Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Ladies, you are all welcome: Marianne Buchanan Stewart, Kirsty Montgomery and Theresa McVeigh, all from policy and engagement. You have some colleagues at the back. Do any of you want to come forward and join the panel? You would be welcome.

Thank you very much. We got your submission and appreciate that. Would you like to make some opening remarks?

Ms Marianne Buchanan Stewart (Women's Rights Network): We thank the Committee for accommodating us and our oral evidence in what, we know, has been a busy schedule for everybody. We are Marianne Buchanan Stewart, Kirsty Montgomery and Theresa McVeigh. We are part of the policy and engagement team for the Women's Rights Network (WRN).

The Women's Rights Network Northern Ireland is a cross-community volunteer network of women living across Northern Ireland. Our members come from all sections of our community, all ages, sexual orientations, employment status, and socio-economic, religious or non-religious backgrounds. We come from all political backgrounds, with members and supporters from republican and nationalist backgrounds, unionist and loyalist backgrounds and a vast number here now who are politically homeless.

We are a part of the UK-wide Women's Rights Network. It is a non-partisan network across the UK with one priority: to defend the sex-based rights of women through campaigning and advocating for single-sex spaces for women and girls. We aim to uphold and maintain the rights of women and girls in the UK and Ireland. We are all adult human females campaigning for evidence-based solutions to stop the erasure of our sex-based rights. The Women's Rights Network believes that the rights, protections, safety and dignity of women and girls in Northern Ireland is not a political or ideological question but a fundamental principle in a civilised society. We believe that the evidence provided in writing and, now, before the Committee represents a majority viewpoint in Northern Ireland. That viewpoint has been greatly misrepresented and unrepresented by and before policymakers.

The words "man" and "woman" are universally understood and unambiguous and must be reliable to classify biological reality. In recent times, the question, "What is a woman?" has become a gotcha moment for politicians and a debatable concept for the chattering classes, but it is not a concept for the ordinary person in the street. They know what a woman is. A woman is the class that has spent centuries being treated as the lesser sex. A woman is the class that had to fight for the right to vote. A woman is the class that is frequently paid less than their male counterparts. Women are also the class that is victim to the epidemic of male physical and sexual violence in Northern Ireland, which is the most dangerous place in Europe for women to live.

In most areas of life, a person's sex is immaterial, but, in those where it is important, it is really important. The sex of a person walking through a supermarket or eating in a cafe is not relevant. When it comes to toilets, changing rooms, healthcare settings, sporting opportunities and job opportunities, however, sex matters. Many women have been forced into silence on these issues in their workplace, in their family life and in public. They fear exclusion, threats, doxing and losing their jobs for challenging gender ideology. We run the risk of isolating 51% of our community by denying the need for women's sex-based rights. Women's silence is not compliance. Today, we ask that the Committee engage on the matter with sincerity.

I pass to Kirsty, who will give a high-level overview of our briefing paper.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Ms Kirsty Montgomery (Women's Rights Network): Thank you, Marianne, and thank you to the Committee for welcoming us.

Women and children represent our most vulnerable populations, and robust rights and protections are needed to ensure safety, dignity and equality of opportunity. While legislation cannot be wholly comprehensive, it must strive to be unambiguous and fit for purpose. The recent conflation of the words "sex" and "gender", together with the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, has allowed uncertainty to develop for service providers and employers. They can no longer rely on the common definitions of a man or a woman for legal purposes, to the extent that the UK Supreme Court is currently considering that very question.

The term "gender" is subjective. It refers to self-identity and relates to feelings. Legal definitions require objective clarity in order to accurately identify those who need protection on the basis of a particular characteristic. If sex cannot be defined, it cannot be protected. Failure to accurately define that protected characteristic renders it meaningless. Sex is binary and immutable: it cannot be changed.

The Committee has an opportunity to deliver robust and fit-for-purpose policy and legislation that will protect women and girls in their single-sex spaces, in employment, in sport and at their most vulnerable moments. That would deliver clarity for employers, service providers and public bodies, supporting them to deliver on their duties and responsibilities.

In recent times, we have seen the confusion and toxic public conversation on these matters have a chilling effect on service providers, employers and each of us as individuals. Local leisure centres, employers and supermarkets have adopted a self-ID approach that falls short of the current provisions of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, which already provide protections for single-sex spaces. The Equality Commission has confirmed that, for legal purposes, there are only two sexes, and our members urge the Committee to continue to protect those definitions in its review. Our network believes that that would be widely supported, as a recent YouGov poll showed that a clear majority of the UK population supports clarifying that "sex" means biological sex.

Another area where biological sex is vital is data collection and recording. Data must be recorded correctly in order for specific issues that affect men and women to be understood. We must ensure that data is recorded correctly, especially in the areas of justice, health and employment. Accurate data collection is being undermined by the conflation of sex and gender. That conflation removes the clarity of data that we need if we are to understand the differences that men and women experience in life in the areas of employment, crime, physical health and mental health. In Northern Ireland and more widely, we have seen violent and dangerous men being referred to by the judiciary and in the media as women, with male violence, rape and murder being attributed to women and included as female crimes. Those are not our crimes.

As recently as December 2024, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) stated that it would respect the rights of the individual and refer to them by their stated gender. That cannot be allowed in the case of rape, sexual and violent crimes or domestic abuse. It is cruel and callous to expect the victim of a violent sexual crime to listen to the perpetrator being called a woman in court. The act of rape can only be committed by a man. The recent case here of a violent man who presents as a woman throws that issue into sharp focus. Those challenges are not for women to accommodate or resolve.

The PSNI and the Department of Justice must ensure that the records of crimes are based on biological sex to ensure that crime statistics are accurate and representative. In the last week, the UK Judicial Office of England and Wales has published new guidance to advise judges to stop referring to people using preferred pronouns in cases that hinge on the recognition of a person's biological sex. We urge the judiciary here to ensure that the same advice is issued with urgency.

Males are being given access to female spaces without consultation or challenge, and the fact that women's spaces are being erased is not obvious to the woman in the street. She often has no idea that she could find a man in her Marks and Spencer changing room. Check any news app any day of the week, and you can read about examples of male, non-contact sexual abuse, cameras being placed in schoolchildren's toilets and even porn categories dedicated to the filming of unwitting women in changing rooms.

Dangerous men do not carry a visible warning sign. They cannot be identified on sight, so why would we allow any man into women's spaces, regardless of how they identify? Denying the risk to women of allowing men in the places where they are at their most vulnerable is naive at best, and the distressing impact of men in spaces where women should expect privacy and safety must not be underestimated.

Through lack of challenge to the self-ID approach, women have begun to self-exclude. Is it fair that those with religious or cultural beliefs who would be deeply offended by the presence of a man in a women-only environment will self-exclude? Is it fair that a woman of any background should have to self-exclude? Are we imposing a urinary leash on women who have to stay close to home to keep themselves safe and to avoid the distress that single-sex spaces should rightly protect them from?

In the workplace, men and women are losing their jobs just for recognising that sex is a biological reality. Our members are aware of many cases of organisations bullying employees to include pronouns in their email bios or actively avoiding their colleague who now presents as the opposite sex so that they do not have to address that colleague in a manner that is not natural to them. Pronouns do not belong to the individual; they are for others to use. Therefore, demanding them is compelled speech and a breach of a person's basic human rights. The demand to use chosen pronouns implies that the speaker holds the same belief in that ideology, and it is the first step to the confusion in which society currently finds itself. The Committee has an opportunity to protect everyone's right to hold a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society, as described and ruled on in the Forstater case, that sex is real, sex is binary and it cannot be changed.

The language of women and girls is being eroded in front of our eyes. Dehumanising terms such as "birth givers, "uterus havers", "chest feeders", "menstruators" and "bonus holes" are all titles given now to women. That degradation of women is not acceptable. Many find the removal of the language of women and girls offensive. The erasure of women's language is prevalent in all areas of life, and it is the language that we use every day to identify the real experiences that we go through. Just a few days ago, Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, stated:

WRN hopes that sanity in that regard will return and that the UK Government will act to ensure that the language of women is reinstated in our health service.

