After seeing the way that politicians and organisations have overreacted to the recent Supreme Court judgment and interpreted it the most anti-trans light possible, I decided to send a letter (a real one, on paper) to my MP. Please feel free to use it as inspiration and to write to your own representative.

Dear Neil,

The past couple of weeks have brought drastic reductions in the rights of transgender people in the UK, rights that had relatively uncontroversial mainstream acceptance only a few years ago.

The Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers points out the limited scope of the judgment:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy.

Despite this, we have seen interpretations that go far beyond this. The British Transport Police announced the very next day that trans women were to be searched by male officers. As well as seeming mean-spirited, this is also an unworkable policy: there is no way for the BTP to know whether or not someone is transgender. Even if a person has ID (and it’s not a requirement to carry it) it can show their acquired gender, and so the decision will in practice come down to their perception and biases: trans women who pass will be treated as women, while cis women who are tall, have short hair, or who are otherwise not dainty enough, will be treated as male.

Even the idea that a person’s “biological sex” is binary and correctly encoded on their birth certificate is both simplistic and wrong: when we say “assigned at birth”, we do really mean assigned, based on external characteristics, not on chromosomes, and chromosomes come in more combinations than just XX and XY. But even if we could have certainty there, errors occur. The recent case of Ewan Murray and Grace Bingham, whose baby was erroneously recorded as male on her birth certificate, shows the limits of appealing to birth documentation to determine “biological sex”.

The General Register Office (GRO), which is responsible for administering all civil registration in England and Wales, and the Home Office have both confirmed that Lilah’s birth certificate cannot be reissued, although an amendment can be made in the margin of the original document.

For the Minister for Women and Equalities to say that

The ruling was clear that provisions and services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex.

is factually inaccurate. The ruling does not say that, and if she hasn’t read it and understood it, she’s not fit to do her job.

The increasingly inaccurately named Equality and Human Rights Commission has now gone far beyond its remit and produced guidance that purports to govern how the whole of society must interpret “sex”.

As well as overreaching so far as to tell gay and lesbian clubs that they must exclude trans people, the guidance comes to the conclusion that trans people should in theory be allowed to use toilets, but in practice only where a mixed-sex toilet is available.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public:

  • trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
  • in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
  • however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
  • where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided

However, you will also recall that in 2022, Kemi Badenoch, in the previous administration, published new building regulations that restricted the provision of gender-neutral toilets:

The government has announced today it is acting to bring forward changes to regulations that will mean all new non-domestic public and private buildings will be required to provide separate single-sex toilets for women and men and/or a self-contained, private toilet as a minimum.

As with most of previous Conservative administrations’ regressive legislation, Labour in government has not seen fit to reverse it.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the position of the British establishment is that trans people should not exist, and where they do exist, they should be prevented from full participation in society.

The reality is that public toilets are not coded by sex. Look carefully at the sign on any toilet door, and you’ll realise that the sign for “woman” is a person distinguished by long hair and a dress. Neither hair length nor clothing are coded for by the X and Y chromosomes. These are very much social markers of gender. The only realistic way to determine who belongs in each toilet is to let them decide for themselves.

This was a normal mainstream position a decade ago. When North Carolina passed its infamous “bathroom bill” HB2 in 2016, banning trans people from using the toilet of their gender, it was widely condemned. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office even published a travel warning:

LGBT travellers may be affected by legislation passed recently in the states of North Carolina and Mississippi.

In 2017, before she was ousted as PM, Theresa May said:

We: have set out plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act and streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender, because being trans is not an illness and it shouldn’t be treated as such.

In retrospect, this period seems like a high water mark for trans acceptance in the UK. In 2015, ILGA Europe ranked the UK as having the best rights for LGBTI people in Europe, with a score of 86%.

By 2024, after years of concerted monstering of trans people by the press, a small but obsessive group of bigots, and one monomaniacal billionaire, the UK fell to 16th place, with a score of 52%. It seems inevitable that this year’s score will be lower still.

The Cass Review was controversial, and its findings have been rejected by experts in many other countries. Even so, it did not go so far as to say that puberty blockers should not be used:

In summary, there seems to be a very narrow indication for the use of puberty blockers in birth-registered males as the start of a medical transition pathway in order to stop irreversible pubertal changes. Other indications remain unproven at this time.

Wes Streeting, however, did go further, and banned them indefinitely. This has politicised what should be a clinical decision left to experts, and contributed to the febrility of the debate around the lives of trans people in this country.

The Labour Manifesto in 2024 promised improvements to the gender recognition process:

We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.

But when measured on its actions, Labour in government now seems less progressive than Theresa May. Self-identification is a reality in many European countries. I know that we both have connections to Ireland, and self-ID has been the law there since 2015. We must ask ourselves, what is it about the political climate in the UK that makes it so toxic?

The Supreme Court judgment has not clarified matters, nor has it made the “problem” go away. When Keir Starmer says that it provides “much-needed clarity”, he reveals his cowardice. As on so many other progressive causes he once championed, he now refuses to make the moral case, and simply bends in the wind. It’s not even the wind of public opinion. Despite the gale force transphobia coming from the press and a few very loud people, most people in this country are more accepting and welcoming. A strong leader could stand up for what is morally right and shape public opinion. It is a shame that we don’t have one.

The Supreme Court rules on the interpretation of legislation, but Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament disagrees with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2010 Act, it can legislate. If it doesn’t, then it continues its spineless complicity in a creeping fascism that seems to seek the elimination of trans people, and which will inexorably move on to other targets in turn.

In three or four years’ time, we’ll be asked to hold our noses yet again and vote Labour to keep Reform out. We’ll be asked to overlook

  • cuts to disabled benefits
  • cuts to winter fuel payments
  • the retention of the two-child benefit cap
  • voting against UN plans to block tax avoidance
  • replacing the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority with a former Amazon executive
  • pandering to xenophobia with the foreign criminal league table and filming and broadcasting deportations
  • jailing peaceful protesters under the repressive laws brought in by the Tory government but retained by Labour
  • supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza with arms sales and intelligence overflights
  • continuing to support the privatisation of the UK’s infrastructure even when it’s failing at great cost (e.g. Thames Water)
  • letting Palantir keep a role in the NHS
  • Retaining the Tories’ stupid, counterproductive, economically disastrous “red lines” on co-operation with the EU

When all these regressive things are happening already under a Labour government, and a Labour government with a huge majority, no less, why bother? It feels as if Labour in government only ever tacks further to the right, in vain pursuit of Reform voters who will never vote for the ersatz when they can have the real thing, while the genuinely progressive causes that Labour once exemplified and championed are discarded. Labour is even being outflanked on renationalisation by Reform.

To conclude, I would like to remind you of this manifesto commitment:

We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance

and ask you and the Labour government: when will you start doing this?

Yours sincerely,

Paul Battley