Debate contribution: International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 12 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

12 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4937888

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is important that the motion has been brought here to be heard today. Obviously, there are omissions in the motion, hence my amendment, but it is important that the House takes a stand against rising transphobia and other forms of hate and division. Despite a crisis in our health service, an education system that sees pupils stuck in unfit and unsafe accommodation and an onslaught on personal independence payment (PIP) and other welfare support systems, we see an attack on the rights of trans people by most of the political establishment, particularly the unionist quarter of the House. Despite talk about standing up for concerned parents or whomever else, we see those parties tailing and following the agenda of Trump, Elon Musk, McGregor, Farage, Starmer and whoever else has decided that it is worth sticking the boot into a small, marginalised community in our society. It is disgraceful, and it needs to be called out. The only time that the DUP ever mentions women or pretends to give a damn about women's rights is when it uses them to stick the boot into another oppressed minority. The DUP is fundamentally opposed to the bodily autonomy of women and was happy for the state to prosecute women who sought abortion. Do not fall for the fake concern about women or women-only spaces. The women's movement, certainly on this island, has been clear about where it stands on the rights of trans, non-binary and bi people. It is welcoming and does not fall into the traps set for it. The real threat to women and women's groups is underfunding by the state and the lack of support for women who want to break out of violent and dangerous situations. The real danger to women, as is often reported, is usually from partners, ex-partners or family members, not from the trans community. My amendment focuses on puberty blockers and reversing the Executive's decision to ban them for the trans community. Other blows have been inflicted on the community that need to be addressed. Most recent, of course —.

Maybe later on. Most recent, of course, has been the Cass review. Much has been said about it already, but what has not yet been homed in on is how the report was biased. The review refused to hear from or have input from trans voices, leading many to conclude that it was a stitch-up. It also excluded hundreds of reviews and research into how puberty blockers are an essential part of gender-affirming healthcare for some young people. Evidence also shows that, in many cases, puberty blockers are life-saving. 'The Journal of Pediatrics' found that trans people on puberty blockers, hormone therapy or both were 73% less likely to report suicidality. There is the evidence for people who want to listen to it. Poland's guidance on trans youth healthcare describes the Cass review as having "low scientific value and credibility". A limited and incomplete review should not be used to justify an attack on the trans community. The Supreme Court decision was a continuation of that attack. Often, in this place, we hear calls to "listen to the experts". Well, in the case of gender-affirming healthcare, the people who provide it — the experts, if you will — have spoken. The British Medical Association (BMA) has come out and slammed the ruling, saying that it was "biologically nonsensical" and "scientifically illiterate". Parties to my right laughed at that earlier. If they want to laugh at our medical workers and their views, that is on them. The Women's Policy Group said that the judgement violates the right to privacy, ignores the existence of intersex people and, in some cases, will effectively force trans people to withdraw from public life and the workplace. I suspect that that is the intention of some in the House. Some local councils and others and now, seemingly, the Education Minister are using the British Supreme Court judgement as carte blanche to implement politically motivated attacks on the trans community under the guise of protecting women and young people. We need to listen to the voices of women who tell us that they do not want to be defined by their biology or by any court or legislative body. We need to listen to the voices of young trans people, who tell us that denying access to gender-affirming care and refusing to invest in timely, holistic healthcare is destroying the non-binary community. Brackenburn Gender Identity Clinic, the only gender identity clinic in the North, has a waiting list of up to seven years to be seen by the clinic's only doctor.

I refer the Member to some of my points about the Cass review. I was not endorsing it; perhaps he was not listening. I also say to the Member that all forms of medication can have side effects. We saw a report in the news last week about some prescribed medication being the main reason that people are in A&E. The Member is not a medical expert, and I refer the Member to the views of the BMA, which he and his party laughed at and are laughing at again. That is my answer to the Member. As I said, the Brackenburn clinic, the only gender identity clinic in the North, has a waiting list of up to seven years before someone can be seen by the clinic's only doctor. Those services have been consciously underfunded and run into the ground. Young people under 18 are being directed to the Knowing Our Identity service, where waits are so long that they will be referred to Brackenburn once they turn 18 without ever having been seen by children's services. Trans and non-binary people exist. They deserve to live in dignity, with the healthcare and economic security that we all deserve. Reversing the ban on puberty blockers will not end the oppression and discrimination experienced by trans and non-binary youths, but it would be an important first step in pushing back against the disgraceful campaign of hate. I urge Members to back the amendment in my name and to support the motion.

1,026 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 23 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech engages with substantive policy: an amendment to reverse the ban on puberty blockers, criticism of the Cass review's evidence base, and waiting lists of "up to seven years" at the only gender identity clinic. It defends a marginalised group against what the speaker sees as hostility, which the rubric treats as legitimate. However, it also makes identity-based attacks on parties, tying hostility to "the unionist quarter of the House", calling one party's concern for women "fake" and saying it uses women "to stick the boot into another oppressed minority". The rubric counts this kind of attack as antagonism, though it is not the speech's main thrust.

Public interest or divisiveness

Most of the contribution argues a policy case with evidence, cites service failures and seeks a specific Executive decision, which serves the public interest and opposes hostility towards trans people. That is accompanied by substantial partisan point-scoring that attributes bad faith to opponents as a bloc, including the suggestion that forcing trans people out of public life "is the intention of some in the House". Both elements are significant, but the substantive advocacy and the amendment remain the core.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification