In February, the Women and Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to ask for them for advice on changing the legal definition of sex. She wanted them to consider the implications of changing the wording from “sex” to “biological sex”.

Today, the EHRC has responded to Badenoch saying that changing the legal definition of sex would result in “greater legal clarity” about women-only spaces. In a statement published on the EHRC website, the chairwoman of the commission, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, says that the Government should consider outlining a “biological definition of sex” in the Equality Act.

Backlash following Scotland’s trans inclusive Bill

The issue has been triggered by the Gender Recognition Reform Bill being passed in Scotland and the subsequent high-profile court case revolving around a trans woman who was initially sent to an all-women’s prison despite being convicted of raping two women when she was a man.

The Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland means that it is now easier for transgender people to achieve legal recognition of their acquired gender. Now, people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate from the age of 16 and they don’t need to provide evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender.

The Bill has been criticised by Badenoch who said that it raised questions about the operation of the Equality Act and whether the definition of sex is “sufficiently clear and strikes the appropriate balance of interests between different protected characteristics.”

What a change in definition would mean

During Rishi Sunak’s campaign to become Conservative leader, he promised to change the Equality Act so that it would provide legal protections for biological women in same-sex safe spaces.

While a slight adjustment to a definition within the Equality Act may seem minor, the ramifications are potentially huge and would fulfil this pledge made by the Prime Minister.

In their response to Kemi Badenoch, the EHRC said that by redefining sex, greater legal clarity would be brought in at least eight areas. They include:

• Pregnancy – Currently, protections and benefits for pregnant women and new mothers don’t cover trans men who are pregnant and whose legal sex is male. Defining ‘sex’ as biological sex would resolve this issue.
• Freedom of association – Currently, private clubs are obliged to accept trans women/men who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Changing the law so it reflects biological status, could give these clubs more freedom on who to admit.
• Occupational requirements – Certain job roles are restricted to men-only or women-only. As things stand, certain roles would be open to trans people with a GRC even if they aren’t biologically suitable for the position. A change to the law would amend this.
• Women-only wards at hospitals – At present, trans women with a GRC can gain access to women-only wards at hospitals. Through this suggested law change, they would no longer be able to.
• Sport – At the moment there is nothing to stop trans men with a GRC from competing in women’s sports. Due to certain biological characteristics, this can create an uneven playing field. Changing the law would allow governing bodies to restrict events to biological women or men only.

Warnings from the EHRC

The commission has also provided a few warnings to the Government about the potential dangers of changing the wording around sex. They are as follows:

• Equal pay provisions – At present, a trans woman with a GRC can bring an equal pay claim by citing a legally male comparator who was paid more. A trans man with a GRC could not. The proposed biological definition would reverse this situation.
• Direct sex discrimination – At present, a trans woman with a GRC can bring a claim of direct sex discrimination as a woman. A trans man with a GRC could not. The proposed biological definition would reverse this situation.
• Indirect sex discrimination – At present, a trans woman with a GRC could bring a claim of indirect discrimination as a woman. A trans man with a GRC could not. The proposed biological definition would reverse this situation.

Final thought

The recommendations from the EHRC haven’t been received well by many LGBT+ groups. The LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has labelled the recommendations as “risky” and have predicted that they will “open up yet another chapter in a manufactured culture war that will see little benefit to women, cis and trans alike.”

With hate crime against trans people on the rise, the Government should consider further changes and more sensitive wording to ensure that these changes do not result in a hate campaign against trans people in the UK.

Coming in at number 70 and securing a gold award, the council was praised for its work in creating a workplace where LGBTQ+ employees feel they can bring their full selves to work. 

The ‘Top 100’ list showcases employers who have demonstrated their commitment to LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion.

Leeds City Council has several staff networks, including the LGBT+ staff network, that represent staff based on their identity. They help promote increased understanding and awareness around Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and act in a ‘critical friend’ role to support ongoing improvement in the organisational development and cultural change work.

Leeds City Council’s LGBT+ champion, Councillor Hannah Bithell and Councillor Mary Harland, Leeds City Council’s Executive Member for Equalities, said: “This fantastic achievement is very timely given this month is LGBT History Month.

“As one of the largest employers in the city, it’s extremely important that we create a workplace which is inclusive for everyone, and we remain firmly committed to continuing the work we have been doing to ensure we remain at the forefront of LGBT+ inclusivity for both our staff and the people of Leeds. It’s so important that all of our colleagues feel they can come to work and be themselves completely and this achievement is testament to that.”

Leeds City Council LGBTQ+ progress

Chair of the LGBT+ staff network, Kat Denvir said: “It’s wonderful for us to be awarded a Gold Award by Stonewall especially with the impact the Covid pandemic has continued to have on the Council and our LGBT+ communities in Leeds. It’s a sign that the Council continues to progress in the right direction and recognises the brilliant work being done to improve LGBT+ equality.

“I remain staunch in my commitment as LGBT+ Staff Network Chair to continue to work with the Council to collaborate, challenge and bring positive change for all staff and the citizens we serve.”

CEO of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley (she/her), said: “It’s been fantastic to see all of the work put in by Leeds City Council over the past year to create a workplace where LGBTQ+ staff feel free to thrive as themselves. ‘For many of us, the majority of our time is spent at work, so if we have to hide who we are it can take an enormous personal toll and hold us back from fulfilling our true potential.

“Creating environments where we can all feel comfortable makes our workplace a safer, better and friendlier place for everyone.”

Stonewall’s Employers Index

To find out more about Stonewall’s Employers index, click here.

In 2018, when Theresa May promised to ban so-called, “conversion therapy” against the LGBT+ community, it signalled a real and concrete commitment to further LGBT+ rights. The flagship priority from the LGBT+ Action Plan, which contained 100 policies covering a range of areas—including healthcare, housing, policing, and education—promised a leap in progress not seen since the equalisation of same-sex marriage.

Four years and five Ministers for Equalities later, however, little progress has been made. The Action Plan was quietly scrapped by the then-Minister for Equalities, Liz Truss, in 2021. Despite appearing in multiple Queen’s Speeches, the promise of a ban on “conversion therapy” has not yet materialised.

Delays, Delays, Delays

On April Fools Day this year, it was leaked that Number 10 intended to drop the ban on “conversion therapy”. But this was no joke. Four years after it was initially promised, it emerged that the Government intended to quietly reverse its position.

However, after significant backlash, both in the media and from backbench Conservative MPs, the Government was forced to do a partial U-turn on its U-turn.

When it did so, the Government stated that it would only be banning “conversion therapy” targeted at changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual orientation, rather than their gender identity.

During the Conservative leadership race, former Minister for Equalities Mike Freer said that Sunak had communicated to him that he was supportive of a fully inclusive ban on “conversion therapy”.  With this information, there was some hope that the tides might be changing. However, on 31^st October, it was announced that Minister for Equalities Kemi Badenoch would be pausing work to ban “conversion therapy”, asking officials to review the current plans. On the delay, Ozanne was unequivocal:

“The longer we delay a ban, the more lives are impacted. More than that, the perpetrators feel that they can continue to act with impunity. This is the messaging this sends to the victims and to those who continue the violence.”

Beyond the delay, Jayne Ozanne notes that the exclusion of trans people from the ban is a symptom of the wider failure in the Government’s approach to the “conversion therapy” ban—they have not engaged effectively with the LGBT+ community:

“Most international governments have prioritised speaking to the trans community and to trans individuals as the first thing to be done. If you are going to ban something, you need to listen to those who have got first-hand experience.”

Falling Behind

In 2015, the UK was ranked as the most LGBT+ friendly country in Europe by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Association (ILGA World). Since then, it has fallen to 14^th in the 2022 rankings.

“I cannot understand what is happening in the United Kingdom. We used to be a beacon of progress, of light and hope. We used to set the agenda and now we are trailing so far behind.”

The reasons stretch far beyond the issue of “conversion therapy”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has been accused by many of failing to effectively protect the transgender community. There has been widespread hostility to trans people in political and media discourse, as well as the Government failure to bring forward promised reforms to the Gender Recognition Act.

Countries are scored across seven thematic categories: equality and non-discrimination, family, hate crime and hate speech, legal gender recognition, intersex bodily integrity, civil society space and asylum.

The significant drop in ranking placed the UK in the same group as Russia, Romania and Hungary, leaving Ozanne and many others working in the space dismayed:

“A civilised society is measured by the way it treats its most vulnerable and those with the least voice. Our trans community is one of the most misunderstood, marginalised and—we have seen from the hate crime figures—one of the most attacked groups in Britain today.

The Government should be championing them and reaching out to understand them, rather than waging what feels like a war on them.”

Reflecting on the toxic culture wars that plague the debate around basic public services for trans women, Ozanne lamented the misplaced energy that this involves:

“We are not the only country dealing with this, there is so much we can learn from our colleagues overseas. But most importantly, it’s about uniting against the common enemy, which is men who are violent towards women.”

