OPINION: We need to clarify the Equality Act to protect women - Andrew Lewer MP for Northampton South

I addressed the alarming consequences that arise from a lack of clarity, particularly when our laws mix up material reality with subjective claims about identity. When legislators make mistakes in defining these terms, it is ordinary people who suffer. Our laws must be unequivocally clear: in situations where sex is relevant, it is biological sex that matters. While individuals are free to identify as they choose, their claims about identity must not infringe upon the rights and well-being of others.

Regrettably, the current lack of clarity in the law has led to horrific consequences.

I urged my colleagues to consider a straightforward but common example where the significance of sex is undeniable: the case of a woman undergoing a gynaecological procedure. During these intimate procedures, many women specifically prefer to be attended by female healthcare workers.

Women may have individual reasons for this preference, such as being survivors of sexual assault or adhering to religious beliefs that require them to avoid intimate contact with men other than their husbands. Their feelings of privacy, dignity, and personal boundaries are entirely valid and should serve as the basis for granting or withholding consent.

The crucial question that arises is whether a man who identifies as a woman is a suitable person to provide care to a female patient who explicitly states that she will undergo such a procedure only if attended by another woman. Astonishingly, according to recent guidance from the NHS Confederation, a man is considered an appropriate care provider, despite the express wishes of the patient.

This misinterpretation of identity over the material reality of intimate contact disregards the patient's privacy, dignity and consent. Should the patient voice her concerns, she may be labelled as "transphobic" and potentially asked to leave the healthcare facility. Even her relatives speaking up for her may also face removal.

These actions, cloaked in the language of "gender identity," demonstrate a distressing disregard for the patient's concerns about the healthcare worker's biological sex rather than their claimed identity. Regrettably, such guidance is not limited to the NHS Confederation. The British Medical Association (BMA), contends that patients have "no right" to know a healthcare worker's assigned sex at birth.

Furthermore, according to the BMA, if a patient requests a same-sex carer, the priority should be the comfort of the staff member rather than the patient's preferences.

These quotes from the BMA's guidance are nothing short of heartless. We are talking about vulnerable women, potentially facing serious illness, who deserve compassion and respect. Yet, professional bodies are instructing healthcare providers to gaslight them, stating that it is acceptable for a man to touch their unclothed private parts against their explicit wishes simply because of his claimed identity.

This is not just heartless; it is illegal. If a man provides care to a woman who has expressly stated her willingness to receive it ONLY from another woman, it constitutes sexual assault.

How did we reach a point where medical organizations instruct care providers to commit sexual assault under the guise of inclusion? It is due to the lack of clarity in the law, which has allowed extremist campaigners to impose their ideology on everyone else. Similar abuses occur in schools and prisons, where individuals may be searched, ideally by a teacher or prison guard of the same sex. However, schools and prisons are being told that a man who identifies as a woman can conduct these searches.

It is important to note that I am not suggesting that transgender individuals are more likely to commit sexual assault. This issue pertains to the interpretation of the law. In fact, this misinterpretation by the BMA and the NHS Confederation may even put transgender healthcare providers in the distressing position of being encouraged by their employers to commit sexual assault.

This is precisely why clarity regarding the meaning of sex within the Equality Act is paramount. We must put an end to these abuses and protect the rights of all individuals involved. By bringing back clear and unambiguous definitions, we can safeguard privacy, dignity, and consent while ensuring that our laws respect the rights and well-being of everyone.