³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

You are absolutely right that it is already the case that transgender doctors do not have to inform the patient of their transgender status. As there is already a gap in the law, would it not make sense to address that issue now and bring balance between transgender rights and religious liberties? The bill is an opportunity—perhaps the prime opportunity—to bridge that gap at a time when proposed changes to the GRA would make it easier to transition and obtain a GRC. That may mean that the problem will become more widespread and have a greater impact on the faith communities and their right to practise their religions.

Can I put the same question to Anthony Horan and Karen Hendry about the gap that is in the law right now and about the new legislation?

Good afternoon, and thank you for your opening statements. As you will probably be aware, if someone wishes to choose the sex of their nurse or doctor, they are free to do so. For example, if a female goes to a doctor’s surgery to have a smear test done, she has the right to ask to have it done by a female doctor. If a doctor or nurse is transgender and a patient is not aware of that—as we have heard from many witnesses, there is no requirement for that information to be disclosed to the patient—that could interfere with their religious practices, whereby women are not allowed to be touched by men. That is of great importance to many people, especially members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community.

I raised that concern last week. I must put this on the record and make it clear to everybody who is listening: at no time am I saying that the rights of trans people do not matter, or that religious rights do not matter. This is about creating a practical balance between two sensitive areas—rights and liberties. I am raising concerns that have been highlighted to me by many people.

I understand that the practice to which I am referring may not be the practice of every religion and may not be the practice of the religions that you represent. However, it would be great to hear from you, as representatives of your religious organisations, on whether the issue that I have raised is a concern for you or for women of faith, and on whether there are other concerns regarding the practical implications of self-ID that the committee might not have heard about before.

Good morning, panel, and thank you for your opening statements.

A freedom of information request has revealed that, as of 3 December 2021, 11 trans women were being held in the Scottish Prison Service and more than half were housed in the female estate. Why are the others not being housed in the female estate? Do they not have a GRC?

You said that one of the things that you take into consideration is declaration of a GRC. We know that the Scottish Prison Service’s gender identity and gender reassignment policy is currently under review and might well be revised to give priority status, as it were, to GRC holders. Those opposed to the bill believe that the removal of the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria will make it significantly easier for prisoners to obtain a GRC, which means that the number of those who have a GRC and are therefore entitled to be held in the women’s estate will likely rise.

Let me be clear: this is about creating a balance between transgender-related rights and the safety and wellbeing of the female prison population and their protection from bad-faith actors. This is about being fair to all. Do you think that a fair way of reassuring female prisoners would be for the bill to be amended to ensure that the GRC is not effective in prison allocations?

I have one more follow-up question. You said that a GRC, if declared, would be a consideration. Would you take other things into account alongside that, or would you just look at the GRC?

I asked witnesses who attended the committee a while back a question about an Asian female going to a doctor. My mum, for example, would normally see whether the doctor was a man or a woman, or she would ask, but if people do not know, they would just see a female. Sandy Brindley was right; sometimes, it is all about appearance, whether that is right or wrong. My mum is an older lady and does not know any better—she would just see what it was. Is it up to the doctor to say what they are? What if that breaks the faith of someone who is Muslim or Indian, which says that they cannot be touched by somebody who is trans, because the religion does not understand it? It is not that the religion does not accept it—it is just not understood. How do you work around those religious groups?

I am sorry—I probably need to make my question clearer. If a woman going to a doctor can see that the doctor is either male or female, they will be fine—I am just using my mum’s analysis here when she goes in. However, what if the doctor was trans and they knew that they were seeing an Asian woman? Would that trans person be able to say that they are trans? When I asked that question, I was told that it would not be up to them to say so. That means that the Asian woman would not know that the doctor was trans, and religious people would not understand that. There needs to be a bit more awareness of the issue, so that people understand it and everybody can get that service.

I just think that that situation would break the woman’s religion. I am sorry, convener, but I need to break this down, because it is important. If a trans person who was male before and is now trans examined that Muslim lady, but the lady did not know that, that would break her religion, because her religion states that only a female can examine her.

Thank you, Susan. It does break your religion—I can tell you that. It breaks your religion completely, because women would not be allowed to be seen by a doctor of the male sex at all—or by a trans person, although whether we could be seen by a trans doctor is not actually in any of our scriptures. Therefore, it is good that you have covered that. It is something that people have been asking about. Lucy, do you have any views on that?