Girl Guides: How to radicalise hate against trans children in 10 easy steps

supporting trans members

Tomorrow, following a short but successful propaganda campaign, a UK Newspaper will publish an open letter asking Girl Guiding UK to suspend their policy of inclusion for All Girls, including those who are transgender.  Guides has always, quietly, been inclusive of trans children. While there was a small amount of sensationalist and transphobic media reporting in 2015 when the current policy was formally adopted, until six weeks ago, there has been no organised attack on the organisation which my daughter is a part of. Why now? What has changed to make Girl Guides, Brownies and Rainbows a target of action from transphobic groups? This is not a random act, but follows concerted attempts by trans exclusionary groups to influence thinking within the UK Labour party on whether trans women should be included on All Women Shortlists.

It is part of the wider context of a small but vocal and increasingly organised loose coalition of groups made up of Evangelical lobbyists such as Christian Concern, radical feminist academics, misogynistic Men’s Rights Activists, reactionary conservative voices, and a growing grass roots anti transgender rights movement which has formed around the parenting forum ‘Mumsnet’. There, with few restrictions on content, under a banner of free speech, these groups have found one another, have radicalised and organised without challenge or moderation, united behind a single purpose – preventing advances to the rights of transgender people in the UK.

The campaign against inclusion of transgender women on Labour Party All Women Shortlists was the first active campaign to find an audience outside niche anti transgender corners of social media. This anti-trans equality campaign included a crowdfunding initiative calling for legal challenge to Labour Party policy, petitions to the Government, multiple linked websites promoting (mis)information, national public speaking tours by trans exclusionary activists. It provided easy media pieces for an already transphobic UK media, satisfying the UK Public’s seemingly unquenchable interest in stories written about (but not by) transgender people.

Girl Guiding are the next and latest focus of this anti trans rights coalition. Strategically, Girl Guides are seen as a soft target. Transgender children have little support, are regularly maligned by the mainstream press and importantly have no voice or right of reply.

The campaign built against Girl Guiding has been so rapid, so honed, that without knowledge of the context and the anti-trans equality groups involved, it could be misinterpreted as representing the concerns of the guiding movement. Instead of what it actually represents, the latest target of existing transphobic political lobbying by a small but active group of dedicated anti trans equality activists.

Here I present a 10 step guide to ‘how this campaign against trans girls and Girl Guides has played out’. And in response, rather than engage with their hate, I’ve simply listed 10 more productive activities that our daughter, a trans member of girl guiding, and the target of this campaign, has been engaged in during the same period.

Ten Steps to Raising Hate against Trans Children

Step 1: Take a committed transphobe with multiple anti-transgender websites.

Step 2: Get invited onto The BBC Victoria Derbyshire show (05/03/18) to discuss reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (Spoiler, this act and therefore this discussion has no relevance to trans children –  trans inclusivity is already covered by the 2010 Equality Act).

Step 3. Veer off topic with a hypothetical story about a predatory 14 year old boy pretending to be a girl to assault 11 year old girls at guide camp. Use this to publicly criticise Girl Guides for having a long standing approach welcoming All Girls, including those, who happen to be transgender.

Step 4: Create a thread on Mumsnet (home of transphobic discussion) to stir up hate and radicalise a wider population against a vulnerable minority (trans girls).

Step 5: Set into action existing anti-trans children websites and social media platforms, spreading fear and hate.

Step 6: Launch new anti-trans-children Facebook groups specifically to campaign against trans girls being accepted in Girl Guiding.

Step 7: Reinforce inflammatory talking points to enable radicalisation of people against trans children: focus specific attention on ‘child on child sex abuse’

Step 8: Send Mumsnet thread to friendly transphobic Times journalist for yet another attack piece in a long running campaign against transgender children. Have anti-trans-children story picked up by multiple other national newspapers.

Step 9: Inundate Girl Guides HQ with letters and emails, in an attempt to pressure Guiding to change their trans inclusive approach, adding veiled threats of legal action.

Step 10: Get your friendly anti-trans newspaper to publish a letter demanding that Girl Guides review their Transgender Policy (This Sunday, according to Mumsnet, the oracle on all things transphobic).

How to respond?

How can a mum like me fight back against such organised hate? How can I keep my daughter safe?

I write an anonymous blog. I have no power, no influence. I can count upon a tiny handful of allies willing to stand up for trans girls like my daughter.

There is no ‘powerful transgender lobby’ to defend us. I wish there was. There are no trans newspaper editors, no trans judges, no trans MPs.

It is hard to deal with so much hate. It is hard not to feel afraid. To feel like my country is not a safe place for my child. But life carries on.

Girl Guiding has been strong in their refusal to bend before a building anti transgender media, and have reinforced their commitment to All Girls in public statements. I am confident they will not waver in their commitment despite the latest media onslaught.

While incessant transphobes devote days upon days to making my (transgender) daughter unsafe and unwelcome, she’s been getting on with her life. Whilst they spread lies, misinformation, and hate, let’s see what my trans daughter has been up to:

10 better ways to spend your time

1: Learning British Sign Language to be able to better communicate with a deaf friend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRYQayi9czM

2: Going to school, learning stuff, (same as every other child)

3: Enjoying a Guides celebration of Mardi Gras (dancing, eating, painting)

4: Practicing tent building skills (indoors as it was snowing!)

5: Going to the cinema, eating popcorn

6: Attending a talk by local police officer on women in policing

7: Building a fire in the garden – attempting to make smores – giant mess

8: Reading Harry Potter (again!)

9: Eating too many Easter eggs (trading white chocolate eggs with younger sibling)

10: Laughing, smiling, talking, sleeping, loving, dancing, dreaming, living.

 

It is easy to paint trans girls as a scary menace.

My child is not a risk. She is not a threat. She is not scary.

She loves camping with her friends, staying up late, eating marshmallows (& smores) and telling ghost stories.

Anyone who knows a trans child like my daughter, can see how ridiculous anti-trans girl fear-mongering is. She is just like any other girl.

Those inciting anti trans fear, prejudice and hate know that the public don’t know any trans people, much less trans girl guides, brownies, rainbows. They rely on this ignorance.

Inciting hate against trans girls is not balanced ‘debate’. This is hate against a defenceless and vulnerable group of children.

No wonder trans children are at breaking point and the UK has become a dangerous place to be transgender.

No wonder, according to Stonewall’s School Report, 84% of trans children in school have self-harmed.

Anyone reading this who is a parent or carer – how would you feel if a child you love was the target of a cruel hate campaign? If they were being targeted just for being different.

My child is not a risk. She is not a threat.

She loves painting, hiking in the country, climbing trees, camping with her friends. She loves dancing like no-one’s watching.

My daughter is wonderful, kind, sweet (brave, clever, strong, and funny) and she loves Guiding.

Girl Guiding’s motto is ‘For All Girls’. Girl Guides is inclusive of deaf girls, girls with disabilities, girls from different ethnic or religious groups, and yes, trans girls too. Diversity. Inclusion. Kindness.

That includes my daughter.

Update 15/04/2018:

This morning the letter was published in The Sunday Times. Of the 100,000 volunteers in Guiding a paltry 220 people signed the letter who claimed to have some involvement in Guiding of whom a meagre 12 are current leaders. This demonstrates just how fringe these anti trans rights views are within Guiding, the wider British public and the UK Media led by the Times.