“That is where we should be putting all our energy as women and feminists, and it really saddens me that there is an element of the feminist gender critical movement who are so focused on a vulnerable group of people.”

Building Bridges

When asked what the current Government needs to do to begin rebuilding trust with the LGBT+ community, Ozanne was frank in her assessment:

“I don’t know if it can be rebuilt. We are into damage limitation right now.”

There is certainly concern among those who have worked tirelessly to secure and defend LGBT+ rights that Kemi Badenoch is not in their corner as Minister for Equalities. Ozanne herself resigned from the Government’s LGBT Advisory Panel following a speech Badenoch gave on the issue of “conversion therapy”. There was also significant uproar after audio was leaked of Badenoch calling trans women, ‘men’.

In this context, Ozanne called for leadership from the top down:

“What we really need is a statement from the top, from the Prime Minister, that he believes in the rights of all and that, to me, would mean bringing in a full ban on “conversion therapy”, which a very large proportion of western democracies have now done.”

Final Thought

As well as the progress that Ozanne hopes to see on “conversion therapy”, she insisted that, following the regression of LGBT+ rights in recent years, the UK needs to get to grips with even the elementary issues:

“Let’s get the basics right. We need to look at protections in the workplace and at school…There is so much work that needs to be done on how we support the trans community, how we speed up the health pathway.”

Campaigners certainly find themselves in a tricky spot. Those thinking charitably will see a new Prime Minister who has stated (privately at least) his support for an inclusive ban. Those thinking cynically will note that Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss all promised a ban, yet here we are.

Indeed, as he pushes through tax rises and spending cuts with an already fractured Parliamentary Conservative Party, Sunak will be wanting to pick his battles and avoid pursuing policy that furthers division.

We can only hope that “conversion therapy” does not face the cut.

Photo Credit for featured image: Markus Bidaux, Attitude Magazine

Curia’s LGBT+ Commission this year is exploring the detail of Government policy and whether it has been implemented. You can find out more about our work by clicking here.

This article first appeared as part of our December Journal. To read the rest of the journal please click here.

This piece will feature in Chamber’s Q4 journal, which will be released on 15th December. To register to receive your free copy, sign up here.

It sounds odd to say, but it is an honour, a privilege and, dare I say, exciting, to work in HIV advocacy. For the first time, we have all the tools necessary to stop new HIV cases in the UK. Just think about that for a moment. No one being told the news that evokes icebergs and tombstones. It is within our grasp. 

Developments in HIV are truly remarkable, yet still, we have no cure and no vaccine. However, what we do have is the most transformational medicine. People living with HIV on effective treatment no longer have the virus attacking their immune system and cannot—no ifs, no buts—pass on the virus. In the 2018 PARTNER2 study, there were two million acts of condomless sex between couples where one person was living with HIV, and there was not one HIV transmission. The science is clear. This is the miracle that HIV has been hoping for and it is a game changer in the endeavour to stop the epidemic in the UK. 

Why? The task is simple and three-fold. One, diagnose everyone living with HIV. Two, ensure they are on—and remain on—treatment. Three, those who test HIV negative should use the prevention tools available—condoms, the drug PrEP and, if they suspect exposure, PEP. 

Opt-out Testing for HIV

Key to all of this is testing for HIV. The biggest reason why people still do not test is stigma—people’s minds associate the virus with death and the fear that they will be infectious to others. Only untreated HIV can have such consequences. Knowing your status is powerful. 

However, testing for HIV is exceptional in the NHS. It is something that you sneak off to a sexual health clinic for, or secretly order online. In a hospital, it is too often the test of last resort, unless you are a gay or bisexual man. This fails women, people of black ethnicity and those who are older—all the groups that are most likely to be diagnosed late, with years of untreated HIV. 

The good news is, we now know what works. Off the back of the HIV Commission—the report that gave the blueprint that allowed our country to be first place in the world to meet the UNAIDS goal of no new HIV cases by 2030—we have been normalising HIV testing in hospitals. Last World AIDS Day, in 2021, the Government scaled a remarkable Elton John AIDS Foundation trial. With £20 million of new money, they funded ‘opt-out’ HIV testing in A&Es in London, Blackpool, Brighton and Central Manchester—the highest HIV prevalence areas in England. Launched to coincide with World AIDS Day 2022, the results from the first 100 days of the rollout are truly remarkable.

Some 128 people were newly diagnosed and 63 people were found who had lost touch with their HIV clinic. We hear that half of the former category, and two-thirds of the latter, had late-stage HIV. They were on course for what we used to call AIDS. However, this routine testing has, in almost every case, saved their lives, and in all cases, has saved the NHS money. It is crass to bring these things down to pounds and pennies, but that is how the system thinks. With another wave of austerity, it might be even more important that we can make the case that to invest is to save. The first four months, represents about one-ninth of the funding, meaning that £2.2 million has been spent to date. Diagnosing someone before HIV is in its late stage, reduces the average cost of treatment from £100,000 to just £14,000. About half of these cases were not diagnosed late, which is a minimum saving of £6 million. This figure is even higher when you add in late-stage people that were found before needing time in intensive care (easily another £1 million in savings). Also, those that were lost by their HIV clinic, are now able to get back into treatment (with further savings). That is a pretty good return on investment in anyone’s book. 

Added to this, ‘opt-out’ HIV testing is the best intervention for tackling health inequalities. Women are normally 25% of new HIV diagnoses, but they are 30% of those in A&E. There is a similar increase in those of black people of African and Caribbean heritage—normally 19% but 45% in A&E. Older people no longer get missed—an 89-year-old is currently the oldest person newly diagnosed through opt-out testing, and over 65s makeup 1 in 14 of those A&E diagnoses. 

In partnership with the National AIDS Trust, the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the whole HIV sector, we want to see this rolled out to the next tranche of hospitals. This first wave is taking place in 33 A&Es in the four cities of very high prevalence, but we now need this kind of investment in the 38 hospitals in the 29 cities with the next highest prevalence level. 

This will be transformative. There are twice as many people outside London that are undiagnosed, and those beyond the capital are more likely to be diagnosed late. Since 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has said that this A&E testing should be happening in the latter 29 cities. The funding is not only much needed, but it is overdue. 

For anyone thinking that these numbers are small, to put this in context, only 4660 people in England are believed to be living with undiagnosed HIV—so small numbers have a significant impact. These are all tests that are in addition to all the great work done by sexual health services, maternity services and community HIV testers. Invariably, these are people that would not, and have not, been found by existing services. 

Every new person on treatment is someone not having HIV attack their system and someone no longer able to pass it on to a sexual partner; in London, Blackpool, Brighton and central Manchester, 200 people have been found. This means that there are 200 who have not been found beyond these cities, which otherwise would have been, had all areas of high HIV prevalence been funded. That is a travesty. 

This remarkable new testing route, plus the higher-than-expected new finds and the excellent return on investment involved, give us reason to be optimistic. 

Final Thought

Ministers, MPs, councillors and NHS decision-makers reading this—please give us more of the same. We know it works, saves money and changes lives. Remove this lost opportunity to test people living in Peterborough or Portsmouth, Sandwell or Southampton, Thurrock or Trafford. The goal of ending new cases of HIV can be achieved on your watch, but only if good practice like this is rolled out to everywhere that it is needed.

Please act quickly, the 2030 target to achieve zero new HIV transmissions and zero HIV-related deaths in England, is not far away. 

The LGBT+ Commission, hosted by Curia held an inquiry into LGBT+ healthcare, including access to sexual health services. Read the interim report of the LGBT+ Commission here.

34 years on since the first World AIDS Day, its meaning in the UK is now somewhat different. Certainly, there is a lot of progress that still needs to be made, however, transmission has been driven down and those diagnosed can now, with the available treatments, live full and healthy lives.

However, this is, and always has been, a global issue and the tale is very different in many parts of the world. In 2021, there were 650,000 AIDS-related deaths worldwide, with the vast majority concentrated in low- and middle-income countries. In this context, global, collaborative action between nations is essential.

Against this backdrop, Policy and Research Analyst for Curia’s LGBT+ Commission recently met with Lord Fowler, former Health Secretary and Lord Speaker, to discuss the UK’s contribution to the Global Fund and his reflection on the 34^th World AIDS Day.

Not-so-global Britain?

Appropriately, we sat down with Lord Fowler on the day that it was announced that the UK would be scaling back its contribution to the Global Fund over the next three years—from £1.4 billion to £1 billion. Given the importance of the Fund in tackling HIV and AIDS across the world, this announcement came to the dismay of those working in the sector.

On the dip in funding, Lord Fowler noted that, despite the global economic challenges facing all countries, the UK was something of an outlier: “The fact of the matter is that there are very few countries who are reducing their figure of aid rather than increasing it…it’s sad that Britain, which has done so much to lead the movement to combat AIDS, should be at the rear of the line at the moment.”