In the area of employment, we know that women are historically underpaid and, to this day, are not paid equally to men. While we have fair pay legislation here, where men and women must be paid equally for the same job, it is not fit for purpose. Many companies are taking advantage of traditionally lower-paid women and are not required to publish the pay scales. To sidestep the law, companies are asking for women's current pay, where women often present with lower pay, then make a slight incremental increase on their salary offer, leading to vast discrepancies in staff salaries, especially when it comes to their male comparators. Without pay transparency, companies will continue to disadvantage women and all those on lower salaries. Women are unable to identify out of those lower salaries that the patriarchy has enforced on us, and we rely on policy and legislation to ensure that companies act fairly for women.

The issue of representation of women in public and political life is important and is highlighted in the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. For Women Scotland is taking the Scottish Government to the Supreme Court to challenge the statutory guidance issued by them under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. We urge the new Commissioner for Public Appointments, when appointed, to ensure that the representation of women is fair and that the Government here protect women's rights to be represented in public life fairly and ensure that the EU women on boards directive is progressed here.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): These are really meant to be opening remarks. How much more have you got left?

Ms Montgomery: Very little.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Go ahead.

Ms Montgomery: As this remit falls to the Executive Office, we urge the Committee to ensure that everything is done to protect women in this regard. Thank you for considering the report. I pass back to Marianne for closing remarks.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Again, we thank you for listening. Gaps in equality legislation must be considered through the lens of ensuring the protection of all members of society and of the protected characteristics that we rely on. We must ensure that we are not creating a gap in equality legislation by allowing sex and gender to be conflated. We hope that today you can see that we approach this with a genuine concern for the rights, safeguards and dignity of women and girls and that we are willing to engage constructively with all of you as you progress and with anything else that, you may feel, is relevant. We are happy to take questions now.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, ladies. I really appreciate that. Thank you for a comprehensive submission.

You talked about vulnerable women and girls. Do you agree with me that trans women are vulnerable and will be subject to harassment and bullying?

Ms Montgomery: In what environment?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Walking in the street, in employment, going about their daily lives.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: They are men, and, if they want to dress and appear not to be men — everybody gets bullied for something that they wear or some way they behave. It is not right. They should not be bullied, but we are here to talk about women's rights, not men's rights, so we would prefer the questions to be —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): If they have had surgery and have got their recognition certificate —

Ms Buchanan Stewart: They are still men.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I will not pursue that.

You talked about the chilling impact and the demand for employees to use pronouns on their social media profiles and so on. Are there particular examples of companies that have been forcing their staff to do that?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We do not want to out our members or the companies that they work for, but it is an issue.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Does it happen here?

Ms Theresa McVeigh (Women's Rights Network): The most obvious cases are those that have gone through the courts. There is a case in Northern Ireland that is going through the court at the moment, but I cannot tell you the details and, anyway, would not want to, since it is in front of the courts.

The most famous case is the Forstater case from two years ago. It went to an employment appeal tribunal to establish that employees have the right to hold gender-critical beliefs. We find it reprehensible that it is necessary for women to do that. It is a hugely expensive exercise to take an action through the courts, to go to an appeal court and possibly to go to a higher court, costing tens of thousands of pounds, because the law is not clear. That is why we are looking for clarity in the law that the protected characteristic is sex. "Sex" refers to biological sex. There are two sexes — male and female — and you cannot change your sex.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have one more question, and it is on crime statistics.

To what degree is there under-representation in how the PSNI, PPS etc record crimes? As a woman — there are many women in the room — I am more afraid of a man who presents as a man than I am of a trans woman. Have you got evidence that a proportion of crimes are carried out by trans women?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We can get those to you after this. Go ahead, Theresa.

Ms McVeigh: I am happy to try to address the issue that you have raised, Chair. The crime of rape, for instance, is massively under-reported, and, among those that are reported, the number of successful convictions is minuscule. It is a scandal across the UK, undoubtedly.

With regard to whether women are afraid of men generally or are afraid of —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The question that I asked was more around what percentage of crimes, whether they are sexually motivated or not, are carried out by trans women.

Mr Gaston: Page 6.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: There are government statistics. Trans women offend at the same rate as all other men in the country. There is no difference. In fact, where sexual crimes are concerned, the rate is slightly higher.