This last month and the last year or so has been a truly frightening time to be parents of a child who happens to be trans living in the UK. A week ago we were near to coming to the difficult decision to withdraw our child from Guiding as we were concerned her presence might not continue to be welcome. This would have been giving in to the bullies something we have raised our daughter, supported by Guiding to stand against.

We want to thank all those who have sent messages of support by email, Facebook, twitter from all corners of the world. Girl Guiding truly is a global movement and we’ve been overwhelmed by the positivity and solidarity in the face of these bullies.  Thank you to Girl Guiding UK, Chief Guide Amanda Medler, and the UK media communications team. Thank you to the incredible leaders, both locally and throughout the UK who have helped us stand strong, either because they have a trans child, sibling or family member, have a trans child in their section, or who simply because they wanted to help spread the message that Guiding is for all girls.

Thank you,

thank you,

thank you.

 

#ForAllGirls

The Erasure of Trans Children

transgender children erasure

The current Scottish trans Gender Recognition Act consultation refers to ‘evidence that socially transitioned 16 year olds’ exist – but fails to include any acknowledgement of the existence of trans children under 16.

This got me thinking of the erasure of trans children.

All too often trans children are completely erased from discussions.

Without visibility this most vulnerable group of children continue to have their basic rights denied. All too often, trans allies and advocates avoid any reference at all to trans children – it’s too political, too controversial, or too outside of their personal knowledge. Trans children can just wait until they are 18 for fair treatment right? Maybe we can wait until the following generation, after trans adults achieve equality, and then consider trans children. Maybe your trans great grandchildren will be treated well.

Whilst trans advocates and allies pretend trans children don’t exist, the people who are left talking incessantly about children are those opposed to trans equality. Transphobes and trans-antagonists, railing ‘just think of the (cisgender) children’, ‘save them from the trans menace’!

Aside from a couple of notable exceptions (including Paris Lees) who exactly is speaking up for my child? Who cares about trans children?

I decided to do a small piece of simple research into the visibility or erasure of transgender children. I looked at the 208 submissions to the 2015 Women’s and Equalities Committee’s Transgender Equality Inquiry.

For each submission I searched for the use of the term ‘child’ (a search which will also find any references to children, childhood etc).

My results were pretty interesting. More detail is at the bottom of the post, but I’ll summarise the key findings here:

Over half of the submissions (58%) gave zero references to children (trans or cis). This included the vast majority of submissions from transgender adults, the submissions from nearly all government departments, from MPs, from Police forces, from the Royal College of GPs, from Action for Trans Health, from the Albert Kennedy Trust.

A further 16% only used the term children in reference to the (presumed cis) children of trans adults, to intersex children, or in a phrase like ‘looked after children’. This included the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists and the General Medical Council.

Three quarters (74%) of submissions contained zero references to the existence of transgender children

15% had only one or two very brief references to transgender children, some of which avoid acknowledging the existence of trans children. Both NHS England and Stonewall only mention children in reference to the existence of a “Children’s Gender service“. The Equality and Human Rights Commission manages only two references to “gender variant children” or “children whose gender identity is less well-developed or understood than that of an adult”.

89% of submissions to the 2015 Women and Equalities Commissions Transgender Equality Inquiry either didn’t mention children at all, or barely mentioned them.

The remaining 11% of submissions is where I now turn my attention:

 Submissions that referred to children more than twice:

Only 23 submissions (11%) referred to children more than twice.

These can be roughly divided into three categories:

a) 7 submissions (3%) were from anonymous parents of transgender children/transgender children – This included 6 parents of transgender children, and one trans young adult who had been treated in children’s services. These submissions contained credible and relevant real life information on transgender children (but there were only 7 submissions from the families affected). These submissions were all anonymous – a great indication of how voiceless these children are.

b) 7 submissions (3%) were from people or organisations whose submission is supportive or neutral towards trans people, these included:

  • FOCUS: The Identity Trust provides 3 references to transgender children and 2 to gender-variant children
  • GIRES provides 4 references to transgender children, but doesn’t use the term ‘transgender’, simply calling them children (though in the context the references are to trans or gender variant children)
  • Lancashire LGBT provides 16 references to trans children,
  • Mermaids provides 21 references to trans children, children referred to gender services or children with gender dysphoria
  • Peter Dunne provides 5 references to transgender children
  • Polly Carmichael from the Children’s Gender Identity Service provides 21 references to trans or gender variant children, yet fails to use the term transgender children even once, instead referring to a variety of terms including ‘children experiencing difficulties in their gender development’ ‘unconventional children’ ‘children with GID’ ‘Children with gender dysphoria’ ‘children with gender incongruence’
  • The British Psychological Society is rather a mixed bag with one reference to “rare cases it has been thought that the person is seeking better access to females and young children through presenting in an apparently female way”, with 1 reference to transgender children and 1 reference to children with gender dysphoria.

 c) 9 submissions (4%) were from people or organisations whose submission is negative or antagonistic to trans people:

  • A specific person, SJ, refers to children in terms of the threat posed by adults “luring children into women’s toilets in order to assault them”
  • A specific person, AF, provides 16 references about protecting children from psychologically disturbed individuals and gender ideology
  • Evangelical Alliance provides 7 references to the need to protect children
  • Lesbian Rights Group provides 14 references to children including outlining the ‘pressures on young people and small children to transgender’ and highlighting the ‘transgendering of children – a matter of concern’.
  • A specific person, MY, includes 7 references to protecting children including ‘from possible parental or other abuse’ and recommends ‘treating the parents’.
  • The group ‘Parents Campaigning for Sex Equality for Children and Young People’ contains 65 references to children focusing predominantly on gender expression / toy stereotypes as well as on the need to protect against ‘transgendering children’
  • ‘Scottish Women against Pornography’ has 17 references that confuse gender identity with gender stereotypes
  • A specific person, SDA, provides 11 references to children focusing on gender expression/toy stereotypes and arguing the need to stop the ‘powerful trans activist lobby from pathologising normal childhood’ and arguing against ‘trans theory’
  • ‘Women and Girls Equality Network (WAGEN)’, by Dr Julia Long, contains 13 references to children focusing on stereotypical gender expression/roles and arguing against ‘transgendering of children’.

These 9 trans-antagonistic submissions listed above contain 151 references to children. This is nearly more references to children than the other 199 submissions combined.

One qualification to the above research summary: I only searched for use of the word ‘child’ (or ‘children’). It is possible that some submissions focused on children without using the word children. Some submissions may, for example, have used the term transgender youth or adolescent – a more in depth analysis could consider more search terms – but arguably a decision to utilise the word ‘youth’ and avoid the word ‘child’ in a submission is itself a value judgement on the existence or not of trans children and is itself part of a culture of erasure of trans children.

 

Conclusion

Transgender children are almost completely invisible in society. Trans children need allies speaking up for them.

Yet over three quarters of submissions to the Women and Equalities Commission 2015 Transgender Equality Inquiry contained no acknowledgement of the existence of trans children.

The submissions with the most references to children (cis or trans) are those written by individuals and groups opposed to trans rights. Inputs on transgender children are overwhelmingly written by those ideologically opposed to supporting transgender people. Transphobic individuals and groups are being allowed to set the conversation on children, meaning the actual issues of enormous importance to trans children aren’t even on the agenda. The debate is instead being framed as between (trans-antagonistic or trans sceptical) people who care about protecting children versus trans adults. To re-frame this debate, we need trans advocates to talk about trans children.

Stop the erasure of trans children!

