Austrian MEP Lukas Mandl has suggested defining a woman (and girls) as "a person of the female sex". (Am 749) This adds some desperately needed clarity and accuracy to the debate.   Both in national, EU and international jurisprudence ‘sex’ is understood as a biological category that distinguishes women (females) and men (males). “Gender”, on the other hand, has no coherent definition in the EU law or policy and is often erroneously conflated with biological sex. It is often used as shorthand for “gender identity” which has been defined as “an internal sense of gender”. 

However, women and girls experience a disproportionate level of male violence and sexual assault on the basis of their sexed bodies regardless of their "gender identity".  With this in mind, we also ask you to reject the numerous amendments which seek to replace “sex” with “gender” and to extend special protections to sexual minorities such as males who self-identify as women.

We oppose AM 345 by MEPs Angel et. al. and AM 355 by Spurek, & Riba i Giner which do a great disservice to our children by continuing policies that often lead to healthy young girls becoming lifelong patients and undergoing mutilation with irreversible consequences. The intent of these amendments (and related AMs 800 and 808) is to make 'intersex genital mutilation' a criminal offence unless the child gives informed consent. The criteria for a child's informed consent include understanding the facts, assessing the risks, and weighing the short and long-term consequences. In these amendments, however, it is made clear that this consent requirement does not apply to children who "consent" to "gender-affirming hormonal treatments or access to hormone inhibitors." 

It is disingenuous to refer to the ability of children to give informed consent to gender-affirming care as if the issue were already widely accepted and settled. In fact, there is very little evidence or scientific consensus on whether the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, often with irreversible effects and lifelong medicalisation of healthy bodies, is the best option for these children.  A more cautious approach is needed, as in pioneer countries such as Sweden and Finland, which are now backing off after seeing the damage of a trans-affirmative approach.

Moreover, we believe that AM 390 by MEPs Angel et.al. seeks to unduly silence medical professionals and parents who speak out against the gender-affirmative model of care by equating their concerns with "hate speech". This amendment pushes the coercive and debunked narrative that such children will commit suicide if they are not "affirmed". 

​

We believe the Commission’s proposal encouraging preventative measures strengthening “sexuality education socio-emotional competencies, empathy and developing healthy and respectful relationships” is sufficient. However, the reference to “age-appropriate” sexuality education in AM 607 (Chinnici et.al.) is welcome. Still, we regret that there is no mention of the need to base such education on science. We also reject the idea of "comprehensive sexuality education" which according to UN  guidance advises that children as young as 5 should be asked to "reflect on how they feel about their biological sex and gender" and asks nine years olds to "acknowledge that everyone has a gender identity" and learn how to define their own.

Education addressing sexuality and gender stereotypes should be based on facts, informed by realities and tailored to the target audience. This has been highlighted by both the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child in their joint general recommendation (No. 31). The recommendation underlines the importance of “age-appropriate education, which includes science-based information on sexual and reproductive health”.

​

French MEP Nathalie Oesterlé is calling for shelters which are solely for female victims (AM 564). This would ensure female victims get trauma-sensitive care that takes account of their personal sense of dignity, privacy and safety. For many female victims of male violence, having to share rape crisis services or domestic abuse shelters with persons born male (regardless of how they self-identify) could lead some of the most vulnerable women to self-exclude or suffer from re-traumatisation. 

While the proposal for "single-sex" shelters sounds attractive, it fails to clarify what "single-sex" means. In countries like Belgium, Spain and Ireland it is possible to legally self-identify as the opposite "sex", which means it would still be possible for any fully intact male to access female spaces.  It is also unclear what "single gender" means. Does this refer to biological sex or gender identity? How many "gender identities" are there and is it really feasible to have shelters for each of them?  Gender is not the same as sex – so this proposal adds confusion.

​

Amendments 345 and 355  also introduce the ideologically charged words  "assigned female sex at birth".  Advanced medical testing now correctly determines the sex of male and female children, including intersex children - or, to be more scientifically accurate, children with variations in sex development (VSD).  Rather than being "assigned" at birth, sex is simply recorded using the genitalia as a very reliable predictor of the underlying gonadal type. The term "assigned" implies that a medical error may have occurred, which, while it may be true on rare occasions, does not immediately call into question everyone's sex.

Furthermore, the claim that biological sex is "assigned at birth" is highly misleading because it establishes a false equivalence between transgender people and those who are born with VSD. The suggestion is that felt identity, rather than reproductive anatomy, defines a person's biological sex. We need to continue to recognize that biological sex exists and is important, for example, in the treatment of certain sex-related health problems. For transgender people themselves, denying that they have a biological sex from before birth negates their own claims to the need for sex reassignment.

It is increasingly difficult for women, parents, health professionals and others to speak freely as citizens about sex and gender issues. Voices calling for sex-based rights and a more careful approach to the gender-affirmative model of care are drowned out by accusations of hate speech and transphobia. Often these accusations are accompanied by violence or threats of violence both on and offline. 

We welcome amendment 956 from Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé MEP making it an aggravated offence to commit violent acts against a person as a result of a hostile attitude towards the victim because of his or her "political or other beliefs or opinions".