To Alister Jack. The GRR (Scotland) Bill & the GRA: a Proposed Solution
***
This Post has been superseded by an approach that does not require an additional sex marker, but the use of sex-redacted Birth Certificates.
It is retained as it has useful content in it on preferred pronouns, the impacts of 'trans' rights on women’s rights
***
The Right Honourable Alister Jack,
Secretary of State for Scotland.
3rd January 20231
Dear Mr. Jack,
I wish you a Happy New Year, success in your endeavours, good health and happiness in 2023.
With respect to the Scottish Government’s passing of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and the possible invocation of a Section 35 Order to curtail it, there is an alternative solution that would meet the aims of the Bill without impacting the rights of women, girls and the same-sex attracted. (See Appendix 2).
This is how it would work.
Proposed changes to the GRA
Replace the GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) with a registration certificate that confirms that the holder <Does not identify as their birth sex DNIBS>2
and wishes to live ‘as if’ the opposite sex without changing sex, or having to live ‘as if’ the opposite sex for a qualifying period. Note that as it is not possible to change sex, a person can only live ‘as if’ i.e. imitating the other sex, not ‘as’ i.e. being the other sex;
Introduce a secondary sex marker of <DNIBS> (True, False) in addition to Sex (observed in utero or at birth, and recorded) on appropriate official documents where the identification of sex is relevant and necessary;
Rename the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment to <Does not identify as their birth sex DNIBS>;
Remove the excessive secrecy provisions for a person registering for their <DNIBS> certificate;
Use the set of pronouns they/them/their/themselves for a person who does not identify as their birth sex;
Align the age of application to that for inclusion in the UK Parliamentary register;
Remove the need for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria;
Replace GRCs with DNIBS certificates for all GRC holders.
Each of these points is discussed below, providing a rationale for the proposed change.
1. Replacement of the GRC with a certificate confirming that the holder does not identify as their birth sex
A registration certificate is proposed that confirms that the holder does not identify as their recorded birth sex, and is given the sex marker <Does not identify as their birth sex DNIBS> in addition to their birth sex, which does not change.
Unlike the current GRA, where the applicant is given protection under the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment for any length of time before applying for the GRC (or not) this proposed registration certificate is a single step process, taking immediate effect.
The administration of this can be kept to a minimum and not require any period of living as if the opposite sex. It could even be done as part of a name change process.
It could be administered in Scotland by the National Records of Scotland, (in England and Wales by the General Register Office and in Northern Ireland by the General Register Office for Northern Ireland).
2. Introduce a secondary sex marker of <DNIBS> (True/False)
As a society we need to be able to trust that a person is who he or she claims to be: a doctor, an employee of a company, a postman/postwoman. Fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in the UK3.
I am suggesting the sex marker <Does not identify as their birth sex DNIBS> is used in addition to sex4 in situations where it is important to identify the sex of a person e.g. at security checks in airports, prisons, police stations to avoid, for example, the possibility of a woman having to perform a body check on a man (proscribed by faiths such as Islam or Judaism) orvice versa.Also for the purposes of data collection such as the census, health surveys, job applications where safeguarding is a requirement.
The sex marker <Does not identify as their birth sex DNIBS> (a value of True or False) would be recorded in addition to their birth sex.
Consider the example of Jane♂, a man who does not identify as his birth sex. The <DNIBS> marker indicates that, for the purposes of physical identification, Jane♂ may make changes to his physical appearance, dress and make-up to resemble the opposite sex such that it may be difficult to identify him as a man. This will be of consequence where sex matters such as access to single-sex-spaces, sports, safeguarding and other sex-based rights (See Appendix 2).
The <DNIBS> marker could also be administered in Scotland by the National Records of Scotland, (in England and Wales by the General Register Office and in Northern Ireland by the General Register Office for Northern Ireland).
3. Remove the excessive secrecy provisions for a person registering their <DNIBS> marker
As Lucy Hunter Blackburn pointed out the security provisions in the GRA are at a level for someone in a witness protection programme5.
