monkers
Legendary Member
Written evidence submitted by Dr Ruth Pearce [GRA2024]
Reform of the Gender Recognition Act:
Corrections to Oral Evidence
Dr Ruth Pearce
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
Reform of the Gender Recognition Act:
Corrections to Oral Evidence
Dr Ruth Pearce
I am writing to highlight some inaccuracies in oral evidence presented to the Women and Equality Committee’s hearings of 9 December 2020. It is crucial that Committee members understand that some of what was said was demonstrably untrue.
With regards to the first hearing, I agreed with Professor Stephen Whittle’s substantive point regarding the long time for initial appointments at Gender Dysphoria Clinics, far in excess of the NHS’s 18 week target. However, the waiting lists haven’t been that short for at least 3 years. I attach the latest published information in Appendix A. You can see from the table that the shortest waiting list is 23 months, and the longest is 60 months – substantially worse than the 10-18 month range quoted by Prof Whittle.
However, this detail is dwarfed by the sheer number of distortions and untruths aired in the second session, many of which were based on unevidenced assertions. It is crucial to the credibility of the Committee’s report that members know the deceptions to which they have been subjected. In this document I explain some of the most egregious examples.
Criminality
In response to questions 38 and 39 Prof Freedman referenced “a well-known Swedish study” to imply that patterns of criminality are the same amongst trans women as they are amongst cis (non-trans) men. In her response to Q40 she alleged there were “Swedish studies” (plural). Additionally, Prof Stock referred to “male patterns” when talking about criminal behaviour in her answer to Q26.
I understand the “Swedish study” to be a single 2011 article published by Cecilia Dhejne and colleagues[1], in which the authors reported on mortality, suicidality, psychiatric care and conviction rates among individuals who transitioned in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.
Dhejne herself rejected this interpretation explicitly in an interview with Cristan Williams of TransAdvocate in November 2015[2]. I attach the full relevant extract in Appendix B. A key point she makes is the study is “certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk” to cis women. Additionally, the study was not focused on investigating criminal behaviour, was drawn from a small cohort in one country, and only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups. The authors therefore conclude that the best outcomes occur when individuals also receive long-term health and social care support in addition to any hormone therapy or surgery that they might require.
In response to Q20 Prof Sullivan referenced the Maria Maclachlan case[4], in which a trans person, Tara Wolf, was convicted of assault and ordered to pay a fine. The judge in that case noted that Wolf had been provoked but argued her reaction was disproportionate.[5] Wolf declined the option to launch a counter-case as offered by the police.
Importantly, the conviction of an individual trans person does not constitute evidence for a wider social trend. What quantitative research has shown is that trans people and especially trans women experience a disproportionate risk of experiencing violence when compared to the wider population, including sexual violence and domestic abuse.[6]
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
Last edited: