In the Dark

On reflection it was inevitable that the UK Supreme Court would make the decision that it did today, i.e. to decide to deprive trans people of the protections from discrimination that they should have under the 2010 Equality Act. After all, the Court did not consult with a single trans individual or organization representing trans people in the course of its deliberations, preferring instead to base its conclusions only on submissions from known transphobic groups. That alone renders the process indefensible.

That said, the Supreme Court had to twist itself in knots in its judgment to find some semblance of an argument. For example, the judgment claims that the definition of “sex” to be used in the context of the Equality Act is “biological sex” which is “binary”. I paraphrase, of course, but it doesn’t really matter that the argument about biology is wrong – ever heard of intersex people? – because they don’t use it anyway. In fact the judgment does not even attempt to define in biological terms what sex is nor what is a woman is. The definition asserted is “sex at birth”, which actually means what is written on a birth certificate. As a matter of fact, my birth certificate actually says “Boy”…

Whatever is written on an official document is not biological, but bureaucratic, and also non-binary. Intersex people sometimes have “intersex” written on their birth certificate, a fact that thus refutes the binary claim, but sometimes they are arbitrarily assigned “male” or “female” with potentially damaging consequences. I used intersex merely as an example. Very few things in nature are actually binary, and sex – whether it be genetic, hormonal , gonadal or whatever – is emphatically not one of them, particularly not in humans.

Here’s a helpful graphic.

Shoe-horning people into binary categories is wrong not only because it fails to accept scientific reality but also because of the harm it causes to human beings worthy of acceptance and respect. People who dismiss the non-binary nature of sex and gender often say words to the effect that “oh I know there are exceptions, but there aren’t many of them”. But:

1. if there are so few then why are you so obsessed with them?
2. one exception is sufficient to refute what purports to be a logical argument!
3. it’s precisely because trans people are a small minority that means they deserve legal protection.

Today’s judgment looks set to cast an already beleaguered group entirely to the wolves. You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a tidal wave of follow-up cases targetting trans people with the specific intention of stirring up more hostility. The Supreme Court actually acknowledges the existence of transphobic hate and offers some words to suggest that trans people will still have some legal protections. There can be no doubt however that the judges know that their ruling will be seen as a green light for bigots and their rich backers to engage in still more bigotry. I also fear a rise in the already appalling number of trans suicides that the UK Government is trying so hard to conceal. I think it goes without saying and contrary to the claims of those who brought the case, this ruling does absolutely nothing to protect cis women.

I can’t understand the mindset of people that can look at the evidently complex and nuanced of human sexual identity and respond by putting on blinkers and insisting that it is what it clearly isn’t. Some people just seem to need their bigotry to survive in their joyless unimaginative lives. Whatever that mentality is the Supreme Court shares it. They didn’t listen to any contrary views. It was a foregone conclusion, a sham contrived by a group of reactionary duffers.

I have tried throughout this piece to refer to trans people rather than trans men or trans women. Obviously the ruling today was in response to a case brought by cis women who hate trans women. It will almost certainly lead to more trans women being harassed and victimized (as was the intention of the case). But there are at least as many trans men as trans women. Under the new ruling trans men will presumably be forced to use “women-only” lavatories and will run the risk of hostility should they do so. Trans women using “male only” toilets are likely also to be harassed. The Supreme Court knows this is what will happen, but apparently doesn’t care, and is content to go along with a trajectory set by far-right activists who won’t stop here.

It’s no consolation to my friends living on TERF Island, but at least in Ireland the law is a bit more progressive and better grounded in reality. It’s a grim day for trans people in the UK. All I can do is send a message of solidarity and point you to this list of resources for trans people and their allies. I know it’s only a gesture but I’m proud to share the Trans Pride flag here too.

Update: 27th April. The British Medical Association has just passed this resolution: