRA is crying out for modernisation, and the Government has spectacularly missed its opportunity. This is an area of reform which has attracted strong opinions and debate, but there are areas- such as the removal a time period for living in an acquired gender- which many can agree on. The Government’s failure to implement even these changes- made clear in its consultation- suggest its lack of willingness to engage. 


“Being trans is not an illness. It is imperative that the Government de-medicalise the process of gender recognition by removing the outdated requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. The current response to the 2018 consultation has amounted to little more than administrative changes. We are now calling on the Government to enact real, meaningful change.” 



‘This won’t improve the life of the average trans person’

Emma Elms has written an article for TOGETHERBAND about some of the issues around the Gender Recognition Act and the possible reforms that were discussed in 2018. Despite the vast majority of the 102,818 people who responded to the consultation process favouring reducing the bureaucracy and intrusive nature of the requirements to apply for a GRC, Liz Truss (Minister for Women & Equalities) announced a reduction in the fee. Whilst this is a welcome improvement, it is a minuscule step towards what is required. Liz Truss clearly has absolutely no idea what is involved for trans people who apply for a GRC. You can read Emma’s article here: https://togetherband.org/blogs/news/gender-recognition-certificate-fee-reduced

Another Look at Reforms to the Gender Recognition Act: Your opportunity to contribute to the discussion

Reform of the Gender Recognition Act


The Government has published its proposals for changes to the gender recognition process and set out how it plans to move forward. The Women and Equalities Committee will examine these proposals, gathering evidence on whether the Government’s proposed changes are the right ones and whether they go far enough.

This inquiry will explore what changes, if any, should be made to the existing legislation, in order for current legislation to improve transgender equality.

The written evidence published as part of this inquiry will be used to inform the work of the Committee. Publication of written evidence does not equate to an endorsement of the views it contains by the Committee.

The committee wants to hear your views. They say that they will welcome submissions from anyone with answers to the questions in the call for evidence. You can submit evidence until Friday 27 November 2020.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) sets out a process that allows individuals over the age of 18 to receive legal recognition of their acquired gender. Applicants must apply to the Gender Recognition Panel to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which from the date of issue, considers the applicant, in law, to be of their acquired gender.

In July 2018 the Government opened a consultation on how best to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004. In September 2020, the Minister for Women and Equalities set out the Government’s proposals, in response to this consultation:

The Government said it would:

·       Place the whole procedure online

·       Reduce the fee from £140 to a “nominal amount”.

·       Open at least three new gender clinics this year in order to reduce waiting lists.

Alongside this Statement, the Government Equalities Office published an of the consultation response.

This inquiry focuses specifically on the questions below. The Committee encourages evidence from individuals as well as organisations.  You can answer as many or as few questions as you like.

The terms of reference set out below are split into two sections. The Committee may decide to conduct the inquiry over two different phases.

Terms of reference

The Government’s response to the GRA consultation:

  • Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”?
  • Should a fee for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate be removed or retained? Are there other financial burdens on applicants that could be removed or retained?
  • Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?
  • Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?
  • What is your view of the statutory declaration and should any changes have been made to it?
  • Does the spousal consent provision in the Act need reforming? If so, how? If it needs reforming or removal, is anything else needed to protect any rights of the spouse or civil partner?
  • Should the age limit at which people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be lowered?
  • What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?
  • What else should the Government have included in its proposals, if anything?
  • Does the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill offer a more suitable alternative to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004?


Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:

  • Why is the number of people applying for GRCs so low compared to the number of people identifying as transgender?
  • Are there challenges in the way the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact? For example, in terms of the different language and terminology used across both pieces of legislation.
  • Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?
  • Does the Equality Act adequately protect trans people? If not, what reforms, if any, are needed
  • What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services?
  • Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and non-binary people? If so, how?


You can submit evidence until Friday 27 November.

Your Submission

If your submission is accepted by the Committee, it will usually be published online. It will then be available permanently for anyone to view. It can’t be changed or removed.

If you have included your name or any personal information in your submission, that will be published too. Please consider how much personal information you want or need to share. Your contact details will never be published.

Decisions about publishing evidence anonymously, or about accepting but not publishing evidence, are made by the Committee. If you want to ask the Committee to keep your evidence anonymous (we’ll publish your evidence but not your name or personal details) or confidential (the Committee will read your evidence but it won’t be published) then please tick the box on the submission form. This lets the Committee know what you would like but the final decision will be taken by the Committee.

We can’t publish submissions that mention ongoing legal cases – contact us if you are not sure what this means for you.

More guidance on providing written evidence to a select committee can be found .

Please feel welcome to discuss any questions with the Committee staff at womeqcom@parliament.uk;


We understand that the issues raised in this inquiry may be potentially complex or sensitive. The Committee cannot provide advice on cases.