While these conversations tend to exist in the abstract, around the strengthening of health systems and increased access to care, Lord Fowler drove home the human cost of this decision very frankly: “It simply means there are going to be fewer people treated, the development and delivery of medicine is going to be put back and it’s going to mean deaths which can be prevented. It’s as stark as that really.”

Moreover, these extra, preventable deaths disproportionately affect the young, often, the very young. In 2021, a staggering 98,000 children (younger than 15 years old) died from HIV-related causes.

AIDS: Changing Demographics, Changing Approaches

The comparative youth of many of these fatalities is not the only statistic that stands out. As Lord Fowler emphasised, there has been a profound shift in the global disease population profile since he led the UK’s response to the pandemic in the 1980s: “In the 1980s, when I was first doing this, we tended to have discussions in terms of gay sex and men. But in fact, at the moment, what gives me the most cause for concern is the amount that AIDS is affecting young women and girls.”

With a changing patient population, public health requires changes dramatically and as Lord Fowler noted, these changes could have potentially transformative effects on the societies of low- and middle-income countries in particular: “It is established that if young girls stay at school—that they don’t leave at 12 but leave at 18—the HIV incidence goes down by about half.”

According to research from the Global Partnership for Education, women with post-primary education are five times more likely to be educated on the topic of HIV and AIDS. Fundamentally, the final push towards the goal of eliminating AIDS by 2030 is inexorably linked to gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls the world over.

The link is clear and has been borne out in the data countless times. As was reported by UNAIDS, “When Botswana extended mandatory secondary education, it found that each additional year of schooling after year nine was associated with a 12% reduction in girls’ risk of acquiring HIV.”

Fighting in the Dark

Significant progress has been made in the global fight against AIDS, not just since the 1980s, but much more recently. In 2021, an estimated 1.5 million people worldwide acquired HIV, marking a 32% decline in new HIV infections since 2010.

However, as we approach the end of the pandemic, reductions in transmission only decelerates and the final hurdle is often the hardest. As Lord Fowler notes, a significant challenge to eliminating AIDS entirely is the issue of discrimination: “One of the major issues is the discrimination of nations—not recognising or legalising homosexuality, for example.”

Unsurprisingly, such nations are unsuccessful in eliminating HIV and AIDS with intolerance, which only exacerbates the problem. When people have reason to fear for their safety—if they were to get tested for HIV/AIDS—the problem is only driven underground. People go about their daily lives, unaware that they have acquired HIV/AIDS, and thus, they are more likely to pass it on to others.

Moreover, there is a reluctance amongst some governments to even engage on the issue: “We’ve got many of the solutions but we haven’t got the ability to deliver them. That’s partly finance but it’s also partly the fact that many governments are not even prepared to look at [HIV/AIDS].”

In the face of this discrimination, and with the cuts in contributions to the Global Fund, Lord Fowler did not express great optimism that the international community would hit the target of eliminating AIDS by 2030. With the gloomy global economic outlook, he also predicted a slow-down in progress:

“I think it’s going to be a year of less progress than we might have otherwise made. That means, in human terms, there are going to be people who are denied treatment who could have had it and people are going to die when they don’t need to die. That’s the reality of it.”

“We Mustn’t Give Up Now”

Despite the challenges we face, Lord Fowler remained adamant that the fight must go on and, in fact, he expressed real and concrete sources for optimism. One such cause for hope was the recent appointment of Andrew Mitchell as Minister for Development: “I don’t think the area could have a more persuasive or persistent advocate.”

However, with his hope came a sober acknowledgement of the magnitude of the moment, as Lord Fowler reflected:“We’re so near to actually being able to get rid of AIDS and the financial burden that can go with that, that it would be foolish, even on an economic basis, to give up.”

Indeed, decades of progress can be undone by years of inaction. With the finishing line in sight, it is critical that the international community does not lose focus and continues with the same dedication that has characterised the effort over the past four decades.

Final Thought

With prevailing economic conditions plunging economies across the world into recession, there are few harder times to be making the case for international development spending. However, Lord Fowler was clear:“It’s a bad time for [Sunak] to take over in this area but it’s an opportunity, as well, to show that this country remains something of an exception to the gloom that has been around on AIDS.”I

There is a real and concrete possibility for AIDS to be the first disease ever eliminated in human history without a vaccine. To do so would be a remarkable feat for public health, but also for international cooperation. If the Government wishes to advance a vision of a ‘Global Britain’ post-Brexit, it must ensure that it is at the forefront of this effort.

Jay Stewart

Co-Founder and CEO of Gendered Intelligence

Chamber UK recently met with Jay Stewart to discuss being transgender in the UK in 2022, and what he wants to see moving forward.

It is no secret that the transgender community in the UK is under attack. A brief glance at recent newspaper headlines shows trans people being accused of a range of lofty crimes, including bearing the sole responsibility for NHS funding shortfalls. Amidst this discourse, reported hate crimes against the transgender community in the UK rose by 120% between 2016/17-2020/21.

Chamber UK recently sat down with Jay Stewart, CEO and Co-Founder of Gendered Intelligence (a charity working to improve the understanding of gender diversity and improve the lives of trans and gender diverse people), to discuss the current climate for trans people and his hopes moving forward.

Get to know trans people

While Jay has remained hopeful about the future for trans rights in the UK, the recent increase in hostility in the media has certainly made things harder.

“What has been a problem, and it’s got increasingly worse, is the representation of trans people in the British press and how hostile it’s got over the last three to five years.”

While Jay and Gendered Intelligence have long been advocates of the ‘Harvey Milk’ approach, encouraging trans people to be out, proud and visible in their local communities to show people that they are just like anyone else, the ongoing narratives have made bridging this gap much harder.

“The thing about being trans now and being gay back in the 70s, is that it’s not safe. So, we want to encourage trans people to be visible in everyday settings, but we also understand that not everybody can afford to do that.”

A recent YouGov poll showed the profound impact that knowing a trans person has on the public’s awareness of and support for the trans community. The research found that, among people who had a trans friend or family member, support for trans people’s ability to change their social gender stood at 80%. For those without a trans friend or family member, this number fell to 49%.

“Trans people get kind of dehumanised and if you don’t know a trans person, then you’re not going to have that human reference point, you’re going to think about it in much more abstract terms… if more people know trans people, they’re more likely to have positive attitudes towards them.”

Indeed, this research seemed to indicate that opposition to trans rights is largely borne out of a lack of exposure to trans people and trans lives.

Leaning into the nuance

In what has become a massively polarised debate, Stewart also emphasised the importance of engaging with not just the black and white, but also the shades of grey and the nuances that are inherent in these discussions.

“The polarisation is that there are trans rights and there are women’s rights, and that they are in opposition, and that is absolutely not the case.”

As was pointed out by Stewart, not only are trans rights and women’s rights not in conflict, but in many cases, they are mutually constitutive. An example is the recent ban by the swimming world’s governing body, FINA, which saw transgender women banned from elite female competitions if they had experienced any male puberty.

Given how restrictive the ban is, the only way to enforce this ruling will be the policing of both trans and cis women’s bodies in swimming, violating the privacy rights of all women swimmers. Trans women will not be the only ones to suffer from this ban. These policies involve a large degree of guesswork around who is trans because we don’t know who is trans and who isn’t.

With the enforcement of this ruling, you can expect many cis women to face harassment and privacy violations when they do not conform to stereotypical assumptions about what women look like. Consider for instance a woman who is balding, a woman who has had a mastectomy, or a woman with facial hair that they choose not to remove. These are just some of the types of cis women who have already faced harassment, violence and legal repercussions for using women’s bathrooms.

As has often been the case throughout history, attacks on the rights of minorities often hit women as well. It is not the case that trans rights and women’s rights are dialectically opposed. More often than not, they are often inexorably linked.

Government (in)action

When Mike Freer resigned as Minister for Equalities, he accused Boris Johnson’s Government of creating an “atmosphere of hostility for LGBT+ people”. When asked how he assessed the record of the successive Conservative Government on trans issues, Stewart was unequivocal.

“We realised we were in a very different place with the U-turn on gender recognition act reform after Theresa May and since then, we’ve seen hostility coming from this Government with regards to trans rights in different veins, including the conversion therapy ban… there was no hope around this Government thinking in a humane way towards trans people.”

New Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has already pledged a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, however, beyond this, Stewart’s hopes for the new Government were two-fold. Firstly, he hoped for a discursive shift in the tone of the Government on trans issues.

“I’m hoping to see better rhetoric coming from the Government with regards to how they are contributing to the discourse of trans inclusion in society… a more human understanding.”

The second component related to the more practical policy issues for the trans community, with healthcare being at the top of the list.

