Chamber and committees

I have one more follow-up question. You said that a GRC, if declared, would be a consideration. Would you take other things into account alongside that, or would you just look at the GRC?

I asked witnesses who attended the committee a while back a question about an Asian female going to a doctor. My mum, for example, would normally see whether the doctor was a man or a woman, or she would ask, but if people do not know, they would just see a female. Sandy Brindley was right; sometimes, it is all about appearance, whether that is right or wrong. My mum is an older lady and does not know any better—she would just see what it was. Is it up to the doctor to say what they are? What if that breaks the faith of someone who is Muslim or Indian, which says that they cannot be touched by somebody who is trans, because the religion does not understand it? It is not that the religion does not accept it—it is just not understood. How do you work around those religious groups?

I am sorry—I probably need to make my question clearer. If a woman going to a doctor can see that the doctor is either male or female, they will be fine—I am just using my mum’s analysis here when she goes in. However, what if the doctor was trans and they knew that they were seeing an Asian woman? Would that trans person be able to say that they are trans? When I asked that question, I was told that it would not be up to them to say so. That means that the Asian woman would not know that the doctor was trans, and religious people would not understand that. There needs to be a bit more awareness of the issue, so that people understand it and everybody can get that service.

I just think that that situation would break the woman’s religion. I am sorry, convener, but I need to break this down, because it is important. If a trans person who was male before and is now trans examined that Muslim lady, but the lady did not know that, that would break her religion, because her religion states that only a female can examine her.

Thank you, Susan. It does break your religion—I can tell you that. It breaks your religion completely, because women would not be allowed to be seen by a doctor of the male sex at all—or by a trans person, although whether we could be seen by a trans doctor is not actually in any of our scriptures. Therefore, it is good that you have covered that. It is something that people have been asking about. Lucy, do you have any views on that?

I thank the panel members for their opening statements and their written evidence. I will touch on something that youse have all mentioned, which is single-sex spaces. Two weeks ago, we heard from the EHRC that individuals who acquire a GRC can access single-sex spaces for women and girls such as toilets, changing rooms, refuges, hospital wards and many more places. We also heard that the exclusion of such individuals with a GRC would be direct discrimination, which would have to be subject to justification.

Opponents of the bill have expressed concern—we have also heard concern from today’s witnesses—that self-declaration will open up the process to abuse from bad-faith actors. Malcolm Clark gave a good example when he talked about the 6 foot 2 person. What concerns do the rest of you have? Will you go into a bit more detail about what the provisions could mean? What are your concerns about people who access single-sex spaces?

I have a supplementary question on that, before I come back to Lucy Hunter Blackburn. I want to talk a bit about religion. You just mentioned carers. There is an issue that deeply concerns me as someone from an Indian religion. I will have to word this in the right way in order not to offend anybody here. For example, if my mother goes to the doctor, she will ask for a woman. She is old-fashioned—she does not know any different. She will ask for a woman doctor. If she did not ask, she might get a doctor who was trans and she would not know, which would break a lot of religions, especially the Muslim religion. Many Muslims and Indians have voiced questions to me about what the position would be with regard to single-sex spaces. Do we change our religions in that case? What are your feelings about that, Susan?

I am talking about any public toilets or any public space.

Good afternoon and thank you for your opening statements and the evidence that you have provided. I want to go back to the issue that Pam Duncan-Glancy has just asked about and probe it a little bit more.

Sandy Brindley, you have talked about single-sex spaces and service providers, and you have said that the bill will not impact the services that are provided or the single-sex spaces that we can go into. Can you help me to understand how the bill will work in that respect? If someone from the Muslim faith or the Indian faiths uses a single-sex space—or their daughter, mother, auntie or whoever goes into such a place—they will not know who is in the bathroom, say, when they go in to use that space. When they look around, see a person and think that they are female, that is it—it is okay. However, if they saw something different in there, how would you work around that to make it safe for them? How can you say to the Muslim community or most of the Asian community that they are safe to go into bathrooms, when the bill opens up the possibility for a lot more people to have a GRC?

I raised the issue of doctors with the earlier panel of witnesses. A couple of weeks ago, I asked some witnesses whether, if a doctor is trans, they have to tell an Asian—or any—female that they are, and I was told that they do not have to. The doctor would therefore be breaking the woman’s religion, because the woman would not see or know that—unknowingly, her religion would be broken. Can you help me understand how the practicalities of the bill would work in that respect?

Kate and Malcolm, is there anything that you want to add?