If you would like support about any of the issues raised, you may wish to contact a specialist support service, such as:


– 0808 800 0082

– 0300 123 3393

– 116 123


If you would require additional advice or support on a range of other issues you may wish to contact on 03444 111 444.


Committees of the House of Commons are not able to take up individual cases but if you would like political support or advice you may wish to contact your local M.P.

Click on this link for more information: https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/291/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/


Letter to Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities

The Committee of the Beaumont Society was concerned about remarks attributed to Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities, about ‘single-sex safe spaces’, so we wrote to the Minister and sent copies to the relevant spokespeople from the opposition parties.  Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Minister

Gender Recognition Act consultation and Single-Sex Spaces

The Beaumont Society is a registered charity that has been at the forefront of support for the UK transgender community for more than fifty years. During that time, we have helped and supported many thousands of trans people through membership or through help offered on a one-to-one basis via our information line.

We are concerned about several aspects of your recent announcement about single-sex safe spaces. We condemn any kind of intimidation aimed at women, including violence, voyeurism, and the grotesque practice of so-called “up-skirting”. We understand the anger felt by all women at the unacceptable practices of a minority of men. We feel that anger too. But these actions, including voyeurism are already illegal, with laws in place that the police and CPS can use to prosecute anyone who indulges in such practices.

The proposed changes on “single-sex spaces” seem rushed and ill thought out, with too little consideration given to the practical consequences of your new proposals.

As the Minister for Equalities, we would appreciate your answers to the following concerns that we have.

Changing and Fitting Rooms

  1. A) What data from police forces across the country concerning incidences of voyeurism in changing rooms and toilets have been used as the basis for this new proposal?
    B) Do the data suggest that there is a significant problem?
    C) Has the Crown Prosecution Service indicated that new legislation is required in order to bring such voyeurs to justice?
  2. A) What data exist on incidents of voyeurism in fitting rooms in clothes shops?
    B) How many incidents have been brought to your attention?
    C) Have you sought such data?
  3. A) What data exist from clothing shops that operate a gender-neutral fitting room area on incidents of voyeurism?
    B) Does a problem exist in shops that have mixed-gender or gender-neutral fitting rooms?
    C) Such shops may have a lot of advice to offer. Have you sought their input?
  4. A) What advice do you plan to give to shops and sports/leisure centres to help them enforce this new legislation?
    B) Will there be requests for some kind of proof of birth-gender or other evidence on entry to rooms to try on clothes in shops or get changed at sports/leisure centres?
    C) Have you considered the practical difficulties in enforcement?
  5. If your proposals go ahead, then presumably trans women will be required to use men’s changing and fitting rooms. Voyeurism is much more likely in this scenario than in the current situation. After all, the appearance of a woman with an armful of dresses to try on will cause quite a stir among the other users of a men’s fitting room in a shop. Similarly in sports/leisure facilities.
    A) What guidance on protection for trans women will you include?
    B) Are you concerned about protecting trans people from possible voyeurism or assault?
    C) If you plan to offer no such guidance, does that mean that you consider trans people somehow worthy of less protection than their cis gender counterparts?
  6. Under any new proposals, we assume that trans men (assigned female at birth) would need to use women’s changing/fitting rooms. This is likely to cause consternation when bearded trans men wearing lumberjack shirts and work-boots enter in order to try on their new shirts and trousers or to get changed for swimming and other sporting activities. Are you prepared for the inevitable onslaught of dismay and anger when women find this happening?
  7. A) How will the new proposals prevent the voyeurism that they are meant to stop if a masculine-dressed individual appears at the women’s changing rooms and demands entry claiming that he is trans, was born female and must use women’s changing/fitting rooms under the new guidelines?
    B) Doesn’t this make voyeurism of the type you seem worried about more likely (and a lot easier) than at present?
  8. A) Or do you plan to make the new guidelines one-way only, applying to trans women but not trans men, such that all trans people must use men’s changing/fitting rooms?
    B) As Secretary of State for Equalities, what consequences would you envisage if this extremely unequal option were to be chosen?

Women’s Refuges and Crisis Centres

  1. We understand the safety concerns of refuge managers but would like to point out that trans women are as likely to become victims of domestic violence and assault as cis gender women.
  2. What provisions would you envisage being put in place if trans women were to be refused entry to such centres?
  3. If you support moves to exclude trans women from such centres but do not propose and support alternatives, how would this equate with your role of Minister for Equalities? Do you recognise that none of us are equal until all of us are equal?

Single Sex Wards in Hospitals

  1. From the experiences of some of our members, we are aware of the extreme distress experienced by some trans people in hospital when they are placed in a ward designated for the sex they were assigned at birth. Some have reported taunting and bullying by other ward patients, causing suicidal thoughts, along with unfeeling attitudes from a minority of staff. How do you propose ensuring that this kind of demeaning treatment doesn’t happen if you plan to return to a strict birth-sex based ward system?