Following the interim report of the Cass Review (an independent review of Gender Identity services for young people), the Gender Identity Clinic hosted at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust was closed and will be replaced by a series of eight regional centres across the country.

While the regionalisation of care is something that the trans community has been calling for many years, there remain concerns around the level of the resource being dedicated to these centres:

“In general terms, we are feeling positive about moving to the regional model, we just need to get more people through the system. We need to deal with this waiting list, it’s a complete scandal that it’s got this bad. In terms of logistics, we’ve got concerns about how this is going to happen. We don’t have the staff to provide these services.”

With waiting lists standing at over four years for a first appointment at the Gender Identity Clinic hosted at the Tavistock and Portman Trust, Stewart noted that trans people experiencing poverty have been hit the hardest. As such, it is crucial that regionalisation is made to work for the most vulnerable:

“There’s always been a two-tier model in England around trans people going private or going through the NHS system, but it seems that the NHS is just not a decent offer at the moment and that impacts the people who are most marginalised and experience more poverty.”

Final Thought

The new Government has a material chance to better the lives of the trans community with the rollout of a new healthcare model. However, without a shift in the discourse, things will remain incredibly hard for many and so, it is extremely important that Liz Truss is cognisant of how the rhetoric of her government affects actual trans people’s lives.

Despite the hostility faced by the community in recent years, Stewart retains an optimistic outlook.

“I’ve always had faith in the public around a general sense that people should be able to be who they are and live the lives that they want to live.”

The question, therefore, will be around the degree to which media and government narratives muddy these waters with lazy fictions of trans people, as a group intent on rolling back the rights of women.

www.genderedintelligence.co.uk

Please note that this report is not intended to be an exhaustive account of all areas covered in the meeting, nor all areas that the Commission will focus on regarding LGBT+ employment, employability and skills. Instead, this paper seeks to highlight key areas of consensus discussed by the panel, some of the problems in these areas and the recommendations that were suggested. The full recording of the session can be found here.

Third Session: Intersectionality

The third section of this inquiry session of the LGBT+ Commission focused on the importance of intersectionality when considering LGBT+ inclusion at work. The panel for this session included:

• Laks Mann (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Adviser to the Mayor of London/Secretary for the National LGBT+ Police Intersectionality Group)
• Gurchaten Sandhu (Director of Programmes, ILGA World)
• Sarah Stephenson-Hunter (Founder, Simply Equality)

Understanding intersectionality in the workplace

While the term ‘intersectionality’ is at times amorphous, it is more than simply a buzzword used by people in D&I sectors, but rather a fundamental lens through which we can develop a better understanding of equality issues.

As was noted by Laks Mann, there are two key components to the intersectional lens in the workplace, understanding the whole individual and dominant workplace cultures:

“[Intersectionality] is about viewing the whole person and understanding that there are different aspects of people’s identities. The second thing is dominant cultures…who they benefit and how those become the workplace norms and how it then becomes difficult to challenge because they are the entrenched culture.” – Laks Mann

When businesses say that they want their employees to be able to bring their whole selves to work, this is reflective of an intersectional understanding of discrimination – for instance that the way a white gay man experiences homophobia is different to the way that a south Asian lesbian woman experiences homophobia.

Taking account of all these factors and overlapping inequalities is especially important for the wider LGBT+ community in the workplace. As was noted by Gurchaten Sandhu, measures that harm women in the workplace often have the effect of being harmful to the LGBT+ community. Here, an intersectional lens allows us to see the interconnection between advocacy for women in the workplace and advocacy for LGBT+ inclusion in the workplace:

“We know that LGBT+ people are often found in very feminised sectors, like hospitality, healthcare…and as a result of that, the gender pay gap will impact them. And that’s where the issue of solidarity across and within our communities is integral to this.” – Gurchaten Sandhu

Indeed, when the Government backed down on mandating businesses reporting of their gender pay gap data, this will have inadvertently impacted much of the LGBT+ community.

There is certainly a gap in existing legislation that protects people against discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 (see following section for wider discussion) protects employees from discrimination based on a protected characteristic and allows people to bring multiple, separate claims in relation to a single event (for instance if an instance of discrimination was both homophobic and sexist).

However, intersectional discrimination does not fit into such a framework, as this involves discrimination due to a particular combination of two or more protected characteristics. For instance, consider a workplace that had a space for Muslim workers to pray during the workday, but was not accessible for wheelchair users. This would not affect Muslims without a disability, nor non-Muslim people with a disability. This could not be said to be purely religious or disability-based discrimination, but rather the unique combination of being both disabled and Muslim.

While this kind of discrimination is accounted for in Section 14 of the Equality Act, this section was never brought into force and there remain no plans to do so. Enforcing Section 14 of the Equality Act would be an easy step to bring intersectional protections into law immediately, and account for this gap in legislation.

What can businesses do?

It was noted that understanding dominant cultures in the workplace is the starting point for any employer seeking to embed an intersectional approach to D&I in their workplace. Here, employers should seek to understand what cultures are at play and who they serve compared to who they disadvantage. After this, it is about taking active steps to level the playing field, particularly among those who benefit from dominant workplace cultures:

“If you are part of that dominant culture and you have that power, privilege and influence, you need to acknowledge it and say, I need to go on a journey of learning. A lot of the time, the pressure is always put on people who are in minority cultures, who are not in the dominant culture to do the work, to come up with the solutions. Well, actually no, it’s not for queer people to stop homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.” – Laks Mann

It was also noted that while some workplaces can develop a D&I hierarchy of sorts, with some protected characteristics getting more attention than others, an intersectional approach embedded in D&I policies offers a more holistic framework through which to approach these issues and avoid such a hierarchy.

In terms of practical steps to developing an intersectional framework, the panel insisted on the importance of co-creation. It was noted the importance of bringing employee resource groups to the table to discuss how different policies might impact different members of the LGBT+ community depending on their ethnicity, religion, disability and other protected characteristics. As was noted by Sarah Stephenson-Hunter:

“The statistics on disabled people who aren’t in work are just scary…if you just haven’t got those people in your work environment then they’re not going to be there to help give that intersectional lens.” – Sarah Stephenson Hunter

In order to make sure that these intersectionalities are considered, different staff network groups must be brought together, including religious groups, disability groups and other protected characteristics. Fundamentally, if these people are not included in the process, they are much more likely to not be considered in the policy.

Key Recommendations:

1. Co-create inclusive policies: When LGBT+ employees are not involved in decision-making processes, they are unlikely to be properly accounted for in the policies, practices and guidance that result. Bringing in employees from a wide range of backgrounds and overlapping protected characteristics will be important in ensuring that intersectionalities are carefully considered and a more holistic framework is used.

2. Facilitate collaboration of staff networks: It is often the case that staff employee networks are siloed from each other, with LGBT+ groups rarely interacting with staff disability groups, or groups for different ethnic minorities. The more that these groups work together, the better the understandings that will be developed surrounding the overlapping components of advocacy for these groups, allowing them to work together to develop more inclusive workplaces for all.

3. Enforce section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 – It is vitally important that Section 14 of the Equality Act is enforced to embed protections against intersectional discrimination in law. Currently, case law precedent tends to separate cases of multiple discrimination into siloes in a manner that does not reflect the true nature of intersectional discrimination. This, and accompanying guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, will also provide employers with more certainty around what intersectional discrimination looks like in a practical sense.

Please note that this report is not intended to be an exhaustive account of all areas covered in the meeting, nor all areas that the Commission will focus on regarding LGBT+ employment, employability and skills. Instead, this paper seeks to highlight key areas of consensus discussed by the panel, some of the problems in these areas and the recommendations that were suggested. The full recording of the session can be found here.

Session 2: What can businesses do?

The second section of this inquiry session of the LGBT+ Commission focused on the role of businesses in fostering inclusive environments for the LGBT+ community. The panel for this session included:

• Mo Wiltshire (Director of Education and Youth/Director of Governance, Stonewall)
• Leng Montgomery (Senior DE&I Consultant, Charlotte Sweeney)
• Harry Queenborough (Founding Lead, Global Bi+ inclusion, EY)
• Tom Steel (UK Co-chair, LGBT+ Employee Resource Group, IQVIA

LGBT+ Inclusion at work

While LGBT+ inclusion in the workplace has come a long way, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, as well as the experiential fear in the workplace often prevent LGBT+ people from reaching their full potential in professional contexts.

In Stonewall’s 2022 Staff Feedback Questionnaire, the findings showed that:

• 22 per cent of LGBT+ respondents said they did not feel able to be themselves in the workplace, rising to 27 per cent of bi respondents, 33 per cent of trans respondents and 41 per cent of non-binary respondents.
• 31 per cent of LGBT+ people did not agree that their workplace culture was inclusive of them as an LGBT+ person, this rose to 40 per cent of disabled LGBT+ people and 51 per cent of older LGBT+ people.