The security provisions should be revised to align with the Protected Characteristics such as sexual orientation or disability.
In the workplace employees are being encouraged to wear badges displaying their preferred pronouns such as he/him, they/them. So why are those who do not identify as their birth sex insisting on such secrecy? They are simply changing their name, appearance, dress and make-up not their sex.
It also needs to be recognised that attempts to more closely resemble the opposite sex, particularly men attempting to resemble women, represent a major safeguarding risk, and provisions around privacy need to take account of the fact that unscrupulous men will seek to misrepresent their birth sex for deceitful and wrongful purposes. The phrase ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’ exists for a good reason.
4. Rename the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment to <Does not identify as their birth sex>
It would be preferable to have a Protected Characteristic that relates to sex and not gender, because of the conflation of the two terms and the appropriation of gender and gender identity by the Gender Identity movement. The suggested term is <Does not identify as their birth sex>.
5. Forms of address for those who do not identify as their birth sex
Personal and Preferred Pronouns
The ideological capture of government and its institutions, the judiciary, the police, universities, schools, the NHS and other organizations by Stonewall and other ‘transgender’ lobbies has resulted in:
employees being requested, possibly coerced, to include their personal pronouns in emails and to state them at the start of meetings in the interests of inclusivity of those who do not identify as their birth sex. It is notable and significant that the ‘transgender’ lobbies and ‘transgender’ virtue signalling organisations have not requested the inclusion of denotations of sex, age, race, religion or belief, marital or civil partnership, sexual orientation, disability or pregnancy in emails (or their announcement at the start of meetings) in the interests of inclusivity of those with one or more of those eight Protected Characteristics;
inconsistencies in reporting by the mainstream media, such as that of an assault by a ‘transgender’ woman with a GRC on a woman, whereby the male pronouns used in the victim’s statement were changed to female pronouns to align with the ‘transgender’ woman’s legal sex;
the judiciary’s Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB) having to be revised to recognise that witnesses have a right to refer to trans-identifying people using pronouns which align with their biological sex, and acknowledges that there may be circumstances where this is required by the interests of justice;
in an extremely ideologically-captured organisation such as the UK’s Civil Service one’s employment, performance reviews or promotion prospects could be jeopardized by not complying with the request of Sheila♂ (a man who does not identify as his birth sex, and who is obviously identifiable as male) to use Sheila♂’s preferred, but biologically incorrect, female pronouns;
In instance 3 above, we could have the absurdly inconsistent situation where Eve♂ a ‘transgender’ woman (i.e. a male who does not identify with his birth sex and has a GRC and with intact male genitalia) accused of the rape of a woman will be referred to as ‘he’, ‘him’, ‘his’ during the trial; yet to use those pronouns in Eve♂’s place of employment would be considered discriminatory.
In instance 4 above, the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment makes it a potential harassment offence to frequently or constantly not refer to Sheila♂ as ‘she’ or ‘her’. The Legal Feminist article “Is ‘misgendering’ always harassment?”6 discusses several scenarios involving the interacting Protected Characteristics of Gender Reassignment and Religion or Belief (e.g. gender critical beliefs) and it is not always clear cut, as in Variation 2.
Also, to refer to Sheila♂ as ‘she’ is to:
experience cognitive dissonance by using the pronoun ‘she’ when it should obviously be ‘he’;
feel coerced into affirming Sheila♂’s Gender Identity as a ‘woman’ when one knows that the definition of a woman is ‘an adult female human’;
feel coerced into confirming that it is possible to change sex;
It is for these reasons that the use of preferred pronouns of someone who does not identify as their birth sex is considered as abusive gaslighting or compelled speech.
Suggested Pronouns
It is suggested that the following pronouns (applicable to either sex) should be used for a person who does not identify as their birth sex:
Subject: They (instead of he/she);
Object: Them (instead of him/her);
Possessive: Their (instead of his/hers);
Reflexive: Themselves (instead of himself/herself).
The rationale for this suggestion is Usage 3 c of the word ‘They’7 in the American Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
—used to refer to a single person whose gender is intentionally not revealed
//A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.
— Olivia Krauth
Can they, their, them, and themselves be used as singular pronouns?: Usage Guide
The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. In recent years, these pronouns have also been adopted by individuals whose gender identity is nonbinary,
These pronouns can apply to a person who does not identify as their birth sex regardless of the gender identity they currently identify as and avoids the constantly changing preferred pronouns that others are expected to use.
This specific pronoun set they/them/their/themselves is applicable to those who do not identify as their birth sex. It is a binary split between those who identify as their birth sex and those who do not; it is not a concession to Gender Identity ideology and its plethora of preferred pronouns. Although these pronouns are used by those who claim a Gender Identity of non-binary, these pronouns have been intentionally repurposed away from the Gender Identity language domain into the ‘sex is binary and immutable’ language domain to apply to those who do not identify as their birth sex;
With respect to the use of Sheila♂’s preferred pronouns she/her there are three options:
use she/her;
use the correct sexed-based pronouns he/him at the risk of ‘misgendering’ and being reported and potentially prosecuted for harassment;
use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s they/them pronouns.
I intend to use the third option for the following reasons:
it allows me to recognise Sheila♂’s birth sex as well as acknowledge that they do not identify as their birth sex, and to use pronouns that I consider respectful and non-discriminatory. (Sex-based pronouns such as he/she are applicable to those who identify as their birth sex);
it avoids the dictatorial usage of the plethora of preferred pronouns promulgated by Gender Identity Ideology;
it is grammatically acceptable to me according to the usage defined in the United States Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
These pronouns could also be used to ‘out’ oneself as a person who does not identify as their birth sex.
In addition the title Mx could be used instead of Miss, Ms, Mr and Mrs. This is similar to the approach of including the title ‘Ms’ as an alternative to the title ‘Miss’
6. Align the age of application to that to be included on UK Parliamentary register
An elector must be 18 to vote in UK parliamentary elections and Police and Crime Commissioner elections. This is perceived to be the age at which an individual can make informed decisions regarding who can govern the country in which he or she lives as a citizen. So an individual would only be eligible to apply for a <Does not identify as their birth sex DNIBS> registration certificate at age 18, not 16 as suggested in the current Scottish bill.
7. Remove the process for any medical intervention to achieve a physical resemblance to the other sex out of the GRA
The GRA has two logical components:
the legislation regarding the processes necessary for a person who does not identify as their birth sex to live as if the opposite sex;
the legislation regarding the medical interventions, and their financial provision, to enable a person who does not identify as their birth sex to physically resemble the opposite sex
The Scottish Government has already removed the need for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria for the granting of a GRC (and this is consistent with the fact that the person is not changing sex, but declaring that they do not identify as their birth sex).
It now becomes a matter of what part of the transition process is medically and ethically justified and should be funded by the NHS. Those answers will only be known when the findings of the Cass Review8 are published.
8. Considerations for GRC holders and those in transition
The GRA was introduced in 2004 following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that the human rights of Christine Goodwin (a man who did not identify as his birth sex, and had undergone sex re-assignment surgery) were contravened by not being able to marry a male partner.9 Strasbourg argued that there would be no impact on the birth register system of a population of transsexuals estimated as including some 2,000-5,000 persons in the United Kingdom.
With the introduction of civil partnerships and same-sex marriages the need for a GRC is no longer necessary.
It needs to be recognised that the law was a compromise, and that the legal fiction that possession of a GRC changes the sex of the holder is harmful and needs to be corrected.
For those who are in the process of transition and do not have a GRC they should register as someone who does not identify as their birth sex (as in the scheme in sections 1 and 2 above) and change the sex back to their birth sex on any passports or driving licence and other official documents. The government would, of course, be expected to facilitate and meet the administrative costs of such changes.
