Wednesday, 7 June 2023

Please Commit to Not Amending the Equality Act's definition of sex

Ask your MP to Commit to Not Amending the Equality Act's definition of sex

On the 12 June 2023, Parliament’s Petitions Committee has scheduled a debate to discuss whether or NOT to amend the Equality Act to define ‘Sex’ as biological sex.

If you support the right of trans women to live in their affirmed gender role, and to not experience discrimination & exclusion from accessing many facilities and essential services, then please ask your MP to attend and take part. 

A guide on what to write and notes for your MP is below.

The more people who ask their MP to take part in the debates on the 12 June 2023 the better.

To write to your MP go to Writetothem.com

Tell your MP how you will be affected by changing the Act, for example:

  • You will not go shopping, to the theatre or cinema in case you need the loo and fear your right to pee is challenged. But as a trans woman, you cannot use the other loo as you fear being assaulted in the way these individuals suggest you wish to assault women. Or as a trans man you have no wish to cause havoc having a beard and entering the ladies loo. Point out that there are insufficient disabled loos, and they are for disabled people.
  • You will stop going to the gym or pool because you have no changing facilities.
  • When you are ill, you will be reluctant to see your doctor for fear of a hospital referral. Finding yourself the only woman in a men’s ward, or the only man on a women’s ward brings the fear of humiliation and becoming the ‘freak show’.
  • If in your job of many years you provide personal and intimate services, you are worried your role could be challenged and your right to perform your job taken away.
  • Any other situation you can think of. 

The following information can be supplied your MP to enable them to argue on your behalf.

Notes for Members of Parliament

Petition Wording

Please Commit to Not Amending the Equality Act's definition of sex

It has been reported that the Government may amend the Equality Act to "make it clear that sex means biological sex rather than gender." The Government has previously committed to not remove legal protections for trans people, an already marginalised group, but this change would do so.

More details

Currently, the Act protects trans people from discrimination on the basis of both sex and “gender reassignment”, regardless of whether they have undergone medical transition or hold a Gender Recognition Certificate. It can allow trans people to access single-sex spaces such as DV shelters, bathrooms and hospital wards.

The proposed change would remove a legal protection for trans people and encourage discrimination. We ask the Government to refuse this change to the Equality Act 2010.

Acronyms used:

BC: Birth certificate

OSSS: Organisations that provide Single Sex Services

SSS&F: Single sex services and facilities

Trans People: Transgender & Non-Binary people

Trans woman: In these notes, a trans woman is a person recorded as male (or boy) at birth, who lives permanently as a woman in their affirmed gender identity.

Trans man: In these notes, a trans man is a person recorded as female (or girl) at birth, who lives permanently as a man in their affirmed gender identity.

1. More people signed a petition to support Not Changing the Equality Act than to change it.

It is worth noting the petition which requested that the Government commit to NOT amending the Equality Act's definition of sex received at 138,886 signatures.

The petition which requested an Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic“sex” is biological sex, obtained almost 30,000 less at only 109,463 signatures,

2. This is not just about whether trans people are given safe access to public toilets in their affirmed and lived gender, but also about their access to important and essential services.

Amending the Act in the way proposed will mean trans people who live permanently in their affirmed gender, a proportion of whom will have obtained gender recognition in law for all purposes, will no longer have a right to access without discrimination:

·        Public or toilets of their affirmed gender,

·        Changing rooms in shops, gyms, and swimming pools,

·        Domestic Violence Services

·        Sexual Assault services

·        Hospital wards for people of their affirmed gender

·        Other Single Sex Services

·        Prison facilities of their affirmed gender.*

On March 31 2022 there were 49 transgender prisoners in female prisons, of these just six were trans women (i.e. recorded as male at birth). There were 181 in the male estate, 13 were trans men (i.e. recorded as female at birth).[1] According to the Government response to an FOI request,  from 2016 to 2017 there were 7 recorded sexual assaults on a female prisoner by a trans woman whilst in the female estate. Five were committed by one prisoner: Karen White. White was convicted of 2 sexual assaults, 2 further sexual assaults and a rape were left on White’s file.  

