Britain has dropped down Europe's LGBTQ+ rights rankings. Good – now we might have to face reality
It should surprise no one that the UK has dropped to its lowest ever position on the annual 'rainbow map' of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA), which ranks the best and worst European countries on the basis of laws and policies that affect LGBTQ+ people. The map assesses each country through seven categories, including equality and non-discrimination, legal gender recognition and asylum.
The supreme court's ruling last month that a person's sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers only to 'biological sex' – a redefining of trans people's rights to their detriment, and a political and cultural victory for the gender critical movement – will have played a key role in the downgrading. Senior politicians immediately capitulated to the ruling, interpreting the implications of the verdict beyond the scope of the court, with the gay health secretary even renouncing his own support for the notion that 'trans women are women'. Meanwhile, the Scottish government has dropped plans to legislate for a ban on conversion therapy during this parliamentary session. At this rate of progress the ranking will be even lower next year, as it should be.
While I despair at the UK's decline on LGBTQ+ rights, I do not despair at the ranking. In 2015, the year I turned 18 and began to live as an openly gay man, the UK was ranked first on the rainbow map. Times were different then. There was a sense that the coalition and later Conservative government was on the side of LGBTQ+ people. Same-sex marriage had been legalised in 2013, David Cameron called for action to tackle transphobic bullying, and in 2017 Theresa May would announce reform to the gender recognition act to allow people to change gender without medical checks.
It is tempting to be wistful for those days, but I had always found there to be a grating smugness to Britain's celebration of its supposed progressiveness. Even the entire basis of the rainbow map, first published in 2009, felt suspect; I'm sure that it is innocently intended to provide analysis of LGBTQ+ rights in Europe, but so often metrics like this have been mobilised to present western, European countries as bastions of progress where countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East represented a backwards order.
But that backwardness has always been present in the UK, including when we topped the rainbow map ranking. How could a country that had obliged LGBTQ+ asylum seekers to submit footage of 'highly personal sexual activity' to back up asylum claims ever be held up as the pinnacle of European social progress (unless it was determined that some LGBTQ+ people counted more than others). Even with such practices from the Home Office, the UK scored positively on asylum in 2015.
In any case, the pretence has now dropped. Labour pledged a 'fully trans-inclusive ban' on conversion therapy in its 2024 manifesto. Starmer has not mentioned the issue once since the King's speech. LGBTQ+ people are no longer politically expedient – and trans people attract too much hostility, division and controversy – so advocacy for our collective rights no longer seems to be a priority. This is a disaster, but it is also instructive for future strategy: those activists who believed that legislative wins can secure true equality or progress, and that social progressivism was the natural order of history, are now seeing the consequences of such a delusion.
One of the recommendations for how the UK can improve its standing in next year's rainbow map is to 'ensure timely and accessible trans healthcare, including addressing excessive waiting times and restoring access to puberty blockers for trans youth' – provision of which has been indefinitely banned following the Cass review of April 2024. Alice Litman, a 20-year-old transgender woman, died by suicide in 2022 after spending 1,023 days waiting for her first appointment with the now disbanded Gender Identity Development Service. I spoke to her sister, Kate, a university friend of mine, who, with her family, formed the Campaign for Alice. She told me that at Alice's inquest it was heard that, if processes continued at the current rate, those entering the waiting list today would face a more than 20-year wait before their first appointment.
Such delays had made Alice's life 'intolerable', but added to that was 'the general atmosphere of hostility towards trans people and her anxiety and fear about participating in public life'. I have previously spoken with trans people who had come out and transitioned around the so-called transgender tipping point in the mid-2010s. Not all are convinced that they would do the same in the current political environment. As a lesbian woman, Kate feels further indignation that such regress has been presented as a 'victory for lesbians'. She says 'my identity is politicised and weaponised in a way that is antithetical to my beliefs.'
So what is the roadmap for progress now? For the Campaign for Alice, some level of political will is needed to effect the 'simple changes' to trans healthcare, such as providing the funding and training to enable GPs to prescribe hormones that could prevent further tragedies. Such will has disappeared from senior politicians. That today's government would enact May's pledges to ease gender transition is unthinkable. Repealing the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act would facilitate LGBTQ+ asylum seekers to find safe residence with dignity, but Starmer's recent rhetoric indicates that this problem will only worsen.
For now, what is most important is clarity over who is truly on the side of LGBTQ+ people and who or what we can rely on. Following the supreme court ruling, organisers of upcoming summer Pride events in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Brighton have banned political parties from participating. That feels like a welcome recognition of reality: solidarity is to be found within our communities, and not in the whims of politicians who seek to divide and exploit us.
