While I agree with Gaby Hinsliff that “Labour’s new position marks the beginning, not the end, of a long road” in relation to trans matters (Labour’s overhaul of gender recognition won’t satisfy either side. But it’s a start, 25 July), I strongly urge the party to heed Robin Moira White that they must “have the integrity to properly involve trans people in the process” (Labour has shown great courage in the past on LGBTQ+ rights. Why won’t it do the same for trans people now?, 25 July).
The stark reality is that we are trying to navigate a way forward in an atmosphere of deep mistrust and, from what I have witnessed among my trans friends, understandable anger and pain at how they have been vilified. Hate crimes against the trans community have soared, they have been smeared with accusations of being predators, and many have been left totally unsupported in their healthcare needs.
I therefore welcome the change of tone by Anneliese Dodds and her call to recognise that we are dealing with real people’s lives (Labour vows to ‘modernise, simplify and reform’ Gender Recognition Act, 24 July). This is not some ideological “debate”, but complex topics that must be guided by the lived experience of those whose lives these policies impact most and by a concerted effort from politicians, as Dodds has endeavoured to model, of a change in rhetoric and approach.
Much of what Labour proposes makes for a far kinder world than the toxic wedge politics that we are experiencing. It is a good first step, but Labour must have the courage to take one further step and move on from a barren middle ground to a place of self-ID where all trans people can flourish.
Jayne Ozanne
Oxford
• Gaby Hinsliff asserts that Labour’s gender reforms won’t satisfy either side. As someone caught in the middle, as it were, I positively do not want the extremists on “either side” to be satisfied. Like many, I am trying to quietly live my life, having transitioned and had full surgical modification over 35 years ago, since when I have made every effort never to intrude where unwelcome.
At 63 years old, this is an issue I have lived with all my life. I contributed to the consultation on the original gender recognition process to the effect that it was important to have professional checks and balances to ensure public confidence in the process. This clearly remains the case.
A person who remains functionally male, but has merely adopted female gender presentation, simply does not have the same vulnerabilities as someone like me, who has permanently modified my body to the closest approximation it can get to full female sex. They always have the option to revert to their previous presentation if things don’t work out. We do not. Therefore, while lost legal protections might be an inconvenience for them, for us it could be a matter of life or death.
Not long ago we read of the invidious position of trans people in Uganda who underwent surgery while it was legal and now potentially face a retrospective death penalty. While it seems unlikely that anything that extreme could happen here, it does show why those of us who have undergone the fullest medical process are not keen to have public confidence in the current system undermined. I am therefore fully satisfied with Labour’s proposed compromise.
Jenny Day
East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire
• The fact that Labour will modify the gender reassignment bill is encouraging in the face of Tory demonisation, but if it intends to create women-only spaces not open to trans women, what are people like me going to do? I transitioned nearly 40 years ago and am post-op by over 30 years. According to my birth certificate and my gender panel certificate, my legal status is female. I have been using women-only spaces for most of my “female” life. Am I now going to be denied this status?
Name and address supplied
• Anneliese Dodds is right to condemn the crude opportunism of Lee Anderson’s exploitation of the transgender rights issue (Labour will lead on reform of transgender rights – and we won’t take lectures from the divisive Tories, 24 July). It is a pity, though, that within her humane and thoughtful presentation of Labour’s position she indulges in a little opportunistic party point-scoring herself. In describing the Scottish parliament’s reform of gender recognition laws as a cavalier action by the Scottish National party, aimed more at picking a fight with Westminster than bringing about meaningful change, she must surely know that after extensive consultation it was passed with overwhelming cross-party support. Scottish Labour members, who voted 21 for and zero against, may feel a little disgruntled at the suggestion that they were simply supporting the irresponsible and provocative behaviour of the SNP.
David Reid
Kirkcaldy, Fife
