EHRC and GANHRI– A Statement
(EHRC is the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, GANHRI is the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions)
On February 28, 2024, TransLucent.Org.UK was scheduled to meet Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chairwoman of the EHRC, and two EHRC commissioners. However, on February 26th 2024, we learnt that Baroness Falkner could no longer attend, and we were subsequently told that while a meeting could go ahead, no commissioners would be present. Given the circumstances, we decided to postpone the meeting as we believe it important that commissioners would be present to engage in open and respectful discussion.
We intended to give a position statement at the meeting, but as that did not go ahead, we have now decided to make a public position statement, which we hope the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions will take account of in their upcoming Special Review of the EHRC.
Introduction.
TransLucent.Org.UK notes that attacks – both physical, in the media and on the rights and protections of transgender people in the UK have increased hugely in recent years. Sadly, it appears to us that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has not only failed to address these attacks but has actively contributed to them, so much so that the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has launched a special review of the EHRC shortly after it received its re-accreditation as a Grade A, National Human Rights Institution (NHRI).
As an organisation, we have attempted to engage with the EHRC in good faith over the last few years, but our concerns still need to be addressed; sadly, it appears that the EHRC seems to have assisted this government in their culture war against trans people.
We also note that GANHRI, at the last review, instructed the EHRC to engage with more LGBT+ organisations. On February 29, 2024, ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) published its Annual Country review saying this about the EHRC:
“In May, over 30 LGBTQ+ organisations sent a joint letter to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) about the harm that the EHRC has been causing to trans people. In 2022, GANHRI recommended that the EHRC increase efforts to protect trans people and consult with LGBTQ+ groups”
In this regard, the EHRC has, in our opinion, failed to do so.
We acknowledge that ‘sex’ is a significant protected characteristic (although impossible to define in such a way that it encompasses the entire range of human biological variation), and there are some occasions when it may be appropriate for trans women and/or trans men to be treated differently to their cisgender counterparts, subject to the lawful boundaries of the Equality Act 2010 (EA10) exemptions.
However, to date, and despite requests, the EHRC has yet to be able to define ‘biological sex’.
In short, we agree with the need for single-sex spaces subject to the provisions of the EA10, but we DO NOT agree with “blanket bans” against trans people.
We do acknowledge that all (Grainger-compliant) beliefs are legally protected as far as holding them and expressing them within lawful boundaries.
Still, we also maintain that much of the public expression of gender-critical ideology is, and can only ever be, viewed as transphobic in that it seeks to demonise trans people and reduce and restrict their legal protections.
We have seen no condemnation of that by the EHRC.
We note that the EHRC has given written advice to the government to suggest that the Equality Act 2010 could be changed to remove the protections of trans people in law under that Act, including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This is of the gravest concern for trans people and, in part, why GANHRI has launched its special review.
The Gender Critical Movement.
As an organisation, we endorse the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe statement dated September 27 2021, specifically these words in regard to the gender critical movement:
“The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives which reduce the fight for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mischaracterise as “gender ideology” or “LGBTI ideology”.
The Lemkin Institute says this about the gender-critical movement.
The gender critical movement simultaneously denies that transgender identity is real and seeks to eradicate it completely from society. Many gender-critical ideologues identify themselves as feminists and believe themselves to be protecting women from men. They accuse transgender women of being stealth men and of transgender men of being self-hating women. The movement, a centerpiece of right wing ascendancy in the Western world, calls for discrimination against and harrassment of transgender individuals and the transgender community through laws and policies that criminalize trans identity and trans life. The Lemkin Institute is alarmed by the growing number of attempts in the Western world to enact policies and spread prejudice that threaten the well-being, and even the existence, of transgender people.
We consider that many, if not all, UK gender-critical organisations are defacto hate groups (based on definitions recognised by many other countries), and for this reason, we are disappointed the EHRC has not only taken them seriously but has reflected those views in its own advice. Despite raising this in our first meeting, we also note that the EHRC still needs processes for identifying or restricting engagement with hate groups.
