logo
Dylan Mulvaney says trans rights 'shouldn't be political' - ahead of ruling to define 'woman'

Dylan Mulvaney says trans rights 'shouldn't be political' - ahead of ruling to define 'woman'

Sky News15-04-2025

Social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney has told Sky News discussion about transgender rights should not be political.
Mulvaney, who documented her own transition in a viral TikTok series, was speaking ahead of a Supreme Court judgment in London on Wednesday about how women are defined in law.
The 28-year-old US social media personality told Sky's Barbara Serra on The World: "I've seen my family completely accept me and love me. And I think that that's why I haven't given up on any person or any group of people."
She also called for "transness" to no longer be a political topic - "because it shouldn't be".
"We're just humans trying our best," she said.
On Donald Trump's first day back in office, he signed an executive order directing the US government to recognise only two, biologically distinct sexes - male and female.
And he directed the state department to change its policies to only issue passports that "accurately reflect the holder's sex".
The administration has argued the policy does not constitute unlawful sex discrimination, does not prevent transgender people from traveling abroad, and is vital to addressing the concerns the order raised that indeterminate definitions of sex undermine "longstanding, cherished legal rights and values".
Asked about Mr Trump's policies, Mulvaney said: "It's a sad thing to see someone trying to take away the rights of humans that are just trying to live their lives. Again, we're not monsters. We're people that have woken up and stepped into our authentic selves. For me, that's a very camp, fun, feminine human being who also happens to be a woman.
"And I think what I'm now excited [for] is to step into this next chapter of my life and realise that there are so many other trans people who should be speaking on those things. And I'm finding my way in right now, which is through theatre."
What's the background to the court case?
The landmark Supreme Court case, where five judges at the UK's top court heard arguments last November, is the culmination of a challenge brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) over whether trans women can be regarded as female for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act.
Wednesday's ruling may have a big influence over how sex-based rights are applied through the act across Scotland, England and Wales, including implications for the running of single-sex spaces.
Campaigners from FWS say sex-based protections should only apply to people who are born female.
They are challenging the Scottish government, which says they should also include trans people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
The FWS action is seeking to overturn a decision by the Scottish courts in 2023 which found treating someone with a GRC as a woman under the Equality Act was lawful.
What have the two sides said?
Ruth Crawford KC, for the Scottish government, told the court last November that a person with a GRC, which she said was a document legally recognising a change of sex and gender, was entitled to the "protection" afforded to their acquired gender as set out in the 2010 Equality Act.
But Aidan O'Neill KC, representing FWS, said "sex just means sex, as that word and the words woman and man are understood and used in ordinary, everyday language, used every day in everyday situations by ordinary people".
Mr O'Neill called for the court to take account of "the facts of biological reality rather than the fantasies of legal fiction".
The case is the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by FWS over the definition of "woman" in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which mandates 50% female representation on public boards.
Beer brand ad controversy
In 2023, US sales of Bud Light fell and profits dropped following a boycott of the beer brand after it made a promotional deal with Mulvaney.
Many conservatives, including former US presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, stopped buying Bud Light after Mulvaney posted an ad for the brand on her social media account and shared an image of a personalised can.
Mulvaney told Barbara Serra that for "writing my book I really wanted to make good of a really dark situation that was happening when I took an unexpected beer brand ad".
"And I think that while that was such a dark period of time in my life, and I think a lot of trans people's lives, I really wanted to show that if you keep going, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and I'm feeling happy and healthy in my life right now," she said.
Mulvaney is starring in a new musical in London, called We Aren't Kids Anymore, starting later this month.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Spads being offered six-figure salaries as cost of advisers soars
Spads being offered six-figure salaries as cost of advisers soars

