The Trans "Debate"
Apr. 22nd, 2025 06:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lupestripeI was going to cover this in a general post, but things are happening so fast and I am so goddamn angry that I thought I should create a standalone entry.
Suffice to say I fundamentally disagree with the UK Supreme Court's ruling on how the 2010 Equality Act and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act should intertwine. To define sex as purely biological ignores scientific research based on both chromosomal and hormonal determinants. Furthermore, it reduces people, and especially women, to be defined by their genitals. Despite what its supporters say, this ruling actually sets back the cause of women's rights.
While I understand the need and importance of having single-sex spaces for women, denying trans women the right to these areas doesn't make sense. Cis men are the problem, not trans women, as all research has highlighted. The upshot of all this is that women will now be judged on whether they look female enough when using the bathroom or other single-sex services. Butch or stocky women may not pass this arbitrary test. Intersex people are not even considered and, as usual, trans men are largely forgotten about.
All of this raises two key questions - who will the arbiter be and what are the criteria? Both are likely to increase the harassment of women, particularly those who don't fit 'gender norms'. The next question therefore becomes how far does society go? The extreme end would be genital inspections. This seems contrary to protecting women's safety.
All of this boils down to a fundamental problem in phraseology - language I have seen used a lot in the last week. The phrase 'common sense', like 'legitimate concerns', sounds reasonable until it is interrogated with even the minutest of rigour. This is also the problem with people like Keir Starmer saying he welcomes the 'clarity' of the judgement because when you start to look into it, there is actually less clarity than there was before.
What is clear is that no-one really knows what this means for trans people. Using your 'right of advocacy' will fall on deaf ears in the face of a bigot who has taken exception to your bathroom of choice. Saying trans people have the right to use a non-gendered bathroom is all well and good if there is one available, but what if there isn't? And if that non-gendered bathroom is a disabled one, could a disabled person not raise an anti-discrimination case on the grounds that an able-bodied trans person is denying them access to the toilet?
While it is true that the ruling was based on very specific parts of these two Acts, it is disingenuous to suggest that it won't affect trans people in general. It is also disingenuous to say they still have protections. Despite the judges saying their ruling wasn't a victory for either side, one side has definitely treated it as a victory and have acted accordingly. The press has blown the story up, making it less about the specific provisions of the law and more about trans rights in general. This is because it isn't just about the erosion of trans people's rights, it's about the elimination of trans people altogether. It has come as no surprise that the judges heard no testimony from trans people, while the media has had very little trans representation, so in effect it has become acceptable to demonise a minority. And if you can demonise one minority, you can demonise more. The same arguments deployed against gay people in the 1980s and interracial marriage in the 1950s are deployed against trans people now. It wouldn't surprise me if all of this came back.
It is no surprise that the very same people who brought this case are now focusing on how immigration affects women, with the view of reducing it. There is no doubt that LGBTQ+ people will be sacrificed too in due course. I have been very disappointed, but sadly not surprised, by the conduct of the Labour Party in all this. For a so-called progressive party (a claim I actually dispute when it comes to Labour), the speed with which they have thrown trans people under the bus is alarming. It is not surprising though. The right-wing press, along with Reform, have set the agenda in the UK for too long, and both the Tories and Labour seem far more interested in attracting the 20% of voters who are flirting with Farage's lot than the progressives who are peeling off to the Greens and the Lib Dems. This makes no electoral sense - Labour are shedding three times as many people on the left than the right - but still they are more worried about Red Wall voters who are enchanted by the far-right.
I read today that Labour's calculus is to encourage progressives to vote for them in 2029 to prevent Reform from getting in. They hope to exploit the 'Fear of Farage' apparently. However, there is no point doing that if they adopt Reform-lite policies anyway. Indeed, progressives in the UK have been taken advantage of for too long. We were ignored during the Brexit years, denigrated by Boris Johnson and branded as 'citizens of nowhere' by Theresa May. And yet, AND YET, May was more liberal on self-identification for trans people than Starmer is today. David Cameron, for all of his faults (and there were many), went against his party when backing same-sex marriage in 2013. It's incredible to think how far backwards we've shifted in the last nine years and the trajectory around the world suggests that this will only continue. I had hoped Labour would provide at least some resistance to the rightwards slide we are seeing around the globe, but at best they seem scared of it and at worst they are complicit with it.
The fact is that Labour have a majority of 174. They could act boldly and in the national interest on many levels. They could stand up for minorities as centre-left parties traditionally do and explain clearly and cogently why trans rights should be protected and why trans people are not a threat to women's rights. They could be bold on climate change, moving closer to Europe, NIMBYism, tax evasion and any number of other policies. However, they are doing none of these things. They say the world has fundamentally changed, yet they offer the same tired arguments in the same tired neo-liberal framework as the governments before them. It is this, above anything else, that will see Reform do well, starting in the local elections next month.
