‘Rights can be knocked out in a second': older trans women shocked by supreme court ruling
'I still go into the women's toilets at work, but when I open the door there's that little voice inside me: 'Will someone shout at me?',' she says.
Last week's supreme court ruling sent shock waves through the UK's trans community. The unanimous judgment said the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). That feeling was compounded when Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is preparing new statutory guidance, said the judgment meant only biological women could use single-sex changing rooms and toilets.
Janey's colleagues don't know she's trans (Janey is not her real name). She remembers the 1980s all too well, when 'people would beat the shit out of you just for being different'.
'I always felt I didn't have to tell people other than close friends. By my early 30s I thought: 'I am me, end of story.' I did what everybody else did, going out dancing, and I was treated like any other woman, which included being harassed by men.' Coming home at night, Janey still carries her keys in her hand.
It's the fragility of rights that scares her. 'Just look at what is happening in the US – what worries me in this country is that it's all about trans people now, but this is the start of something. Rights can be knocked out in a second.'
Diana James, 66, a domestic abuse worker, says the supreme court judgment has been 'a tremendous shock' to mature trans women in particular. 'These are women just living their lives, coming up for retirement, pottering around their gardens, and suddenly their safety and security has been removed.'
In the intervening decades since her own transition in the mid-70s, James has witnessed 'an incremental increase in rights and understanding' for trans people. 'The path forward wasn't rushed but in gentle increments, so some people who had concerns could discuss them.'
But she is one of many who identify 2017 as a pivot point, when Theresa May as prime minister proposed changing UK gender recognition laws to allow people to self-identify as their chosen gender, alongside the emergence of women's campaign groups focusing on 'sex-based rights'.
'It became wrapped up into an issue of women's safety from trans people, despite the lack of evidence there was a genuine threat. This muddied the water around a complex situation, so a lot of the nuance was lost and so was a lot of discussion.'
Christine Burns, a retired activist and internationally recognised health adviser, charts 'a fairly straight line of progress' towards the passing of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, which allowed trans people to change gender on their birth certificate, marry to reflect their chosen identity and gave them privacy around their transition. That legislation 'mattered so much to people' says Burns, while acknowledging that only a minority of the community have gone on to apply for a GRC.
She points to another significant social shift in the mid-00s. 'The oddity is that the Gender Recognition Act changed lives, but the emergence of social media made it possible for there to be a revolution in how trans people engaged with the world.'
In the decade-long campaign for gender recognition, it was 'a devil's own job' to get 'very shy' trans people on to the streets protesting, Burns says. But with the advent of social media, 'suddenly they had a space where it was safe to describe themselves to the world, and find other trans people to compare notes with'.
The campaign for gender recognition was spearheaded by the group Press for Change, co-founded in 1992 by the acclaimed advocate Stephen Whittle, who says it taught trans people that 'we didn't have to take it lying down'.
'In the 70s and 80s, early 90s, people were terrified [that] if they tried to fight for their rights they would lose everything,' says Whittle, now 69, who found himself denounced as a 'sex pervert' by a tabloid newspaper in the early 90s.
But by the mid-2010s, he sensed 'the world had grown up'. 'I was not monstered all the time. I was accepted as a good colleague, a good teacher, a good lawyer. But since then there has been this decline, and it has been vicious. There will be some who will retreat. There will be some people who will be galvanised.'
Roz Kaveney, 75, a poet and critic, says her concern about the 'outrageous' supreme court judgment is that 'a lot of people will think they are now entitled to act as vigilantes and that will be very unpleasant for their victims, not all of whom will be trans'.
James agrees: 'So many trans women are bodily indistinguishable from cis women, with breasts and a vagina. Any gender non-conforming lesbian should also be worried.'
Her concern is that use of certain facilities will now come down to 'passing privilege'. 'So if someone fits their view of what a woman should look like, they are given permission for entry. Wasn't that what we fought against in the 70s and 80s with our copies of Spare Rib and demands for bodily autonomy?'
