This is the report of the 'House of Commons - Women and Equalities Committee' their 'First Report of Session 2015–16' which was published on January 14, 2016 which has some very interesting conclusions and recommendations. You can download it here - Transgender Equality

These are some of the conclusions that I find very interesting -

While we recognise the importance of the Gender Recognition Act as pioneering legislation when it was passed, it is clear that the Act is now dated. The medicalised approach regarding mental-health diagnosis pathologises trans identities; as such, it runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants. (Paragraph 44)

Within the current Parliament, the Government must bring forward proposals to update the Gender Recognition Act, in line with the principles of gender self-declaration that have been developed in other jurisdictions. In place of the present medicalised, quasi-judicial application process, an administrative process must be developed, centred on the wishes of the individual applicant, rather than on intensive analysis by doctors and lawyers. (Paragraph 45)

and also with regard to spousal consent -

We are very aware of the widespread and strongly felt opposition within the trans community to the provision on spousal consent which was introduced by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. We understand that trans people feel this gives their spouses an effective “veto” on the acquisition of a full Gender Recognition Certificate. (Paragraph 61)

The nature of marriage (whether same-sex or different-sex) is that of a legal contract between two consenting parties, the terms of which cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. This means that in a marriage where one party transitions, the non-trans spouse does have a legal right to be consulted if it is proposed to change the terms of the marriage contract in consequence—and this right must also be given due weight. (Paragraph 62)

We do take very seriously the evidence that we have heard regarding the scope that the spousal-consent provision gives for married trans people to be victimised by spouses with malicious intent. Where this occurs, it is, of course, deplorable and inexcusable. (Paragraph 63)

The Government must ensure that it is informed about the extent of this and ways of addressing the problem. (Paragraph 63)

and also regarding data protection -

Evidence we received demonstrates abuse of confidential information about people’s trans status, contrary to Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act, which is intended to protect trans people against “outing”. However, we note that not a single prosecution has yet been brought under this Section. There is a grave danger that this provision will become (if it has not already become) a “dead letter”. (Paragraph 87)

The Ministry of Justice must investigate why there have not been any prosecutions and take action to address this. It must also work with the courts to tackle the issue of trans people being inappropriately “outed” in court proceedings. (Paragraph 87)

and regarding the professional regulation of doctors -

We welcome the evidence we received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health regarding the importance of understanding and addressing the needs of transgender patients. And the creation for this purpose by NHS England of the Transgender and Non-Binary Network is a commendable step. (Paragraph 181)

However, it is clear from our inquiry that trans people encounter significant problems in using general NHS services due to the attitude of some clinicians and other staff when providing care for trans patients. This is attributable to lack of knowledge and understanding—and even in some cases to out-and-out prejudice. (Paragraph 182)

GPs in particular too often lack an understanding of: trans identities; the diagnosis of gender dysphoria; referral pathways into Gender Identity Services; and their own role in prescribing hormone treatment. And it is asserted that in some cases this leads to appropriate care not being provided. (Paragraph 183)

The NHS is failing in its legal duty under the Equality Act in this regard. There is a lack of Continuing Professional Development and training in this area amongst GPs. There is also a lack of clarity about referral pathways for Gender Identity Services. And the NHS as an employer and commissioner is failing to ensure zero tolerance of transphobic behaviour amongst staff and contractors. (Paragraph 184)

A root-and-branch review of this matter must be conducted, completed and published within the next six months. (Paragraph 184)

The General Medical Council must provide clear reassurance that it takes allegations of transphobia every bit as seriously as those concerning other forms of professional misconduct. (Paragraph 185)

and with regard to treatment protocols -

Part of the NHS’s duty regarding equality for trans people is its obligation to provide appropriate Gender Identity Services to meet the needs of the trans community. (Paragraph 207)

We strongly welcome the long overdue trend towards the depathologisation of trans identities (decades after the same happened in respect of lesbian, gay and bisexual identities) and the explicit acknowledgement within Gender Identity Clinics that the treatable condition of gender dysphoria is not synonymous with trans identity as such. This approach must be reflected in all areas of Government policy on trans issues, not least in relation to gender recognition. (Paragraph 208)

We are concerned that Gender Identity Services continue to be provided as part of mental-health services. This is a relic of the days when trans identity in itself was regarded as a disease or disorder of the mind and contributes to the misleading impression that this continues to be the case. (Paragraph 209)

Consideration must be given to the transfer of these services to some other relevant area of clinical specialism, such as endocrinology (which deals with hormone- related conditions), or their establishment as a distinct specialism in their own right. (Paragraph 209)

We heard that there are serious concerns within the trans community regarding the treatment protocols that are applied by Gender Identity Services, particularly in respect of clinical assessment prior to treatment and the requirement to undergo a period of “Real-Life Experience” prior to genital (reassignment / reconstructive) surgery. This requirement is seen as reflecting outdated, stereotyped attitudes to male and female gender identity. (Paragraph 210)

