Steph Paton: Trans people won't retreat after Supreme Court ruling
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:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Explainer: -What is NATO's new 5% defence spending target?
BRUSSELS, June 23 (Reuters) - NATO leaders are expected to endorse a big new defence spending target at an alliance summit in The Hague on Wednesday, as demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. Here are some key questions and answers about the new target. They are expected to agree that NATO members should spend 5% of their economic output - or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - on core defence and broader defence and security-related investments. That's a hefty increase on the current goal of 2%, which was approved at an alliance summit in Wales in 2014. But the new target will be measured differently. NATO members will be expected to spend 3.5% of their GDP on core defence such as troops and weapons – the items currently covered by the old 2% target. They will also be expected to spend a further 1.5% of GDP on broader defence and security-related investments – such as adapting roads, bridges and ports for use by military vehicles, and on cyber-security and protecting energy pipelines. Very big for a lot of them. Twenty-two of NATO's 32 member countries spent 2% of GDP or more on defence last year. As a whole, alliance members spent 2.61% of NATO GDP on defence last year, according to a NATO estimate. But that number masks big differences in spending among members. Poland, for example, spent more than 4% of its GDP on defence, making it the biggest spender. At the other end of the spectrum, Spain spent less than 1.3%. They will be expected to meet the target by 2035. The targets could also be adjusted when they are reviewed in 2029. It's hard to say exactly how much extra cash NATO members would have to spend, not least because it will depend on the size of their economies for years to come. Also, NATO does not currently measure spending on the new broader category of defence and security-related investments – so there is no baseline measurement to go by. But NATO countries spent over $1.3 trillion on core defence in 2024, up from about a trillion a decade earlier in constant 2021 prices. If NATO states had all spent 3.5% of GDP on defence last year, that would have amounted to some $1.75 trillion. So, hitting the new targets could eventually mean spending hundreds of billions of dollars more per year, compared with current spending. Russia's continued war in Ukraine, concerns about a possible future threat from Russia, and U.S. pressure have led many European capitals to boost investment in defence and plan to increase it even further over the coming years. 'Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said earlier this month. Europe is also preparing for the possibility that the U.S. under President Donald Trump will decide to withdraw some of its troops and capabilities from Europe. 'America can't be everywhere all the time, nor should we be,' U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this month. NATO this month agreed on new capability targets for its members – the types of troops, military units, weapons and equipment that NATO says they should possess to defend themselves and the alliance. Those targets are classified but Rutte said after they were approved that the alliance needed to invest more in areas including "air defence, fighter jets, tanks, drones, personnel, logistics and so much more". Not quite. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez says his country can meet its military capability targets by spending just 2.1% of GDP. His government approved the draft summit statement with the new spending target but made clear it does not intend to spend that much. NATO officials say Sanchez does not have an opt-out - Spain's spending will be tracked and if it's not investing enough to meet the military targets, it will need to improve. Some countries that have signed up to the targets may also not meet them, diplomats and analysts expect. But publicly, they have insisted they are committed. Every NATO country will decide on its own where to find the cash to invest more in defence and how to allocate it. The European Union has moved to try to make it easier for capitals to spend on defence. The EU is allowing members to raise defence spending by 1.5% of GDP each year for four years without any disciplinary steps that would normally kick in once a national deficit is above 3% of GDP. EU ministers last month also approved the creation of a 150-billion-euro arms fund using joint EU borrowing to give loans to European countries for joint defence projects. Some European countries are pushing for EU joint borrowing to fund grants – rather than loans – for defence spending. But they have met resistance from fiscally conservative countries including Germany and The Netherlands. NATO allies dedicate a much smaller share of their economic output to defence than Russia but, taken together, they spend significantly more cash than Moscow. Russia's military spending rose by 38% in 2024, reaching an estimated $149 billion and 7.1% of GDP, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. China, the world's second-largest military spender, dedicated an estimated 1.7% of GDP to military expenditure last year, according to SIPRI. In NATO countries, defence tends to make up a small portion of national budgets. Military spending accounted for 3.2% of government spending in Italy, 3.6% in France and 8.5% in Poland in 2023, according to SIPRI data. In Russia that year, military expenditure made up nearly 19% of government spending.
