Chamber and committees

That is very helpful. I completely understand that you cannot go into the analysis of recommendations, because you are not yet at that stage.

When the review was kicked off, paused and restarted, was there any sense that there needed to be a radical change to a multidisciplinary, holistic risk assessment process as part of the policy, or was the review just looking at how things could be better generally?

I accept that members of the trans community have high levels of suicidal ideation, but I do not attribute that to the lack of contact with a medical panel as in the current process. I attribute it to transphobia within society more broadly.

If that diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required, how would you see the GRC process applying to trans people who do not experience gender dysphoria?

Diagnosis itself is a current requirement so it does not capture those who do not experience gender dysphoria. The current system therefore does not serve a proportion of the trans community who do not have that diagnosis, which means that we are not supporting them at all through the current process, and I view that as problematic. Given the lack of engagement of the panel with the individual, that medical support is not there. I agree that support needs to be provided, but I am not sure that using this process is the appropriate way.

Karen, I will come to you on this. Is it your clear position that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is problematic? You have stated that you welcome its removal. What do you see as being legitimate or necessary evidence or criteria for the new process?

I will come to you, finally, Fraser Sutherland. In your opening remarks, you said that autonomy is really important. How do you see that medicalisation of the process interacting with the notion of autonomy, if at all?

Okay. Do you anticipate that you will determine what to include once the bill is at stage 3? In any process, will you seek clarification around, for example, any evidence that is required?

Kate Coleman, you mentioned in your opening statement that the requirement of gender dysphoria should remain. Is your view aligned with what Lucy Blackburn Hunter and Susan Smith have just said?

But sexual health is different from mental disorder.

Malcolm Clark, you also mentioned the need to retain the concept of gender dysphoria.

Can I just clarify that you do not consider the current process to be demeaning and intrusive?

Actually, my question is on 16 and 17-year-olds. Susan Smith and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, you both referred to the Scottish sentencing guidelines, in which there is a distinction for under-25s. Are you therefore suggesting that the age for obtaining a GRC should be raised to 25? Please give a yes-or-no answer, because of time.