A United Nations (UN) official has raised the alarm about controversial gender recognition reforms being pursued by the Scottish Government, saying they endanger women's safety.

Reem Alsalem described the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill as unfair, rushed, vague and contradictory and calls for more time to consider the consequences.

What are the proposals about?

The bill seeks to 'de-medicalise' and 'streamline' the gender recognition process, which allows people who believe they are the opposite sex to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

At present, such individuals have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and live as the opposite sex for two years to obtain a GRC and legally change sex.

People who have a GRC can be issued with a new birth certificate stating that they were in fact born the opposite sex, enabling access to certain sex-based entitlements.

The Scottish Government's plans would remove all barriers and safeguards in the gender recognition process, with a GRC obtainable via self-declaration after a period of just three months.

It would also reduce the age at which persons can apply for a GRC from 18 to 16, putting Scotland at odds with the rest of the UK and most European countries.

Women campaigners have said this approach would open the door to predatory men self-identifying as women to access women's spaces and perpetrate abuse.

Medics have also cautioned that removing the need for medical oversight and an opinion by doctors will see vulnerable young people placed at risk of harm.

UN concerns about women's safety

In a 4,500-word letter Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, appealed to Nicola Sturgeon to allow “sufficient time to complete a thorough assessment of all foreseeable consequences”.

“[The] proposals would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a GRC and the rights associated with it. This presents potential risks to the safety of women in all their diversity", she warned.

“The Scottish government…does not provide for any safeguarding measures to ensure that the procedure is not, as far as can be reasonably assured, abused by sexual predators and other perpetrators of violence. These include access to both single-sex spaces and gender-based spaces.”

Ms Alsalem adds that the proposals "do not sufficiently take into consideration the specific needs of women and girls in all their diversity, particularly those at risk of male violence and those who have experienced male violence, as it does not provide for any safeguarding measures".

"It is vital that service providers in Scotland continue to be able to provide both single-sex and gender-based services, and funding must be ring-fenced for a certain proportion to be single sex, balancing the needs of the different demographics without placing them in conflict", she said.

CARE's view on the Gender Bill

Last month, CARE for Scotland asked MSPs to oppose the Scottish Government's gender recognition proposals at a Stage 1 debate in the Scottish Parliament, warning that they risk undermining the safety of children and placing a chill on free speech.

Michael Veitch, Scottish Parliamentary Officer, said:

“We do not accept the narrative of proponents that this Bill is essentially a tidying-up exercise aimed at reducing the bureaucracy of acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate. On the contrary, by removing medical requirements, and reducing the statutory time limit to a nominal three-month period, the Bill introduces a de-facto system of ‘self-identification’.

“If passed, the Bill would send a very clear message to children and young people that their biological sex is not a fixed reality but entirely a matter of personal choice. ‘Self-identification’ could encourage them to make potentially life-altering changes to their bodies. We also have concerns about the bill’s impact on sex-based rights and conventions, and freedom of expression.”

He added:

“CARE for Scotland supports measures to protect all groups from persecution and ensure compassion and respect are afforded trans people but hold that this is separate from (and should not be linked to) the proposals set out in this Bill that have far reaching consequences.”