Charities need legal and regulatory support to navigate a hostile debate on trans inclusion

Organisations are being left to deal with the mess created by the Supreme Court ruling – and amid the noise, basic humanity is also lost.

Many years ago my father attended a reunion of some chaps he went to boys’ Army school with. When he came home he commented that it had been an unusual gathering as one of the old boys was now an old girl. Apparently she had battled with her gender identity all her life and finally decided to be who she really was, and so had transitioned.

We asked him how everyone reacted, assuming that a bunch of old soldiers would probably take the piss and be unkind. But he said that wasn’t the case at all. The veterans simply accepted her, and in fact in the parade she carried the flag.

That’s largely been the experience of most of us, I think. Trans people have integrated and been accepted in most walks of life without too much worry, and often without us even knowing they were trans.

But there has been a big change. Now how other people identify has become a major issue.

It might seem unusual to connect this thought to the Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza’s recent comments about trans inclusion – but something she said made me ponder.

Over Christmas she expressed confidence that youth organisations, such as Girlguiding, would find “innovative” ways to ensure no child felt excluded.

Ordinarily I would welcome confidence in our sector’s creativity – charities innovate constantly because they must. But in the context of trans inclusion, this feels uncomfortably like shifting responsibility: “It’s not my problem; find your own solution.”

Charities are largely being left to deal with the mess created by the Supreme Court ruling with little, if any, support, other than from lawyers who themselves don’t all agree.

It is hideously apparent that we can’t rely solely on folk’s basic humanity towards each other – certainly when it comes to this particular issue and especially in the public space.

Embedding inclusion almost always takes macro actions such as changes in legislation or policy. This is one of the reasons why we have equalities legislation: exhorting folk to be nicer to each other is not enough on its own.

Charities are in a difficult position. Many are trying to comply with what they believe the law requires, even though legal interpretations vary, while still wanting to be genuinely inclusive and being attacked from all sides as they try to navigate this complex situation.

I was myself particularly critical of the GirlGuiding decision to exclude trans girls – but on reflection I was probably a bit unfair and could have been more understanding.

Because while undoubtedly trans people were affected by it, the charity itself was clear that it wants to be trans inclusive but felt it had been forced to act. Without the support of those who could amend legislation or guidance to help them remain inclusive, what were they supposed to do?

Amending charitable objects is an option, but rarely a simple one, and is often a lengthy process. Women’s organisations that want to include trans women but exclude cis men, for example, face challenges when “biological sex” is interpreted narrowly.

Men’s organisations face similar issues, though trans men and boys tend to attract less scrutiny.

Meanwhile, charities are monitored closely by those who oppose trans inclusion. Any decision can trigger criticism, leaving many organisations fearful of acting at all.

Innovation alone will not solve this. The debate has become so toxic that people who speak up in support of inclusion for trans people face significant backlash. Expecting charities to navigate this alone is neither realistic nor fair.

Charities need clear guidance and support from the state, regulators and lawmakers. Institutions responsible for guidance must not avoid this issue but find a way to help charities provide the inclusive services they believe are right, without fear of sanction.

We must also never forget that there are human beings in all of these conversations. They might see the world differently – but to publicly target, threaten, bully, mock or harass those who don’t share your beliefs are not, in my view, the responsible actions of any person, let alone those who actually work in charities.

Those with the power to help sort out this dog’s dinner need to step up. And in the meantime we can be kinder. If my 83-year-old ex-soldier father can be kind and accepting of things that are different to his experience, then so can we all.

This article was originally published on the Third Sector website, you can take a look here.