Fundamentally, an individual’s energy is finite. The more energy they must expend at work worrying about discrimination based on their identity, or on pretending that they are someone that they are not, the less productive they will be.

“You cannot be at peak performance if you’re spending most of your day concerned and worried about whether or not someone’s going to act in a certain way.” – Tom Steel

As was noted by Leng Montgomery, this often has adverse impacts on career prospects:

“There’s a big discrepancy in terms of board representation and management representation… we have to be doing more to set LGBT+ people up for success and to actually promote them further in the company.” – Leng Montgomery

As the panel noted, more inclusive LGBT+ cultures do not simply emerge. They are the result of decided action and in many cases, of gaining buy-in from senior decision makers. This could be because it the right thing to do or on the grounds that having an LGBT+ inclusive workplace is better for business. It is likely to attract better talent and improve staff retention, as well as (when communicated effectively) shine through to customers and clients. While this is understood at senior levels, the way to go about this is less so:

“Lots of people know holistically at a senior level, that being inclusive and engaging with D&I is good for business. They don’t know how to do it though and there is often a lot of fear.” – Leng Montgomery

Some useful organisational approaches were discussed. It was noted by Leng Montgomery that, where D&I is taken as a key pillar of business strategy, rather than a siloed add-on, it is generally more effective. He also noted the importance of accountability towards D&I targets to create firm incentives for senior staff towards these goals:

“Businesses that I’ve seen be really successful getting that buy-in generated have had responsibilities towards certain key priorities.” – Leng Montgomery

Speaking to the challenges of generating organisational change, Mo Wiltshire noted the importance of data in any LGBT+ inclusion plan:

“We talk about it being as easy as one, three, two. Firstly, you’ve got to really understand where you are… what you understand about your employee base and their satisfaction. Three is agreeing that organisational vision, the end point of what success really looks like. What it will take is that second step to achieve that vision. So, how do we close the pay gap? How do we reduce the gap in employee engagement or satisfaction?” – Mo Wiltshire

Generating data-driven insights is critical to achieving meaningful inclusion. Without an in-depth understanding of what your employee base looks like, inclusive policies targeted at the appropriate areas will be much harder to develop.

A key means by which a sense of LGBT+ inclusivity can begin to be built are through staff LGBT+ networks, bringing together a businesses LGBT+ community to provide a sense of belonging and visibility to LGBT+ staff members. As was noted by Harry Queenborough, who is the founder of the bi+ community group at EY, when these groups are given a seat at the table to help make substantive changes, this can lead to the co-creation of meaningfully inclusive workplaces.

In his opening statement, it was noted by Anderson that staff networks are facing a challenging time in the aftermath of the pandemic:

“The comment was made to me on several occasions, ‘we’re trying to keep our LGBT+ network going… but we’re finding it much harder to maintain.’” – Iain Anderson

Indeed, even with the loosening of restrictions, the shift away from office work has meant that some things have been lost, including the intensity of activity, which will need to be built back.

Outside of the workplace

While it is important to create an inclusive work environment with effective internal policies, perception is also critically important. If an organisation cannot effectively communicate its inclusive workplace, it is unlikely that we will see the speed of change that we would like and it is also less likely that this inclusive culture will attract talent since it is not visible to them.

It is for this reason that Harry Queenborough mentioned the importance of demonstrating inclusivity at all touch points between employers and graduates. This means that at campus events, employers fairs, online sessions and much more, ensuring that the diversity of your workforce is properly represented. This might also involve disclosing pronouns, participating in student pride, posting job vacancies on LGBT+ specific job boards, as well as direct outreach to university societies.

It is also important to note however, that much of the conversation around LGBT+ employment is overly focused on the members of the LGBT+ community that are in work, and neglects those members of the community (particularly younger members of the LGBT+ community) who are not in work, education or training.

Wiltshire noted that, it was because of this issue that Stonewall created a resource called ‘Young Futures’, working with a group of LGBT+ young people not in education, training, or work and sector leaders to break down the different routes into employment and what is meant by ‘employability’ across different professions:

“Young Futures is about understanding how to articulate their skills and what it takes to have the confidence to feel able to be out at work…and to support all of our workforce to feel that there is no need to make a choice between being our true selves and actually fulfilling our potential in the workplace.” – Mo Wiltshire

A further area which sees little consideration in these discussions was noted by Gurchaten Sandhu. While the Employment Rights Act 1996 mentions employees, workers and service providers, these discussions are almost exclusively bound up with employees, when in fact the worst violations of worker rights tend to happen in less formal working settings where there are fewer social protection provisions and the LGBT+ community is disproportionately found in the informal economy:

“As a lot of youth are pushed into the gig economy, there will be a requirement for these spaces to be a lot more inclusive of different identities and needs.” – Gurchaten Sandhu

A key point was raised that providing a space for gig workers to organise (whether via unionisation or more informal networks of support) would be a crucial step to achieving this.

Key recommendations from the panel:

1. Improve internal data collection – Businesses that want to create a more inclusive and equitable workplace must, as a pre-requisite to change have a firm, data-grounded understanding of their employee base and satisfaction. Once this is in place, appropriately co-created policy can be developed to ensure that employers are creating the workplace culture that they want.
2. Create accountability to D&I targets – D&I policy often lacks specific targets and people responsible for meeting those targets. Unsurprisingly, this rarely brings the desired results. Creating an accountability framework which encourages engagement at every level will create clearly defined responsibilities at senior levels and greater incentives to hit these targets and bring about meaningful change.
3. Engage with young LGBT+ people – While these conversations tend to focus on creating an inclusive workplace culture, just as important for the LGBT+ community is what happens before and outside of work, education, or training. Many LGBT+ people remain hesitant about the world of work and whether they will be able to be their full authentic selves. Effective outreach to young LGBT+ people regarding their careers and their futures is critically important to changing this. Stonewall’s Young Futures Programme and Just Like Us’ LGBT+ volunteer ambassador programme are great examples of this. Businesses should engage in these kinds of efforts to reach young people who are beginning to consider their career prospects

Please note that this writeup is not intended to be an exhaustive account of all areas covered in the meeting, nor all areas that the Commission will focus on regarding LGBT+ hate crime, domestic abuse and sexual violence. Instead, this paper seeks to highlight key areas of consensus discussed by our panel, some of the problems in these areas and the recommendations that were suggested. If desired, the full recording of the session can be found here.

Second Session: Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence

The second half of this inquiry session of the LGBT+ focused on domestic abuse and sexual violence committed against the LGBT+ community. The panel for this session included:

• Leni Morris (CEO, Galop)
• Astrid Palmer (Senior LGBT+ Specialist IDVA, Switchboard)
• Duncan Craig (CEO, Survivors Manchester)
• Nicholas Rogers AM (London Assembly Member)

Community Exclusion and a Lack of Support

What was clear in the panel’s discussion of domestic abuse and sexual violence, was that the LGBT+ community is often omitted from such conversations. These discussions are typically grounded in heteronormative understandings of what occurs in scenarios of domestic abuse and sexual violence that dominate public policymaking.

“We are often completely omitted from any kind of conversation around sexual violence and the needs of LGBT+ people – specifically around sexual violence.” – Leni Morris

Speaking to his experience on the Police and Crime Committee at the London Assembly, Nicholas Rogers spoke to how engrained these heteronormative approaches were in policy conversations, with the result being the LGBT+ community being left underserved:

“There were a lot of discussions about domestic abuse and every single one of those discussions was directed towards heterosexual domestic abuse. And I was questioning, who is speaking up for my community on this issue?… Those discussions didn’t account for the fact that there are some very specific types of domestic abuse that are found in the community that aren’t elsewhere, that require specific training for police and specific services.” – Nicholas Rogers

Indeed, these heteronormative perceptions of domestic abuse can often leave LGBT+ victims vulnerable. Police without the proper training may fail to recognise abuse in a same-sex relationship, perceiving the incident as two men or women fighting rather than it being an instance of domestic abuse with a perpetrator and a victim.

A proper understanding of the nature of LGBT+ domestic abuse being held by police and support services is critical because there are many types of domestic abuse that are unique to the LGBT+ community. One of the most notable includes a partner threatening to ‘out’ their partner who may not be out, threatening the relationships that this individual holds and leaving them at risk of losing their support mechanisms. Moreover, in their work with LGBT+ survivors of abuse, Leni Morris cited two further kinds of LGBT+ specific abuse that are often overlooked:

“For our community, often we completely miss out family abuse, which is something massive that happens to our community in our home spaces that is not talked about enough within the context of domestic abuse and that’s an additional barrier to people coming forward and recognising that they can seek that help.” – Leni Morris

“We work with people who are from places where they will be less safe than they are here, but their visas are attached to their relationship and that has been used against them by a partner.”- Leni Morris

The panel also considered the extent to which the Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) framework for understanding sexual and domestic abuse served to exclude some members of the LGBT+ community, in particular trans and non-binary people as well as cisgender gay and bisexual men from being recognised and supported by services. While there was an agreement that VAWG was certainly important in understanding that most domestic abuse and sexual violence is committed against women and girls, VAWG as a framework for understanding can often leave parts of the LGBT+ community excluded:

“The policies that are being written, the legislation that’s being made, the training courses that are being developed, the resources that are being given to frontline services all feed into this homogenous narrative of, ‘there is violence against women and girls and that is it’.” – Astrid Palmer

Indeed, where trans and non-binary victims of domestic and sexual abuse do not feel that they are included in these conversations, nor that they are seen and affirmed by their commissioners, local authorities and support services, then they are far less likely to access the support they need.

