By Fahima Begum
Recent months have seen significant debate fuelled by the Conservative government’s initiative to clarify the legal definition of sex and the introduction of a ban on private puberty blockers. TransActual, a prominent advocacy group, is planning to challenge the ban, arguing that it infringes on essential rights and healthcare needs. This blog post will explore the complexities of these issues, examining the government's plan, the implications of such legal changes, and the broader impact on the LGBTQ+ community, whilst also aiming to provide resources and support for those affected.
The Conservative government argues that a precise legal definition of sex is necessary to ensure clarity in the application of laws. They believe this will simplify legal proceedings and make policy enforcement more straightforward. In their 2024 manifesto, they have pledged to amend the Equality Act to ensure that protections based on a person’s sex apply only to their biological sex. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has emphasised the importance of this move so that the ‘safety and privacy of women and girls’ will not be ‘undermined’. The manifesto further outlines plans to protect female-only spaces and competitiveness in sports by making clear that sex means biological sex under the Equality Act.
Supporters of the plan argue that it will provide clear guidelines for institutions and reduce ambiguity in legal contexts. They argue that this clarity is essential for the effective administration of laws and policies. For example, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), maintains that a biological definition of sex would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas such as: pregnancy and maternity, freedom of association, ‘women-only’ shortlists, jobs where sex matters, single-sex and separate-sex services, sports, and data collection.
However, the EHRC also noted potential ambiguities that might arise, such as the treatment of transgender individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in relation to equal pay claims and direct and indirect sex-discrimination claims. While the government's plan may provide legal clarity, it raises significant concerns about its impact on the transgender community. A strict biological definition of sex could undermine the recognition and rights of transgender individuals, affecting their access to healthcare, legal recognition and protection against discrimination (especially within the workplace).
The Equality Act currently protects individuals based on nine characteristics, including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Individuals can bring claims for discrimination if they have experienced direct or indirect discrimination related to any of these characteristics. According to Section 7 of the Equality Act, a person qualifies for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are ‘proposing to undergo, undergoing, or have undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex’.
In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, the criteria for satisfying Section 7 were considered. The court determined that a wide range of situations would fall under the Act's protection. It was clarified that undergoing surgical procedures is not necessary for protection under the Act. An individual only needs to be ‘actively considering, intending to, or in the process of deciding to undergo gender reassignment to be protected from discrimination’. Therefore, the claimant met the criteria for gender reassignment protection under the Equality Act, despite not having undergone any surgical reassignment. This decision highlights that protection extends to individuals actively considering or planning to undergo gender reassignment, ensuring their rights are safeguarded against discrimination.
Given the complexities and concerns surrounding the Conservative government's proposed changes to the legal definition of sex, it's important to recognise ongoing legal protections and avenues regarding this proposal. Despite the challenges, the Equality Act currently provides crucial safeguards against discrimination based on gender reassignment and other protected characteristics. This includes recent legal precedents affirming protections for individuals irrespective of whether they have undergone gender reassignment surgery.
The debate over the government's proposed changes to the legal definition of sex raises significant concerns for the transgender community. However, recent court cases, such as Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, affirm protections under the Equality Act, safeguarding individuals considering or undergoing gender reassignment. As these issues unfold, there is hope for a balanced and inclusive approach that respects and protects the rights and well being of all individuals, regardless of gender identity.
Government Restriction on Puberty Blockers
On May 29, 2024, the government introduced regulations to restrict the prescribing and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones, known as puberty blockers. The emergency ban, effective from June 3 to September 3, 2024, applies to prescriptions written by UK private prescribers and prescribers registered in the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland. During this period, no new patients under 18 will be prescribed these medications for puberty suppression. Dr. Hilary Cass, the pediatrician who conducted the ‘Cass Review’, noted that while doctors are typically cautious with new findings in emerging areas of medicine, the ‘opposite occurred in the field of gender care for children’. Her report expressed how ‘there were no statistically significant changes reported in gender dysphoria or mental health outcome measures whilst on puberty blockers’.
On the 4th of June 2024 – TransActual (an organisation focused on upholding the rights of transgender adults in the UK), in partnership with the Good Law Project, initiated an urgent legal challenge to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care's order to ban puberty blockers. They argue that the ban risks the safety and well-being of young trans people, potentially criminalizes healthcare providers and makes the UK one of the most restrictive places for trans healthcare.
In the legal challenge presented on behalf of TransActual and the Good Law Project, specific points underscore the findings of the Cass Report. Point 31 of the pre-action letter, notes that the Cass Report does not establish that puberty blockers pose a serious health risk. According to the "Final Report- FAQs" section, the Cass Review acknowledges the use of puberty blockers for various conditions and states that insufficient data exists on the long-term effects for children and young people to determine their safety or suitability. Point 33 questions the rationale behind the ban - suggesting that if there were indeed a pressing health risk associated with puberty blockers, the order would not permit continued prescription to under-18 patients already undergoing treatment.