There were over 40 submissions from individual trans adults (or adults with a trans history/adults of trans experience). Almost none of these submissions from trans adults mentioned trans children. Parents of trans children are unable to speak openly (all submissions from parents were anonymous). Cisgender parents of trans children are also sometimes unsure about our credibility speaking out on trans issues. Trans children cannot speak for themselves. Someone needs to speak up.

Hardly any trans-supportive organisations mentioned trans children in their submissions. If your organisation only listens to the voices of trans adults, you are excluding the most vulnerable trans group. Organisations like Stonewall (whose 2015 submission ignored trans children) have a trans advisory panel consisting of only trans adults. Yet it is very clear from this review that transgender adults can’t be assumed to speak up for the needs of current transgender children.

Organisations aiming to support trans equality need to either work with parents of trans children (most of whom are cis, some of whom are trans), or, at the very least, make sure that at least one trans adult is designated to represent trans youth (reaching out to older trans adolescents directly) and we need at least one trans adult designated to represent trans children (reaching out to parents supporting trans children, as the stakeholders who best understand the very many challenges facing trans children).

Without proactive effort to engage with parents and families of trans children, trans children will remain voiceless.

The erasure of trans children in the 2015 submissions to the Trans Equality consultation is shocking.

We must do better for trans children.

Let’s start with the current Scottish GRA consultation (open to submissions from anywhere in the world – and we know those opposed to rights and respect for trans children are submitted from all over the world).

Please complete the short questionnaire on a reformed Scottish Gender Recognition Act. At a minimum please include in your submission acknowledgement of the existence of trans children. Better still, refer to the issues and challenges that affect trans children. If you don’t know any trans children – then get in touch with families of trans children, or organisations like Mermaids.

Trans children exist and they desperately need support.

Don’t leave them voiceless and invisible.

#SomeChildrenAreTrans #GetOverIt

Follow us on twitter @FierceMum and @DadTrans

 

Further info on the findings

Methodology

I looked at all 208 submissions to the Women’s and Equalities Committee’s Transgender Equality Inquiry.

For each submission I searched for the term ‘Child’ (a search which also found any reference to children, childhood etc).

Limitations of the research findings:

1) This research was carried out quickly to give an overview of the data. I looked at all 208 submissions, but quickly and without moderation of findings – some level of errors and oversights are likely.

2) The keyword used was ‘child’  (to include children). It is possible that some submissions focused on children without using the word children. Some may for example have used the term youth. Arguably the decision to utilise the word youth and not child is itself a value judgement on the existence or not of trans children and is part of a culture of erasure of trans children. The Gendered Intelligence submission uses the phrase ‘young trans people’ which refers to “people aged 25 and under”

Over half of the submissions (117 = 56%) gave zero references to children (trans or cis).

This included the vast majority of submissions from transgender adults, the submissions from nearly all government departments, from MPs, from Police forces, from the Royal College of GPs, from Action for Trans Health, from the Albert Kennedy Trust.

Another 16% (34), only used the word children when quoting the title of an NHS Department (eg Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS); in reference to the children of transgender adults, in a generic reference to childhood, in reference to intersex children, and in brief references to children in the phrase ‘looked after children’ or ‘children’s homes’. This group included the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, the General Medical Council and Gendered Intelligence.

Organisations that refer once or twice to the existence of trans children

26 organisations (13%) had only one or two very brief references to transgender children, copied in table below:

Some of these avoided the term transgender children, only referring to ‘children in the gender service’ for example the single reference to trans children by Stonewall states “The Tavistock and Portman is the only specialist clinic, providing early intervention treatment for children and young people.” NHS England similarly only describes the ‘Children’s clinic’.

Table: Organisations that refer once or twice to transgender children

Organisation Reference to transgender children
The Albert Kennedy Trust “The right of the parent to support a child through their assignment is important.”
Genderagenda “Typically, 1 child per class will come out to me and another will say I know someone trans/non-binary and ask for help supporting them.
The Government Equalities Office has one reference to trans children, quoting Ofsted “Ofsted’s Common Inspection Framework, which takes effect in September 2015 and covers standard inspections of early years, schools and further education and skills providers, requires inspectors to pay particular attention to the outcomes of a number of specific groups, including transgender children and learners.”
A young trans adult makes one reference “I feel that children are discovering what trans means through the internet rather than in a classroom environment, and I fear that as a result, either children would grow up with a slight bias, or children who are trans would not realise this until many years later, when it is more difficult to transition. “
LGBT consortium “Medical interventions for children and adolescents have been inadequate and do not meet international best practice standards”
LGBT Youth Scotland “Further, transgender young people are aware of their gender identity and begin living in their acquired gender far earlier than the age of 16. We recommend implementing provision which would enable parents and carers to give consent for a child or young person to receive a GRC under the age of 16”
National LGB&T Partnership

 

Medical interventions for children and adolescents have been inadequate and do not meet international best practice standards
Outreach Cumbria ‘Fourthly there is no local support for children and adolescents with gender identity difficulties with the nearest (and only) gender clinic being the Tavistock and Portman Clinic in London
A volunteer with the Albert Kennedy Trust “Early access to transitioning and being accepted from a young age is vital to the emotional and mental well being of a trans person and therefore families, social services and the NHS should work with all trans children and trans youths to be able them to decide their future and how they wish to live.”
Support U “Most of the above issues all apply to young trans people, although more education of peer groups of trans children would help”
Terry Reed “Numbers presenting for treatment have grown at ~23% p.a. over the last couple of years. In the children and young people group, the growth is even faster.

inclusion of transgender people: adults, adolescents and children, in sport.”

Trans Media Watch “Louis Theroux’s recent documentary on trans children for the BBC also received much acclaim
UK Trans Info Provide a method for children and teenagers who are below the usual age requirement to obtain gender recognition with the consent of their parents or guardians, or without their consent through the courts where it is in their best interests.
Anonymous “Ensure that those working in proximity with minors are aware how potentially transgender children can and should be helped.
Equalities Officer, on behalf of UNISON Bournemouth Higher & Further Education Branch Ensure the implementation of compulsory, trans-inclusive PHSE curriculum in order that children are made aware of the issues facing trans persons, help trans children access support, and tackle transphobic behaviour before it begins.

Without access to educational information and resources on gender identity, trans children may be placed under undue stress, confusion, and harm. Through the provision of compulsory gender identity education within the PHSE curriculum, work can be done to make trans children aware that they’re not alone, that discriminatory behaviour they may face is not acceptable, and of the support available to them.

University of Leeds Particularly vulnerable groups include intersex bodied people and trans children under 18
Scottish Transgender Alliance With growing social acceptance, the annual number of children and adolescents coming out as transgender has increased five-fold over four years
Anon There is a need for a more robust communication / awareness programme to help parents who believe their children may be gender dysphoric , and how they can help and cope
Anon A close family friend has a trans child who, age 8, told his teachers that he wanted to be a boy and have ‘boy parts’. The school reported his parents to the social services, assuming that the child had been abused, based on no other evidence
Individual Studies indicate that the majority of trans people know they are trans by the age of 7, and many experience distress throughout their childhood. A growing number of children are transitioning, and the lack of any legal recognition until a child is 18 is starting to cause problems, for example with names in school systems and examination certificates.
Individual Inclusion of trans history as a compulsory element of the UK schools national curriculum, linking it to organisational support for trans children, adolescents, their families, and their friends
Individual We need to be intervening sooner, so that trans-children grow up with a chance of fitting in to society and being truly inclusive, and non-trans children will grow up with understanding and tolerance, rather than behaving in a segregatory manner and ostracising trans-people

 

 

Gender Recognition for Under 16s – Consultation on the Scottish Gender Recognition Act

scot flag

Scotland is currently holding a consultation on reforming their Gender Recognition Act. This proposes options to simplify the process for transgender people in Scotland to obtain full legal gender recognition (acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate and amending their birth certificate).