Ms McVeigh: Among the male prison population, the percentage of trans-identifying men who have been convicted of sexual and violent crimes is much higher than that of the general male population in prison.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You said that the statistics are there.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We will get those to you.

Ms McVeigh: Yes, indeed. We are happy to send them to you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you.

Mr Dickson: You discussed the area of pay equality for women. We have had an Equal Pay Act in Northern Ireland since 1970, and there have been some really landmark decisions in respect of that. Where do you see equal pay legislation needing to go? This is a review of equality legislation, so where do you see equality legislation, with regard to the gender pay gap, being improved? What needs to change?

Ms Montgomery: It will not be evident where the huge pay discrepancies lie until companies in Northern Ireland are forced to publish their pay scales. As far as I am aware, that legislation is not yet in place here. I think that, in GB, it is, and companies have to publish their pay scales.

Mr Dickson: What difference would publishing pay scales make? Surely, if you believe that you are being paid less than someone else, you can bring an equal pay claim.

Ms Montgomery: You can.

Mr Dickson: People do and are successful.

Ms Montgomery: Many of them are, but you have to know that you are being underpaid before you can bring that. Traditionally, in Northern Ireland, people do not discuss their salaries openly in the workplace, so women can often be paid a lot less than their male comparators and not know it. Until you understand the pay scale and where your job sits on that pay scale, you cannot know that you are being paid less.

Mr Dickson: You can exclude the public sector from that, because everybody knows what everybody gets paid in the public sector. On that element of discrimination, that is a well-tested route, and there have been some incredibly good cases, particularly involving local employees, including dinner women and binmen. When it comes to private-sector employment in Northern Ireland, surely the Equality Commission has a duty to assist anyone in making those enquiries.

Ms McVeigh: Yes, it does, and that happens. However, I go back to this point: if you do not know that you are being paid less than the guy next to you, how could you even raise a claim?

Mr Dickson: From your perspective, in respect of a review of equality legislation, it would be positive if private-sector employers were required by law to publish their pay rates.

Ms Montgomery: Yes.

Mr Dickson: OK. Thanks very much.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, ladies, for coming in today, for your paper and, frankly, for taking a stand on the issue. I share your concerns about the erosion of women's rights. There is pushback across society against a change that has happened in a small number of years regarding what was seen as biological fact and common sense. It is becoming unacceptable, in some circles, to talk about men and women. I remember being told that you should not say, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen" or, "Good morning, boys and girls". I certainly did not listen to that advice. I understand that we must have tolerance across society for how people wish to live their life, but that does not mean that we should rewrite the basics of the human species.

It is helpful that you have spoken up on the issue and for many people, but I want to push you. There are people who are transgender: that is how they wish to live their life and define themselves. There must be tolerance of people in their private life. However, that does not mean that we have to do away with single-sex spaces or protections for women in particular. Have you had engagement with individuals or groups who represent trans people? Do you have any suggestions for how there can be tolerance in how society is structured of people who define themselves in that way, without having to abandon the whole idea of sex and single-sex spaces?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We, as an organisation and individually, have had discussions with trans people. Some trans people agree with us; some disagree. As we said, there are lots of instances when it does not matter if you are trans or a man or a woman. Everyone should be protected with regard to housing, employment and equal rights, but we should not have to share our female spaces with males. As no one can change sex, when a man says that he is a woman, he is still a man. We have a right to our privacy and our dignity, and we need to retain that. We have no issue with everything else.

Ms Montgomery: If there is an issue with men who choose to present as women using men's spaces, maybe there is an education point for men, rather than for women, to be tolerant of those differences. If those men were able to use their own facilities, on the basis of their biology, without fear of other men, they would not need to use women's spaces.

Mr Kingston: The Committee just heard from the Christian Institute. Many Churches have youth organisations that are for boys and girls, although not all are. When lottery funding came in, at one stage, one of the application criteria was that you could not have single-sex groups. It seems that, at various stages, there is an intolerance of having single-sex groups. There was a case in Australia recently of a biological man who successfully sued a women's group because it said that he could not be a member.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Lesbians in Australia cannot now gather without allowing a man to be present. That is the law in Australia. If a man demands to be present at a lesbian meeting, he can be present. Lesbians no longer have single-sex protected spaces.