[* In 2019 the relevant prison regulations were further amended to give senior prison staff the discretion to review every incarcerated trans person, in consultation with medical and other experts, to protect the physical and emotional wellbeing and safety of the trans prisoner and all other prisoners. Damien Hinds MP updated MPs on the 21 February 2023, saying that since the 2019 reform of the prison regulations* there have been no further recorded assaults by trans women in the female estate.[2]  Despite Hind’s update, the Government further amended the regulations in October 2022 so that trans women with male genitalia, or who are convicted of sexual offenses will not serve their sentence in the general women’s estate unless there are exceptional circumstances.]

Amending the Equality Act to define sex to mean sex assigned at birth will significantly impact the current rights of trans people to employment with Organisations that provide Single Sex Services (OSSS), and their rights to use Single Sex Services and Facilities (SSS&F). Some will lose access to jobs they currently have in Domestic Violence Refuges and rape services. Trans women have successfully worked for SSS&F providers for 25 years, and for 15 years they have been able to access SSS&F with no reports of inappropriate behaviour by trans people towards women either employed by or using Single Sex Services.

Trans women who have experienced domestic violence (DV) or sexual assault and /or rape will be victimised, and to exclude a very small group of trans women at the time when they desperately need such services is immensely cruel.

Trans people who are unwell will avoid healthcare for fear of being refused a hospital bed in a gender appropriate ward. Trans women would risk abuse from male patients, and trans men will cause distress to female patients. Trans people who remember the 1960s to early 2000s can give myriad testimony to how discrimination within the NHS impacted their health.

3.  In practice, Organisations which provide Single Sex Services have not needed to use the exceptions already afforded by the Equality Act.

The Equality Act already allows OSSS to exclude all (any) trans people, if the OSSS can show they have a proportionate and legitimate basis for that exclusion. Currently no OSSS has needed to apply to the Courts to have that right enforced, and there have been less than a handful of cases where trans people have applied to the Courts to have access to SSS&F enforced. For example, when Domestic Violence Refuge organisations have asked women residents who had experienced domestic violence, whether trans woman who are victims of domestic violence should be allowed residence, they were happy to provide refuge to trans women.

4.   Altering the Equality Act to allow OSSS to not recognise the affirmed gender of a trans person as their legal sex will only impact a very small number of the small number of trans people who might need to access SSS&F.

Almost all trans people who transition and obtain a GRC and acquire a new sex for all purposes[3] have no wish to cause distress to others and they recognise there are limited, but necessary circumstances where women born female would not wish them to be present.

Amending the Equality Act to allow OSSS to exclude trans people with a GRC and a new BC, will not alter the rights of other trans people without a GRC. The law clearly says they have a right not to be discriminated against if permanently living in their affirmed gender role. However, the Act already allows trans people to be excluded from OSSSs or SSS&F if they have a proportionate and legitimate basis for doing so.[4]

5.  Proving Sex at Birth is extremely complex and difficult.

Those arguing the Act needs amending want sex to mean ‘sex at birth’. Proving this brings huge challenges:

(a)   Many people have lost their birth certificate (BC)

(b)   Only those with a GRC are certain to have their BC, but that will record their affirmed (new) sex at birth.

(c)    Trans people with a GRC are required to surrender their original BC in order to receive a new BC.

(d)   To determine whether a BC was one provided following gender recognition would require the Government to disclose to OSSS how to tell the difference between a 'recorded at birth' BC from a ‘GRC based BC’.

Disclosing how to determine the difference between a ‘recorded at birth’ BC from a ‘GRC based’ BC, would destroy the core right to privacy contained in the Act following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin & I v UK (2002)[5]

Doing so would mean the UK Government faciung international condemnation particularly from the Council of Europe, and potential exclusion from membership of the Council.  The EU’s Commission & Parliament would also condemn such a move, and potentially that could impact further discussion or negotiations with the UK. There would also be very public condemnation from the UN and many of its countries.

