Trans people won't retreat – a new fire has been lit

I'd kept it because I had somehow ended up on the front page. The headline read 'Scotland to Recognise Third Gender' and was illustrated by a photograph from a recent Pride march that just happened to be of me.
The world is a very different place now, eight years on. Rather than discussing the future of legal recognition of trans people in Scotland, we're instead fighting to keep what rights we have.
In the last year alone, more than 1000 articles were published about transgender people in the UK, in just a handful of right-wing newspapers – from a carousel of supposedly 'cancelled' voices that have never struggled to gain a front-page story wherever the mood strikes.
READ MORE: Kevin Bridges rips into UK response to Donald Trump tariffs in hilarious skit
From a place of hope for legal recognition to the bonfire of equalities we see today, it has been a bitter road – and all the hallmarks of those past years are present in the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of 'woman' in law.
While anti-trans organisations and Tufton Street lobby groups were welcomed to give evidence, trans voices were explicitly excluded from doing so, a trend that we've witnessed over the years of being talked about but never to.
Listening to Lord Hodge deliver the verdict last week, it was remarkable how clearly this influence was felt. Instantly recognisable transphobic talking points nestled in all the legalese made clear exactly who had been listened to in this case.
The culmination of eight years of dehumanisation has brought us to this questionable ruling, cheered on by Britain's right-wing press, funded by the wealthiest as they share victory photos from a private yacht, and seemingly meekly accepted without challenge by most of Scotland's political parties.
It took two hours for the First Minister to tweet that the Scottish Government would be accepting the Supreme Court's ruling. That could barely be thought of as enough time to read and consider it. No challenge. No agitation for an appeal at the European Court. Just … acceptance.
And the reason, I suspect, is simple. The SNP, and Labour, have long played both sides on human rights issues. Every victory for LGBTQ+ rights that has come under Westminster and Holyrood governments has been accompanied by far more internal turmoil and intentional delays than either party would care to admit.
But it didn't stop them from using those victories to market themselves as 'progressive champions' – a phrase that seems positively vintage at this point – when it was a boon to do so. Now here comes a Supreme Court ruling that lets both parties' leadership claim their hands are tied as they officially abandon the pretence of wanting to advance LGBTQ+ rights forward.
The sigh of relief that must have come from various government departments that they can drop this pretence must have been something to behold. But unfortunately for them, this is not the end. Rather than retreat, the movement for trans liberation has had a fire lit beneath it. We know that this ruling will, like the Cass Review, be used to justify institutional change that it never ruled on nor supported.
As much as the widely-maligned Cass Review is cited as the justification for withdrawing access to puberty blockers, this was never recommended in the publication.
Likewise, it seems the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is preparing to take the inch given by the Supreme Court and make a grab for the mile. Already it seems to be preparing to release guidance that attempts to misapply the ruling.
Baroness Falkner, Liz Truss's appointee to lead the EHRC, who Labour chose to keep, is already preparing to test how far she can push statutory guidance on the back of the ruling, whether justified or not.
In response to the ruling, Falkner claimed trans people should just use their powers of advocacy to have third spaces provided for them. When we can't even be heard by the Supreme Court while it is ruling on our lives, I'm not sure what advocacy Falkner thinks we are capable of.
But more than that, advocating for minority interests is the LITERAL POINT of the EHRC. Instead, Falkner openly says that trans people should effectively fend for themselves while she leads a campaign against us.
We may have been abandoned by press and politicians alike, but it is a different story on the streets of Scotland's cities. While anti-trans demos can, at best, cobble together a few Scottish Family Party activists alongside their 'feminist' compatriots, the rallies in support of trans liberation bring thousands to the streets.
And as much as this ruling was about supposedly bringing 'clarity', things seem less clear than ever. Like so much facing us today, the 'trans debate' is part of a fight for our independence and autonomy against the vested interests of the wealthy and their friends in politics.
But they will not win. Not just because we have the numbers, but for the simple reason that you cannot legislate a people out of existence.
The Supreme Court's poor ruling is limited to the definition of women in law only. It could no more legislate the Earth to spin in the opposite direction than they could make trans people cease to exist.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mirror

28 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

Donald Trump slams spy chief and says Iran has two weeks 'to come to senses'

The US President said he had given Iran a 'period of time' to see if its leaders would 'come to their senses' after saying his two week deadline would be the 'maximum' Donald Trump has slammed his former Democrat spy chief in a blistering attack while being questioned about his plans for potential US intervention in Iran. The President has been subject to intense questioning in recent days as he weighs whether or not to involve the US in the ongoing Israeli assault of Iranian nuclear facilities. On Thursday, he decided he would wait two weeks before giving an order on how to precede, before going on today to claim the nation is "within a matter of weeks or months" of acquiring a nuclear weapon. He has now said the country has two weeks "to come to its senses" before slamming his own intelligence chief. ‌ ‌ Speaking to the press this afternoon, Trump was asked by gathered journalists about the intelligence behind his claim that Iran is close to acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. He was asked to respond to claims that members of the US intelligence community has said they had "no idea" when Iran could develop a bomb. In response, he said: "Well then my intelligence community is wrong." He then asked: "Who in the intelligence community said that?" When the journalist informed him that his director of national intelligence, former Democrat turned key Trump ally Tulsi Gabbard, had said so, he curtly responded: "She's wrong." Ms Gabbard told Capitol Hill lawmakers in March that the intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003". She added at the time that the US was closelt monitoring Iran's nuclear programme, before noting it was actively enriching uranium. She noted, however, that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile "is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons". ‌ The Commander-In-Chief also previously suggested his handpicked national security head was wrong earlier this week, adding fuel to rumours that his fragile MAGA coalition is reportedly fracturing at present. Key factions in the alliance are splitting over the 79-year-old's approach to Israel's recent all-out attack, with a key Trump-Vance campaign plank being no involvement in foreign conflicts. Mr Trump said during his press address earlier today that he has given Iran "a period of time", before adding the two week deadline he had originally given was "the maximum". During those two weeks, he added, the parties involved in the conflict would receive "time to see whether or not people come to their senses". He also said it would be "very hard" to ask Israel to cease attacks on Iran after Iran's foreign minister said Israel must stop its "crimes and aggression", adding that Iran will not negotiate with any parts as long as Israeli attacks continue. "I think it's very hard to make that request right now," Trump said as he was asked whether or not he would speak to Israel about stopping their strikes. "If someone is winning, it's harder to do than if someone is losing. But we are ready and willing and able, and have been speaking to Iran and we will see what happens."