“If the broad narrative [within support services] is, that there are women, and there are trans and non-binary people, then trans and non-binary people are going to feel much less confident in coming forward to any of those services, even those ones that are trans and non-binary inclusive.” – Leni Morris

It is for this reason that, in the current landscape of service provision, LGBT+ specific services are so important for the community, because they provide spaces in which the fear of the exclusion is removed:

“We know that it is different where we have LGBT+ specialist services like ours, like Astrid’s. Those make a really big difference in overcoming that fear, that in that moment where you are vulnerable… you may come up against anti-LGBT+ prejudice, that you might have to educate people so that they can recognise that you are being abused, which we see is something that our clients come up against time and time again.” – Leni Morris

However, for all the value that LGBT+ specialist services provide, they remain few and far between. Where the dominant policy position is that support services for domestic abuse and sexual violence should be single-sex, this leaves some members of the LGBT+ community without recourse to any appropriate support:

 “It is all very well and good saying that there are…reasons why same-sex services might be a thing that some people think are necessary. But I do not see the funding coming in to roll out LGBT+ or trans and non-binary equivalent services that make up for the gap… And my question will always be, here are those people going to go?… How do you gain any sense of safety if you’re saying, ‘this door is closed, but we’re not going to open another one’?” – Leni Morris

Simply put, we know that trans and non-binary are victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, but we are often excluding them from generalist services (or forcing them to present as a gender with which they do not identify to access support), and not offering alternatives. This gap is perhaps most starkly seen in refuge accommodation provision. There are very few refuges which men and boys can go, nor trans and non-binary people. This is particularly troubling given the experiences of these communities:

“We know from other reports and research, like from Galop that gay and bisexual men are tice as likely to experience domestic abuse as cisgender heterosexual men, and trans people are the most likely group to experience domestic abuse.” – Astrid Palmer

The result of this exclusion from many of these spaces is stark:

“What we currently see is our community having to make a very difficult decision between going into what might be a dangerous situation and emergency accommodation that might not be safe for them, or staying in a situation that is abusive and dangerous, or them being homeless. We have clients who live in their cars, we have had a client who had to live in a greenhouse because there are not those options for our community and I think that is one of the major areas we are failing LGBT+ people in this country.” – Leni Morris

Data and Reporting

As was noted in relation to hate crime above, the exclusion of the LGBT+ community from many support services, as well as longstanding distrust between the LGBT+ community and the police has left domestic abuse and sexual violence committed against the LGBT+ community significantly underreported.

“The majority of LGBT+ people do not come forward when they are victims of domestic abuse… we know 60 per cent of LGBT+ victims and survivors of domestic abuse do not come forward to generalist services and 80 per cent do not come forward to the police.” – Leni Morris

Much of the LGBT+ community do not feel comfortable seeking support from generalist services or from the police which, for most of the community are the only support sources available to them, where they don’t live in an area with an LGBT+ specific service or are unaware of which generalist services are actively LGBT+ inclusive.

Leni Morris also alluded to an upcoming report from Galop that indicates that there is a very significant proportion of the LGBT+ victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence that never tell anyone what has happened to them[1].

As is the case with the limited reporting of LGBT+ hate crimes, the result is that commissioners lack the evidence base to develop appropriate services that meet the needs of the LGBT+ community. As such, the conversation around domestic abuse and sexual violence remains dominated by VAWG, which can have the effect of further excluding some members of the LGBT+ community who are unable to access these services.

Not only is it the case that there is very limited data in this area, but it is also the case that the data we do have is not used effectively, with very little integration between different reporting centres, including the police and third sector groups as well as within the criminal justice system itself. Duncan Craig highlighted how, within the current established systems, there is little hope of having good data on these issues:

“Data is just really poor in this area…we’re trying to find an answer to ‘how do we make really, really, really poor data a bit better? We’re not even necessarily recording genders before we get to any other protected characteristic. Data, within the criminal justice system, particularly around sexual and domestic violence needs a complete overhaul. The systems that the Crown Prosecution Service and the systems of the police need to be able to speak to each other because right now they don’t.” – Duncan Craig

Indeed, while this is not an easy fix, there are simple and straightforward steps that can be taken to give the police and support services a much better idea of the level of need in relation to domestic abuse and sexual violence for the LGBT+ community. One such step was discovered by Nicholas Rogers, who recently published a report on LGBT+ domestic abuse in London. He noted that while the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has a data sharing agreement with Galop on its helpline for LGBT+ hate crime, it does not have such an agreement in place for domestic abuse and as such there is a limited understanding of the scale of the problem in London.

Key Recommendations from the Panel:

LGBT+ inclusive support services – The provision of single-sex support services for domestic abuse and sexual violence must not mean wholly excluding large sections of the LGBT+ community, in particular gay and bisexual men and trans and non-binary and trans people. Where these people cannot access services, there must be alternatives in place so that they are not left without options. Given the limited funding for LGBT+ specific support services, if these spaces are not LGBT+ inclusive, many people will lack access to support services that are in many cases statutory.

Systematic data collection and use – The better integration of available data between policing, and third-party centres where possible is an important step to gain a more holistic picture of domestic abuse and sexual violence. This paired with active steps to increase rates of reporting via advertising directly to the LGBT+ community and providing services and procedures that LGBT+ people feel safe presenting to.

[1] LGBT+ People & Sexual Violence Report – Galop

Please note that this writeup is not intended to be an exhaustive account of all areas covered in the meeting, nor all areas that the Commission will focus on regarding LGBT+ hate crime, domestic abuse and sexual violence. Instead, this paper seeks to highlight key areas of consensus discussed by our panel, some of the problems in these areas and the recommendations that were suggested. If desired, the full recording of the session can be found here.

First Session: Hate Crime

The first half of this inquiry session of the LGBT+ Commission focused on hate crime against the LGBT+ community. The panel for this session included:

• Leni Morris (CEO, Galop)
• Amy Tapping (Co-chair, National LGBT+ Police Network)
• Rob Wilson (Co-Founder, Angels of Freedom)

Data and Reporting

One of the key themes in the discussion of hate crime against the LGBT+ community was the issue of data collection, and the impact of the significant levels of underreporting when trying to commission effective services that meet the needs of hate crime victims. While there have been increasing rates of hate crimes committed against LGBT+ people in recent years[1], LGBT+ hate crime represents something of an iceberg with the levels of underreporting that we see:

“We have seen year on year, a disproportionate rise in the levels of reported hate crime [against LGBT+ people] … we know from the Government’s own figures and from our own research, that about 90 per cent of anti-LGBT+ hate crime goes unreported in the UK.” – Leni Morris

For those responsible for commissioning services, one of the problems is that underreporting generares limited evidence for a small proportion of the hate crimes that are actually committed against LGBT+ people. Resultingly, commissioning managers at local authorities who require very tight value for money cases when commissioning services are not often able to commission services for the LGBT+ community:

 “Unless we understand the breadth of the community and the breadth of experience of the community, we’re not going to be commissioning the kind of services and address the inclusion within the existing services that we need to.” – Leni Morris

The reasons for victims of hate crimes not reporting to the police, third party reporting centres, or civil society/advocacy groups are often myriad and interlinked. These can range from the victim’s perception of the offence, negative previous experiences when reporting such incidents, or a fear of what would happen if they did report the crime[2]. As such, there is certainly no one size fits all approach to driving up levels of reporting, however the panel discussed some of the ways in which better reporting rates could potentially be achieved. A key theme across all solutions discussed was the need to build trust between the LGBT+ community. the police and other reporting centres.

