Let me begin with a confession. I was, until yesterday, more upbeat than I had any right to be. Sure: the anti-trans were attacking us. Again. But we were protected. In depth. Like some WWI squaddie cowering in our trenches. First line the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Second line, the Equality Act (EA). Third line, Human Rights (HR).
Only the enemy sliced through the lot, cutting, in an instant, through the Maginot line of trans hopes and fears. GRA? Boom! Gone. EA protections? Gone. HR. Hanging on by its fingernails – but unlikely to be much use in the short term.
I wake today to a changed world. One in which I, as a trans woman, may soon find myself forced, when out and about, when staying in a hospital, when working, to venture into spaces populated by a demographic – cis men – that I know, from bitter experience, is dangerous and potentially wishes me harm.
How did we get here? It begins with yesterday’s decision, based on a tautology and, intended or not, a lie. The first, the tautology, is the much-touted claim that they have settled the question of “what is a woman?” Because a woman is defined by ‘biological sex,’ innit? It’s a good soundbite. It is not, though – however much the learned judges may claim otherwise – a definition. Do they mean chromosomes? Boobs? A (functioning) uterus? A birth certificate? They did not say. Though no doubt there will be many suggestions in the days and weeks to come.
Second, they assert that no trans people will be disadvantaged by this ruling. Funny that. For, the torrent of tears in my online feed yesterday, and the long line of trans folk turning up to declare themselves in despair, in pieces, and otherwise broken by this, suggests an entire community would beg to differ.
“Would you rather spend £250k on defending the rights of an insignificant minority – or saving two more libraries?”
That decision, though, was an inevitability of sorts. Not because it is right. But because I think the strategy of the anti-trans all along has been to swamp the UK with money – dark money, far right money, evangelical money – to reverse what they see as the evil of “gender theory.” Which also includes gay marriage, and women’s rights: they’ll be back for those later.
In addition to funding a massive and professional anti-trans campaign, it also enabled a succession of legal cases. Rarely against trans people directly. Because, if an individual loses a case of this sort, there is always the fallback of arguing it up to the European Court of Human Rights.
No. Their tactic was to go after bodies that gave expression to protections for trans people as a class. Attack the defender; and in these austere times, many crumbled. Because if you are a cash-strapped public body, would you rather spend £250k on defending the rights of an insignificant minority – or saving two more libraries? Too many fell at this first hurdle and the negative case law mounted up.
Where public bodies have stood their ground, as in the case brought against the Scottish government, the narrowness of British legal procedure means that all too often, trans people were excluded altogether from deliberations on their fate. Before ruling, the Supreme Court heard from the plaintiff, from several other organisations that might justifiably be considered anti-trans, and the Scottish government. And no trans people.
Our point of view was unheard.
This has been accompanied by a concerted – and calculated – campaign of misrepresentation across national media. Over the last six or seven years, thousands of stories, homing in, with laser precision on any aspect of transness that showed us in a bad light. From only reporting the “bad trans;” to skewing and shaping what stories came along; to minimising trans points of view and bigging up the slightest of “concerns.”
Meanwhile, press willingness to carry a trans reply to any one of these stories has dwindled from one-liner in the final par to… nothing. They’ve just stopped asking!
The UK press is toxic, and guarded by a watchdog – watchpoodle! – that is all about protecting individual reputation. Not so much on protecting minorities.
Back in 2013, there was uproar when one well-known columnist referred to trans people as “bed-wetters in bad wigs” and “dicks in chicks’ clothing”. Some took our side. Many more took refuge in simplistic free speech defences. The writer was entitled to speak their mind. Trans people objecting to such language just wanted to control their speech.
Alongside this, we have seen malign politicians, and ineffectual ones. Theresa May unleashed a tidal wave of anti-trans sentiment by proposing a simplification of the gender recognition process in favour of self-identification. She did this without consulting trans people, and chaos in her government allowed a significant anti-trans narrative to gather steam.
She was followed by less well-intentioned actors, who weaponised “common sense.” The demands for opposition leaders to define “what is a woman?” scored points at PM’s questions. Though I am sure that if ever the questions were reversed, the asker would have been equally stumped. As stumped, one might suggest, as a wigs-worth of Supreme Court Judges.
In this, the anti-trans rhetoric was propped up by a sort of reverse feminism. Demands for protection of “women’s spaces” were amplified, again through national media. Even though feminism historically has taken a much more nuanced view of such gender apartheid with many – the majority? – of early feminists being suspicious of or opposed to the idea.
It is an odd sort of world when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph turn up as arbiter of radical feminist praxis. Gilead, anyone?
Underpinning all of this, enabling and driving, is a coarsening of society. Perhaps I have too rose-tinted a view of “ye olde days.” Over the last decade, though I have noticed a turn to the dark side, both within a certain breed of politician and worse, on public platforms and social media, by the general public. “Let them drown,” of asylum seekers in boats. Or, on the radio earlier this week, “we should be dehumanising the really bad criminals by sending them to El Salvador.”
I hesitated over posting the impact of this decision on trans people. Because I know that some who read this piece will rejoice. Because for them, cruelty is a key ingredient to the mix.
This all follows Trump (2016 version: the upshot of the 2024 version is too horrid to contemplate); plus Brexit. Plus social media, wherein free speech and the right to insult are now near synonymous. Take your pick from that list. Or, if you are a pessimist, tell me we (humans) were ever thus and I need new specs!
Will this impact me? Probably not much. I am post-retirement, increasingly recluse. For a number of reasons, as much related to personal health as transness. There are few occasions when I venture into spaces impacted by this ruling.
Compared to younger trans and non-binary folk, I am lucky. On the other hand, I doubt this mess will be unpicked in what remains of my lifetime. And if I need extended hospital care in my dotage, I now expect to be forced to suffer the indignity of being placed on a male ward.
Serves me right, I guess, for my earlier excess of optimism.
jane fae is the director of TransActual and chair of Trans Media Watch.
Help and support:
- The Gender Trust supports anyone affected by gender identity | 01527 894 838
- Mermaids offers information, support, friendship and shared experiences for young people with gender identity issues | 0208 1234819
- LGBT Youth Scotland is the largest youth and community-based organisation for LGBT people in Scotland. Text 07786 202 370
- Gires provides information for trans people, their families and professionals who care for them | 01372 801554
- Depend provides support, advice and information for anyone who knows, or is related to, a transsexual person in the UK
#Trans #People #Woke #Bleak #World #Today
Leave a Reply