Mr Kingston: That is an example of the unintended consequences of not thinking something through and not respecting the right to have single-sex spaces. Do you want to highlight any cases in Northern Ireland where that has become a difficult issue?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: There are a couple of court cases — I am involved in one — but we cannot discuss them because they are not there yet. Anecdotally, some of our Northern Ireland groups that are specifically for lesbians have been told that they should accept men into their spaces. We know of youth groups that have taken girls away and a boy who identified as a girl shared their sleeping quarters. If I was the parent of any of those girls, I would not be happy about a boy sharing sleeping accommodation with my girl on a weekend away.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for coming along. It is refreshing that you have come in and that the document that you have provided us with is forthright and proud of your stance. From the get-go, it states:

It is refreshing to hear that at the Committee. A number of times, I have asked a Minister or officials to define a woman — they must still be looking for that definition. It is refreshing. Thank you very much for putting yourselves outside the comfort zone.

Reading down through your submission, I took this out:

Would you believe that you are the first group that has come and pointed that out, even though that is in law and this is the last day of the inquiry into gaps in equality legislation? Earlier in the week, I heard that the Equality Commission now recognises only two genders. It is good to hear that that is where —

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We prefer — I am not being pernickety here — the word —

Mr Gaston: "Sex".

Ms Buchanan Stewart: — "sex"; yes. "Gender" is now a confusing term that people do not really understand. "Gender" is how you present yourself rather than your actual sex.

Mr Gaston: That leads me on to my next point. Your group is keen that, in law, it is defined as "sex" and that there be no mention of "gender", because it causes confusion, whereas "sex" is biological sex from birth.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Yes.

Mr Gaston: You are forthright on that. One of your recommendations is that:

I come on to this 'End Violence Against Women and Girls' document, which is one of the Executive's flagships. Were you ever asked to take part in the consultation on that?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: No. I will just check: is that the right answer? No, we were not.

Mr Gaston: One of the queries that I raised with the co-design partners — I cannot remember whether it was the Minister or officials — was whether any gender critics were asked to get involved. Is this your first time coming to give evidence?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Yes.

Mr Gaston: For me, it is a breakthrough moment that you have come. Certainly, in future, when it comes to documents like this, the Women's Rights Network must be one of the groups —

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Sometimes, it is hard enough to get your local councillor or MLA to speak to you, never mind anybody beyond that.

Mr Gaston: I know.

To be charitable to those who hold a different view, why does gender or sex create such a hostile environment? On the Committee, when I have said that there are only two sexes, I have faced quite a bit of criticism. Why are there those in public life who are hostile to that?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: I find that it is because, once you scrape the surface, there is no actual factor or reality to it. It is somebody's wish to be, but it is not their reality and is not our reality. I have no objection to somebody defining themselves in any way. They could define themselves as a horse, and I would not care, but I am not going to feed them hay, put a saddle on them and ride them round a field. Similarly, if a man tells me that he is a woman, I am happy enough. I do not object to him having the same rights as everyone else in housing and employment. He should not be sacked or lose his house because he is transgender. He should not lose anything because he is transgender. However, he should not compel me to use words to define him that are not factual and that go against what I see in front of me.

Mr Gaston: On the Chair's point, I will bring out the facts from your submission:

Time and time again, we have been told that a man pretending to be a woman poses no risk to society or other women. The stats do not support that claim. Your group is of the opinion —

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Your previous question ties in with that. A man can present to us as a woman and demand that we call him a woman and treat him as a woman. We are naturally honed to seek out who in our surroundings is male and who is female. It is a hangover from our evolution. When you look at the statistics on male violence against women and girls, you can see why we need to know who in our surroundings is male and who is female. When you quash that instinct in women, you take away a defence mechanism. If you tell a woman, "You must call this man a woman. That man might not have been dangerous, but you have to treat the next man as a woman", you quash that woman's instinct to get away from a situation in which she would normally not place herself because it is a man there rather than another woman. The statistics show that they are more inclined to be sexually violent, so we are being asked to quash a legitimate fear in us.