Jason Okundaye is an assistant newsletter editor and writer at the Guardian. He edits The Long Wave newsletter and is the author of Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
State is ‘stifling criticism of Islam over fear of violent mobs', says Tory MP
The state is stifling criticism of Islam because of fears of a violent mob reaction, a senior MP has claimed. Nick Timothy, a front-bench Tory MP, issued the warning ahead of his Bill aimed at protecting free speech and the right to criticise religions, including Islam, being presented before Parliament on Tuesday. It follows the conviction of Hamit Coskun, 50, for setting fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. He was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Mr Timothy, who is a columnist for The Telegraph, is proposing a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill that would rewrite the Public Order Act to prevent it being used as a 'de facto' blasphemy law. His bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend legal provisions – which protect the freedom to criticise religion in specific circumstances – to the whole of the Public Order Act. 'The Public Order Act is increasingly being used as a blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. The Act was never intended to do this. Parliament never voted for this, and the British people do not want it,' said Mr Timothy. 'To use the Public Order Act in this way is especially perverse, since it makes a protester accountable for the actions of those who respond with violence to criticism of their faith. This is wrong, and it destroys our freedom of speech. 'We should be honest that the law is only being used in this way because the authorities have become afraid of the violent reaction of mobs of people who want to impose their values on the rest of us. 'My Bill will put a stop to this and restore our freedom of speech – and our right to criticise any and all religions, including Islam.' At Westminster magistrates' court, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kurdish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F---- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Criticising Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long hanker for another plateful
China 's vice-premier He Lifeng, a big yam, is in London and spent his morning with Rachel Reeves. MPs, perhaps sensing that he (that is to say, He) might need a laugh after his ordeal, laid on a Chinese-related show in the afternoon: An urgent question attacking a 'nefarious' plan for a Chinese super-embassy in London. Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Con, Chingford & Woodford Green) led demands that planning minister Matthew Pennycook block the embassy. He and a surprising number of Labour backbenchers argued that the site was a security risk, being bang next to a telephone exchange that serves the City. 'Dark cabling' runs underneath the premises. These may be used for the transmission of delicate material. Our spooks are said to be uneasy about this, as are the Americans and, oddly, the Dutch. Much Beijing-bashing ensued. China operatives might cut those dark cables. National security was at risk. It would cost a fortune to police the site. Criticism of Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long you hanker for another plateful. Moreover, there is now an electoral consideration: Many British constituencies contain large numbers of Hong Kongers, some of whom worry that Chinese diplomats present a mortal threat to them. This is not a concept entirely easy to explain to President Xi, but these Hong Kongers may be swing voters. MPs therefore feel under pressure to deplore the Beijing regime. Comrade Pennycook was a credit to his profession. He stood there and repeatedly said nothing. It takes years in Communist-approved training camps to perfect this verbose art. Mr Pennycook's tongue was tied because this was a 'quasi-judicial matter' on which he, as planning supremo, would allegedly have to pass judgment. 'I cannot comment in any detail,' he regretfully told Sir James Cleverly, a former foreign secretary. 'I didn't ask for any detail!' yelped Sir James. Mr Pennycook shuffled his papers and regretted that that did not alter matters. He still could not dilate. What he possibly meant was that Sir Keir Starmer, diplomatic genius that he is, may already have given Premier Xi an undertaking that the super-embassy can proceed. Sir Iain suggested 'Project Kowtow' was under way – 'a walk of shame for the Government'. Mr Pennycook murmured: 'It would not be appropriate for me to comment.' Unhappy Labour MPs included Alex Sobel (Leeds C), burly Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) and even the House's leading Starmerite greaser, Mark Sewards (Leeds SW). It is almost unheard of for little Sewards to express anything but ravished delight at the Government's behaviour. Whips may need to check his circuit board to make sure a virus has not infected his central controls. We also had an eruption from Marie Rimmer, a magnificent old Labour pudding from St Helens who normally does as commanded by her party. Ms Rimmer, like a runaway truckle of cheese, proved hard to stop once she was rolling. 'China has a record of state-backed espionage,' she cried through some whistly-sounding teeth. 'There has been a massive under-estimation of the risk.' Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani tried to get her to shut up but Ms Rimmer did not notice. Bits of cheese-wheel, or at least her oratory, were by now flying here and there. Words were splintering. Sentences were disintegrating. A nearby MP took a shard of cheddar in the eye and went down like a fallen warrior. Even Beijing's most accomplished code-breakers might have struggled to understand what our Marie meant. At one point she seemed to talk of 'signals contraception'. Did she mean 'interception'? Or something else? Maybe the wheezy dinner-lady routine is a brilliant front. Maybe she is an MI6 ace under deep cover. In other news Torsten Bell, pensions minister, explained the Government's rethink on winter fuel payments. What a twerp! Arrogant young Bell's nose twitched as he pushed his excuses past a set of vegetarian-looking teeth. Rabbit with a quiff. Any pensioner would have been tempted to truncheon him with a furled brolly.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Tinkering with smartphone rules won't save our kids – the damage they do means we must BAN them now
