RRESPONSE TO BASW STATEMENT ON SOCIAL WORK WITH TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

​​

1. The rights and needs of those who need personal social services are of primary importance to social workers. A statement on this new area of practice is therefore to be welcomed. However, the statement as published by BASW is flawed by lack of evidence.  The lack of evidence is accompanied by a failure to identify or address the safeguarding and rights issues which are raised by this demand.

1. This is an area on which there are known to be strong and opposing views. It would be helpful if this were to be acknowledged at the outset, along with a clear commitment that concerns about safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, and about women’s rights and protections are as important as the rights and needs of people who might define themselves as “transgender”.  There has been a silencing of debate and discussion on this issue which must be broken by a commitment to open debate and discussion.

1. It has recently been made clear (case of Maya Forstater)  that “gender critical” views are protected under the Equality Act. The use of insults and threats is not protected.  Insults such as “terf” and accusations of “transphobia” and threats to report persons expressing critical views to employers and to professional bodies as “hate speech” or as illegal discrimination are therefore unacceptable. 

1. No profession can afford to have “no go” areas for discussion, especially where the views being suppressed or censored are legally protected, evidenced, and rational. The gathering and testing of available evidence is a first requirement when any profession is faced with new theories which challenge existing knowledge and understandings and call for changes in ethics, policy and practice. The acceptance by senior bodies in social work and other professional of the demand  for acceptance of self-definition of gender or sex , and that any opposing view is possible evidence of bigotry or hatred has led to a silencing of discussion.

2. There are no definitions given for  “sex” “gender” “women” “men” “gender identity” or “gender reassignment” in the statement.   Definitions are key to any proper discussion of an issue. Without a common vocabulary we are unable to debate and discuss.  The only attempt at any definitions is in a footnote (page 1) that: ‘Trans’ is the current, most cited preferred term for people who self-identify as transgender women or men, who may or may not have undergone formal gender reassignment and who live with a gender identity different to the sex which they were assigned at birth born or in which they were initially raised.”  The first part of that sentence only applies to some persons who would regard themselves as transgender or transsexual. Many people who would describe themselves as transgender do not claim to have a “gender identity”. The only definition of transgender given is therefore exclusive of those who do not subscribe to the notion of a fixed gender identity.  The second part of the sentence, after “formal gender assignment” is just as problematic. That is that  sex is “assigned at birth”.  Does BASW believe that sex is open to subjective and personal discovery? And that gender identity on the other hand is fixed at birth but only discoverable by an act of personal self-awareness?  And, contrary to our rights in law, are members required to believe this and act accordingly?

1. The extension of the IFSW Code of Ethics to include self-identification of gender as a protected characteristic is cited as if this is self-evidently an unobjectionable extension of human rights. Where is the evidence that was considered by the IFSW in reaching this decision to amend the Code? Did BASW consult members and agree with a change which supposes a  right to identify into others’ protected characteristics? When did the consultation take place? How were members made aware of it?  Were the consequences of extending protected characteristics  beyond the protected characteristics in UK Equalities law properly considered?  Is it legal for BASW to promote this? The UK Equalities Act requires that the any conflicts between the rights of those with protected characteristics must be considered and steps taken to mitigate them.  Adding the right to self-identify into any a protected characteristic (sex) is a breach of the Equality Act protection of the characteristic of sex.

1. Endorsing self-identification of sex and gender as a protected characteristic risks nullifying the rights held by those with protected characteristics under the Equalities Act. Self-inclusion into protected rights is surely as unacceptable in relation to sex as it would be in relation to disability, sexuality, age, ethnicity or race?  If on the other hand it is claimed that sex or gender is a matter of belief rather than of material fact, then there is no requirement at all on others to accept those beliefs. People are entitled to hold opposing religious or philosophical beliefs. They are not entitled to demand that others follow those beliefs. No one has entitlement to abuse or threaten others or to vexatiously complain about or slander or libel others who hold opposing beliefs, purely because they hold them. That is the law.

1. There seems to have been a lack of professional rigour or even curiosity about the phenomenon of gender identity beliefs. The statement instead seems to accept gender identity beliefs as fact i.e., that sex is assigned at birth and that how sex is recorded is subject to  change according to feelings of “gender identity”.   How does one explain the rapid growth of girls affected by the belief that they are transgender? From a minority of children referred to the GID services they now outnumber boys by 25-1. How does one explain growth and self-organisation of numbers of young women who “detransition” and now regret the loss of healthy breasts, fertility, sexual function and their permanently altered presentation?

1. The text accompanying the statement commits to “coproduction” of further work with transgender people. Are detransitioners, gay and lesbian people, transexual people who disagree with transgender theories, women whose rights and legal entitlement to single sex services, including in prison, health services and refuges have been impacted also to be engaged in this work of co-production? If not, why not? Their lived experience is surely equally relevant to the development of practice that respects everyone’s needs and rights.

1. The statement refers to but does not identify the conflicts of rights or concerns about safeguarding of children and of women’s sex-based rights in law which arise from accepting self-definition of “gender” as equivalent to biological sex . These conflicts of rights confront social workers daily in practice, particularly but not exclusively those working with children and those working in health and in criminal justice. If self-definition of gender or sex is accepted, how will that fit with evidence-based practice developed in mental health, criminal justice, children and families, and disability? How will self-definition of sex affect the collection and reliability of national and local statistics?  How will understandings of child development  fit with a theory that children have a fixed gender identity from birth? How will women’s rights to single sex services fit with the demand that males can identify as female for the purposes of the provision or receipt of services?

1. The questions raised above about: definition of terms used: the implications for the rights of other services users and the rights of those who hold opposing views which are protected in law; and the evidence base for practice in the area must surely be addressed and the statement amended.

Summary of questions raised by the statement

• What evidence has been relied on to support the statement?

• What other than dictionary definitions of sex, gender, man, woman, transgender underpin the statement?

• When is it necessary within social work services to identify the actual biological sex of a person even where that person disagrees?

• How will acceptance of self ID of sex/gender affect the rights of others?

• How will the rights of children, including the right of the special status of childhood, capacity to consent, and other developmental considerations be observed and protected?

• How does the statement meet UK Equality Act obligations in relation to protected characteristics, particularly the protected characteristic of sex and sexuality? 

• How does the statement meet UK Equality Act obligations in relation to protected beliefs?

• How will the collection of information about service users and the impact of services be affected by allowing self -dentification into a protected characteristic?

Maggie Mellon

M.Sc., CQSW, Dip. Child Protection

On behalf of the Evidence Based Social Work Alliance

2 September 2021