This consultation seeks views on reforming the 2004 Act. The Scottish Government proposes to streamline the process for obtaining legal recognition and also to allow people aged 16 and over to apply. We are also seeking views about the options for people under 16 and for recognition of non-binary people.

We are inviting responses to this consultation by 5pm on 1 March 2018. 1.07. Please respond to this consultation using the Scottish Government’s consultation platform, Citizen Space. You can view and respond to this consultation online at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/family-law/reviewof-the-gender-recognition-act-2004.

Key information:

The consultation provides key information on the Gender Recognition Act. It is critical to note however that even without a Gender Recognition Certificate, transgender people are legally protected under the 2010 Equality Act and have rights to change identity markers in systems including schools, the NHS and their passports, and have the right to use facilities matching gender identity. The Gender Recognition Act is however the only route to updating a birth certificate.

“GRC” – a gender recognition certificate. Under the 2004 Act, a full GRC provides legal recognition of an applicant’s acquired gender. When a GRC is issued under the 2004 Act, the applicant’s legal sex also changes to male or female. ”

“The 2004 Act allows transgender people aged 18 and over to apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender and to change their legal sex accordingly”

The consultation considers two main models for gender recognition, the current system of an assessment model (where a doctor, psychologist and or court ‘evidences’ a person’s gender identity) or a self-declaration model (as already applied in Norway, Denmark, Malta, Colombia, Argentina, and the Republic of Ireland).

For an example of how this is working in practice, this article provides a useful overview of how a self-declaration based process is already in action in the Republic of Ireland.

I won’t focus here on the proposed options for how the gender recognition system will operate, but will instead give attention to eligibility based on age – namely whether trans youth and trans children are permitted to get a Gender Recognition Certificate and change their birth certificate.

Under 18s.

At present in Scotland, as elsewhere in the UK, trans youth and trans children under 18 are not eligible for a Gender Recognition Certificate, meaning under 18s cannot update their birth certificate. Trans children and youth are however given legal protections under the 2010 Equality Act, and already have the right to change their gender marker in almost all other documentation, without the need for a Gender Recognition Certificate (including a right to change their gender marker in their passport, and in systems including schools and the NHS) (*as with adults options for identity recognition for trans youth/children with non-binary identities are extremely limited).

The consultation questions:

 The survey starts with 4 questions for how GRC should work for adults including:

Question 1 The Scottish Government proposes to bring forward legislation to introduce a self-declaratory system for legal gender recognition instead. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

16-17 year olds.

The consultation proceeds to focus on 16-17 year olds:

“The Scottish Government considers that people aged 16 or older should be able to apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender using the proposed self-declaration process.

4.05. There is clear evidence that people aged 16 do live full time in their acquired gender and want this to be legally recognised. For example, the Women and Equalities Select Committee heard evidence from LGBT Youth Scotland to this effect. In the Republic of Ireland, 8 people aged 16 and 17 have received a GRC31 after obtaining a court order permitting them to apply under their self-declaration system. The court in the Republic of Ireland is required to consider evidence about the young person’s transition to their acquired gender. ”

Question 5 The Scottish Government proposes that people aged 16 and 17 should be able to apply for and obtain legal recognition of their acquired gender. Do you agree or disagree?

It is curious that the report notes the “clear evidence that people aged 16 do live full time in their acquired gender and want this to be legally recognised” and yet in subsequent sections does not similarly note the existence of transgender children under the age of 16. Parents of transgender children, and other groups supporting transgender young people were perhaps overlooked in the preparatory consultations? This oversight makes it especially important that parents and supporters of transgender children and young people provide feedback during this consultation that transgender children do indeed exist, and those under the age of 16 both want and need full legal recognition. Inputs from any under transgender young people themselves might also be an important addition to this consultation.

Under 16s

The consultation moves on to consider under 16s:

“4.08. The Scottish Government’s view is that there is a careful balance to be struck in relation to people under 16. On the one hand, we should treat children with dignity and respect, giving weight to their views and wishes in line with their individual capacity. On the other hand, we should ensure that children have the right protection and care. 4.09. People who are under 16 years of age can act on their own behalf in relation to a range of matters. Annex E contains further information about this. The CRWIA at Annex M refers to research evidence about children who identify as transgender. 4.10. The Scottish Government considers that there are five broad options in relation to people under 16 being able to apply for legal gender recognition.”

The consultation proceeds to outline 5 potential options for transgender children under the age of 16. I’ve quoted these here in full, following which I’ve outlined my thoughts on each option:

Under 16s – option 1 – nothing for those under 16 

4.11. Under this option, applicants would have to be at least 16 to apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender. This would be straightforward, but would stop those under 16 with a clear view of their gender identity from obtaining legal gender recognition.

Under 16s – option 2 – court process 

4.12. Option 2 would be for Scotland to adopt a court based process.

4.14. Any court based process, whether instigated by a child’s parents or by the child themself, would focus on the assessment of the child’s welfare. We would also consider specifying the matters the court would have to have regard to in determining what was in the child’s best interests. 4.15. Under this option, a court action could be raised by the child if they had sufficient capacity to do so, or if they did not, by a person or persons who had PRRs (parental responsibilities and rights) for them acting on their behalf.

4.19. Malta has a court based process of legal gender recognition for those under 18. Those with parental authority for a child may file an application in the court. The court must consider the best interests of the child and give due weight to the views of the child depending on their age and maturity

4.20. In the Republic of Ireland, applications cannot be made by those aged under 16. However, applications by 16 and 17 year olds require to be accompanied by a court order permitting the application to be made. The court may only grant the order if the child’s parents, surviving parent or guardian consents. Two medical certificates must also be produced to the court. The medical certificates must confirm that: · the child has a sufficient degree of maturity to decide to apply for gender recognition; · the child is aware of, has considered and fully understands, the consequences of that decision; · the child’s decision is freely and independently made; and · the child has transitioned, or is transitioning to, their preferred gender.

4.21. Under option 2, a child who may not have reached puberty might apply to the court or a person with PRRs for such a child might apply.

Under 16s – option 3 – parental application

4.22. Option 3 would be to permit an application to be made on behalf of a person under 16 by someone with PRRs (parental responsibilities and rights) for them. Typically, this would be the child’s parents. Further information about PRRs, when parents get them and who else may have PRRs is in Annex F. 4.23. Usually, where more than one person has parental rights in relation to a child, each can exercise their rights without the consent of the other or any of the others.36 4.24. Where a person with PRRs is reaching a major decision regarding the fulfilling or exercise of PRRs, the person is under a duty to have regard to any views the child expresses, taking account of the child’s age and maturity. The person making the decision must also have regard to any views expressed by any other person with PRRs for the child concerned.37 The Scottish Government considers that seeking legal recognition in an acquired gender is an example of a major decision. 4.25. One possibility under this option would be to require the application to be made by all parents with PRRs for a child. This would mean that a person who had PRRs for the child but was not their parent would not require to be involved. However, we would still expect the person(s) applying on the child’s behalf to have regard to the views of such a person. 4.26. Another possibility under this option would be to require all people with PRRs to apply, not just a parent or parents with PRRs. This may mean that a local authority that had PRRs for a child would need to be involved in the application process. 4.27. If all the people who required to be involved in the application did not agree38, then a court order could be sought under existing arrangements. Section 11(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 allows the Sheriff Court or the Court of Session to make an order in relation to PRRs. The court could then make a decision based on the child’s welfare. 4.28. There are some children for whom no one has PRRs. One option might be for a person who has an interest to obtain PRRs from the court and then apply for legal gender recognition on behalf of the child.