Although GRC holders have gone though the steps of the GRC process and provided evidence to the Gender Recognition Panel of having lived in the desired gender for two years and having had a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, they need to recognise that:
the purpose of the GRA (and granting of GRC) was primarily to allow the marriage of a same-sex couple;
the GRA was a legal fiction in that it is not possible to change sex;
there were legal exceptions:
Parenthood - though a person is regarded as being of the acquired gender, the person will retain their original status as either father or mother of a child. The continuity of parental rights and responsibilities is thus ensured10;
Gender-specific offences - Many definitions of sexual offences in the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland remain gender-specific and hence refer, for example, specifically to acts committed by a man upon a woman. This section ensures that where criminal liability would exist, but for the fact that a person, either the victim or the perpetrator, has become of the acquired gender, that criminal liability will exist regardless of the gender change11;
Peerages - a person’s gender change does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour. Neither did it affect the devolution by will or other instrument of any property that passes along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour, unless the will or other instrument provides that it should do so12;
so it was, in truth, an act made with two fingers firmly crossed behind one’s back, and to insist on the retention of a holder’s GRC would be unreasonable, considering its perpetuation of the detrimental impacts on women, children and the same-sex attracted.
Holders of a GRC will need to revert to their original birth certificate or adoption certificate and change the sex back to their birth sex on marriage certificates, civil partnerships; any passports or driving licences or other official documents. The government would, of course, be expected to facilitate and meet the administrative costs of such changes.
The government needs to encourage the relinquishment of GRCs, as every issued GRC is a licence for a man, in particular, to take advantage of a law that did not adequately consider the impacts on women and girls:
to take women’s jobs;
to attempt to deprive women and girls of the privacy, dignity, and safety of single-sex spaces and services;
to take women’s awards;
to take women’s places on the sport’s podium;
the list is long, see Appendix 2.
Also, every issued GRC is a contradiction of the fact of the binary (male/female) and immutable nature of human sex, and to give primacy to Gender Identity theory, a belief that sex/gender is a spectrum of 70+ Gender Identities that anyone can self-identify in or out of at will. Gender Identity theory is responsible for children questioning their sex and/or sexuality being experimented on with hormones and surgery to achieve the impossible: to transmute a boy into a girl, or a girl into a boy, as alchemists for centuries attempted and failed to transmute lead into gold.
The Scottish Government now has the opportunity to remedy the harm to women and children inflicted by the GRA and the gender identity movement and to replace it with a set of rules that will allow those who do not identify as their birth sex to live the lives they wish to lead free from discrimination, harassment and hatred.
9. Access to Single-Sex Spaces and Single-Sex Services
Through medical intervention (surgery and hormones) it is possible to achieve a resemblance to the opposite sex such that he or she ‘passes’ for the opposite sex. As mentioned in section 4, this is a major safeguarding risk for women
Table 2 in the ONS (Office for National Statistics 2018) dataset of compiled Ministry of Justice appendix tables shows, in the year ending December 2017
10,317 men were prosecuted for sexual offences (826 were aged 18-20; 1,100 were aged 21-24; 8,391 were aged 25+).
177 women were prosecuted for sexual offences (17 were aged 18-20; 30 were aged 2124; 130 were aged 25+).
The only sizeable long term study (generally referred to as the Dhejne study) of transsexual persons (those who have had sexual reassignment surgery) identified that transsexual men retain a male pattern of both general criminality and violent criminality.
So men, regardless of whether they have has sex reassignment surgery, represent a risk to women of physical and sexual assault.
In a women’s single-sex space/service how are women to know that other women are in fact women and not men attempting to resemble women, such that the women can feel safe from physical or sexul assault?
The answer is that they cannot with certainty. They have two options:
leave the women’s single-sex space/service;
challenge the person suspected of not being a woman, hereafter referred to as the ‘suspect’.
Option 2 implies that it must be socially and legally acceptable for women to challenge a ‘suspect’ in the single-sex space/service. If done in a courteous manner it should not be a problem. Whilst the ‘suspect’ may feel it is an indignity or an intrusion, the ‘suspect’ needs to recognise that on another occasion she may be the challenger. Safety is paramount. If the challenge escalates into a potentially dangerous situation then the challenger can leave the single-sex space/service and report the incident.