We are also saddened that there appear to be many influential people inside the EHRC who hold both gender-critical and anti-trans ideological views. Clearly, and rightfully, GANHRI has considered this in its decision to hold a special review.
Gender Critical Disinformation.
We do not accept there are issues regarding single-sex spaces; it is a false debate based not on evidence but purely on scaremongering that the gender-critical movement and its hateful ideology have propagated.
However, we note the EHRC’s April 22 non-statutory guidance.
We condemn those aligned with extreme gender-critical ideology for alleging there are issues regarding domestic abuse shelters, given the trans community has its own dedicated domestic abuse service provider in England and that the majority of domestic abuse service providers tell us that they happily include trans women without any issues whatsoever. Again, no evidence supports total exclusion as being a ‘ proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim’.
We condemn those aligned with extreme gender-critical ideology for alleging there are issues for trans people (specifically trans women) concerning toilets and changing rooms. Translucent has significant data to prove there is no case to be made in this regard, having made Freedom of Information requests to fifty local authorities with a total population within those authorities of over twenty million people. Click HERE for details.
We condemn those aligned with extreme gender-critical ideology and the gender-critical members of the Conservative government for suggesting there are issues in female wards in hospitals and that trans women should not be treated in female wards in future. In total, TransLucent has made two hundred and eighty-two Freedom of Information requests, covering a period of over three years and have discovered just one minor complaint about a trans woman in a hospital ward. Put in perspective, the NHS gets approximately two hundred thousand written complaints every year, and some 6.75 million women are treated at NHS hospitals, we surveyed in our latest investigation.
For details of our 2023/4 investigation making Freedom of Information requests to every acute and mental health trust in England, click HERE.
EHRC Failures.
In recent years, the EHRC has completely reversed its position on trans rights and, specifically, legal gender recognition. The Scottish EHRC noted in evidence before the Scottish Parliament GRR Bill Committee that the UK EHRC had changed its position in regard to self-ID with no evidential basis for that change. Given just a small percentage of trans people (estimated at 2%) have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is clear that the Gender Recognition Act is in need of updating, and we note with dismay the EHRC has utterly failed to support trans people in this regard.
In recent years, the EHRC has claimed to advocate for improving trans healthcare within the NHS. However, the fact is trans healthcare has worsened considerably, with waits for initial appointments increasing at some NHS Gender Identity Clinics to over twenty years. Further, it would appear the EHRC has failed to recognise the comments from coroners regarding those trans people who took their own lives, pointing out this fact and that it was a contributing factor in their suicide.
On Wednesday, February 28th 2024, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a Policy Statement on Affirming Evidence-Based Inclusive Care for Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Nonbinary Individuals, Addressing Misinformation, and the Role of Psychological Practice and Science, which had been approved by APA Council of Representatives.
The APA states.
“This policy statement affirms APA’s support for unobstructed access to health care and evidence-based clinical care for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary children, adolescents, and adults.
Furthermore, this policy statement addresses the spread of misleading and unfounded narratives that mischaracterise gender dysphoria and affirming care, likely resulting in further stigmatisation, marginalisation, and lack of access to psychological and medical supports for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary individuals.”
In light of this level of APA affirmation for positive trans healthcare and their condemnation and risk to life of failing to support, we again call for the support and backing of the EHRC in the face of all the harmful gender critical ideology.
We note that concerning participation in sports, trans women’s rights and women’s rights are perceived to be in conflict. We acknowledge that the safety and the integrity of women’s sports is a priority and that each sports federation must make a fair decision on how best to include trans women in meaningful competition. However, that decision must also be based on fair and unbiased evidence that includes the voices and experiences of transgender people. We do not consider arbitrary blanket bans or so-called “open categories” to be a proportionate or fair solution when there is no evidence to back any claims that elite-level trans women athletes retain unfair advantage. We note the recent ban on trans women’s participation in chess, for example. Again, the EHRC has failed to support trans people.