4.30. In summary, therefore, under this option all parents with PRRs (or, perhaps, everybody with PRRs) would have to apply, having had regard to the child’s views. If there is a dispute amongst those with PRRs, an application could be made to the court to resolve the matter. There may be restrictions on the role of a person with limited PRRs. 4.31. Under this option, applications could be made on behalf of very young children, including both those who lack legal capacity and who have not reached puberty.

Under 16s – option 4 – minimum age of 12

4.32. Option 4 would permit children aged 12 and above to apply in the same way as those aged 16 or above

4.34. However, this option would take no account of a child’s capacity to take decisions nor their physical maturity.

4.36. The Scottish Government does not favour this option as it would allow a child to apply irrespective of their capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their decision.

Under 16s – option 5 – application by capable child

4.37. Option 5 would permit a person under 16 to apply in the same manner as an adult, provided they had capacity to understand the consequences of recognition in their acquired gender.

4.38. Under this option, someone would have to test the child’s capacity. This could potentially be done, for example, by a registered medical practitioner, or by a practising solicitor.

4.40. A person under 16 has legal capacity to instruct a solicitor, in connection with any civil matter, where the person has a general understanding of what it means to do so. Someone aged 12 or more is presumed to be old and mature enough to have such understanding.

The section ends with question number 6, which asks consultation respondents to state which of the 5 potential options for transgender children under 16 they most favour.

Question 6 

Which of the identified options for children under 16 do you most favour? Please select only one answer.

 

option 1 – nothing for those under 16

option 2 – court process

option 3 – parental application

option 4 – minimum age of 12

option 5 – application by capable child

My response to the consultation

My initial thoughts to the above is as follows:

Option 1 –  nothing for under 16s, is unacceptable. Many of our trans children are living as their identified gender from primary school, including changing their gender marker in other systems including on their passport. Why then should they have to wait until 16 to have who they are fully recognised in law? When they have been living for years with a passport and other markers in their gender identity, why should their birth certificate be out of sync? Inability to update birth certificate adds to stress for trans children that their identity will be unwillingly disclosed and presents to them the reality that the state does not fully respect them until adulthood. Trans children exist, and waiting until 16 or 18 for proper legal recognition is denial of basic rights for these young citizens.

Denying rights to under 16s is at odds with the recent WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) statement on identity:

“WPATH advocates that appropriate gender recognition should be available to transgender youth, including those who are under the age of majority,”

Option 2 – court process seems like an expensive, bureaucratic, stressful and unneccessary requirement. I would like to learn more from Ireland, who has a similar requirement for 16-17 year olds which is currently under review.  Australia, which has just got rid of a requirement for trans youth to go to court for hormone treatment, provides a useful case study of this process.

CASE STUDY: Australian experience of a court based process

Australia until very recently required under 16s to go to court to gain approval for gender related medical care. Families and transgender children in Australia found the process of going to court stressful and upsetting. When one family were told that the requirement to go to court was being removed, one family reportedlywere unable to contain their tears of relief” with their child commenting “No longer will young transgender young people have to keep justifying who they were“.

World leading specialist in supporting transgender children, Dr Telfer, Director of the Gender Service at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne described the amount of time gender specialists were having to devote to guiding families through the court proceedings:

“Gender Clinic staff have had to spend considerable time on counselling families on what the court process would be like, Dr Telfer said.

“No-one wants to be in a courtroom. Usually it’s a place where you go when something is wrong.

The requirement for transgender youth to go to court was described as “costly, traumatic and unnecessary”.

The director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, Anna Brown, described the decision to stop forcing transgender children in Australia to go to court as a “stunning victory” for young transgender people.

“This will make a profound difference to the lives of many young trans people who will now be relieved of the burden of a costly and unnecessary court process”

“This bizarre legal anomaly was born of outdated attitudes to trans young people”

“Importantly, also, for the young people themselves, going to court can be hugely taxing,”

“This decision is a huge victory for so many young people and their families. The latest research shows that there are probably around 45,000 trans and gender-diverse young people in Australia, and this will save them enormous amounts of money, time and heartache.”

Australia has made the decision to move away from requiring transgender children to go to court. Why then would Scotland wish to impose this on Scottish trans children? Based upon the Australian experience, the Option 2 court process, is not the right decision for our children.

Option 3 – parental application seems instinctively a sensible option. With parental approval children like my daughter could get their identities fully legally recognised. This would however limit options for youth who do not have parental support, and such youth would either need to wait until 16 or would need to have recourse to an alternative option eg to the court option. I wonder whether there are many youth without any parental support for whom gaining a GRC pre 16 would be a major priority? I’d welcome feedback from trans youth or organisations working with trans youth.

Option 4 – minimum age of 12 is largely ruled out by the Scottish consultation, and I would agree that basing declaration on age, rather than capacity for decision-making, would be unworkable.

Option 5 – application by capable child is attractive in theory but I question how it would work in practice. It would require an administration layer including professional gate keepers, requiring our children to submit to an assessment, and I wonder who would be willing to test a child’s capacity for this purpose. This might result in a very small number of medicalised gate-keepers and subject to waiting lists, delays and arbitrary protocols. There’s also a very serious question about how to ensure such professional are able to assess a child’s capacity in a sensitive and appropriate manner – those of us with trans children are well aware of the level of transphobia and ignorance about trans children so common across the UK.

Seeking another opinion

I decided to reach out to the Scottish Trans Alliance who provided their view on the options for under 16s

Scottish Trans Alliance:

“We’re currently in favour of Option 3 – the ‘parental application‘ option – where under 16s would be allowed to change gender on birth certificate on submission of a simple statutory declaration with signed parental consent. This would mirror how name changes on official documents are already done for under 16s.

We think that if a young trans person under 16 has unsupportive parents then the most urgent problems they will be facing are likely to be whether they are safe from transphobic emotional abuse at home and whether they are able to wear clothes they want and use the verbal pronouns they want. We think that it is rare that a child under 16 with unsupportive parents will be in a confident and safe enough position to risk trying to change their birth certificate against the wishes of their parents.

We think that nearly all under 16s who have been able to successfully start living fully in their gender identity (and therefore are at the point where it would make sense to change their birth certificate to improve their privacy) will have at least one supportive parent. However, it is important that there is a way of ensuring that an unsupportive parent is not able to block the wishes of the young person and their supportive parent. If a court process is needed to resolve a family dispute about whether a young person should be granted a GRC, then we think the court ought to be obliged to uphold the wishes of the young person provided they have capacity to understand the consequences of legal gender recognition.

While Option 5 – the ‘application by capable child’ option – sounds on the surface like a more empowering option than parental application, we have concerns that it may lead to problematic gatekeeping by doctors/solicitors who could be scared to approve the capacity of individual trans young people. It could result in say a 13 year old with supportive parents having to try to prove their capacity to a trans-ignorant doctor only to be told they are too young to understand the consequences and that they have to wait as their parent can’t give consent on their behalf. That could be a very stressful and disempowering experience.