Whittle likewise recalls the trans community's solidarity with women in previous decades. 'We've always been respectful of women's rights. In the 80s and 90s we were out on the streets along with them and they were alongside us in this fight. And any trans person will tell you they have a lifetime's experience of sexual assault and rape. Do [gender critical groups] not think we care about those issues?'
Burns says the judgment was especially shocking for those 'who have grown up always knowing a respectful legal framework for trans people'.
Kaveney, a former deputy chair of Liberty, says: 'My generation have never had to cope with an ongoing, concerted attack on trans existence that we're seeing in the US and now here.
'It is realistic to be worried, but we've always been very aware of our rights in law. I'm hugely impressed with the younger generation: I'd say to them: don't be scared, just be prepared to fight for your lives.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain must reject Corbyn's poison
The return of Jeremy Corbyn to the frontlines of British politics is all too predictable. It is no less unwelcome for being foreseen. Mr Corbyn's statement launching his new party criticised 'the great dividers', and proclaimed that his 'movement is made up of people of all faiths and none'. That he made these comments without any apparent sense of English irony speaks to his lack of self-awareness; few in Westminster have done more to spread division. Mr Corbyn's supporters may claim that Nigel Farage's Reform is stoking division by drawing attention to the failure of the British state to guard its borders. This is nonsense. Concerns about immigration are shared by many millions, and Mr Farage has been clear in disavowing Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Under Mr Corbyn's leadership the Labour Party was investigated for anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. He is a man who once referred to members of Hamas and Hezbollah as his 'friends', although he subsequently attempted to backtrack. He was arrested outside the Old Bailey in 1986 after joining a protest to 'show solidarity' with terrorists including the Brighton bomber. The most divisive contests and disgraceful scenes of the last election did not take place where Reform candidates were jousting with the Conservatives, but in the fights between pro-Gaza candidates and their Labour opponents. Mr Corbyn's obsessive attacks on Israel, including his backing for a complete arms embargo promises to further inflame this issue. As with the rapid rise of Mr Farage's Reform to now lead in the polls, Mr Corbyn's support speaks to a broader failure of Britain's established parties, and the ossification of our politics. While it is understandable, however, that many voters are frustrated with the visible decay of the British state, Mr Corbyn's toxic brand of Left-wing politics would only deepen the crisis we face. Confronted with a mountainous debt burden and an out-of-control welfare system, Mr Corbyn's answer is to further tax 'the very richest', and nationalise energy, water, rail and mail. It is an agenda which would put the final nail in Britain's coffin, and smother all hope of recovery for decades to come, repeating the very worst economic policy errors of the 20th century in some of the least favourable circumstances imaginable.
ITV News
7 hours ago
- ITV News
Kneecap banned from Hungary ahead of major festival appearance
The Hungarian government has banned Irish rap group Kneecap from entering the country on "national security" grounds ahead of their performance at the popular Sziget Festival. The Belfast trio were scheduled to play at the festival's closing day on August 11, along with headliners Chappell Roan, Charli XCX and Shawn Mendes. But authorities have banned the music group's members - Naoise Ó Cairealláin, J.J. Ó Dochartaigh and Liam Óg ÓhAnnaidh - for three years claiming their presence would pose "a serious threat to national security." In a statement, Sziget Festival said it did not agree with this decision or "cultural boycotts," but described the "unprecedent" move to cancel the band's appearance as "unnecessary and regrettable." It added: "We have liaised closely with the band and they reassured us that their performance would not contravene either Sziget's values or Hungarian law. "We fear that government's decision announced today to ban Kneecap may not only damage the reputation of Sziget, but also negatively affect Hungary's standing worldwide." Hungarian government spokesman Zoltán Kovács said it was due to 'antisemitic hate speech and open praise for Hamas and Hezbollah." Formed in 2017, Kneecap are known for their provocative lyrics and merchandise as well as their championing of the Irish language and pro-Palestinian stance. Hundreds of people involved in the Hungarian music and cultural scene had signed a petition calling for the performance to be cancelled. Kneecap have been in the headlines recently after O hAnnaidh, who performs under the name Mo Chara, was charged with a terror offence relating to allegedly displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah. The charge came following a counter-terrorism police investigation after the historical gig footage came to light, which also allegedly showed the group calling for the deaths of MPs. Kneecap has previously apologised to the families of murdered MPs but said footage of the incident had been 'exploited and weaponised." The group's performance at Glastonbury Festival last month sparked criticism in the UK.