The issue of trans women in prison is a matter of grave concern. Still, we do agree that all sex offenders, or those who have harmed women, should never be held in the female estate, regardless of their ‘legal’ or ‘biological’ sex. However, we must point out that four trans women committed suicide while held in the male estate between 2015 and 2017, and the latest information available suggests a trans woman is sexually assaulted in the male estate on average every thirty-three days. Latest estimates suggest that 97% of trans women prisoners in England are held in the male estate.
This is a clear breach of human rights, which the EHRC has failed to raise.
Politicians.
Translucent condemns the actions of former Women and Equalities Minister Liz Truss MP, who disbanded the LGBT+ Advisory Panel, failing to replace them and failed trans people in regard to significantly updating the Gender Recognition Act, despite a massive public consultation in favour of reform. Liz Truss also made appointments to the EHRC board with people willing to follow her anti-LGBT+ agenda. On the 15th of March 2024, Truss showed her true intentions by proposing a Bill in the UK Parliament banning puberty blockers (which have been used in the treatment of children suffering from gender dysphoria) and instigating a ban on trans women being able to use single-sex spaces as per their human right as per the Equality Act 2010. On the same day she tweeted: “I’m furious Labour MPs have filibustered in Parliament today to prevent debate of my Bill. My Bill will stop children accessing damaging puberty blockers and makes it clear in law that sex means biological sex. I will not give up on getting this Bill onto the Statute Book”. Liz Truss’s actions prove without any doubt whatsoever her hostility to the trans community and that she has always been biased against LGBT+ people.
Translucent condemns the actions of Women and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch MP, who, in the last year, has made a series of vicious trans-hostile decisions, accused of lying to Parliament on three occasions, including not meeting recognised LGBT organisations, and, like her counterpart, made appointments to the EHRC board with people who promote her anti-LGBT agenda and specifically anti-trans agenda.
Kemi Badennoch supports the same trans-hostile policies as Liz Truss, tweeting on the 15th of March 2024 in support of Liz Truss’s Bill posting on X (formerly Twitter): “Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single-sex spaces“. Kemi Badenoch is unfit to be an Equalities Minister and should have no authority to position members on the EHRC board.
Breaches of The Paris Principles.
Conclusion: The Paris Principles forbid political interference in national human rights institutions (NHRIs). They are the international benchmark for NHRIs, outlining the requirements for their effectiveness and independence, and it is very clear, given the actions of Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch, that this has NOT occurred.
EHRC Staff Issues.
We are deeply concerned about the number of staff who have left the EHRC in a short period, including top legal advisors. Most cite the position the EHRC has taken over the false “trans debate” and question its lawful interpretation of the Equality Act.
We are also concerned that the investigation into the EHRC Chair was not completed independently, particularly given that the Telegraph published a story on December 2, 2023, with the headline “Equalities watchdog staff opposed changes made by gender-critical chief”. Ending an investigation in this way, aided, we understand, by the board and the Minister for Women and Equalities, with no completed report, has done nothing to allay concerns.
We are deeply concerned that at least one member of the EHRC board has links to an American evangelical far-right organisation (a named hate group in the US) and that another has a clear bias against Stonewall, the UK’s primary LGBT+ charity, saying on December 5 2023, during a talk to trans hostile journalists at the Guardian newspaper, “I don’t mind saying straight-up, I blame Stonewall for all this.”
Should EHRC board members be saying words like this?
It is deeply alarming that both of these board members are involved in almost every aspect of EHRC activity that impacts the lives and rights of transgender people in the UK, despite this clear ideological conflict of interest, and do so while still excluding transgender and LGBTQ+ organisations in these activities. The EHRC continues to fail to engage appropriately with relevant civil society organisations.
We think not.
Going forward, we hope this will change and that our scheduled February meeting with the Chair and Board will be rearranged within the next few weeks so that we can discuss all the points raised face-to-face and have the opportunity to work with the EHRC to improve the lives of trans people.
Trans people are people deserving of the same protections and support from the EHRC as every other community in the UK. Yet, sadly, we feel under attack by the very organisation that should be protecting us.
Published 16:55 29/03/24 – EHRC and GANHRI – A Statement