Not allowing under 16s to change the gender on their birth certificate leaves them at risk of schools not taking their gender identity and right to privacy of their gender history seriously. Under 16s usually don’t have bank accounts or many letters sent to them so proving their identity without showing a birth certificate is harder for under 16s than for trans adults. This means trans people under 16 are at greater risk than adults of privacy violation, and transphobic harassment as a result, due to their birth certificate outing them as trans. The intensity of media hostility and resulting negative social attitudes towards trans youth and their families makes privacy rights particularly essential.

Changing birth certificate would have no impact on ability to access hormone blockers but could make a life enhancing difference to moving to a new school without being outed.

It’s worth noting that parents of trans young people under 16 can already change their child’s gender on their passport and medical records so it makes sense to bring birth certificates into alignment with these other official documents.”

Preferred option

Having reviewed the proposed options, and consulted with other stakeholders, the best option for under 16s seems to be Option 3 – parental application.

 

Flawed research evidence underpinning the consultation

Before concluding, I would also like to share my views on the annexes to the consultation which contain some worryingly flawed ‘evidence’ that if accepted as presented could seriously undermine trans children’s rights.

The Scottish consultation document presents ‘research evidence’ on transgender children in annex M part 4.

ANNEX M: PARTIAL CHILD RIGHTS AND WELLBEING IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  1. What research evidence is available?

4.1 There is evidence that children can experience incongruence between their assigned gender and their gender identity early in life. One study indicates the average age was 8.

4.2 There is a limited evidence base about whether children will continue to experience these feelings in the longer term. Follow-up studies indicate overall that for 85.2% of the children, their distress discontinued either before or early in puberty. 8 However, the rates in the individual studies varied widely. For instance, a 2008 study indicated that in 39% of children the feelings did continue beyond the onset of puberty9 whereas older studies from before 2000 had very much lower rates for children continuing to experience distress after the onset of puberty. It is thought that pre-2000 studies have included children who would not now be considered to be experiencing gender dysphoria. The studies may also be affected by the small clinical population of children with gender dysphoria – studies looking at whether gender dysphoric feelings persisted had a total population of 317 people.

Part 4.2 in particular misrepresents the current body of evidence and is danger of undermining the Scottish consultation through establishing a prejudicial approach to children gaining legal recognition.

It refers to two deeply flawed studies:

  1. Ristori, J and Steensma T.D “Gender dysphoria in childhood” in International Review of Psychiatry, Gender dysphoria and gender incongruence, Vol 28, 2016 Issue 1.
  2.  Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis “Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423

We have previously addressed and demonstrated the lack of credibility of these exact studies here.

Conversely, new evidence, that has not been presented in the consultation Annex, suggests a very significantly higher rate of transgender children continuing to identify as transgender as adults and has been reviewed by us here.

4.3 There is also evidence that the more extreme a child’s gender dysphoria was before puberty, the less likely it was that their feelings will recede with the onset of puberty. For those who have reached puberty and continue to experience distress, evidence indicates that their distress then tends to intensify and that depression or self-harming behaviours are also more common in ages 12 and over. It is understood that physical changes caused by puberty may intensify the levels of distress experienced.

4.4 Available evidence suggests that factors arising around the ages of 10 to 13 may help explain changes in how a child feels about their gender: · the changes in social roles between boys and girls as their gender role become more distinct; · the anticipation or experience of physical changes as a result of puberty; and · their first experience of experiencing falling in love and discovering their sexual identity.

4.5. Evidence indicates that there is a difference of experience between boys and girls. 13 Although more boys are referred to gender identity clinics, some studies suggest that gender dysphoria is more prominent in girls.

Part 4.4 relies on one specific flawed study that absolutely does not evidence the claim presented here.

Steensma T.D et al (2011) “Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood; A qualitative follow up study” Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry Vol16 issue 4”

There is no evidence in this single referenced study that a transgender child changes identity between the ages of 10 and 13 as misrepresented here. This is grossly misleading and risks undermining support for trans children in Scotland gaining legal recognition. We have previously discussed the flaws of this specific paper in some detail here.

4.6 There is evidence that transgender young people are more than twice as likely as non-trans people to be diagnosed with depression (50.6% compared to 20.6%14) and with anxiety (26.7% compared to 10%). There is evidence that this most likely arises due to their experience of discrimination, lack of acceptance, and the abuse they may face and is not an inherent feature of their being transgender. 15 There is also evidence that transition to living in their preferred gender and being supported with gender confirming medical interventions may help improve mental health, in many cases reaching levels experienced in the general population.

It is clear that discrimination and lack of acceptance is damaging to trans youth. The government has a responsibility to tackle this, including through enabling trans children like my daughter to gain full legal recognition. Not allowing full legal recognition to children also sends out a damaging signal to those children and to wider society that transgender children are not worthy of respect or rights.

4.7 Scottish Government officials met members of LGBT Youth Scotland groups aged 13 and over. Their view was that legal gender recognition must be made available to people younger than 16. A person should be able to transition and live in their acquired gender before they have to take their qualifications or go to university. They felt that this would better support their rights not to be discriminated against, for example, at school. A high proportion expressed the desire for their parents (or other people with responsibility for them) to be involved and supporting them through the recognition process.

4.8 LGBT Youth Scotland gave evidence to the Women and Equality Select Committee inquiry into Transgender Equality which setting out the views of transgender people aged under 1817 about the benefits of legal gender recognition in terms of reducing discrimination and improving their mental health.

There is a concerted effort in the UK, as elsewhere, to deny transgender people basic human rights. This campaign is particularly targeting transgender children, the most vulnerable of transgender people, and those with the least power and voice. It is critical that this consultation focuses on listening to transgender children and to those families who support them. Trans children are a small and very marginalised group, and their voices must not get lost in the wider consultation. It is not acceptable to tell transgender children that they have to wait until they are adults before they can be recognised in law.

Appendix A TRANSGENDER CHILDREN – EVIDENCE OF NUMBERS EXPERIENCING GENDER DYSPHORIA OR DISCOMFORT WITH THEIR ASSIGNED GENDER

Appendix A presents a confused view of the difference between transgender children, and children who are gender non-conforming. It alarmingly includes reference to studies from the discredited Zucker, and makes multiple references to “opposite sex behaviour”. It is worrying that a public consultation on gender recognition should have included such a muddled understanding.

Conclusion

Transgender children are one of the most marginalised, voiceless and powerless groups in society. I encourage all who care for transgender children to complete this consultation, and for question 6 I recommend selecting Option C – parental application.

Additionally, in the accompanying comments box for the consultation it would be useful to mention some basic facts:

a) transgender children exist

b) transgender children have legal rights and need legal recognition

c) transgender children face enough challenges, discrimination and hostility already – legal recognition should not be an additional burden for them

The consultation documents mention the “clear evidence that people aged 16 do live full time in their acquired gender and want this to be legally recognised” and yet are silent on  on the existence of transgender children or their desire and need for full legal recognition under the age of 16 year.

This right, if enabled, would not be pursued by every transgender child. Parents would not take this option on a whim. This option would be most appropriate for transgender children who have already been living in their identified gender for many years, who likely already have all other identity documents including their passport updated to their identified gender. To deny these children full legal recognition until 16 is a gross betrayal of their rights.

Yet transgender children are one of the least powerful and most marginalised groups in our society. We know that transphobic groups are actively campaigning against the provision of rights to transgender children. The needs and the voices of transgender children may not be heard in this consultation.

It is vital that families of transgender children feed in to this consultation, including those outside of Scotland, making it clear that transgender children do indeed exist and do deserve full legal recognition. Inputs from transgender adults and allies who care for transgender children will also be critical, as supportive families of transgender children are already overwhelmed with the barriers we have to overcome to enable our children to get the rights and the protections that other children take for granted.

Input from any transgender children and young people who are willing to share their thoughts and words would be especially valuable, perhaps explaining what an updated birth certificate would mean to them, or how they feel about being denied the right to full legal recognition.

The consultation can be completed here. It closes on March 1st 2018

Transgender children need Stonewall’s support: SOME CHILDREN ARE TRANS. GET OVER IT!

Feedback on Stonewall ‘A Vision for Change’ – Parent’s perspective.

We warmly welcome Stonewall’s commitment to transgender advocacy. This consultation is a very timely opportunity to build a strong coalition to fight for the rights of transgender people. There is much good in the document.  Alongside appointment of a Trans Advisory Group in 2015, and recent recruitment of a Head of Trans Equality, it demonstrates Stonewall’s new commitment to Transgender equality adding the missing T to their excellent work on LGB.

Stonewall has had a lot of trust to recoup with the Trans community. It is right that this document was not written by Stonewall itself but by the arms length Trans Advisory Group. Written by Trans people for Trans people the Vision statement provides a foundation and mandate for action.

There does however appear to be a missing voice – that of transgender children and their parents.  As non trans people, parents of transgender children (unless trans themselves) are unable to attend the five planned consultation meetings. The two-week window to feed back comments in writing or by phone, is also short, and those with busy lives (and I think this would include all parents of trans children), may find it difficult to input.

Following publication of the Vision on Monday evening, we spoke to other parents with transgender children, mainly those supported by Mermaids, which helped to shape our thoughts on the document. We shared these with other parents and then submitted detailed comments (below) to Stonewall. We also sent a copy to Susie Green CEO of Mermaids.

Please note, this feedback is intended to complement rather than detract from the much needed work outlined in the Vision. We’ve focused upon the references to trans-children (or their absence where we think they need inclusion) . While critical, the comments come from a good place. We are simply parents who want to do the best for their children.

We’re now asking  for advocates from the Trans community to read this feedback, and take forward these comments, in person if possible, to the consultation meetings we are unable, as parents, to attend. 

Transgender children are one of the most vulnerable groups of transgender people. Transgender children cannot themselves lead or achieve the changes that they need. Supportive parents of transgender children are in a unique position to raise the voices of our children, and need to be explicitly included in this dialogue.

Supportive parents of transgender children are some of the most well-informed, passionate and motivated allies for transgender people, but we are often unable to speak publically (to protect our children). We need allies like Stonewall. Working in partnership we will achieve far more than working in isolation.

We hope this can be the start of a dialogue and partnership between parents of transgender children and Stonewall.

Key Recommendations

  • Explicitly acknowledge the existence of transgender children in this document and explicitly acknowledge your support for transgender children. (Comment 1, C4, C8, C9, C21, C32).
  • Work with parents of transgender children to improve critical sections of this document. (C2, C14, C24, C25).
  • Work in partnership with parents of transgender children, and invite both a parent of a transgender teenager, and a parent of a transgender child to join the steering team, with an explicit remit to represent the concerns and needs of transgender children. (C15, C22, C30, C33)
  • Acknowledge the significant challenges (prejudice, hate, discrimination) faced by transgender children. (C5, C10, C11, C12, C13, C26).
  • Propose concrete ways in which Stonewall will help transgender children. (C3, C6, C7, C20, C23, C27, C28, C30, C31),
  • Avoid repeating and reinforcing prejudicial and damaging attitudes towards transgender children in this document. (C16, C17, C18, C19, C29
  • Embrace this opportunity to build a coalition with a group of very motivated trans allies (supportive parents of transgender children).

Detailed Comments

Comment 1 (C1):P. 4. Shared Mission: The mission statement does not seem to include trans children, one of the most vulnerable trans groups. Add ‘schools’ to ensure it is clear that trans children are important trans people.

C2: p.5 The document is ‘driven by trans people and achieved by trans people’. My daughter is a vulnerable and important trans person. She cannot drive the changes that she needs. As her parent I need to be her advocate. Trans-children are a group who are uniquely unable to drive and achieve the changes they need. Allies for trans-children (of whom parents and organisations like Mermaids are an important component) need to be part of this dialogue and this agenda, otherwise the important needs of trans-children will be overlooked (as seems to have been the case in this document). Do you have a member of the steering group on the panel as an advocate for trans-children? Of course all trans adults were once trans children, but the experiences and problems of trans-children (particularly those who are early transitioners and openly trans) may be quite different to the experiences and problems that adults had in a different time when they were children.

C3: Amplifying voices. Important to add here that Stonewall will raise the voices of those who can’t speak openly. This is particularly relevant for children and their parents, who are very isolated and can’t speak openly as we need to protect our children.

C4: p. 6 Transforming institutions. Says improving services and workplaces. Suggests people become trans at age 18. Absolutely needs to include schools as the institution where our trans-children spend most of their time. Change to “Improving services, schools and workplaces’. Avoiding mentioning schools (and therefore children) here perpetuates a culture of denial of the existence of trans-children. Bullying at school (including by teachers and other parents) can be horrific. A transgender child was recently shot at school (in the UK) simply for being trans after months of sustained bullying. Schools cannot be omitted here.

C5: p. 12 Representation in media. Media coverage of trans-children is horrific. Yet this is not even mentioned. Harmful media messages about trans-children not existing causes direct damage to trans-children.

C6: Network of allies – National campaign to educate the general population doesn’t mention the need to educate the general population about trans-children, around which there are so many misconceptions and so much fear.

C7: p.12 Challenge transphobia – research needs to encompass the experiences of trans-children.

C8: Language – the document has not once used the term ‘trans-children’. This is part of a wider societal culture of fear and prejudice where the existence of trans-children is denied. If even a stonewall trans advocacy document cannot be brave enough and say ‘yes there are trans children’ then what hope have we got. Using the term ‘young people’ and avoiding the term trans children very much suggests that being trans is a choice that can be made by competent (Gillick competent) teenagers/young adults. My child is certainly a child. They have not chosen to be trans it is who they are. Avoiding the term trans-children is insipid and perpetuates a culture of denial of trans-children’s existence.

C9: p. 15 Institutions. In the heading the word school is again omitted (it definitely needs adding). In the subtext the term ‘in school’ finally appears. First implicit acknowledgement that trans-children exist in the document?

C10: p.16 Criminal justice. No mention of social services investigating parents who support their child in their gender identity. No mention of justice system discriminating against parents who support their child in their gender identity. Both critical issues for transgender children and supportive families (especially in child custody disputes). Nor indeed is there any mention here of the legal rights of transgender children themselves.

C11: p. 17 Faith schools worth a mention here as a particular area for discrimination.

C12: p. 17 There are specific challenges for trans-children in the healthcare system that are not acknowledged here.

C13: P, 17 Sport. Some sporting bodies have trans policies that require information on hormone levels in order to compete, some require “evidence of SRS” or a formal assessment by a board. This clearly is unreasonable for trans-children and creates situations were trans children are prevented from accessing sport either through explicit exclusion or implicitly made unwelcome.