Having to prove one’s sex at birth would mean the BC becoming some type of national ID card. However, anyone can buy a copy of any person’s BC and so for 30 years BCs have stated they are not to be used as proof of identity.[6]

6.    Altering the Equality Act to clarify that ‘sex means biological sex’ has been confirmed by leading experts to be contrary to a large body of international Human Rights Law.

In April 2023 Victor Madrigal-Borloz, UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, condemned the government rhetoric and in particular the advice given in February 2023 in a letter to the Rt Hon. Kemi Badenoch by Baroness Kishwar Faulkner, the chair of the EHRC Commissioners. In his official report the Independent Expert wrote that.

The EHRC however specifically conceded that, in the context of the letter, the intended meaning of the term “biological sex” is to define women as “women who are not trans.” As one Commissioner elaborated: “under the Equality Act, […] a trans woman who does have a GRC is a woman under the current case law. […] if the government decides to make the amendment, they don’t need to define biological sex, they can do it by way of exclusion of the GRA.[7]

Any change to the law to exclude those who have obtained recognition of their affirmed change, would makes the process of gender recognition and a new birth certificate meaningless in many contexts and would undermine the functions and purpose of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 s.9 (1), which provides that:

9 (1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

The Independent Expert wrote that in his opinion:

this action of the EHRC is wholly unbecoming of an institution created to “stand up for those in need of protection and hold governments to account for their human rights obligations” (mission statement, EHRC webpage; emphasis added).[8]

7.  Trans men have no desire to access Women Only Services or Facilities

The EHRC had the temerity to suggest changing the Act would allow trans men to ‘no longer experience discrimination’ in terms of SSS&F. But trans men have absolutely no desire to use services that are exclusively single sex services for women.

A handful of trans men will conceive and give birth. All say they are treated with respect and care when accessing maternity services. Creating a rule where maternity services can only be accessed by natal women enshrines the rights of trans men, but they can already access such services, and ultimately any change to the law may make it easier for some staff and patients to complain about the presence of a trans man in maternity services.

8.  Our scientific & legal understanding of what is meant by biological sex has moved beyond ‘a binary of chromosomes’.

Since the 1950s there has been a body of scientific literature that explores the link between genetic influences, biochemical development, brain development, and their impact on gender identity.  Biological sex is not simply a case of one box or the other. Around 98% of people grow up with the gender identity expected of the sex assigned to them at birth. What counts as biological sex may appear to be simple for them. For the 2% it is far more difficult and scientific understanding is still limited.

There are the 0.05 to 1% of individuals[9] who have a Difference (or Disorder) in Sex Development (DSDs).[10]  They range from mild to significant visible DSDs from hypospadias[11] to babies with ambiguous genitalia. Children born with Turners or Klinefelter syndrome do not have conventional XX or XY chromosomes, while some non-visible DSDs are not diagnosed until adults seek treatment for infertility.[12] Women with Partial or Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS or CAIS) are registered at birth as female but are found to have XY male chromosomes when they fail to menstruate.[13] Those such as Caster Semenya may develop hyperandrogenism (raised testosterone levels) but that does not mean they feel like men. Many of the 1% of people with DSDs will experience gender incongruence like trans people, but only a small proportion will eventually transition to living permanently in the gender opposite to the sex assigned at birth.

For the 1% of people who do not appear to have a DSD, but who grow up with a transgender identity, the lack of specific evidence of a DSD is often used against their claim to be a member of the opposite natal sex. However, studies of people with DSDs have informed the understanding of trans people. Though the science is limited, there is acknowledged evidence of differences between male and female brain structure research which suggests a disparity in the brains of those who identify differently to their sex as assigned at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of gender identities, but understanding the molecular mechanism is a developing science and requires further research.