10. Changes to the Equality Act 2010
Changes would be needed for the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment:
Remove the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment;
Provide a definition of ‘misgendering’ that balances the rights of those with the Protected Characteristic of <Does not identify as their birth sex> and those with the Protected Characteristic of Belief or Religion, in particular the FACT that sex is binary and immutable;
Introduce the pronouns <they/them/their/themselves> and the title Mx. as acceptable forms of address for referring to people who do not identify as their birth sex;
Confirm that a courteous request to challenge someone suspected of not having a right to access a single-space-space/service is not discriminatory.
Changes would also be necessary to restore the following impacted Protected Characteristics:
Pregnancy and Maternity: restore the sex-based language in place of gender-neutral language;
Religion or Belief: reassert the fact that sex is binary and immutable and that the term sex should take precedence over gender or gender-identity;
Sex: rights to be based on sex not gender/gender identity;
Sexual Orientation: homosexuality to be defined as same-sex attraction, not same-gender/gender identity attraction.
11. The benefits of these recommendations
The benefits of this approach are:
it avoids the conflation of sex, gender and gender identity;
it does not require a new birth certificate;
it does not require a change of NHS number;
it does not require the Gender Recognition Panel to administer GRCs;
it avoids the confusing terms transsexual, trans woman, trans man, MtF, FtM, TIM, TIF etc...
it retains Sex in addition to <DNIBS> for data collection;
the need for physical or medical transformation is optional;
It redresses the current impact on the Protected Characteristics of Pregnancy and Maternity, Religion or Belief, Sex , and Sexual Orientation
12. The global influence of the 2004 GRA
What few people know is the influence the Act had on the international stage in the early 2000s. Two years after the GRA was passed, a set of 29 guiding rules on recognition and treatment of LGBT people were laid down at a meeting in Indonesia. The “Yogyakarta Principles” demanded that a person’s self-defined gender identity be legally recognised without the need for medical treatment, transforming the GRA from obscure British legislation to a minimum standard for the entire world13.
Ignoring the rights of women in the Yogyakarta Principles
In the April 2021 ‘The Critic’ article cited above, Julie Bindel and Melanie Newman pointed out that Robert Wintemute, professor of human rights law at King’s College London, stated that in establishing the Yogyakarta principles in 2006, its impact on the rights of women was not considered, and that was a mistake:
The majority of the 2006 Yogyakarta signatories were men and trans men. “The issue of access to single-sex spaces largely affects women and not men. So it was easy for the men in the group to be swept along by concern for LGBT rights and ignore this issue,” says Wintemute.
“Instead of changing the person’s legal sex, the law could have simply sought to protect people from harm triggered by the difference between their legal sex and their appearance on the basis of their presentation”, he suggests. “This would remove much of the current conflict, as it would affirm trans people’s birth sex as their legal sex, while ensuring their protection from discrimination based on gender non-conforming appearance or behaviour.”
This proposal is in line with Professor Wintemute’s suggestion and an attempt to rectify the mistakes created by not considering the impact on the rights of women during their Yogyakarta discussions.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Neill
As I am not on Twitter I would appreciate you sharing this post on Twitter. Thank you.
Appendix 1. It is not possible to change sex
Ten years ago no one would have questioned the fact of the binary (male/female) and immutable nature of biological sex. Yet, Stonewall’s “Trans Women Are Women, get over it” mantra and its #NoDebate stance, and the push for Gender Identity by other lobby groups such as Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence, and GIRES14 has resulted in the ideological capture of the media, universities, schools, the NHS, public institutions and government into accepting the false belief that sex (and or gender) is a spectrum and one can identify in and out of any sex/gender category, with or without medical intervention.
It is only recently that there has been a pushback to re-establish the fact of biological sex.
On the 14th October 2021, on BBC’s Question Time, Professor Robert Winston (FMedSci, FRSA, FRCP, FRCOG, and FREng) said "I will say this categorically, you cannot change your sex"
On 18th November 2021, on Woman’s Hour on Radio 4, Nancy Kelley, the CEO of Stonewall, conceded that it was not possible to change sex.