Scottish Sun

timean hour ago

  • Scottish Sun

Spads being offered six-figure salaries as cost of advisers soars

Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie blasts "sleekit attempt" to sneak figures out during a by-election BILL CLAIM Spads being offered six-figure salaries as cost of advisers soars Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SNP chiefs were accused of making a 'sleekit' bid to use the Holyrood by-election as cover to sneak out the soaring costs of their special advisers. Figures published by the Nats Government reveal that 17 Spads - political appointees hired to support ministers - were in post as of May 7 this year. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 Deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party Jackie Baillie at the count for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Of those, one was earning a salary between £108,781 and £116,435, while seven were in a pay band of between £84,983 and £97,644, while a further nine Spads were earning between £71,393 and £78,719. The total cost of special advisers employed during the financial year for 2024-2025 was a whopping £1.7million. A request for the information was submitted by a backbench SNP MSP on the day of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election on June 5, with a response provided by minister Jamie Hepburn the following day. The move has prompted accusations from political rivals of using the by-election as an opportunity to 'sneak' out the figures while journalists focused on coverage of the vote. Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie said: 'Scots are sick of footing the bill for an SNP government that is failing to deliver. 'This sleekit attempt to sneak these figures out during a by-election won't hide the fact the SNP cannot be trusted with taxpayers' money.' And Scottish Tory shadow finance secretary Craig Hoy added: 'The SNP have wasted a shameful amount of taxpayers' money on their army of spin doctors. 'You'd be forgiven for thinking John Swinney snuck out these bombshell figures on a day when people's minds were elsewhere.' The number of Spads fell to 17 over the past year, with 19 having been in post prior to May 7 this year - three of whom were earning salaries of over £108,781. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Due to the appointment of a new First Minister in May 2024, there were several changes to the special adviser team. The number and total cost of special advisers reduced in comparison to the previous year.' Scottish Labour's shock win in Hamilton stuns establishment as SNP face 'false' campaign blast But, Scottish Lib Dem MSP Willie Rennie MSP hit out: 'The SNP are investing more effort in making excuses for their failures in government.'

John Swinney in the firing line after allowing education secretary to swerve parliamentary duties DESPITE school crisis
John Swinney in the firing line after allowing education secretary to swerve parliamentary duties DESPITE school crisis

Scottish Sun

time2 hours ago

  • Scottish Sun

John Swinney in the firing line after allowing education secretary to swerve parliamentary duties DESPITE school crisis

Ministers have faced increased scrutiny over their response to soaring levels of violence in schools NO SHOW John Swinney in the firing line after allowing education secretary to swerve parliamentary duties DESPITE school crisis JOHN Swinney let Jenny Gilruth dodge a grilling on school violence. We can reveal the First Minister signed off the SNP Education Secretary's absence two months before the Holyrood Q&A on the classroom crisis. Advertisement 3 Jenny Gilruth was out campaigning for the SNP 3 First Minister John Swinney MSP at the Scottish Parliament It was scheduled on the same day a 12-year-girl was rushed to hospital after an alleged stabbing at a school in Aberdeen. Ms Gilruth instead posed for a selfie while campaigning in her Mid-Fife and Glenrothes seat. Emails showed parliamentary business minister Jamie Hepburn was also involved her free pass on April 24. Colleague Graeme Dey instead stepped in. Advertisement It was the first education questions for five weeks as MSPs returned from their Easter holidays. Ministers have faced increased scrutiny over their response to soaring levels of violence in schools. There are also concerns about an ongoing funding crisis at top Scottish universities. Last night Tory education spokesman Miles Briggs claimed ministers would 'do anything to avoid being held to account.' Advertisement He added: 'It's scandalous that even John Swinney was in on this, turning a blind eye to his education secretary missing important parliamentary questions to campaign.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'Diary commitments meant the Education Secretary was unable to attend portfolio questions. Jenny Gilruth accused of 'playing truant' after her parliament no-show "In line with rules, the Higher Education Minister answered questions.' 3 John Swinney and Jenny Gilruth

As a former judge, I used to defend Britain's rights – mine are now at risk
As a former judge, I used to defend Britain's rights – mine are now at risk