C14: p.18 Young people and education. This section is extremely weak. By far the weakest section of the whole report. I can make some comments but this really needs a significant overhaul and input from a wider group of trans child advocates.

C15: The weakness of this section makes me wonder how well the current working group is representing the experience and needs of trans-children. Do you have any members of the working group nominated specifically to represent the interests of trans-children. A parent of a trans-child (where the parent may or may not be trans themselves) would be an important addition to a working group otherwise the voices of trans-children will be lost (as I fear they have been in this current draft).

C16: Why is this section talking predominantly about gender stereotypes, and about gender expression, and gender roles and colours/toys/clothes. This is extremely worrying.

C17: Of course gender stereotypes are unhelpful – this is not an issue that is specific to trans-children, nor specific to trans-people – it is a broad issue affecting everyone. There is no reason to have a section on gender stereotypes in a section on trans-children. My trans-daughter thought she couldn’t be a pirate captain as she is a girl – so yes gender stereotypes are a problem for everyone, including for trans-children, but this is not the issue to be focused upon in a section on how Stonewall can best support trans-children.

C18: Likewise, there is no reason to talk about gender expression or toys, or clothes,0 or gender roles, or fitting with gender stereotypes in this section. This plays into a deeply harmful cultural narrative that assumes ‘transgender children’ are not really transgender but just like wearing different clothes or toys or colours or don’t fit with traditional stereotypes and are being pushed (by transgender activists) into being transgender when they are really just non-conforming. This is all irrelevant for transgender children like mine who don’t give a damn what toys or clothes they have as long as they are recognised as a girl. For trans-children like mine who knew they were trans way before they had any understanding of gender stereotypes.

C19: The section here on ‘people exploring their gender identity and how they fit with traditional gender stereotypes’ is deeply patronising and unhelpful. Would you put this stuff in the adult transgender section? I don’t think so. Talking about gender non-conforming or questioning children who reconcile their questions’ is deeply unhelpful and plays into a cultural narrative that discredits children knowing who they are, and talks about it being a ‘phase’. Gender non-conforming children who reconcile their questions are not trans-children – they do not need emphasis here. I like the stonewall poster ‘some people are trans/gay – get over it’. I’d like more bravery here ‘some children are trans – get over it’. There seems here to be fear to acknowledge the existence of trans-children. This hesitancy wouldn’t be reasonable in the adults section of this document, and shouldn’t be present here. There are trans-children in this world, and they face serious issues (hate, discrimination, prejudice).

C20: This section needs to discuss the serious issues that trans-children face, and talk about how Stonewall is going to help this extremely vulnerable group.

C21: Furthermore, the term ‘young people’ is too vague. As mentioned above, the term ‘transgender children (no matter what their age)’ would be better. Or perhaps ‘transgender children and transgender teenagers’. Otherwise it seems like this document is denying the existence of transgender children (and if you don’t acknowledge they even exist, how are you possibly going to help them?).

C22: The section on LGBT mentions the hostility or confusion towards the trans community within the LGB community. As a parent of a young trans child I’m aware that a minority of trans adults are themselves sometimes ill-informed or and unsupportive to the needs of trans-children. Some trans adults are sceptical of the need to support and help trans-children. There cannot be an automatic assumption that trans adults will always understand or advocate for trans children, and I think it is worth acknowledging.

C23: p.19 The key recommendation on how stonewall is going to help my transgender child is to avoid gender stereotypes. This belittles the genuine challenges my transgender child faces, and is not in any way a good enough recommendation given the mountain of challenges my child will face before they reach adulthood.

C24: This section needs starting again.

Service Providers

C25: p.22 This section does not acknowledge the particular challenges in the Gender Identity service for children. There are many specific issues that could be acknowledged and addressed if this was developed in consultation with those who support transgender children. This needs to consider how the system works for children of all ages, not just for those old enough to access medical interventions. Fostered trans children and young people face particular challenges and aren’t mentioned in the document.

C26: Particularly this section does not consider the issues around the gatekeeper role that the children’s GIDS service plays to approve or deny access to medical interventions. Practices that are (hopefully) considered unacceptable in adult services are standard in children’s services, with much questioning of why the child has chosen that they would prefer to be a girl, intrusive questioning about genitals, parents being blamed for ‘causing’ their child to be transgender, children being told they are not dressing or acting sufficiently in their affirming gender role to be properly transgender, or children being told they are not sufficiently upset with parts of their anatomy to be properly transgender. Panels of medical professionals make decisions for which there is no appeal. This is in addition to timescales and protocols that are arbitrary and damaging. In addition, in a monopolised and unaccountable system, parents of transgender children are afraid to complain for fear it will damage their child’s support. There needs to be a system put in place for complaints from parents about the children’s GID service to be effectively dealt with.

C27: Also the final wording ‘New models of care, which don’t require psychiatric diagnosis as their foundation, should be explored’ brings to mind the wording of the government response to the Women’s and Equalities select committee report which was full of issues ‘to be explored’. Not a helpful thing to bring to mind, when what is needed is action not ‘further exploration’.

C28: p.24 A better section. Note, this is the only page in the entire 37 page document which uses the term “trans children”. The text is fine, though a bit vague on what are the very many problems and what are the issues that Stonewall plans to help tackle.

It needs to talk more about the crunch issues ‘right to wear uniform, right to use toilet, right to be addressed by preferred name and pronoun (without a deed pole or Dr’s permission), right to change gender marker on record, right to be safe, right not to be persecuted, responsibility of school to protect from bullying, responsibility of school to help other pupils understand, right to socially transition at any age without medical permission etc etc. The current text is too vague and avoids many key issues.

C29: Again the section blurs the ‘children exploring gender identity’ and transgender children topic. The adults section does not devote space to adults questioning gender identity – it focuses on what are the needs of trans adults. The children’s section should similarly prioritise the needs of transgender children (many things that will help transgender children in schools will also help gender questioning children, but to merge the two adds to the confusion around whether transgender children exist (ie some people want to put all children into the gender questioning category, as if you have to be an adult to be actually transgender – pretending they don’t exist is deeply unhelpful for addressing the needs of transgender children.

C30: p. 26. Great to hear about the #Stonewall education research project. Would be good to see commitment that this will mean understanding the experience of transgender children of all ages, in both primary and secondary school. It will be unlikely that this research will be appropriate to directly speak with primary school children like my daughter, in which case this research will explicitly need to reach out to and include the parents of transgender children, otherwise an important voice will be lost.

C31: The Stonewall training will sit alongside existing stonewall LGB trainings. I imagine (I do not have expertise here) that most LGB trainings are aimed at secondary school age? For transgender children, unlike LGB children, there are transgender children in schools and pre-schools from as young as age 3. How is the Stonewall education programme being adapted to ensure transgender components support primary age transgender children? Many schools are in denial about having young transgender children (until they have a young child transition, at which point they go into panic and melt down).

C32: Unless you have a clear policy on the existence of transgender young children, you will not be able to support the schools that are unconvinced of the existence of transgender young children.

C33: p.26 Great to see this commitment to work with #Mermaids. I’m a member of Mermaids and fellow parents who I have met through Mermaids have been the only support at all we have had on this very lonely journey as a parent of a transgender child. We need organisations like Mermaids and Stonewall to work together to help our transgender children.

Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.

We look forward to hearing more about the consultation.