Given the historically fractious relationship between the LGBT+ community and the police, the role of community-led efforts was raised as centrally important:

“If you’re looking at driving people coming forward to address that 90 per cent underreporting, we know that specialist by and for services like our own really drive the ability for the community to come forward and talk about what’s happened to you in a way that they do not feel comfortable about coming forward to say the police or general services.” – Leni Morris

Certainly, if an LGBT+ victim of hate crime was worried about facing discrimination when accessing support in the wake of the crime committed against them, it is likely that they would feel more secure in the understanding that such discrimination would be less likely to occur in a service by and for LGBT+ people. However, while these organisations were noted as incredibly valuable by the community, they are very few and far between (see following section) and the panel therefore discussed the importance of ensuring that mainstream services are made LGBT+ inclusive, have a strong understanding of LGBT+ specific needs, and are able to communicate this effectively to the LGBT+ community to improve rates of reporting and accessing support:

“We should not lose sight of what we’re doing at a local level with mainstream organisations to make sure that they’re all LGBT+ inclusive… that their policies and practices are inclusive, and they’re demonstrating that to the community to build that trust.” – Rob Wilson

This focus on improving reporting rates has generally been the dominant approach to these issues. However, building trust with victims of hate crimes is not only about making LGBT+ people feel safe in the knowledge that they will not be discriminated against, but that disclosing the details of the hate crime will actually lead to criminal justice outcomes, will be taken seriously, and will not involve a protracted and drawn out interaction with the police:

“Often with hate crime, we sort of stop at the report in the way that we talk about it in policy work and then in commissioning… Actually, I think we would see greater improvement and engagement from the LGBT+ community, if we could see a progression in bringing up those low prosecution rates, in recognising the high levels of violence that comes along with LGBT+ hate crime and the legislative change that recognises LGBT+ hate crimes as impactful as other forms of hate crime.” – Leni Morris

However, whether the issue lies at the point of contact (developing inclusive services that encourage better reporting), or at the back end (improving prosecution rates and delivering tangible outcomes for victims), the result is that most local authorities lack an understanding of the needs of their local LGBT+ community. While historically, the commissioning of services for the LGBT+ community has been concentrated in London, Manchester and Brighton (places that LGBT+ people traditionally moved to because other places were not considered safe), LGBT+ people are situated in all parts of the UK. Local authorities that have not historically designed these services with LGBT+ people in mind must do so, in line with their statutory Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010:

“The challenge now is for local authorities to really understand the size of their LGBT+ community… the amount of support those people need, really understanding the local needs around that as well.” – Leni Morris

LGBT+ Appropriate Support

One of the results of such poor data capture for LGBT+ hate crimes is that there is a distinct lack of LGBT+ appropriate support both available to and accessed by victims. At the national level, support services remain very patchy, both with regards to LGBT+ specific services and generalist services that provide appropriate support for LGBT+ victims.

“Support for LGBT+ people in the face of hate crime is really sparse in this country… only about 4 per cent of LGBT+ victims of hate crime have access to advocacy… whereas over 20% per cent say that they want advocacy.

“It’s always about making sure that the victim has choices and that they are empowered to do the thing that is right for them.” – Leni Morris

Equally, at the local level, where local policing authorities are seeing significant levels of underreporting of LGBT+ hate crimes, services to meet the needs of LGBT+ victims of hate crimes are unlikely to be commissioned.

This does not just mean a lack of LGBT+ support services, but also a lack of mainstream services that meet the needs of LGBT+ victims of hate crime. Where local authority budgets are tightly squeezed, there is a commissioning environment in which LGBT+ specific services are unlikely to be commissioned. In these contexts, it is critically important that mainstream services are LGBT+ inclusive and this is an area in which local LGBT+ civil society groups can have an important impact.

Though it relates to the theme of sexual violence which was discussed in the second half of the session,

Rob Wilson highlighted an important example of how LGBT+ civil society groups can play a role in ensuring support services are LGBT+ inclusive. In the roll-out of the ‘ask for Angela’ campaign in Leeds, as part of the ‘Safe Leeds’ partnership, Angels of Freedom were able to make sure that staff training for participating venues was LGBT+ inclusive.

There are real and significant impacts from not having effective victim support services. Galop’s research has shown that there are severe behavioural, psychological and emotional changes in a person after they experience an attack on the basis of their own identity. This may include a reduced sense of safety, taking different routes home, or even going out less. However, perhaps a starker reality is the wider impact these attacks on the LGBT+ community have beyond the individual victim:

“Our research shows that someone who knows someone who has had a hate crime committed against them demonstrates almost exactly the same behavioural changes as the victim themselves. And in fact, someone who knows someone who knows someone who’s been a victim of that hate crime also demonstrates almost those same behavioural changes. So, the ripple effect of these crimes goes through a whole community.” – Leni Morris

Policing and Legal Structures

One of the key issues surrounding the ways in which LGBT+ hate crimes are dealt with in the UK is the historical distrust between the LGBT+ community in the UK and the police. As was acknowledged by Amy Tapping, co-chair of the National LGBT+ Police Network:

“Historically policing has had a very negative and awkward relationship with the LGBT+ community. We’ve operated with a lack of accountability for the treatment of LGBT+ individuals, utilised laws prohibiting same sex sexual conduct, arresting LGBT+ individuals and targeting their gathering places.” – Amy Tapping

The result of this is a massive confidence gap between the LGBT+ community and the police that results in LGBT+ people feeling less inclined to report hate crimes as they do not feel that they will be taken seriously, and any strategy to drive up rates of reporting for LGBT+ hate crimes will have to involve steps to rebuild the trust between the LGBT+ community. the local policing authority and the police more widely.

The panel discussed some of the ways in which these steps can be taken and a key point of emphasis was the role of LGBT+ staff networks and how their visibility in their local community can communicate that they are inclusive of the LGBT+ community:

“There is a need for greater empowerment and extended remit for the police LGBT+ staff network members…they do a lot of work around developing services, but that idea of representatives actually going out there and being with the community groups because they identify as LGBT+… that is an activity that needs to be embedded within that role as an objective and not something that they’re doing as an add-on.” – Rob Wilson

“If I can be out at events run by the local community, or if I can attend local groups and they can see that I’m a visible, gay, out woman police officer, hopefully that will help to start breaking down the barriers.” – Amy Tapping

The panel also spoke to the importance of the relationship between the police and third sector LGBT+ support services and other organisations. This relationship could have many functions, one of which is the ability to help hold the police to account, helping to remedy the historical lack of accountability that the police have operated with in relation to the LGBT+ community:

“The stronger that relationship is with senior officers in the force and LGBT+ groups, organisations and individuals, the greater emphasis there is for officers to get it right… because if they don’t there’s a very good chance that it will be seen, that it won’t go under the radar and they won’t ‘get away with it’.” – Rob Wilson

Further to this, for LGBT+ victims of hate crimes to see that the police have visible and strong relationships with LGBT+ groups in the local area is likely to increase confidence that the crime will be taken seriously.

Such relationships also provide the opportunity for referrals and improved victim support after the initial contact with the police, an area in which the police tend to be less successful. This has the potential to help ensure that victims have more positive experiences of reporting hate crimes:

“We’re very good at taking the report. We can do initial safeguarding, we can do that initial emotional support. we can take the report and we can investigate the offence. We aren’t very skilled at then putting in the after services…that’s where the charities can really shine, and that’s where we can then start referring off to other support agencies for victim support.” – Amy Tapping

However, for all that improved visibility and communications with the LGBT+ community can achieve, there remain structural and operational issues in the way that the police handle hate crime against LGBT+ people that will need reform of policing policies to address. Speaking to one such procedural blockage with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Amy Tapping noted how these issues can discourage reporting, in particular of non-violent hate crime offences:

“In terms of the criminal justice outcomes, I do think that there is a blockage there… in terms of getting a conviction for an LGBT+ hate crime, you have to go through CPS. We can’t decide that this person has committed the offence, they’ve admitted the offence, so we’ll charge them. We have to go through CPS, but that creates a barrier. And actually, with the timescales in terms of going to court…if you’re thinking about a low-level public order offence [e.g. verbal abuse], it kind of sems a little bit out of kilter with what the victim probably wants and is trying to achieve. I think there should be more opportunities for mediation to be put in, or some sort of community reparation rather than having to go through the court system. I think that’s where we create some barriers for some of our victims.”

Concurring with the weight of these problems, Leni Morris noted that:

“The confidence in the community comes from those reports being acted upon, from those criminal justice outcomes. And for those who do not want a criminal justice outcome, from the support in order to rebuild.” – Leni Morris

However, it is very hard to build trust between the LGBT+ community and the police in the UK when it remains the case that LGBT+ hate crimes are treated as lesser in the eyes of the law than other hate crimes, with sexual orientation, transgender status and disability carrying a lower maximum sentence than hate crimes based on race or religion, creating a ‘hierarchy of hate’ of sorts.

These are the kinds of problems that require changes to the current legal framework and cannot be addressed solely by LGBT+ liaison officers or staff network members.

Key Recommendations from the Panel:

Improving data collection and reporting rates – Though driving up reporting rates is not a silver bullet, it is a critical first step. More reliable data will ensure more effective commissioning to meet the needs of LGBT+ victims of hate crimes. Steps to do this will have to address the historically negative relationship between the LGBT+ community and the police, via the development of truly inclusive practices and procedures and the effective communication of these policies to the community. Importantly, uplifts for sexual orientation, gender identity and disability motivated hate crimes must be equalised with race and religion motivated hate crimes, to give confidence to the LGBT+ community that the criminal justice system takes these offences seriously.