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
Safety has become the defining instinct of Scottish politics
We are not stuck because of confusion. We are stuck because our political class is constitutionally incapable of fighting. That is the truth no-one wants to say aloud. This movement is paralysed, not by lack of mandate or popular support, but by the character of those who claim to lead it. They do not have the psychological or political instincts required to challenge power. READ MORE: Jonathan Shafi: No referendum is coming. Let's drop the 'Yes' and refocus This isn't a rhetorical point. History makes it plain. In every case where independence was achieved – Ireland, the Baltic states, former colonies in Africa and Asia – success came not through constant reframing, but through rupture. Electoral mandates were not just claimed but enforced. Sovereignty was not discussed as a concept – it was practised. Control of law, institutions and public legitimacy was asserted and defended, often in the face of real consequences. In January 1919, Irish representatives elected under British law assembled not at Westminster but in Dublin, declared the establishment of a sovereign parliament, and began operating as a parallel state. They issued laws, sent diplomatic envoys, and claimed the authority of the Irish people directly– not through permission, but through action. They forced the world to take notice. And when London rejected them, they escalated. READ MORE: Here's a three-point plan that can actually bring about independence The Baltic republics did the same between 1988 and 1991. Lithuania passed a law rejecting Soviet legal supremacy in 1989, followed by similar acts in Estonia and Latvia. They declared their independence as a matter of domestic legal fact, not international petitioning. They seized control of media, finance, and civil governance – then sought recognition abroad after establishing control at home. Sovereignty was taken, not requested. That's what these examples have in common: not ideology, but confrontation. A clear shift from political theory to political reality – where power is treated as something to be exercised, not endlessly debated. In Scotland, that threshold has never been crossed. Why? Because the people tasked with crossing it are not built for that kind of politics. John Swinney is not Eamon de Valera. Patrick Harvie is not Vytautas Landsbergis. Our political class does not prepare for crisis – it defers to process. It speaks the language of reassurance, not rupture. 'Bring people with us'. 'Build consensus'. 'Respect legality'. These phrases fill the air not because they are true, but because they are safe. And safety has become the defining instinct of Scottish politics. READ MORE: Doing the right thing for Gaza would gain the SNP more support We now have a political culture that punishes risk. That rewards calm management over decisive action. That celebrates polite speeches and white papers more than it prepares to seize institutions or withstand international pressure. This is not just a difference of style. It is a fundamental misreading of how statehood is created. Some letters talk of using elections as democratic events. Others hope another white paper or campaign will tip the balance. But here is the question that cuts through all of it: what happens the day after? If you claim a mandate for independence, what institution do you control? What law do you pass to assert that control? Who collects the taxes? Who speaks for Scotland internationally? Who commands legitimacy in a contested environment? Because these are the questions that decide whether you are a state – or just a slogan. In law, recognition depends not on arguments, but on authority. No foreign power will recognise Scottish independence if we cannot demonstrate control over territory, law, and government. And no court will enforce it unless we have first enforced it ourselves. READ MORE: Here's why John Swinney should ask Keir Starmer for a Section 30 now The SNP have no such plan. They behave as if devolution is permanent and sacred. The Greens, though no longer in coalition, offer no alternative. And even Alba – while bolder in language – have not demonstrated how they would move from mandate to enforcement. This is what makes talk of a reset or refocus feel meaningless. It assumes that what's missing is tone, branding, or coordination. But what's really missing is will. A cold, deliberate willingness to do what every successful independence movement has done: cross the line. Defy the central state. Act with seriousness and accept the cost. Until someone in Scottish politics is prepared to do that, nothing will change. We will keep circling the same points, drafting the same papers, rehearsing the same hopes. And if we refuse to confront that fact, then not only will we remain in the Union, we will deserve to. James Murphy Bute