The Independent

time3 hours ago

  • The Independent

As a former judge, I used to defend Britain's rights – mine are now at risk

Before being a judge, I represented a rape victim who was deaf and unable to speak. She was so badly traumatised that, in a cry for help, she took a kitchen knife out in public and tried to kill herself. She was arrested and brought to court. She did not get bail. The probation officer – before even meeting me – told me she had decided to oppose bail. A cruel pre-judgment: custody would immediately end her job and change her life. Law has no feeling; it embodied the passive-aggression of society to disabled people and women: it processed her, like meat for dogs. Two weeks ago, the UN Special Procedures group – 19 specialists in fields including freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion and expression, and violence against women and girls – issued a statement of human rights concern about the UK, towards transsexual and other trans people. It came in response to the infamous, deeply confused decision of the UK Supreme Court in April in For Women Scotland, where trans people and the vast bulk of women and lesbians were not heard. We were judged by a court packed with non-trans pressure groups, and human rights were scarcely mentioned. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision forced on women the notion that they are inescapably defined by biology, presumably basic urges and wandering wombs, for sexual relationships, free association and equal rights. It reversed more than 20 years of peaceful co-existence between the trans community and others. The UK is beyond crisis: the economy is down, inflation is up; electricity and gas are unaffordable. Violence against women is up. Men are discarded, angry. Such a country becomes vulnerable to extremism and minority-blaming. In 2021, European parliament research revealed how foreign actors use media to stir LGBT+ hate. It is in Russia's interest to damage our social fabric, rendering us dysfunctional and divided, as there is evidence it did, too, with Brexit. This LGBT+ emergency is ripping apart tolerant British values. It follows the rise of the Gender Critical Ideology Movement (GCIM). I need not go into suggestions that GCIM is sometimes used as cover for people seeking LGBT+ conversion practices – or that some groups oppose banning conversion therapy towards trans people. Let us note, however, that GCIM did not seem to exist until around 2016, when UK-US movements arose preaching traditional sex roles. Let me concentrate on the immediate UK human crisis. The government ruled that people like me, previously legally female and (still!) having female anatomy, at risk of assault as with all women, must henceforth change in men's changing rooms, use men's loos in pubs and be excluded from female rape services. Despite my female birth certificate, I am apparently a 'man'. The EHRC followed suit. The police confirmed that people who are (or seem to be, one assumes) 'trans' shall be strip searched only by men, anatomy be damned. Such sexual assault of 'unfeminine' women may now be the law on the ground. Women with mastectomies are confronted, accused of 'transness'. Trans people not 'out' at work face disclosure of pariah status. Non-feminine women are confronted by other women in loos. A database has been proposed to enforce segregation. A fund has been created support civil legal enforcement of the new 'sex-based' rights. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, wants to segregate trans people in hospitals. Bridget Phillipson, our equalities minister, is MIA. I formed the Trans Exile Network for those leaving the UK now. Heterosexual families with kids, where, say, the husband is trans, have been re-designated as 'lesbian' because the court redefined 'lesbians' as well as 'women'. Nobody asked them, of course – unlike the 2004 Act, which was with national consent and consultation. Trans people are now two sexes at once: one for equalities law (I am now unable to claim equal pay rights as a woman) and one for everything else. Nobody at the top cares: it is 'clarification', says Keir Starmer, ignorantly. Now the GCIM want this rolled out across Europe. Next stop: Ireland. I've been contacted by suicidal people and the parents of kids who have been denied medical treatment. Parents fear for the future of their kids: if not helped now, they face forced puberty against their medical best interests and a harder life. Puberty delaying hormones are reversible and have been used upwards of 20 years to 'buy time' until kids are adults and can make decisions. The court must have assumed that the EHRC is neutral. More fool the court. But the biggest victim is our country – which I served as a judge for more than 18 years – and truth and humanity in public life.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store