Many people now favour the adoption instead of a model involving only the granting of informed consent, which is said to be used by some providers of private care in the USA. (Paragraph 211)

However, we are unconvinced of the merits of the proposed informed consent- only model. While there is a clear case for the granting of legal gender recognition on request, with the minimum of formalities, this approach is less appropriate for a medical intervention as profound and permanent as genital (reassignment / reconstructive) surgery. Clinicians do have a responsibility to observe ethical and professional standards, including their duty of care towards patients. In this particular area of medicine, appropriate practice also entails paying due regard to the internationally recognised guidelines of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. In addition, clinicians practising in the NHS have a duty to ensure that the service’s finite resources are spent appropriately and effectively. All of the foregoing obligations are incompatible with simply granting on demand whatever treatment patients request. (Paragraph 212)

The issues that exist around clinical protocols must instead be addressed through the consistent application of clear and appropriate standards across the Gender Identity Clinics. The situation described to us by Dr John Dean, Chair of the NHS National Clinical Reference Group for Gender Identity Services, whereby “there is not a standard approach or a standard training in how the guidelines are interpreted”, is clearly unacceptable and must change. (Paragraph 213)

The Protocol and Service Guideline must make explicit the right of patients to be fully involved in their treatment and to exercise full personal autonomy in respect of their gender identity and presentation. It must be stipulated that treatment criteria are to be exercised flexibly case-by-case on that basis. (Paragraph 214)

Assessment prior to treatment must be undertaken in order to meet clinically necessary criteria regarding the patient’s diagnosis, ability to consent to treatment and (physical and mental) fitness for treatment. The requirement to undergo “Real- Life Experience” prior to genital (reassignment / reconstructive) surgery must not entail conforming to externally imposed and arbitrary (binary) preconceptions about gender identity and presentation. It must be clear that this requirement is not about qualifying for surgery, but rather preparing the patient to cope with the profound consequences of surgery. (Paragraph 215)

and regarding the quality of services available to us -

The evidence is overwhelming that there are serious deficiencies in the quality and capacity of NHS Gender Identity Services. In particular, the waiting times that many patients experience prior to their first appointment (in clear breach of the legal obligation under the NHS Constitution to provide treatment within 18 weeks) and before surgery are completely unacceptable. (Paragraph 229)

We are also concerned at the apparent lack of any concrete plans to address the lack of specialist clinicians in this field. This will be a serious obstacle to addressing the lack of capacity, which growing demand for the service is sure to exacerbate, and cannot be ignored. (Paragraph 230)

The Department of Health must say in its response to us how it will work with Health Education England and other stakeholders to ensure that this is addressed. (Paragraph 230)

and talking about name changes -

There is a need for greater awareness of trans people’s legal right in most contexts to have their name and gender recorded as they wish without precondition. It is commonly assumed that there is such a thing in UK law as a “legal name”, when there is not; and that legal gender must be proved in many situations when this is in fact neither required nor appropriate. (Paragraph 296)

The Government must take the lead by ensuring public services have clear and appropriate policies regarding the recording of individuals’ names and genders. The requirement for trans people to produce a doctor’s letter in order to change the gender shown in their passport inappropriately medicalises what should be simply an administrative matter. This requirement must be dropped. (Paragraph 297)

The UK must follow Australia’s lead in introducing an option to record gender as “X” on a passport. If Australia is able to implement such a policy there is no reason why the UK cannot do the same. In the longer term, consideration should be given to the removal of gender from passports. (Paragraph 298)

The Government should be moving towards “non-gendering” official records as a general principle and only recording gender where it is a relevant piece of information. Where information on gender is required for monitoring purposes, it should be recorded separately from individuals’ personal records and only subject to the consent of those concerned. (Paragraph 299)

and talking about the Prison and Probation services -

While the safety and welfare of all offenders is paramount, caring for and managing trans offenders appropriately is crucial. There is a clear risk of harm (including violence, sexual assault, self-harming and suicide) where trans prisoners are not located in a prison or other setting appropriate to their acquired / affirmed gender. Neither is it fair or appropriate for them to end up in solitary confinement solely as a result of their trans status. (Paragraph 320)

We welcome the revision of the Prison Service Instruction on Care and Management of Transsexual Prisoners to make it more flexible and to extend it to prisoners on remand and offenders in statutory contact with the National Probation Service. (Paragraph 321)

The Ministry of Justice, National Offender Management Service and National Probation Service must urgently clarify what the situation is pending the publication of the new Instruction. When the new Instruction is published, they must ensure that staff are trained on it and that its implementation is monitored. (Paragraph 321)