Developing LGBT+ appropriate support – In a commissioning environment in which LGBT+ specific services are very unlikely to secure funding, more must be done to ensure that mainstream support services are LGBT+ inclusive. Support services should be required to train staff to ensure that they can be sensitive to the specific needs of LGBT+ victims of hate crimes. This would represent a key step in building trust among the LGBT+ community in generalist services or reporting centres to also help drive up reporting rates.

Alternative pathways for victims– For many victims, the protracted and drawn-out process of securing a criminal justice outcome is enough to discourage reporting and access appropriate support. The greater availability of mediation for LGBT+ victims of hate crimes, as well as alternative pathways that do not require the involvement of CPS, such as restorative justice approaches may be appropriate for lower-level public order offences.

[1] Hate crime, England and Wales, 2020 to 2021 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[2] Hate crime report 2021 – Galop – Galop

Truss currently serves as the Secretary of State for Brexit, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities. But what exactly can LGBT+ people expect under a Truss premiership? While she has been nicknamed the “Minister for Inequalities” by some, the answer is slightly more complicated than it may seem.

Liz Truss and Conversion Therapy

Perhaps the only relatively predictable component of her election is that a conversion therapy ban that is inclusive of the transgender community is, very likely to be pushed through.

Despite much criticism from the LGBT+ community, Liz Truss has always remained committed to an inclusive ban on conversion therapy. When it was announced that Boris Johnson would be u-turning on the Government’s commitment to ban conversion therapy, before subsequently u-turning to say that it would ban conversion therapy for LGB people, Liz Truss was reported to be furious with no.10. In fact, she and the then-Minister for Equalities Mike Freer, were said to be lobbying Boris Johnson in the following days to include transgender people in the ban, but to no avail.

As her government looks to rebuild the relationship between government and the LGBT+ community in the UK, this is a low hanging fruit, an easy win that she will surely snap up.

A Marred Track Record

However, Liz Truss did not gain the nickname ‘Minister for Inequalities’ for nothing and, in the minds of many, her stance on conversion therapy is far outweighed by her litany of instances in which she has massively let down the LGBT+ community.

Most notably, this has included backtracking on reform of the Gender Recognition Act, which would have made it easier for transgender people to legally change their sex. While Theresa May pledged to bring reform, Truss has continually supported what she has called “checks and balances” in the process. The process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate in the UK is widely held to be slow, overly-medicalised and unnecessarily bureaucratic.

However, perhaps the most significant was the Government’s dropping of the LGBT Action Plan which was announced in 2018, on the back of a survey of 108,000 members of the LGBT+ community in the UK. This was a robust, cross-departmental strategy with policies targeted at improving the quality of life for the LGBT+ community in areas ranging from healthcare to schools to housing. However, in 2021 it was announced that the Government Equalities Office was not working to implement the plan, and the only policy left in place of the Action Plan was the pledge to ban conversion therapy, which has still not yet materialised.

The dropping of the action plan did not receive the attention that it should have, as it was dropped with no fanfare at all, with the closest thing to an announcement being found in the minutes of a hearing of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

The Leadership Race

Most members of the LGBT+ Community will have been disheartened by the rhetoric in the leadership race between Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. It was reported in Pink News that former Tory Ministers accused the pair of “pandering to bigots”, dredging up “shameful” anti-Trans talking points, and tarnishing the progress made on LGBT+ issues under David Cameron and Theresa May.

When Liz Truss said that trans women weren’t women at the Wembley hustings, she was however, playing to a very small audience. An audience that is dominated by old, white, male, Brexiteers in the form of Tory Party members. As such, in spite of the unpleasantness of the comments, one wonders the extent to which she was just playing to the audience in front of her. Indeed, when Rishi shredded thousands of pages of EU legislation in a campaign video, it was hard to think that he was taking himself seriously at the time. This kind of pantomime politics is grimly predictable when the voter base for the leadership election was dominated by a particular wing of the Conservative Party.

Final Thought

Ultimately, if you are a member of the LGBT+ community reading this, do not expect a sea change when Liz Truss enters the door of No.10 later today. The likely passing of the conversion therapy ban will be passed off as a momentous achievement, when in fact it was promised four years and two Prime Ministers ago.

I would also be keeping an eye on the roll-out of the regionalised model of trans healthcare that was recently announced. There are set to be eight clinics across England, with two opening in 2023 and a further six to follow. Delivery on these will be an important barometer of how serious she is about improving the lives of trans people across the UK.

I would expect her anti-trans rhetoric to decrease as she is forced to play to a larger crowd than the shy of 200,000 members of the Conservative Party. Ultimately, as recent polling has shown, most of the electorate are generally supportive of trans rights, while many others simply find it a distraction from the ongoing cost of living crisis.

However, in terms of substantive (new) policy announcements that will make a difference to the LGBT+ community, there is little to indicate significant progress.

More than a third (36%) of LGBT+ adults were bullied at school, compared to 17% of their non-LGBT+ peers, the independent survey of more than 3,000 UK adults found.

In addition, Just Like Us’ recent Growing up LGBT+ report found that today 42% of LGBT+ school pupils have been bullied – also double the rate of their non-LGBT+ peers.

LGBT+ adults are also twice as likely to have had such an awful time at school that they avoided going and block it from their memory, the new survey has found.

LGBT+ people are also half as likely to have fond memories of their time at school.

More than one in five (22%) of LGBT+ adults agreed with the statement: “I do not have fond memories of school, I have blocked it out of my memory”. This was the case for only 12% of their non-LGBT+ peers.

Anti-LGBT+ bullying in school could be on the rise

The research suggests that anti-LGBT+ bullying may be on the rise. Just Like Us’ recent Growing up LGBT+ report found 42% of LGBT+ school pupils are bullied today (compared to 21% of non-LGBT+ pupils).

LGBT+ people are more likely to be lonely in school

LGBT+ adults are also more than twice as likely to have felt lonely at school, the new survey found. A quarter of LGBT+ adults (25%) said they had very few/no friends at school, describing it as a “very lonely time”. This is compared to just 11% of non-LGBT+ respondents.

Alarmingly, more than half of LGBT+ adults surveyed (55%) did not feel like they had a role model at school.

The latest data comes as Just Like Us prepares to launch this year’s Ambassador Programme. The programme trains LGBT+ volunteers to speak about their experiences and bring positive LGBT+ representation into secondary schools.

The charity is encouraging LGBT+ people aged 18-25 to sign up.

New research highlights stark differences in school experiences

The independent study commissioned by Just Like Us highlights the stark difference in school experiences between LGBT+ and non-LGBT+ people. While nearly three quarters of non-LGBT+ people (72%) said they enjoyed their time at school, this statement applied to only 58% of LGBT+ respondents. 

The research also revealed that LGBT+ respondents were also nearly twice as likely to do everything they could to avoid going to school. Nearly one in five LGBT+ adults (19%) said they avoided going to school, compared with 10% of non-LGBT+ people.

A further 12% of LGBT+ adults said they had a “terrible relationship” with their teachers. This was more than double that of non-LGBT+ people (5%).

Anti-LGBT+ bullying in school

Chief Executive of Just Like Us, Dominic Arnall said: “It’s devastating that so many LGBT+ people had such an awful experience at school that they’ve had to block it from their memory. The fact that our young people are still having this experience in 2022 is outrageous. 

“Sadly things haven’t really changed as much as we might like to think. LGBT+ school pupils are still twice as likely to be bullied, struggle with mental health and are much more likely to feel unsafe in school.

“LGBT+ representation is desperately needed in schools. That’s why we’re asking LGBT+ 18 to 25 year olds to come forward and volunteer with us. We’ll train you to become an ambassador and speak in schools. You will be helping to bring that much-needed visibility to struggling LGBT+ pupils.”

The new research comprises an online survey of 3,076 UK adults – 1,001 were LGBT+ and 2,075 were non-LGBT+ – aged 18 to 65+, carried out between July and August 2022.

It supports Just Like Us’ previous Growing up LGBT+ report, which found that 42% of current LGBT+ school pupils reported being bullied – double the number of non-LGBT pupils (21%). The report also found that 91% of today’s LGBT+ school pupils have heard negative language about being LGBT+.

How you can help

If you are LGBT+ and age 18-25, please sign up now to Just Like Us’ Ambassador Programme – you will be trained to speak in schools and help stop anti-LGBT+ bullying.

Training starts this autumn in London, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and online.

LGBT volunteering opportunities with Just Like Us

If you work in a school, please sign up to learn more about ways you can help.

You can also support our work to stop anti-LGBT+ bullying by making a donation.

Curia LGBT+ Commission

With hate crime on the rise, the Curia LGBT+ Commission has published an interim report which corroborates many of the findings from this report.