Legislative Definition of Sex

Ms Eagle spoke in favour of e-petition 627984, arguing against changing the Equality Act's definition of sex to purely biological sex. She expressed concern that such a change would mandate exclusion and discrimination against trans people, worsen protections for women and girls, and increase hostility towards non-gender-conforming individuals.

Ms Richardson expressed support for clarifying the Equality Act to protect both trans people and women's rights. She noted that while the law should accommodate trans individuals, it also needs to be clear about separate facilities for men and women in certain situations.

Supporting the petition to clarify the Equality Act, Anna Firth emphasised the importance of protecting single-sex spaces and services. She argued that biological males with gender recognition certificates should not be permitted in female-only spaces such as women's prisons, health services, or public toilets. Citing examples like the boxing incident involving Fallon Fox, she stressed the need for legal clarity to prevent biological males from competing against women in sports.

The speaker highlighted the Labour party's commitment to protecting and upholding the Equality Act, including its public sector equality duty and single-sex exemptions. She asked for clarity from the Government on their intentions regarding future changes.

Caroline Ansell expressed concern about individuals and organisations operating in a legal grey space due to ongoing court cases. She supported the petition to clarify the Equality Act, arguing that Parliament must act to safeguard the rights of women while also protecting trans people's rights under the law. Ansell highlighted several recent instances where women faced investigations or were driven out of their employment for asserting protections they have under the Equality Act. She stressed that judges often note courts are not well-suited to resolving broad debates on trans and women's rights, urging Parliament to address this confusion.

On a point of order, Hannah Bardell criticized Miriam Cates' language as undemocratic and unparliamentary, particularly regarding the characterization of trans people as predators. She expressed concern about the impact on debate. Hannah Bardell commended Nicholas Fletcher for his contribution but argued that some arguments made during the debate are feeding into moral panic. She stated that trans people do not threaten lesbian individuals and enhance their existence.

Ms Phillips argued that the current status quo is not working, highlighting her experiences of discrimination due to her biology. She stressed the need for single-sex spaces and the safety of women, noting the importance of protecting services for victims of domestic violence who are predominantly women. She also mentioned the decommissioning of specialist women's services in favour of generic support services, which poses a risk to their protection. Phillips suggested that non-gendered areas have been proposed as a solution to the issue of gendered spaces in sports and other settings. She noted that while many women prefer women-only changing areas, non-gendered options are being considered. Asked if the Minister would support defining specialist women's services in the Victims and Prisoners Bill to protect them at a local level.

Supporting the petition to clarify that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, Joanna Cherry discussed the need for legal clarity following contradictory court rulings. She highlighted concerns about lesbians and gay men's rights to same-sex attraction and freedom of association, criticising Stonewall's modified definition including cross-dressers within transgender identity. Joanna Cherry asked Miriam Cates to clarify her point about sexual predation being primarily by men against women and children, responding to an intervention made earlier. Asked if forcing a woman to accept care from someone who identifies as male but was assigned female at birth breaches human rights laws. Asked whether a man providing care to a woman against her wishes could be considered sexual assault. Intervened three times to ask Anna Firth to give way, but did not elaborate on her points during these brief interventions. Clarified that defining sex in law is not a new proposal and referenced the common law definition. She also questioned the Minister about the United Nations independent expert's criticism of reviewing positions under the Equality Act.

Jonathan Gullis emphasised the need for protection of women in single-sex spaces and clarified that sex is defined biologically, not assigned at birth. He highlighted the importance of safeguarding female survivors of domestic violence in refuges and criticised those who persecute women speaking out on this issue.

Intervened to agree with the hon. Member's stance that trans women are not a threat and need support.

Ms Oswald expressed concerns about the unedifying tone of the debate and its potential impact on trans people. She highlighted the confusion and lack of clarity that proposed changes to the definition of sex could bring, particularly in practical matters such as bathroom use. Ms Oswald pointed out that biological sex is not straightforward and includes a wide range of characteristics. She emphasised the importance of considering feminist organisations' work and ensuring meaningful consultation on any changes.

The MP thanked petitioners and expressed strong support for trans individuals, rejecting rhetoric that paints all trans people as potential predators. She highlighted the exclusionary use of terms like 'ordinary people' by some Members and emphasised the lack of a clear definition for biological sex. Blackman raised concerns about discrimination against trans people in accessing basic services such as public toilets and the psychological impact of proposed legislation on trans individuals.