South Wales Argus

35 minutes ago

• South Wales Argus

Two Middle East-related protests to be held in central London on Saturday

A protest organised by groups under the Palestine Coalition banner will gather in Russell Square from 12pm, before marching to Whitehall via Aldwych and the Strand for an assembly outside Downing Street. Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and musician Paloma Faith are among those set to give speeches at the assembly. Meanwhile, a static counter-protest organised by pro-Israeli group Stop The Hate will be held at the same time just north of Waterloo Bridge at the junction with the Strand. The group said it would meet at the location from 12.30pm onwards. Police have set out conditions for the first protest under the Public Order Act which demands that any person taking part in the procession must remain within Russell Square ahead of the protest and must not deviate from its specified route. Demonstrators must then stay in a specified part of Whitehall for the assembly, which must finish by 5.30pm, the force said. The Palestine Coalition is comprised of a number of different groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Stop The War. Stop The War said in an advertisement for the event on its website: 'Israel's attacks on Gaza and the West Bank are intensifying. Their starvation policy continues. And now Israel attacks on Iran seem intended to lead us into a full-scale war in the Middle East. 'The UK Government has at last accepted that Israel's actions in Gaza are unconscionable. Now they must act – words are not enough.' Discussions are ongoing regarding possible conditions for the Stop The Hate protest, the Met said. In a post on X, Stop The Hate said: 'Our families in Israel are under attack: standing bravely in the face of threats and ballistic missiles, whilst the people of Iran are bravely facing down their totalitarian government — now it's our turn to stand proudly in solidarity with them.' The demonstrations come after reports on Friday that the Home Secretary will ban Palestine Action after the group vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, after footage posted online showed two people inside the RAF base, with one appearing to spray paint into an aircraft's jet engine. PSC described the move on social media as 'outrageous', while the Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'

Scottish Sun

41 minutes ago

• Scottish Sun

Major update on benefit claimed by thousands of Scots

The consultation carried out after the move was announced last December received 260 responses CHECK IT OUT Major update on benefit claimed by thousands of Scots Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NATS ministers ploughed on with plans to scrap the two-child cap despite finding overwhelming opposition among Scots. Three-quarters of responses to a Scottish Government consultation on the move were against axing the limit. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Three-quarters of responses to a Scottish Gov consultation on the move were against axing the limit Credit: Alamy And ministers were repeatedly told parents should not have more kids than they can afford. But despite the findings, SNP ministers this week said they would press ahead with the £155million-a-year plan from next March. Scottish Conservative social security spokesman Alexander Stewart said the consultation responses 'show how out of touch the SNP are with the ordinary Scots who pick up the tab for the Nationalists' ballooning benefits bill'. He said: 'The vast majority of the public back the two-child cap because it strikes the right balance. 'Social security payments must be fair both to people who are struggling and to taxpayers who have to weigh up their own finances when deciding how many children to have.' The consultation carried out after the move was announced last December received 260 responses. Of these, 190 said the SNP should keep the cap. They were predominantly individuals, while the minority who backed the plan were mostly charities and anti-poverty organisations. One said: 'Having children is a financial choice - it is not for the taxpayer to pay for people's choice to have more children.' Another said 'taxpayers should not be responsible for bringing up children' and 'if you can't afford them, don't have them'. Angela Rayner says lifting 2-child benefit cap not 'silver bullet' for ending poverty after demanding cuts for millions One respondent said the policy was not about helping children but 'about the SNP helping themselves in next year's election', while another said the Nats were 'addicted to benefits' and saw them as 'a great vote booster'. An 'easy read' summary of the consulation, published today, added that 'some people said mitigating the two-child cap might encourage people to have bigger families' or 'make people rely more on benefits and not work'. The Scottish Government is currently spending around £1.3 billion more on benefits than would have been spent in Scotland if devolution of welfare hadn't taken place, due to additional spending decisions, and is forecast to be spending £2.1 billion more by 2029-30. The minority that supported scrapping the cap mostly worked in organisations that work with impoverished families. They highlighted the plight of families struggling to fee their children and the traumatic impact of the 'rape clause' the allows women to claim for addtional children if they were impregnated without consent. Lifting the two-child cap is forecast to cost £155million next year, rising to £194million in 2029-30. Polling in 2023 suggested just one in three Scots think the two-child benefits cap should be axed. The rule was backed by 50 per cent of over-16s, according to YouGov. Only 32 per cent said it should be abolished, with 19 per cent of people unsure. The policy applies to benefits including Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit, and stops parents from claiming for a third or additional child born after April 2017. It does not apply to Child Benefit. Scottish Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville told MSPs this week that the two-child cap 'punishes people for having children'. She said: 'The Scottish Government will deliver the effective scrapping of the two-child cap when Labour has failed to do so.'