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Israel strikes Iran's Fordow nuclear site as Trump hints at regime change
Israel struck Iran's Fodow nuclear site and key military and intelligence facilities on Monday as the conflict continued to escalate with attacks from both sides. The White House was also left scrambling Donald Trump also entertained the idea on Sunday of a regime change in Tehran following the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, leaving the White House scrambling 24 hours later to say the president was 'simply raising a question' about the future of Iran's rulers. The US embassy in Qatar warned its citizens to take shelter as fears grow of an imminent Iranian response, after Iran's army chief warned that the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites have given Tehran a 'free hand' to "act against US interests and its army'. Qatar - which houses the biggest US base in the Middle East - also closed its airspace on Monday evening amid fears of a retaliatory strike from Iran. Iran responded after the US struck Iran's three key nuclear facilities on the weekend, and the UN's nuclear watchdog said on Monday that 'very significant damage' was expected to have occurred at Fordow during the US attack. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Grossi said ahead of an emergency meeting that "given the explosive payload utilised and the extreme(ly) vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred'. Fordow was also struck by Israel on Monday as it launched an offensive targeting Iranian military and regime centres, including the notorious Evin prison. Israel warned of other strikes in the coming days. Video of the attack on Evin shows a projectile smashing into the entrance of the facility which is used to hold political prisoners, including high-profile foreign detainees. Israeli defence minister Israel Katz said the defence force was using 'unprecedented force' against 'regime targets and governmental oppression entities in the heart of Tehran'. 'For every attack on the Israeli home front, the Iranian dictator will be punished, and the strikes will continue with full force,' he said. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) said it had hit two military command centres as well as the general intelligence directorate for internal security forces. 'The IDF continues the ongoing effort to degrade the Iranian regime's military capabilities and will persist in its efforts to ensure the security of the State of Israel,' the IDF said in a statement. Iran launched a new missile barrage at Israel on Monday, described as a new wave of its operation "True Promise 3," targeting Haifa and Tel Aviv. The Tehran regime has also sought help from its ally, Russia, sending foreign minister Abbas Araghchi to meet with Vladimir Putin in Moscow and deliver a letter from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seeking support from the Kremlin. During their televised meeting, Putin said there was 'no justification' for the US bombing of Iran. "The absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification," Putin told Araghchi. "For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people.' Exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi says the Iranian regime will not back down, and urged Western leaders not to support Tehran. 'If the West throws the regime a lifeline, there will be more bloodshed and chaos, because this regime will not stop before surrender after it has been humiliated; it will lash out,' he said, using a press conference to call on Iranians to help him lead the country to become a 'secular, democratic' country. 'As long as [the regime] is in power, no country and no people are safe - whether in the streets of Washington, Paris, Jerusalem, Riyadh or Tehran,' he said. The head of Nato Mark Rutte said the biggest worry about the Iran conflict is 'Iran having a nuclear weapon'. Speaking ahead of a two-day Nato summit in The Hague, the secretary general was asked what his biggest fear was when it came to the escalating conflict around Iran. Mr Rutte responded: 'Let's focus on the essentials. My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use or build nuclear weapons. He continued: 'It would be a stranglehold on Israel, on the whole region and other parts of the world, and that's why Nato has said Iran should not - and this is a consistent position of Nato - Iran should not have its hands on a nuclear weapon.'
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Westminster parliament bans trans women from female toilets
The website for the UK Parliament now tells visitors that they "should use facilities that correspond to their biological sex or the gender-neutral toilets". In May, a Commons spokesperson said they would await full EHRC guidance before reviewing any policies. It comes after a transgender barrister was accosted by gender critical activists outside of a women's bathroom on the parliamentary estate. The Scottish Parliament banned transwomen from using female facilities on May 9. It comes after the Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010, women would be defined by "biological sex" and did not include transwomen with a gender recognition certificate. READ MORE: Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP Following the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that banned transgender people from using the bathroom of their acquired gender. The EHRC currently has a consultation running, with official guidance expected to come at a later, unconfirmed date. Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project, said: 'The Supreme Court had a whole section of its judgment headed – and here I quote – 'Why this interpretation would not be disadvantageous to or remove protection from trans people with or without a GRC'. 'And you have to ask why the parliamentary estate has chosen to ignore what seems to be the law. It may be expedient in the short term to be dictated to by JK Rowling's billions – but it is going to prove very unwise in the longer term.' The House of Commons has been contacted for comment. (Image: UK Parliament) We previously told how barrister Robin Moira White was attending a meeting of the women and equalities committee in Westminster when she was accosted by gender critical campaigners. White said that Kate Harris, of LGB Alliance, and Heather Binning, Women's Rights Network, began 'shouting' at her and started to cross-examine her on her intentions. Harris has denied shouting at White. The Commons then issued an apology following the confrontation and said White should not have been directed to use the female facilities. It has now changed its policy following the incident. READ MORE: Ex-Labour frontbencher calls for UK Government to reject Rosebank In Holyrood, the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) recently defended its decision to ban transgender people from using certain toilets after being urged to drop the 'unfair' policy. On behalf of the SPCB, Scottish Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw insisted the governing body had 'legal responsibilities'. 'Our job, even though we are politicians, is not to debate the politics of an issue, but to ensure that we are implementing the law as the law is communicated to us,' he said.