The UK is hampered by its far-right press and first past the post voting system. Labour with its huge majority could change both, and in so doing, unleash the potential the UK has. It would even be to their advantage as despite everything, the majority of Britons are progressive and would likely elect centre-left coalition governments more often than not. The British people are also broadly supportive of trans rights too. There were protests up and down the country over the weekend, but as usual, they went largely unreported by a hostile media. It was the same during the Brexit years. There is clearly one rule for the right, who get their priorities amplified and their positions mollycoddled, and one rule for the left who can largely fuck off. And this is even when the left-wing position is the majority one in the country. Reversing Brexit is one such example as is LGBTQ+ rights. FPTP amplifies certain voices and areas over others, which is why we have this distorting effect on our politics.
I have been thinking a lot about returning to the UK as I am not happy in Germany. I haven't been happy for some time. But the truth is, despite it's problems, there is still more hope in Europe than there is in Britain. In some respects, I wish the Tories had won the last election as at least then I would still have had something to cling on to. Labour always disappoint, but by having no sense of conviction and being willing to sacrifice a minority for political expediency, I cannot feel anything but the deepest despair. I have always felt I cannot freely express my own gender-fluidity in the UK and it must be so much worse for my trans friends. At least I can 'pass' as male, but it is a very hollow comfort. It has also stirred up my conflicted feelings on whether I want to transition myself. I am not strong enough, nor could I deal with the opprobrium, no matter how unjustified that would be. I feel trapped, yet I also know I have options. Many don't. I know I am fortunate.
I'll still sign petitions, write to my MP and go on marches where I can, no matter how futile I think it will all probably be. It's important to do something than nothing and you've got to keep fighting. In Britain, it feels politics is done to you rather than for you, regardless of whether you participate in it or not. Trans people are going to feel the full force of that now and it's not fair nor just. However, you've got to combat bigotry wherever you see it with whatever means you can.
In my view, there is no trans "debate". Trans men are men. Trans women are women. The science is clear. The moral case is clear too. People should be allowed to live their lives however they want, unfettered and unhindered. At heart I am a liberal who strongly believes in individual freedoms and I will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ+ community. Everyone deserves happiness and I loathe all those who have foisted misery upon us.
Suffice to say I fundamentally disagree with the UK Supreme Court's ruling on how the 2010 Equality Act and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act should intertwine. To define sex as purely biological ignores scientific research based on both chromosomal and hormonal determinants. Furthermore, it reduces people, and especially women, to be defined by their genitals. Despite what its supporters say, this ruling actually sets back the cause of women's rights.
While I understand the need and importance of having single-sex spaces for women, denying trans women the right to these areas doesn't make sense. Cis men are the problem, not trans women, as all research has highlighted. The upshot of all this is that women will now be judged on whether they look female enough when using the bathroom or other single-sex services. Butch or stocky women may not pass this arbitrary test. Intersex people are not even considered and, as usual, trans men are largely forgotten about.
All of this raises two key questions - who will the arbiter be and what are the criteria? Both are likely to increase the harassment of women, particularly those who don't fit 'gender norms'. The next question therefore becomes how far does society go? The extreme end would be genital inspections. This seems contrary to protecting women's safety.
All of this boils down to a fundamental problem in phraseology - language I have seen used a lot in the last week. The phrase 'common sense', like 'legitimate concerns', sounds reasonable until it is interrogated with even the minutest of rigour. This is also the problem with people like Keir Starmer saying he welcomes the 'clarity' of the judgement because when you start to look into it, there is actually less clarity than there was before.
What is clear is that no-one really knows what this means for trans people. Using your 'right of advocacy' will fall on deaf ears in the face of a bigot who has taken exception to your bathroom of choice. Saying trans people have the right to use a non-gendered bathroom is all well and good if there is one available, but what if there isn't? And if that non-gendered bathroom is a disabled one, could a disabled person not raise an anti-discrimination case on the grounds that an able-bodied trans person is denying them access to the toilet?
While it is true that the ruling was based on very specific parts of these two Acts, it is disingenuous to suggest that it won't affect trans people in general. It is also disingenuous to say they still have protections. Despite the judges saying their ruling wasn't a victory for either side, one side has definitely treated it as a victory and have acted accordingly. The press has blown the story up, making it less about the specific provisions of the law and more about trans rights in general. This is because it isn't just about the erosion of trans people's rights, it's about the elimination of trans people altogether. It has come as no surprise that the judges heard no testimony from trans people, while the media has had very little trans representation, so in effect it has become acceptable to demonise a minority. And if you can demonise one minority, you can demonise more. The same arguments deployed against gay people in the 1980s and interracial marriage in the 1950s are deployed against trans people now. It wouldn't surprise me if all of this came back.