In 2018, the World Health Organisation (WHO) in the new International Classification of Disease (ICD-11) removed trans presentations from the chapter on ‘Disorders of adult personality and behaviour’ and placed them in the chapter ‘Conditions related to sexual health’.[14] Gender dysphoria has been replaced with gender incongruence and the condition no longer requires an individual to experience mental distress before being able to access gender reassignment healthcare. The WHO explained:

we have a better understanding of the issues surrounding this condition, and they are not related to a mental health condition[15]

Twenty years ago, in February 2003 the Lord Chancellor's Department issued guidance titled Government Policy concerning Transsexual People, in which they wrote:

Transsexual people do not choose their gender identity. Transsexualism is an overpowering sense of different gender identity rather than any sexual orientation: transsexual people may be heterosexual, gay/lesbian or celibate. It is not a mental illness. It is a condition considered in itself to be free of other pathology (though transsexual people can suffer depression or illnesses like anyone else).[16]

 

© SW June 2023

NOTES

[1] Ministry of Justice (Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service Offender Equalities Annual Report 2021/22, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902685/FOI_200513008_assaults_involving_transgender_prisoners.doc acc. 25 May 2023

[2] Hansard Commons Chamber, Oral Answers to Questions Justice Transgender Prisoners, Volume 728: debated on Tuesday 21 February 2023

[3] The Gender Recognition Act s.9(1)

[4] Equality and Human Rights Commission (2022) Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment exceptions, London: EHRC, April

[5] Goodwin v. United Kingdom, Application no. 28957/95, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 11 July 2002, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,4dad9f762.html  [accessed 20 December 2004]

[6] The reason that BCs contain a statement that they are not to be used as proof of a person's identity is because in the 1970s and 80s the IRA would purchase copies of the BCs of dead children to create new identities for their members. 

[7] Madrigal V (2023) United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity  Country visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (24 April – 5 May 2023)  End of mission statement,  Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/sexualorientation/statements/eom-statement-UK-IE-SOGI-2023-05-10.pdf acc. 12 May 2023 Para 22.

[8] Madrigal V (2023) United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity  Country visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (24 April – 5 May 2023)  End of mission statement,  Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/sexualorientation/statements/eom-statement-UK-IE-SOGI-2023-05-10.pdf acc. 12 May 2023 Para 22.

[9] Overall numbers of people with DSDs are difficult to count, they vary across the world, with the highest incidence noted in Southern African populations. Many DSDs are not visible, and their impact is only felt if a person is struggling to conceive and has access to fertility clinical services. 

[10] Previously referred to as intersex conditions.

[11] A Hypospadias is diagnosed when a boy has a urinary opening on the underside of the penis instead of at the tip.

[12] Witchel SF. (2018) Disorders of sex development. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Apr pp 48:90-102. At https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/, acc. 12 Nov 2021

[13] The South African athlete Caster Semenya was identified, assigned and registered at birth as female and raised as a girl. Only as an adult was it discovered that she had Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. This would not have been controversial if she had not been an Internationally successful athlete.

[15] World Health Organisation (2022) Gender incongruence and transgender health in the ICD, WHO, https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd acc. 15 May 2023

[16] The Lord Chancellor's Department (2003)     Secretariat to the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People, Constitutional Policy Division. Lord Chancellor's Department 


Saturday, 27 May 2023

C4's Genderwars is "A Vile and Horrible Little Film"

"A Vile and Horrible Little Film"

On Tuesday 30 May 2023, C4 is screening a documentary with the title ‘Gender Wars’.

I took part in filming for a film called 'Sex/Gender Matters'

I did NOT agree to take part in a film called Genderwars, which is all; about the apparent victimisation of Kathleen Stock

What was initially discussed, and believed I had agreed to Take Part In.

Initially, when contacted about this film titled at that time ‘Sex/Gender Matters’, I explained I would not take part in any project which ‘questioned’ or ‘debated’ our rights. Any debate is specious, trans people’s lives are not up for debate and trans women generally pose no threat to women. As in any group of people, a few do not abide by the law. But we don’t consequently question the existence of entire minority groups and their rights any longer, because a few are not law abiding.

The battle for all to have their core human and civil rights recognised has been won several times in recent years. Trans people like black people, disabled people, LGB people and women fought hard through the courts and parliament to have their rights recognised. The rights we have came through the European Courts – nothing was given for free, every single right we have from non-discrimination to gender recognition is only there because the Senior European Courts told the UK government that they had to provide them.

I agreed to take part in this film, having chatted with Julie Bindel about it, only in order to move away from the debate about our lives, our rights, and our existence, to a more positive debate about how trans people and women could work together to address one of society’s core problems, namely men’s misogyny and their violence towards women and trans people, who have similar levels of sexual and physical victimisation at the hands of men, across their lifetimes.

On 06 October 2022 Pamela wrote:

I have been asked to make a film for Channel 4 on the gender "debate". This will involve both the perspective of transgender people as well as those people who are gender critical. To be clear, I am interested in making a film which fully includes people's views, experiences and thoughts on both sides of this polarised issue

On 12 October 2022 Pamela wrote:

I'm extremely interested in the ongoing work of Press for Change and would like to ask Stephen about a few ideas I have for the documentary. I am genuinely very grateful for the offer to talk as it is crucial for us to be able to be able to make this film.

I really do want to get things right and would be grateful for a conversation which I am sure would inform my approach to filming with him and his wider story and also explain my film in full context.

In February 2023, as asked for on 01 February 2023, I provided Pamela Gordon with references to some of the historical persecutions of those people, who if they lived today would probably be trans identified. I later obtained details of the photographer who gave her permission for the company to use a photograph of trans people taking part in Pride with the Press For Change (PFC) Banner.

I asked who else was taking part in the film and Pamela told me that so far it was myself, Julie Bindel and she needed suggestions as to others, particularly trans academics, who might be willing to be filmed.

Filming

During filming, an all-day affair, we discussed many things including:

       the history of the persecution of trans people,

       my transition history,

       my 30 years of academic research,

       PFC and my role in the legal cases,

       PFC and its history

       the lobbying of MP’s and PFC’s roles as stakeholder advisers in the drafting of the Gender Recognition Act and later the Equality Act.

       the battles my family had to fight,

       what Sarah had had to go through to become a mother.

       what it meant to be refused a parental role in law to our children

       what it was like as an academic facing student protest

       how I chose to negotiate and talk with the students who disrupted my lecture, who thumped me, or who said they wouldn’t be taught by me,

We discussed how I, as a trans person, didn’t and would never have the choices that Kathleen Stock had. In 30 years of what was an astonishing career, nobody would short-list me (never mind offer me a job within a week as happened to Stock).

The Film that my wife, Sarah, & I previewed

I am included in the film two or three times for a few seconds each time. But that is irrelevant.

But what we saw:

1.      It was not explained who I am and why I am included.

2.      They do not reference my 50 years of experience, or that I am an expert, who has worked on these issues with Governments and courts all over the world, including the UK Government.

3.      How much they use me is not the point, how they represent me is the point i.e.,

o   what I know,

o   what I have done, and

o   what I say.

4.      The film is about all about Kathleen Stock. My partner Sarah put it perfectly when she said,

This is the Kathleen Stock Rehabilitation Movie”

and as she left the room, she summed it up:

“It is a vile and horrible little film”.

5.      Stock is portrayed as an unfairly attacked woman who is being targeted & terrorised by trans activists using unlawful techniques.

6.      Even the Cambridge debate only shows one side, Kass tearing a strip off Stock. But there was so much more to that debate than those couple of sentences.

I assumed, naively, that everyone would be shown in a similar way to each other in order to obtain that balance they said they were seeking, In fact,

7.      Throughout the film Stock is allowed to narrate the story, her involvement, her background, and what she sees as her persecution.

8.      Nobody else gets to do that. I do not get to do that, to tell about my life as an academic who has faced similar events and handled them very differently could have been the direct contrast to hers.

9.      Stock’s narrative is never questioned, it is taken as read – as true.  

10.  None of Stock’s public claims have been challenged in this film – for example, she  says and writes that ‘trans people should not experience discrimination’, but then promotes a change in the Equality Act 2010 which would result in trans people experiencing direct discrimination

11.  The film repeatedly contrasts Stock’s ‘distress/bravery’ with various trans people and allies protesting her at different locations, but the film never explains the reasons for the protests.

