Sharon Keogan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to take this opportunity to put before the House the significant concerns of many people regarding the proposed reforms to the equality Acts. I understand the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has set a deadline of 29 November for the consultation on the Acts and I wish to identify for the record a very important issue that has been identified with the proposed changes.

One of the proposals put forward by the Minister is to review the grounds covered by the Act, including the proposal that gender identity be added as a protected ground. Let me be clear that, of course, transgender people and any persons struggling with gender-related issues deserve full protection from harassment and discrimination. The issue that needs to be carefully considered in the context of any amendment to the law is that gender and sex are not the same. A lack of clarity in respect of the definition of those terms has led to a position whereby persons who obtain a gender recognition certificate to change gender, even men who have not had surgery or hormones and do not intend to have any, being able to access all female-only spaces as if they were a woman. If gender identity is included in the Act, obtaining a gender recognition certificate will no longer be necessary to access these spaces.

We have already seen the impact of conflating sex and gender in our laws following the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2015. We now have a situation whereby male-born prisoners who have not transitioned but who are granted a gender recognition certificate, even those who have committed serious sexual offences, are placed in prison facilities for women. If gender identity is included as a ground in the equality Act without including safeguards and legal clarity as to the distinction between gender and biological sex, we will be unable to protect single-sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms from male incursion. This will only serve to enable the two most common sexual offences, namely, voyeurism and exhibitionism.

Let me clear that this is not an attempt to paint trans people as predators - far from it. It is simply a recognition that 98.8% of sex offenders are male and 80% of victims are female. We cannot, in a noble attempt to be inclusive, worsen the position of women and children as they use intimate spaces. It would be naive indeed if we did not recognise that predators will use the complete lack of safeguards to access their victims. If we have learned anything, we have surely learned that. When self-identification was passed into law, we did not realise it conflated sex and gender, which leads to a situation whereby any man, even a fully intact sex offender, simply has to fill out a form and he can access female-only spaces. This has serious implications for women, women's rights and children's safeguarding. We cannot make the same mistake of rushing through legislative changes without considering their actual impact. The Government has not undertaken an impact assessment on this very important legislative measure. Surely, given all I have outlined, the Government would not be so reckless as to go ahead without a thorough impact assessment that addresses all the outcomes of such a change in the law, including on the other protected grounds, not least that of sex.

The Countess, a new women's and children's rights advocacy group, has repeatedly highlighted the issue and concerns caused by the confusion between sex and gender in our laws. Its recently commissioned poll shows that Irish people are tolerant of gender expression and identity in a social setting, and that it is to be applauded. However, many people want single-sex spaces and sports to be protected and believe people should be able to request intimate care and accommodation in healthcare settings based on biological sex, not gender. It would be a dereliction of our duty to protect all vulnerable groups in the population if we were to introduce such profound changes in legislation without full consideration of all the impacts. We must ensure that in protecting one group in clear need of such measures, we do not do so at the expense of another.