
‘Rights can be knocked out in a second': older trans women shocked by supreme court ruling
'The fear is back. The fear I had when I first started my transition in 1979, that people will hurt me,' says Janey, who is 70. She has been living 'happily and independently' as a woman for nearly half a century. Based in London, she still works in the mental health sector and is part of a large and accepting Irish family. She is also transgender.
'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

Rhyl Journal
a day ago
- Rhyl Journal
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024. Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'. She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process. 'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'

Rhyl Journal
a day ago
- Rhyl Journal
Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party
The Tory leader suggested such a move would be 'neither here nor there' for voters' perception of the party. In a speech on Thursday, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride sought to distance the Conservatives from Ms Truss's mini-budget, saying the party needed to show 'contrition' to restore its economic credibility. In a furious response, Ms Truss accused Sir Mel of having 'kowtowed to the failed Treasury orthodoxy' and being 'set on undermining my plan for growth'. Asked by the BBC on Friday whether she would consider throwing former prime minister Ms Truss out of the Conservatives in a symbolic break with her short-lived, turbulent time in No 10, Mrs Badenoch replied: 'Is she still in the party?' Ms Truss, the former Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, is understood to be a Tory party member still. Speaking to the BBC, Mrs Badenoch said: 'What is really important is what Mel was saying yesterday. What he was saying was that the mini-budget did not balance. It wasn't tax cuts, it was the … £150 billion of spending increases on energy bills that did not make sense.' Pressed whether she believed the mini-budget had damaged the Conservative brand, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Well, look at what happened, people didn't understand why we had done that, and so our reputation for economic competence was damaged.' When asked again why she would not consider kicking Ms Truss out of the party, the Tory leader said: 'It is not about any particular individual. I don't want to be commenting on previous prime ministers. 'They've had their time. What am I going to do now? Removing people from a political party is neither here nor there in terms of what it is your viewers want to see.' After insisting Ms Truss was not in Parliament anymore, Mrs Badenoch said her party needed to 'focus on how we're going to get this country back on track'. 'What we have right now is a Labour Government, it's Keir Starmer. We need to stop talking about several prime ministers ago and talk about the Prime Minister we've got now and what he's doing to the country,' the Tory leader said. Ms Truss this week appeared in a video to promote the Irish whiskey brand of bare-knuckle fighter Dougie Joyce, who was once jailed for attacking a 78-year-old man in a pub in 2022.


North Wales Chronicle
a day ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party
The Tory leader suggested such a move would be 'neither here nor there' for voters' perception of the party. In a speech on Thursday, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride sought to distance the Conservatives from Ms Truss's mini-budget, saying the party needed to show 'contrition' to restore its economic credibility. In a furious response, Ms Truss accused Sir Mel of having 'kowtowed to the failed Treasury orthodoxy' and being 'set on undermining my plan for growth'. Asked by the BBC on Friday whether she would consider throwing former prime minister Ms Truss out of the Conservatives in a symbolic break with her short-lived, turbulent time in No 10, Mrs Badenoch replied: 'Is she still in the party?' Ms Truss, the former Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, is understood to be a Tory party member still. Speaking to the BBC, Mrs Badenoch said: 'What is really important is what Mel was saying yesterday. What he was saying was that the mini-budget did not balance. It wasn't tax cuts, it was the … £150 billion of spending increases on energy bills that did not make sense.' Pressed whether she believed the mini-budget had damaged the Conservative brand, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Well, look at what happened, people didn't understand why we had done that, and so our reputation for economic competence was damaged.' When asked again why she would not consider kicking Ms Truss out of the party, the Tory leader said: 'It is not about any particular individual. I don't want to be commenting on previous prime ministers. 'They've had their time. What am I going to do now? Removing people from a political party is neither here nor there in terms of what it is your viewers want to see.' After insisting Ms Truss was not in Parliament anymore, Mrs Badenoch said her party needed to 'focus on how we're going to get this country back on track'. 'What we have right now is a Labour Government, it's Keir Starmer. We need to stop talking about several prime ministers ago and talk about the Prime Minister we've got now and what he's doing to the country,' the Tory leader said. Ms Truss this week appeared in a video to promote the Irish whiskey brand of bare-knuckle fighter Dougie Joyce, who was once jailed for attacking a 78-year-old man in a pub in 2022.