12.  The film show ‘all in black’ activists setting off coloured smoke flares. But as the film director and producer knew they were not smoke bombs, but coloured short lived blue and pink flares (the colours of the trans flag). The flares were lit outside Sussex University’s administrative block, a long way from her lecture. But they show them in such a way, that Stock’s public claims of people setting off smoke bombs whilst she is lecturing appear to have validity.

13.  They imply Stock faced protesters at her lectures. She did not. There was no demonstration inside her lecture. However, I did face protesters inside my lecture and I was filmed explaining how he successfully handled it. There is also accessible film on Parliament TV of Stephen explaining it to the Parliamentary Public Bills Cttee when it took evidence on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) bill https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-09-07/debates/8afc9afb-4a55-4aef-a364-5686c34ccf29/HigherEducation(FreedomOfSpeech)Bill(SecondSitting) and

14.  They allow Stock to frame the protests as being because she thinks trans women are not women. This simplistic framing makes Stock look like the victim of irrational trans protestors. However, they were protesting the implications of her campaigning to have trans people lose their current rights, and her attacks on a fellow academic Alison Phipps (that’s another story of how victimised she can claim to be).

The Contrasting Representation of Trans Participants and Stock

15.  The film follows Kathleen throughout, in a way it does not do with other participants, not even the trans woman Katy. Katy is shown as if she is the ‘only reasonable trans person’ – something the film crew knew to be not true. In fact, all the trans people they filmed bent over backwards to be reasonable. (FFS I received an OBE for being ‘the most reasonable lobbyist the Dept of Constitutional Affairs had ever worked with’.) 

All of us, Lily, Kass, Finn, Gina, Charlie and Andrew were aware that we were sticking our necks above the parapet, but we did not think the film director and producer were shooting at us.

I feel responsible because I know Charlie and Andrew only took part because I had agreed to take part. I feel responsibile for persuading Gina that this was OK, for telling Finn it was worth thinking about working with Pamela Gordon.

Whilst all of us are presented well (i.e. sane) in the film,

16.  All of us are presented outside of any context other than Stock’s victimisation, i.e., Stock’s version of the world.

17.  We agreed to take part in a film which would help improve communications and move the debates forward to focus on the real issues of male violence and misogyny. That is not mentioned at all in this film.

18.  I did not agree to take part in a film about Kathleen Stock, and as the director and producer knew I would have refused to be involved in such a film. I would be surprised if I heard any of the others agreed to be filmed for a film about Kathleen Stock.

19.  This documentary continues to expand Stock’s distorted and disingenuous claims, portraying her as ‘ever so reasonable’.

20.  Even Stock’s dressing in a more non-feminine way is not placed in the recent context of her falling in love with a woman. Having spent most of her life as a feminine married woman, she even claims she now understands a little of how it feels to be trans having occasionally been misgendered herself. I will assure anyone that almost 6’ tall Kathleen Stock cannot understand a fingertip of the life this 5’2” trans man has lived over the last 50 years.

21.  No context is included – The battles I had just to get testosterone therapy and later surgery. She has no idea of the fears that I and my family have had to face - the times I have been hit, been sacked, been threatened with eviction, had people throw glass bottles at my kids. This film could have shown the prejudice and discrimination that me and others like me faced, and fought, to get to have our rights, but it doesn’t because that would take away from Stock’s apparent persecution.

22.  The film sums up trans people’s worries as being a little scared about going to the loo in a pub. It is an utterly disgraceful piece of editing

Errors in the Film

There are also significant errors (I assume not deliberate) In the film.

23.  The film seems appears to say that trans identities are a new thing; post-2004, but obviously they aren't - I was born in 1955 and knew aged 10 that I was what was referred to as a 'transsexual' or 'sex change'.

The word transgender was coined in 1979 by Virginia Prince, and we coined trans at a meeting with Lynne Jones MP in 1996. The European Court of Justice gave us a right to non-discrimination in 1996, and the European Court of Human Rights recognised a right to gender recognition, marriage, and privacy in 2002.  

