Chamber and committees

Thank you; that is helpful. You said in your opening statement that the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis is viewed internationally as outdated. That point links closely with the current process of having a panel of medical experts assessing information. Can you comment on the appropriateness of that process, based on what you have heard from the trans people to whom you have spoken and from your analysis of that process?

Thank you; that was helpful.

In earlier remarks there was mention of support for the World Health Organization’s reclassification of gender dysphoria. Will you say a bit more about that and why your network has come to the position that it is in on the issue?

I accept that you might not be able to answer this, but I am curious to know about the relationship that trans people whom the clinic supports have with the process of medicalisation that diagnosis determines or requires. Does that come up in your conversations?

Good morning and thank you to the witnesses for joining us and for your opening statements and the other information that some of you provided.

I will explore two areas: first, the case for change or the need for gender recognition reform at all; and, secondly, questions around gender dysphoria diagnosis and the panel that has been associated with that process.

Sharon Cowan, I will come to you first. In your opening remarks, you talked about the views among the trans people that you speak to shifting, in the past five years, from Scotland being a great place to live to that not being the case. How do you see that as being linked—or otherwise—not so much to the discussions around this bill, on which there have already been two consultations, but to the need for change and for something that is within the current GRA to be different?

In previous sessions, a parallel was drawn with the inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM—the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”. Do you agree that there is a parallel? If you do not want to comment on that, that is fine. I appreciate that the subject is difficult.

Thank you.

Thank you; that is helpful.

Naomi Cunningham, I have a similar question about your views on the case for change, if you view that there is one. In your opening comments, you talked about that larger group of people being potentially eligible. What is your view on whether reform is necessary?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Thank you; that is helpful.

I will follow up on a couple of things that witnesses have said. It might be appropriate for Robert Strachan to come in here, but that is up to you. James Kerr mentioned that the gender identity and gender reassignment policy is up for review; can you explain that? Has the periodic cycle of reviews led to the current review, or have issues or concerns triggered that at this time? I will come back in on something else related to that, but could you start with that question?