Chamber and committees

Thank you for being with us this morning and for the evidence that you have given us in your opening statement and in writing. Also, thank you for waiting—the first evidence session went on for longer than we had anticipated. I will come to Jen Ang first. In your initial comments, you spoke about your support for the removal of the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Will you say a bit more about why that is so significant and important? Earlier this morning, we heard about the need to retain medical gatekeeping. Will you comment on that? I will come to the other witnesses in a moment.

Naomi, could I come to you on a similar point? Some of the concerns were that with the removal of any medical or psychiatric diagnosis, anybody who wanted a GRC could apply for one. Do you see that as problematic?

I have a couple of additional questions. Jen Ang and Naomi McAuliffe were talking about capacity, cognitive development and the range of ages at which certain decisions are allowable or enabled. In previous sessions and at some of the informal private sessions that we have had with trans people themselves, we have heard that some people under the age of 10 are clear that there is something that makes them feel that the expression of their identity does not match with the binary world that they are forced to inhabit, and that binary world comes from a clearly patriarchal system. Are there things that we should be considering along the lines of reforming the GRA in the way that the bill does, or more broadly, around supporting people under the age of 16 who might have questions and be thinking about transitioning but do not have the legal right or other support that would enable them to?

That is fine, thank you.

I have another question. Catherine, can I come back to you? We heard those people who are not supportive of reform of the GRA speak about its widening the group of people who might be eligible to apply for a GRC. We heard that point this morning and we have seen it in evidence elsewhere.

What is your view on the argument that the reform that we are considering would open up the GRC process to a wider group of people? Do you think that we need to think about any safeguarding or mitigation measures as we consider the bill?

You talk about the shift from mental disorder to sexual health condition—I think that that is the language that the WHO uses. Why, then, would there be a psychiatric assessment? Why would it be problematic to remove the psychiatric assessment element?

My final point links something that Malcolm Clark has just said to something that Lucy Hunter Blackburn said in her opening statement. Malcolm, you just said that the proposals under the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill would mean that anyone could get a GRC. Lucy, in your opening remarks, you talked about opening it up to a more diverse or wider group. What do you mean by a wider group?

Jen, do you want to come in on that point about the concerns around opening the application process up to anybody?

Okay. Thank you. I will leave it there for now.

I have a question on a different topic. We have had some discussion today and previously about the criminal offences elements. Engender’s submission makes specific reference to trying to ensure in the bill that making a false declaration is a criminal offence, as with other statutory self-declarations. That law already exists.

Engender’s submission also expresses concern about criminalising people who choose to detransition. Will Catherine Murphy say a little more about that and about how we can ensure that we are not unintentionally criminalising people who take a decision that turns out to be the wrong one further down the line?

I would like to bring in Naomi McAuliffe on that and on whether Amnesty has examples or evidence from elsewhere where self-identification is part of the gender recognition process. Have significant numbers of people detransitioned? What have the support processes been, and what issues do we need to consider, given that, as Catherine Murphy said, the numbers are very small? They are lower than the number of people who choose to get divorced, for example.