Sophie Winkleman, Actress and campaigner Published: Invalid Date, ARE we finally witnessing the tide turning against kids' use of smartphones? Head teachers are now calling for a limit on children's screen time and the government is considering an 'app curfew.' 2 2 The government's Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he wants to 'break some of the addictive behaviour' of the online world. Okay B+ for effort Peter but could try harder. 'Some' was your downfall. There's no such thing as temperance when it comes to smartphones. They're unputdownable. A two-hour cap on each app is better than nothing but with Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok being just three of children's favourite brain-melters this is already six hours of social media before they've even got out their homework. The idea of a curfew with a 10pm cut-off point is also a good one but come on, go tougher on the app limits - make it a two-hour total - or, grow a pair and illegalise social media for the Under 16s. None of them would miss it and they might actually meet up with a friend, kick a football around or read a book. The 'nanny state' has a bad rap as a concept, and quite rightly when it comes to adults - let us do what we want please. But when children are malfunctioning this seriously a nanny state is exactly what we need. We parents are doing our best, but we just can't do it alone. Peer pressure is immense. What parent hasn't felt cruel denying their child a phone to 'keep up with friends' and ended up surrendering? 'It was so loud,' ex teacher says banning phones transformed school overnight But smartphones are turning fun-loving and inquisitive children into hollow addicts the minute they get hold of them. The premise that smartphones are 'connecting' our children in a positive fashion is false. Because rather than playing with their friends or family they are alone in the rooms with their phones. The Sun's revelation last week that a Year 6 primary school student received 9,000 messages on Whatsapp over a 15 hour period reveals exactly what we are up against. The stats are truly horrific. More than a million British children per year are referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Services, the vast majority suffering from severe depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. Conspiracy theories It is not surprising when they are subject to graphic images of real murders, massacres and terrifyingly violent porn, algorithms feeding on their insecurities and sending them more and more damaging content. Children are encouraged to take part in potentially lethal games and challenges, resulting in many accidental deaths. Girls are told that anorexia is empowering then sent starvation tips and 'how to make mum think you've eaten your dinner' pointers. Children are fed conspiracy theories, radicalising their eager young minds, they're connected to gang members in their area, they're groomed, sextorted, preyed on and they're even told how to kill themselves. While government action is welcome, none of the restrictions suggested go nearly far enough. Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Or the 16 US states which have done the same thing? Or France - where all pornography users now have to verify their age using government ID or a credit card. Britain was meant to lead the way in child safety with the Online Safety Act. But Ofcom, responsible for implementing the legislation, is just not as tough as many international regulators. Or why can't we ban smartphones for the Under 16s and come up with a brand new product - a child-appropriate, safe phone with limited app functionality for things like banking and travel, simple calls and texts? Also UK, just STOP IT with the EdTech (educational technology)!!! We don't want our kids drowning in screen time during class and for their homework!! Sure, teach them how to use AI judiciously in senior school but no more of these silly apps masquerading as educational PLEASE. Doctors advise that children up to 17 should not be spending more than 1-2 hours a day on any form of screen. Schools have a responsibility to heed this advice. Not only is too much screen time bad for children's eyesight but it damages their sleep rhythms, their hormones, their spinal health and their attention spans. Bill Gates himself has admitted that 'devices have a lousy record in the classroom'. Steve Jobs didn't let his own kids have iPads. UNESCO found that children who used computers frequently in the classroom did a 'lot worse' academically than their book-based peers. A massive study by educational researcher John Jerrim showed that students who revised for academic tests by reading books and handwriting outperformed their computer-based counterparts twenty times over - the equivalent of six months of extra school!! Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment' Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment'. Many Big Tech employees in the US send their children to low or no-tech schools such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in California. So why does our government continue to listen to social media and EdTech firms when they argue that their products are good for our children? Where is the clinical evidence? Because few children or parents believe it. I have spoken to countless teens around the country and they all say that they're only on social media 'because everyone else is'. Most would love to be liberated from it all and free to learn, relax, have fun and sleep well. A survey last year found that 77 percent of parents wanted a smartphone ban for under 16s. Saving our youngest, most vulnerable minds from these corrosive devices is a vote-winner. Come on, Peter Kyle. Must do better. Teachers want it, parents want it and children want it. It's time the government wanted it too.