Furthermore, the letter highlighted the timeline of events: the Cass Report was published in April 2024, following an NHS consultation on puberty blocker prescribing restrictions in 2023, with final decisions made in March 2024. The legal challenge argues that if puberty blockers posed an urgent health threat, action would have been taken sooner.
The legal challenge by TransActual and the Good Law Project shines a light on the urgent need for evidence-based healthcare decisions. In undertaking the necessary first steps in this case - it highlights how the concerns of young transgender people are being taken seriously. As the case unfolds, there is hope for a balanced resolution that protects their well-being and rights and that this effort is a vital move towards a more inclusive and fair healthcare system.
Starmer’s Government Conflicting Responses to the Puberty Blocker Ban
Recently, the Labour Party is currently experiencing internal debates over the puberty blocker ban due to Wes Streeting (who is the Health Secretary) and his stance being influenced by the Cass Review. On the 14th July, he emphasized on X (formerly known as Twitter) that the Cass Review found insufficient evidence regarding the impact long-term of puberty blockers. It is argued that he is undertaking a cautious approach based on the uncertainty surrounding the risks of halting hormones at a vulnerable stage of a child’s life and that prioritizing the safety of a child comes first. The direct tweet is as follows:
‘Cass Review found there is not enough evidence about the long-term impact of puberty blockers for gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or not, nor which children might benefit from them. The NHS took the decision to stop the routine use of puberty blockers for gender incongruence/dysphoria in children. They are establishing a clinic trial with NIHR to ensure the effects of puberty blockers can be safely monitored and provide the evidence we need. We don’t yet know the risks of stopping pubertal hormones at this critical life stage. That is the basis upon which I am making decisions. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first’. Wes Streeting (Post on X) .
In contrast, Labour MP Zarah Sultana has expressed her concerns about the ban and reinforced the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to support trans rights. According to Sultana, this included the commitment in ending the Tories’ ban on puberty blockers - firmly believing that young people (both cis and trans), must have access to the healthcare they need - vowing to always vouch for the trans community.
Further to this, the Labour-affiliated LGBT+ Labour group - have written to Keir Starmer, voicing their concerns about maintaining the ban. The letter, written by Labour LGBT+ trans officer Dylan Naylor and Labour Students trans officer Willow Parker, was sent out the same day Wes Streeting had voiced his opinion on social media platform, X. This letter (also found on X), outlines several steps that should be taken - including reducing waiting lists for trans youth, addressing long-term staffing issues and moving towards a more equal system for accessing care in the NHS.
The efforts of MPs like Zarah Sultana and groups such as LGBT+ Labour highlight a commitment towards advocating for the rights of trans youth and challenging the ban on puberty blockers. Whilst Wes Streeting prioritizes the safety of children and the need for thorough evidence, it is clear that many of his colleagues are actively engaged in ensuring that support is in place for trans individuals and that their healthcare rights are protected.
This is an ongoing debate that we will continue to cover throughout the ongoing weeks.
The Takeaway
The recent changes proposed by the Conservative government regarding the legal definition of sex and the ban on private puberty blockers have sparked significant debate and concern within the LGBTQ+ community. The advocacy efforts by groups like TransActual and the Good Law Project highlight the need for evidence-based healthcare decisions and the protection of transgender rights. Recent legal precedents, such as Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, reaffirm the protections under the Equality Act, ensuring that the rights of transgender individuals are safeguarded. Whilst Wes Streeting prioritizes child safety and the need for thorough evidence - MPs like Zarah Sultana and groups such as LGBT+ Labour are actively challenging these ideas. As these legal challenges unfold, there is hope for a balanced and inclusive resolution that respects and protects the well-being of all individuals. Those affected by these changes, support and resources are available through advocacy groups, community organizations, and legal avenues – some of which are linked down below. Previously as we have noted - this is an ongoing debate, which we will be following closely in the upcoming weeks.
Support
Our organisation, Pride Beats Prejudice (PBP), plays a vital role in this fight. We are committed to helping LGTBQ+ individuals understand their rights. We offer legal support, advocacy, and resources to ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals facing discrimination receive the protection and justice they deserve. If you need support, you can easily book a consultation through our PBP webpage. Simply click on the 'book' button to schedule an appointment with one of our dedicated team members when we reopen bookings in September.
For any general enquiries please email: contact@pridebeatsprejudice.com.
For those affected by these changes, here are some useful links for support and additional information:
- TransActual UK (https://www.transactual.org.uk/)
- Stonewall UK (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/)
- Mermaids UK (https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/)
- Good Law Project (https://www.goodlawproject.org/)
Comments