Mr Gaston: Your submission states:

It is important to highlight that. Your submission also highlights the fact that:

Does our Minister of Justice know that? When she was most recently in the House discussing the issue, she said that that is done:

Are you telling me that what you say is in law?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: I think that the Geneva Convention states that women shall not be housed with men. If women can be housed separately from men in a war, I cannot understand how we cannot manage to do it in peacetime.

Mr Gaston: What are your thoughts on that "case-by-case basis" approach to trans women in female prisons?

Ms McVeigh: It needs to be addressed in the legislation, so it is good that the Committee is looking at it. We welcome that.

Mr Gaston: Ards and North Down Borough Council hit the media, rightly. As your submission states:

gender recognition certificate —

A Northern Ireland council has taken that decision. That is concerning to me. What is your message to that council?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Again, mixed-sex spaces increase the risk of sexual violence, such as upskirting, towards women. You can say that you are in a locked cubicle, but, if the rest of the changing room is empty, you are alone in a cubicle, you go to leave it and some man pushes his way in, you have no escape. You maybe cannot stop a man coming into an empty changing room anyway, but we have those spaces so that men who try to enter them stand out and can be approached and stopped. If it is all mixed-sex spaces, that increases the risks to women. If we are going to discuss male violence against women and girls, we have to take that into consideration. The statistics show that mixed-sex spaces in which women are vulnerable are more dangerous for women.

Ms McVeigh: That is why we included in our paper our wish that the Assembly and Executive make provision to inform service providers — not just commercial organisations but Departments — that there is no such thing as self-ID in Northern Ireland. Several public-sector and private-sector organisations have gone ahead and, without any consultation, implemented self-ID in what were previously female spaces. That is completely inappropriate.

Mr Gaston: Going back to the 'End Violence Against Women and Girls' document on something that is obviously a serious problem in Northern Ireland, do you believe that, for it to be successful, the Executive need to work out and define what a woman is so that they are able to enforce their policy?

Ms Montgomery: Yes. Our biggest ask is that any legislation being drafted refer to "male" and "female" and "man" and "woman" on the basis of a biological reality and not an acquired gender or a self-ID approach.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I agree with your submission on the EU pay transparency directive; it is really important to keep bringing that up. I completely disagree with everything else that you say. We had, "No gays apply", in the previous session, and now it is, "No trans apply". It is disgraceful, to be frank.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We do not say, "No trans apply"; we say that trans people should have all the human rights that everybody else has.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Then you outline the areas where trans people should not have access.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: No. Women who are trans-identifying can still access female spaces, so we do not exclude trans people. We exclude men from our single-sex spaces.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You feel that there is no such thing as a trans man or a trans woman.

Ms McVeigh: Sorry. You will have to define —

Ms Buchanan Stewart: A trans woman is a man who presents as and pretends to be a woman. A trans man is a woman who pretends to be and presents as a man. Trans men, who are women biologically, are not excluded.

Ms Ní Chuilín: But trans women are.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Because they are men.

Ms Montgomery: They are not excluded from their spaces: men's spaces.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: They are just excluded from women's.

Ms Montgomery: They are not excluded from the places where they can legitimately go, but we ask that they be excluded from women's spaces.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The history of LGBTQ+ is about inclusion rather than exclusion: that is my big problem. I will say no more.

Mr Dickson: A word that has been used regularly is "pretend". The Government provide gender recognition certificates. They do not say that your gender has changed. The law says that your sex has changed. You have highlighted heavily that this is about sex, male and female. The law says that.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: The Gender Recognition Act was created because homosexuals could not marry. Two women could not marry, and two men could not marry. The way around that was an Act whereby a man could change his gender and, legally, his sex — it is a legal fiction — so that he could marry another man. Now that we have same-sex — you may roll your eyes, but you can look it up.

Mr Dickson: I am not rolling my eyes; I am just incredulous. Sorry, continue.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Yes, it is incredible that that was made law before same-sex marriage was. Now that we have same-sex marriage, there is no need for a gender recognition Act.

Mr Dickson: Men could not marry men before the law changed. Likewise, women could not marry women before the law changed.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: They could when they had a gender recognition certificate, because, as you said, legally, their sex changed.

Mr Dickson: That was not the purpose of gender recognition certificates.

Ms McVeigh: May I add to that?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am conscious that I still have to bring Sinéad in, but go ahead. Make your point quickly. Thank you.

Ms McVeigh: It is important to bear it in mind that very few trans people have a gender recognition certificate. The subsequent legislation has given them many proper rights, so the gender recognition certificate is irrelevant. It is not —

Mr Dickson: There are approximately 5,000 in the United Kingdom. Sorry, Chair, for hogging.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are OK.

Mr Dickson: I will just conclude. Many trans people will be traumatised by listening to this, and they will be offended, as I am, and traumatised by the use of the word "pretend".

Ms Ní Chuilín: Good for you, Stewart.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you very much for coming before the Committee. This is an extremely sensitive and complex issue, and we need to be really mindful of our language and the impact that it has on vulnerable people in our communities. Not everyone fits neatly into male or female. It is extremely complex. There are a lot of gender identity issues, and we have to be sensitive. I want to record that I do not agree with the presentation that you have made today.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: All of it or just some of it?

Ms McLaughlin: Some of the language that you have used. Stewart mentioned your use of the word "pretend". I do not know a lot of transgender people because there are not a lot of them, but I know some transgender individuals. They are very vulnerable, and they feel under attack from the identity —

Mr Dickson: War.

Ms McLaughlin: — war that is going on not just here but globally. It is scary for individuals. We need to be sensitive to that in our discussions about equality.

Your briefing paper states that the Republic of Ireland has effectively declared:

Can you tell us how that declaration has interacted with the Republic of Ireland's equality legislation? What has been the impact of that?

I bring you back to the 70% figure concerning transgender prisoners. Can you give the number of transgender prisoners that that refers to, because percentages can —?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We can get the government figures and send them to you after the meeting.

Ms McVeigh: I do not understand the first part of the question.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Did you get that one?

Ms Montgomery: No. I will write it down.

Ms McLaughlin: Page 43 of your briefing paper states that there has effectively been declaration of:

Ms McVeigh: Sorry. Where are you getting that from?

Ms McLaughlin: Page 43 of your briefing paper.

Mr Kingston: It is on page 15.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is on page 15 of the briefing paper.

Ms McLaughlin: Sorry. It is on page 43 of our pack. Can you tell us how that declaration has interacted with the Republic of Ireland's equality legislation? What has been the impact of that? You refer to it extensively in the last paragraph of the briefing paper.

Ms Montgomery: I am making a note of the information that we need to provide to the Committee.

Ms McVeigh: There were two parts to your question. Sorry.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: There is no requirement in the Republic of Ireland other than to fill in an A4 page to declare that you are the opposite sex. That is where it starts. That means that, in the Republic of Ireland, I could walk into a female toilet, see Timothy standing in a suit and tie and with a beard and know, clearly, that he is a man, but I could not challenge him, because he can say, "I have a GRC". It is self-identification. They just have to fill out an A4 sheet, and that is it.

Ms McLaughlin: Can you tell us how that declaration has impacted on the equality legislation as provided in the Republic of Ireland?

Ms Montgomery: We will get that information to you afterwards.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. That is fine.

Have you engaged with Nexus, Victim Support NI or Women's Aid about violence against women and girls?

Ms Buchanan Stewart: We reach out to women's organisations in Northern Ireland all the time, and no one responds.

Ms Ní Chuilín: None of them?

Ms Montgomery: None of them.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Political parties do not respond either.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. The Committee will look at the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, for which the Executive Office is responsible. It went out to consultation a few years ago, and there was a delay in the launch. I am not sure how long your organisation has existed.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: It feels like longer, but it has been in existence since 2021.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Maybe some of the consultations started before then. We can certainly pass on your contact details.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Paula, that issue has come up quite a lot, particularly among grassroots women's groups: they feel that they were not consulted on the strategy.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am just offering something from today's meeting. I totally agree: there were quite a lot —

Ms Ní Chuilín: There were opportunities missed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you so much. It was a tense session, but I appreciate your contribution and the effort that you made to pull together that comprehensive submission. Thank you very much, ladies.

Ms Buchanan Stewart: Thank you, all, for your time.