Self-Identifying as Trans

  1. In the consultation document prepared and presented to Parliament in July 2018 by your predecessor The Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP, it was estimated that up to 500,000 people identify as trans (other estimates would support a higher figure) and yet fewer than 5000 had successfully acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate. Our experiences in running an anonymous helpline, and meeting trans people of all types and backgrounds, would tend to support this level, just under 1% of the UK population. Many have struggled with internal turmoil for many years before contacting us. Many then live a dual life, in which they compromise their own wishes in order to keep partners and family together. This is why so few seek medical appointments, hormone treatment, surgery and the route provided by obtaining a GRC; and yet (before the Covid-19 lockdown) all the Gender Identity Clinics have waiting lists of about three years for a first appointment! That so few have acquired a GRC is because the process is too bureaucratic, too expensive and too intrusive, and also because most find self-identifying has worked for them, after a fashion, allowing them to maintain their relationships and family ties by living a compromise life.

If measures are taken to severely curtail self-identification as trans by introducing “hostile” policies, are you prepared for the likely increase in people approaching GPs and gender clinics in order to obtain a formal diagnosis and GRC? It is likely to be far more than the 15% – 20% annual increase seen in recent years. Will the government provide the resources to expand the system to cope?
B. One consequence of a “crackdown” on self-identifying will be an increased rate of separation, divorce and family breakups, as trans people are forced to seek official recognition and transition fulltime. Have you planned for this?
B. Much of the friction over this issue is due to confusion about the terms sex and gender. Trans people are extremely aware that their gender pressures are experienced in the brain, largely in the subconscious, creating tension and distress. Do you fully understand those experiences? Have you taken on board the increased level of fear and anxiety that has been added to the daily lives of several hundred thousand people by your recent announcements and those of Baroness Nicholson? What exactly are you trying to achieve and why?

Adolescents and Young Adults

12. The Beaumont Society has a recently formed Parents’ Group. We are very aware that young trans people need to be able to access advice and support from suitably qualified and experienced professionals and, if deemed appropriate on a case-by-case basis, access to puberty-blocking medication. Currently, under 18s have no access to surgery, despite the misinformation circulating about this. The misunderstanding about hormone blockers seems to be focussed on an irreversible outcome but in reality the treatment can be stopped allowing normal puberty to proceed. Decision makers must take into account the high rate of self-harm among teenagers forced to wait years for treatment. The impact of refusing hormone blockers at a crucial time would lead to far more worrying decisions and potentially put lives in danger.


  1. Have you sought data on the rates of self-harm and suicide among adolescents and young adults forced to wait for lengthy periods before gaining a clinic appointment?
  2. What conversations have you had with trans healthcare specialist and child rights experts before making the decision to restrict access to puberty blocking treatment?
  3. We are particularly worried about young trans adults in their late teens and early twenties. There is little significant support for them. We believe that suicides and incidences of self-harm during the long wait for a first appointment are not logged as trans-related because the individuals involved have not yet been officially identified as trans. Could you confirm this, please? If this is the case, could you help to set in motion the necessary changes so that these incidents are correctly logged?


We would be very grateful if you could address these very real concerns about possible changes to legislation and look forward to your reply in due course.


Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Dr Jane Hamlin


A Beaumont Society Response to Statement by Liz Truss

On the 22nd April Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities, stated at a meeting of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee:

“The final point I’d like to make, Madam Chairman, in this initial part, is on the issue of the Gender Recognition Act. We’ve been doing a lot of work internally, making sure we’re in a position to respond to that consultation and launch what we propose to do on the future of the Gender Recognition Act. We will be in a position to do that by the summer, and there are three very important principles that I will be putting place.

First of all, the protection of single-sex spaces, which is extremely important.

Secondly making sure that transgender adults are free to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, whilst maintaining the proper checks and balances in the system.

Finally, which is not a direct issue concerning the Gender Recognition Act, but is relevant, making sure that the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future. I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.”

The Beaumont Society would like clarification on the Minister’s statement:

  1. What exactly does the Minister mean when she refers to “single sex” spaces? Is there a widely accepted understanding as to the spaces to which she is referring? We would be happy if these “single-sex” spaces were to include trans people in their acquired gender. E.g. trans-women in women-only wards in hospitals; trans women who have suffered domestic violence being accepted in Women’s Refuges; trans women who have been raped being accepted into Women’s Rape Crisis Centres. The Minister states that continued protection is extremely important, but fails to clarify exactly what she means by this.
  2. What are the “proper checks and balances” she refers to? Could she be more specific so that we can be reassured that the hard-won rights of trans people will continue to be upheld, and can she reassure us that the prejudices of some vociferous minorities will be resisted?
  3. Young trans people need to be able to access advice and support from suitably qualified and experienced professionals and, if deemed appropriate on a case-by-case basis, access to puberty-blocking medication. Decision makers must take into account the high rate of self-harm among teenagers forced to wait years for treatment.