Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman definition ruling
An LGBTQ+ MP has shared her fears of the impact the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman will have on her when she accesses facilities such as toilets.
Kate Osborne, Labour MP for Jarrow and Gateshead East, told a Lesbian Visibility Week debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday (24 April) that she is misgendered frequently and suspects she will be "challenged even more now" after judges ruled that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
"Whilst the impact on my life will be problematic, the impact on my trans siblings' lives is going to be significantly worse," Ms Osborne added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
41 minutes ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out 'in order for those members to do their work.' Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to 'carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.' Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency 'will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.' Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. 'This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,' said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. 'This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data,' they said, while vowing to 'use every legal tool at our disposal' to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. Millions of Americans' sensitive data at stake The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had 'abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy' of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the 'most sensitive' personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: driver's license and identification information bank and credit cards birth and marriage certificates pension information home and work addresses school records immigration and naturalization records family court records employment and employer records psychological and psychiatric health records hospitalization records addiction treatment records records for HIV/AIDS tests The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show 'DOGE received far broader data access' than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. 'But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention,' Justice Jackson wrote.
North Wales Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
North Wales Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools. In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'. The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court. In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds. But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'. In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision. 'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.' Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.' She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal. 'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.' Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school. She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'. BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling. In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… — Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025 Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools. An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023. But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'. In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