On 8th December 2021, Sussex University (where Professor Kathleen Stock had been persecuted for her gender critical views) confirmed to me by email that it was not the University’s position that “a male observed at birth can become a biological female”.15
Below is a transcript of the conversation between Nancy Kelley of Stonewall and Emma Barnett of the BBC regarding whether it is possible to change sex.
16:07 minutes into the programme.
Emma: Do you believe a person can change their biological sex?
Nancy: I definitely believe they can change their sex characteristics, some but not all of them. That's, that's what the purpose of people going through a medical transition, for those that go through medical transition, is.
Emma: That again wasn't my question. Yes, you can of course have surgery and hormones but do you believe a person can change their biological sex?
Nancy: So, I don't believe, and I don't think anybody believes that Trans people's bodies are identical to Cis people's bodies. No.
Emma: When you say Cis, for our audience you mean?
Nancy: People like me that, when I was born, they said that’s a girl, and I’ve remained a girl for the rest of my life and haven’t transitioned.
Emma: Because, again, we are talking about language. That’s not language that lots of people will be familiar with, others will be.
Nancy: That’s right and mostly we don’t need to use it, right. I think we only use the kind of Cis Trans language when we’re talking about differences between Cis and Trans people. The rest of the time we just get on with people and men and women.
Emma: So when I ask you do you believe a person can change their biological sex, your answer is?
Nancy: If that is everything that goes into making a sexed body, no
Appendix 2. Impacts of the GRA
The GRA, together with the failure of the Scottish Government to resist gender identity indoctrination by Stonewall and Scottish Trans Alliance, and the effective outsourcing by government and other organizations of the writing of what should be their EDI policy to Stonewall and Scottish Trans Alliance has enabled:
people to change their legal sex, even though it is impossible to change sex;
a man to call himself a woman, directly impacting the rights of women, a class that is oppressed on the basis of their sex;
men to self-id as women and be protected by the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment;
‘transgender’ people to insist on the use of their preferred pronouns. Failure to comply is referred to as misgendering and can be reported to one’s employer or to the police as a NCHI (Non-Crime Hate Incident);
Men to self-identify into women’s sports, women’s literary prizes, women’s employment awards, women’s conferences, women’s film awards, women’s same-sex spaces such as the female prison estate, rape and domestic violence refuges, women’s hospital wards, the provision of intimate care to women and girls, women’s toilets and women’s changing rooms;trans women i.e. men being included as women in data collection such as The Census, crime statistics, gender pay gap reporting, gender equity on company boards;
the redefinition of homosexuality from same-sex attraction to same-gender attraction;
the neutralization of the language associated with women in their reproductive role. Examples include the term birthing parent for mother, chestfeeding for breast feeding, uterus haver for woman. The absurd notion, espoused by many politicians, that not only women can have a cervix, that not only men can have a penis.
The original sent to Mr Jack was an MS Word document. It has been copied into this post with formatting and presentation changes and a few corrections
Names in angled brackets <> are suggestions only, and alternative suggestions are most welcome. The word ‘trans’, ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ are best avoided because of their conflation with ‘sex’ by the Gender Identity ideologues
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/fraud-and-economic-crime (accessed 4 July 2022)
Sex is understood to be that observed in utero or at birth and recorded as mle or female
Scottish ParliamentEqualities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on GRA Reform. Evidence Hearing 31 May 2022
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/07/05/is-misgendering-always-harassment/ (accessed 20 August 2022)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they
https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/ (accessed 29 Jun 2022)
CASE OF CHRISTINE GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM(Application no. 28957/95)
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}(accessed 1 Aug 2022)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/12 (accessed 18 Aug 2022)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/20 (accessed 18 Aug 2022)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/16 (accessed 18 Aug 2022
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2021/the-trans-rights-that-trump-all/ (accessed 5 Jul 2022)
Gender Identity Research and Education Society
Email from Professor David Ruebain, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Culture, Equality & Inclusion), Sussex University