Grateful to the Chair, Layla Moran expressed concern that some constituents are scared to discuss the topic of sex definition due to potential rise in hatred and violence. She urged other Members to remain compassionate and open-minded during discussions. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that intersex people exist?

Bobbing for recognition, Lloyd Russell-Moyle noted that when the Equality Act was being passed, there was consideration of self-ID and an affirmative response given at that time. The speaker emphasized the complexity of human biology and the importance of flexibility in current laws regarding sex discrimination. He highlighted an example from his constituency where Survivors' Network has taken a trans-inclusive approach, which would be barred under strict biological definitions. Lloyd Russell-Moyle also mentioned that new swimming pools with individualised changing facilities could accommodate gender without issues.

Pollard argued that the Equality Act should remain unchanged, stating it is unnecessary to redefine biological sex. He expressed concern over the potential exclusion of trans individuals from public services and highlighted the need for better access to healthcare for the LGBT+ community. Pollard mentioned a seven-year waiting list for trans health services in the south-west as an urgent issue requiring attention.

Requested the opportunity to speak, but no contribution was provided.

Miriam Cates argued that the Equality Act's current definition of sex is causing confusion, leading to cases where male employees identified as trans women are granted access to female facilities, resulting in harassment claims against employers. She highlighted a case involving Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and expressed concern over the protection of single-sex spaces and the legal certainty for those who discriminate based on biological sex.

Mr Hanvey, a clinician with 25 years of experience, expressed concern over the potential erosion of equality principles and the protection afforded by the Equality Act. He argued that the biological definition of sex is crucial for protecting individuals' rights, including those within the LGBTQ+ community. Mr Hanvey rejected any suggestion that trans identities diminish the meaning or importance of a person's identity under current legal protections.

The Equality Act allows for different treatment of people whose legal sex has been acquired through a gender recognition certificate and those assigned female at birth. Decisions about who can compete in sports should be made by sporting bodies, not Parliament. Intervened to question the understanding of legal sex definition in the Equality Act, as Lloyd Russell-Moyle did not align his speech with this definition according to her understanding.

Nicholas Fletcher expressed concern about biological males entering single-sex spaces, particularly when young girls are present. He used the analogy of near misses in construction to argue that preventative action is necessary before a serious incident occurs. Fletcher also mentioned the potential impact on women's sports and highlighted the long-term effects of gender dysphoria treatments on young people.

Blake intervened to highlight common biological variations such as aneuploidies that complicate the matter of defining sex biologically. She noted that these variations are not intersex conditions but still impact how sex is defined.

Peter Bottomley highlighted the importance of clarity in law regarding gender identity, citing books by Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock. He argued that discussions about trans issues should be based on data rather than high theory, emphasizing that sex should take precedence over gender when it conflicts.

Mr Gibson emphasised his personal commitment to supporting transgender individuals and expressed concern over potential unintended consequences of changing the statutory definition of sex. He warned that such changes could create a two-tier system under equality legislation, potentially excluding trans people from effective legal protection against discrimination. Emphasised the importance of conducting the debate with love, respect and care for trans individuals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate. He expresses concern about the clarity of laws regarding sex and gender identity, particularly in schools, sports, health, crime, and prisons. A Policy Exchange report highlighted that 60% of schools are not maintaining single-sex sport, 19% do not maintain single-sex changing rooms, and 28% do not maintain single-sex lavatories. He calls for a clear legal definition to protect women's rights without stripping others of their identity choices.

Ms Duffield expressed concern over the toxicity of debates surrounding trans rights and women's rights, citing online abuse she has faced. She argued for clarity in the Equality Act 2010 to ensure separate protections for both groups without conflating them. Ms Duffield highlighted statistics on domestic abuse, caregiving roles, management positions, and single parent households to illustrate gender differences that necessitate distinct legal protection. She also mentioned individuals from various sectors like education and healthcare who are fearful of speaking up due to confusion about the Equality Act.

The speaker expressed concern about the Conservative Government's wider agenda to remove protections under the Equality Act, citing a statement by the Prime Minister that described it as a 'Trojan horse'. Inquired about the interim advice given by the United Nations independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity regarding suggestions to open up the Equality Act and review these positions.

Loughton argued that confusion around the Equality Act has led to issues in providing single-sex services, particularly in sports. He called for clarity on biological sex definitions within the Act to ensure fair competition in women's sport. Loughton mentioned that male-born athletes with physical advantages due to testosterone during puberty have competed in female categories, leading to unfair competition and exclusion of female athletes.