24.  The commentary implies Isla Bryson was held with women in a women's prison. She was – but she was held in segregation (solitary) and the system we had developed under Prison Rules (PSI’s) was undertaken.

There was a prompt (and I mean prompt) multi-disciplinary team meeting, Isla underwent a thorough risk assessment and was transferred as appropriate to the men's estate. She never met a female prisoner.  I worked on those prison rules for 8 years to get them put in place. After the Karen White fiasco when the rules were snot followed, we worked a further 3 yrs with government to ensure that would never happen again. And that process of getting a sensible regime in place to protect women, wasn't quick or easy, but it works as it did in the Isla Bryson case. That must be clarified, otherwise the implications made in the film, become lies.

CONCLUSION

·        The film does not show my knowledge and expertise (I suspect because it would show how specious the arguments of people like Stock are. Just a few instances of my life would show how specious her claim to persecution is).

·        On Pamela Gordon’s website she describes herself and her films as relying

“on striking imagery, powerful emotional testimony and a sharp eye for injustice”.

I am ashamed of my own stupidity and naivety in believing she would keep her eye on the ball of injustice.

Here are some of this year’s injustices the film fails to see:

·        The film does not mention how trans rights are being stripped across the global north – no mention of the hundreds of anti-trans bills being pushed through American legislatures.

o   Relevance: it is US ‘anti-woke‘ right wing billionaires who are  pushing those bills who now provide wages to Stock at the (not even a) University of Austin, and those right wing billionaires rely on her ‘victimisation’ and her arguments to push through those bills.

·        The film does not mention the proposals to remove rights from UK trans people which are now being made by (of all bodies) the EHRC. 

o   Relevance: it is Stock and the organisations she has been involved in, like Women’s Place, who have lobbied to strip Trans people of our privacy rights (to pee in safety & peace whilst at work, for Christ’s sake). 

·        The film does not mention how the HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill will force Universities to strip students of their right to free speech.

o   Relevance:  it was Stock’s ‘plight’ and lobbying that led to ministers insisting we need a bill to protect the Freedom of Speech of the neo-right like Stock.  They could have used me talking to the Commons Committee on what it was like to face a student demonstration, and how I handled it in contrast.

·        Finally, the film does not even give a ‘news headline’ to the death of a transphobically persecuted and victimised young girl Brianna Ghay.

o   Relevance: Alongside the protests they so frequently show, they could have interspersed images of the 50,000 trans people and allies who stood silently in freezing temperatures for hours in February, at over 100 vigils up and down the UK, after Brianna’s death.

I took part in this film solely so as to give both sides a chance of moving forward. I told Pamela Gordon what Julie Bindel and I had been discussing. I wanted (and Julie also said it was what she wanted) to prevent the death of a trans person or a woman. I wanted not only to stop that happening, but also to prevent the personal losses & repercussions that would be experienced by the families of the victim and the perpetrator(s).  It turns out we were too late for that.

From my perspective, this film builds on the (already out there) false tropes of wicked trans people being women haters. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The film may show us as reasonable people, but it does not show how hard we have had to fight in order to become seen as reasonable and not the sexual perverts we were names as in the 1970s/80s and 90s. Consequently, this film won’t contribute to preventing the next death in this horrible petty & unnecessary war.

As it is I am barely in the film, and who I am and why I am there is not at all clear. It’s a head that pops up twice and says something for 10 seconds then 20 seconds. I cannot even remember if it even says who I am or that I am a professor, or trans, or anything else.

My concern now is to protect my reputation within my own community.

If C4 insist on showing ‘the Kathleen Stock rehabilitation story’ then I will speak out about the deception the film makers took part in

It is quite simple: we agreed to take part in a film called ‘Sex/Gender Matters’, none of is would ever have agreed to take part in a film called ‘Gender Wars’ about Kathleen Stock

The film makers have the materials and the ability to recut this film and make the film they said they were intending to make in the first place. Sadly in light of their behaviour throughout I hold little hope of them doing that.