It is no surprise that the very same people who brought this case are now focusing on how immigration affects women, with the view of reducing it. There is no doubt that LGBTQ+ people will be sacrificed too in due course. I have been very disappointed, but sadly not surprised, by the conduct of the Labour Party in all this. For a so-called progressive party (a claim I actually dispute when it comes to Labour), the speed with which they have thrown trans people under the bus is alarming. It is not surprising though. The right-wing press, along with Reform, have set the agenda in the UK for too long, and both the Tories and Labour seem far more interested in attracting the 20% of voters who are flirting with Farage's lot than the progressives who are peeling off to the Greens and the Lib Dems. This makes no electoral sense - Labour are shedding three times as many people on the left than the right - but still they are more worried about Red Wall voters who are enchanted by the far-right.
I read today that Labour's calculus is to encourage progressives to vote for them in 2029 to prevent Reform from getting in. They hope to exploit the 'Fear of Farage' apparently. However, there is no point doing that if they adopt Reform-lite policies anyway. Indeed, progressives in the UK have been taken advantage of for too long. We were ignored during the Brexit years, denigrated by Boris Johnson and branded as 'citizens of nowhere' by Theresa May. And yet, AND YET, May was more liberal on self-identification for trans people than Starmer is today. David Cameron, for all of his faults (and there were many), went against his party when backing same-sex marriage in 2013. It's incredible to think how far backwards we've shifted in the last nine years and the trajectory around the world suggests that this will only continue. I had hoped Labour would provide at least some resistance to the rightwards slide we are seeing around the globe, but at best they seem scared of it and at worst they are complicit with it.
The fact is that Labour have a majority of 174. They could act boldly and in the national interest on many levels. They could stand up for minorities as centre-left parties traditionally do and explain clearly and cogently why trans rights should be protected and why trans people are not a threat to women's rights. They could be bold on climate change, moving closer to Europe, NIMBYism, tax evasion and any number of other policies. However, they are doing none of these things. They say the world has fundamentally changed, yet they offer the same tired arguments in the same tired neo-liberal framework as the governments before them. It is this, above anything else, that will see Reform do well, starting in the local elections next month.
The UK is hampered by its far-right press and first past the post voting system. Labour with its huge majority could change both, and in so doing, unleash the potential the UK has. It would even be to their advantage as despite everything, the majority of Britons are progressive and would likely elect centre-left coalition governments more often than not. The British people are also broadly supportive of trans rights too. There were protests up and down the country over the weekend, but as usual, they went largely unreported by a hostile media. It was the same during the Brexit years. There is clearly one rule for the right, who get their priorities amplified and their positions mollycoddled, and one rule for the left who can largely fuck off. And this is even when the left-wing position is the majority one in the country. Reversing Brexit is one such example as is LGBTQ+ rights. FPTP amplifies certain voices and areas over others, which is why we have this distorting effect on our politics.
I have been thinking a lot about returning to the UK as I am not happy in Germany. I haven't been happy for some time. But the truth is, despite it's problems, there is still more hope in Europe than there is in Britain. In some respects, I wish the Tories had won the last election as at least then I would still have had something to cling on to. Labour always disappoint, but by having no sense of conviction and being willing to sacrifice a minority for political expediency, I cannot feel anything but the deepest despair. I have always felt I cannot freely express my own gender-fluidity in the UK and it must be so much worse for my trans friends. At least I can 'pass' as male, but it is a very hollow comfort. It has also stirred up my conflicted feelings on whether I want to transition myself. I am not strong enough, nor could I deal with the opprobrium, no matter how unjustified that would be. I feel trapped, yet I also know I have options. Many don't. I know I am fortunate.
I'll still sign petitions, write to my MP and go on marches where I can, no matter how futile I think it will all probably be. It's important to do something than nothing and you've got to keep fighting. In Britain, it feels politics is done to you rather than for you, regardless of whether you participate in it or not. Trans people are going to feel the full force of that now and it's not fair nor just. However, you've got to combat bigotry wherever you see it with whatever means you can.
In my view, there is no trans "debate". Trans men are men. Trans women are women. The science is clear. The moral case is clear too. People should be allowed to live their lives however they want, unfettered and unhindered. At heart I am a liberal who strongly believes in individual freedoms and I will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ+ community. Everyone deserves happiness and I loathe all those who have foisted misery upon us.
