Chamber and committees

I will stick with first names, too.

I thank all three witnesses for coming to the meeting and for their opening statements. It has been helpful to hear those in relation to some of the other things that we have heard today and prior to today.

I will ask a couple of questions about the case for change and some of the requirements that we would be removing from the gender recognition process if we pass the bill as it is, which are for medical and psychological diagnosis and for the panel of experts to have an important assessment, or gatekeeping, role.

Sandra, you talked about the polarised concerns that we experience in the UK not being manifested elsewhere. Could you say a little more about how the case for reform that we hear, particularly in Scotland, has been different elsewhere? Where did the catalyst for reform come from elsewhere, if it was not borne out of the same kind of debate that we might be having here in Scotland?

Sorry, can I just come in on that point? You say that the shift to self-ID will remove any gatekeeping. What gatekeeping do you envisage that there should be? Is the only legitimate gatekeeping the current gender recognition panel that assesses the dysphoria diagnosis?

Professor Sullivan, may I just interrupt you? That is not really the question that I asked. The question that I asked was about the process for getting a GRC, because that is what the bill that we are considering is about. We are not considering how medical records are stored, held or used, or how different lists for different screening processes are managed. Given that there are trans people who do not have a GRC who get—or, possibly, do not get—the medical treatment that they require, why does changing the process of getting a GRC have the impact that you claim that it does?

Thank you. I have just one follow-up. We heard something in a previous session that I suppose comes down to that question of harm and what has been described to us as the competing rights of different groups. I think that you both mentioned in your introductory remarks that it is important for us to keep in mind the notion of confidentiality linked to the privacy of trans people. We heard previously that the right to privacy for trans people going through an accessible non-invasive process would come with very serious consequences. Are you saying that your assessment is that those serious consequences are not based in objective evidence at the moment? Does your assessment indicate that there will not actually be serious harm and that no serious consequences would arise if we were to pass the bill?

Thank you, that is really clear.

No—the distinction that you made at the end of it is really helpful.

Chris, I would like to ask you about your detailed analysis and knowledge of the situation in Denmark. It has been suggested that your research has found that there is a desire in Denmark to make access to medical treatment pathways self-declared, too. Can you say a little more about that? From your analysis and research, what is your position on medical gatekeeping in relation to the different stages of transition that people might go through?

Thank you, that is helpful.

In your view, is depathologisation an integral part of the bill that we are scrutinising?

Thank you for that.

I will come back to Professor Sullivan. You talked earlier about medical records and the need to align medical checks, screening and those kinds of things with the right bodies, essentially. We heard from Robin White that the process of recording that information in medical records can already happen, and that the process for getting a gender recognition certificate actually has nothing to do with those records. I am wondering why you think that that is relevant if the bill that we are considering is about the process for getting a GRC, rather than how medical records are recorded?

Thank you very much, Victor. That was helpful.

I want to explore in more detail the connection or otherwise that you see between medical or psychological assessment and, as you have highlighted, the removal of gender dysphoria as a pathology. There has been discussion about whether there should be gatekeeping or medical or psychological assessment in this process. Some witnesses have suggested that some of that should be retained in order to ensure that the mechanism is not open to abuse. Can you comment on that?

Thank you, that answers my question. I will put a similar question to the SHRC. We have heard a lot about the requirement or otherwise to remove the gender dysphoria diagnosis and the gender reassignment assessment panel. I do not know which of you wants to answer this question, which is about the element of risk management that Victor Madrigal-Borloz talked about.

If we accept what I understand is your position, which is that we move to self-declaration and remove the panel and the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, how do we best manage in the Scottish context the risks that Victor identified around potential abuse and misunderstanding of what rights are being conferred?