'Life for our community is a living hell after court ruling'
It's been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, "woman" means a biological woman. The decision was welcomed by some women's rights groups but condemned in the transgender community. How are they and others affected by the ruling feeling now?
While the full implications of the ruling are not yet clear, some members of the trans community feel threatened by it.There is confusion and fear over how it might affect their legal rights and access to facilities, along with concern that it may have emboldened those in society with transphobic views.In Ipswich, Suffolk Pride has brought together five trans and non-binary members.How many of them feel less safe since the ruling?All five – in an unscientific poll – raise their hands.Kate Lankester, a 25-year-old trans woman who works in trans healthcare, says life is "a living hell"."I'm walking out of the house scared every single day," she says."I worry about who's looking. I worry if someone's going to say something to me."She says fear of transphobia is "impacting our community's wellbeing, mental health, how we're viewing society and how society views us".
Two of the five say they have experienced more transphobia since last month's ruling.Jessica Brown, 45, has been "out" for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a "huge uptick" in transphobia.She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year - before the ruling - and now experiences abuse "almost daily"."I've had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive," she says."I think, 'Oh God, what's going to happen today? Is it going to be another physical assault? Is it just going to be verbal assaults?'"I go home and I cry."While she says "most people are fine", the abuse comes from a "very small minority that are very vocal, very loud".
What was the Supreme Court case about?
On 15 April the UK's most senior judges ruled that a woman was defined by biological sex under equalities law.The ruling followed a long legal battle between For Women Scotland (FWS) and the Scottish governmentCampaigners in FWS argued that sex-based legal protections should only apply to people born femaleBut the Scottish government said transgender people with a gender recognition certificate were entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological womenSenior judges were asked to interpret the proper meaning of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across the UKThey unanimously agreed that "woman" and "sex" in the act referred to "a biological woman and biological sex"But Judge Lord Hodge said: "We counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another; it is not."The judges added that equalities legislation still gave transgender people protection against discrimination "through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment"Read more: Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling
All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court's decision.Benji Rayson, a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary, says they do not believe the ruling will "fix anything" but has instead "shone a light on a community that just wants to get on and do their own thing"."This is a scary time for everyone," Benji adds, "because this is a ruling that's been brought in with the intent of bringing clarity, but it's vague enough that people can read into it what they want and that means that people are empowered to bring their prejudices." They are calling for a "much wider conversation around fixing the problem of protecting women as a whole", rather than blaming the transgender community, which comprise "less than 1% of the population".According to the 2021 Census, 0.54% of the UK population - 262,000 people - identified as trans.
But for Kate Barker, chief executive of LGB Alliance, the ruling brought welcome clarity.Her organisation was part of the case and argued biological sex was more important than gender."It's not an objection to anyone being trans. It's an objection to male people in women's spaces," she says."And that means all men. You can't let in a certain type of man. You can't let in men who are nice, or men that you know, or men who sincerely believe they are women, and not other men. "It is binary."Ms Barker says she "regretted" that trans people feel scared, calling for "calm" and saying she hopes the ruling will lead to improved services for them. "I think it should be a kick to the lobby groups and to the government to really think about what services do trans people need in order to have dignified, respectful ways to go about their business and to exist fully in society."
At LGBTQ+ charity Q:alliance in Milton Keynes, the organisation's communications manager Jay Virgo, 30, believes some people now think they have "a sense of empowerment that it's OK to behave in a certain way"."Nowhere in this ruling does it say that you are suddenly allowed to be homophobic or transphobic, but people have taken it that way," he says.
Among those supported by Q:alliance, transphobic abuse is not the only source of fear.Cammy Findleton, a 25-year-old trans woman, says she is worried about accessing healthcare and "dreading what's going to happen next".Kye Tilley, 26, who identifies as transmasculine, feels it is "important" to "stand up" to the ruling."It made me feel scared about my future; about other people's futures."And Sam Dowling, 25, who identifies as non-binary, says: "I don't think people realise that even when rights get taken away, we're not going to cease to exist; we're still going to be here, and there's going to be even more hate crime because of it."
Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
21 minutes ago
- BBC News
Colin Campbell appeal 'straightforward', Court of Appeal told
The appeal of a former nurse who was convicted of murdering four elderly patients is a "straightforward" case, the Court of Appeal has Campbell, formerly known as Colin Norris, was found guilty in 2008 of killing four women by injecting them with insulin and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Doris Ludlam, 80, Bridget Bourke, 88, Irene Crookes, 79, and Ethel Hall, 86, were inpatients on orthopaedic wards where Campbell worked in Leeds in 2002 and developed unexplained the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which referred the case to the Court of Appeal four years ago, said prosecutors had relied on a "wholly circumstantial" case. Campbell, originally from Glasgow, was also found guilty of attempting to murder another inpatient, with his sentence carrying a minimum term of 30 the 13th day of the appeal hearing in London, judges heard closing submissions from Campbell's written submissions, Michael Mansfield KC said: "The appellant submits that this is a straightforward case in which this court must conclude that these convictions are unsafe."Campbell, who denied any wrongdoing and said he did nothing to cause hypoglycaemia, unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction in 2009 and applied to the CCRC in Curtis KC, representing the Crown Prosecution Service, told the court there were "certain matters to which we take exception" from the defence's closing submissions."There are a number of matters that I would seek to issue corrections on, things we firmly disagree with my learned friend on," he said. The appeal before Lady Justice Macur, Sir Stephen Irwin and Mr Justice Picken is due to conclude on Friday. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Fresh plans for £40m Hull park-and-ride to be submitted
Revised plans for a £40m park-and-ride site north of Hull will be submitted "in the coming weeks", a developer has initial proposal for the scheme, at the Dunswell roundabout of the A1079 near Kingswood, was submitted to East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) by Ashcourt Group last it was withdrawn in March after concerns were raised about noise and light pollution, retail outlets and a bus Stathers, the head of external affairs at Ashcourt Group, said: "The team has taken on board concerns raised by residents and this scheme will lead to much reduced traffic congestion and pollution along Beverley Road into Hull." "We hope to have the revised plans ready for submission by mid-summer," he site, which is just outside the city boundary, is designated for a park-and-ride in ERYC's local plan. The initial proposal included space for 500 vehicles, a petrol station, car wash and drive-through residents lodged objections, saying they feared the development would "cause chaos" and be "unworkable". 'Ghastly' development In February, Hull City Council (HCC) wrote to ERYC to object to the inclusion of a bus depot, three drive-through restaurants and a petrol said that while it shared an "aspiration" for a park-and-ride, there were already restaurant facilities a separate letter of objection, three Hull city councillors, including the authority's leader Mike Ross, described the proposal as a "ghastly, oversized development".Ashcourt Group, a Hull-based construction company, said the fresh proposal would represent "one of the largest traffic management and infrastructure improvements to be undertaken in the region for decades" and would be "entirely funded" by private developer claimed it would provide "faster" transport links between Hull and Beverley and the two local hospitals, Hull Royal Infirmary and Castle Hill in Cottingham. 'Reduced congestion' The new proposal would still include food and retail spaces as Ashcourt said it believed there was "clear demand for such outlets in this area".Mr Stathers added: "Our proposal is very much about getting people out of cars and into energy efficient buses, reducing congestion and pollution."At the same time it will protect and enhance public transport services across many key areas of Hull and East Yorkshire."The BBC understands the updated proposal will be submitted to the council by the end of July. Listen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Keir Starmer attacks ‘staggering' SNP move to block £11m investment
Sir Keir Starmer has accused the SNP of choking off opportunities for young Scots by banning taxpayer support for munitions projects. The prime minister claimed it was 'staggering' that the nationalist government was 'blocking' an £11 million private investment from Rolls-Royce in the creation of a specialist welding centre on the basis that it could be used to support the building of Royal Navy submarines. John Swinney, the first minister, rejected accusations on Wednesday that he was indulging in 'student union' politics and insisted that the 'longstanding' position of the SNP — which is not to use public money to support the creation of weapons — would not change. It emerged at the weekend that a plan to create a state-of-the-art welding skills centre, part of a wider project aimed at reviving Scottish shipbuilding, faced being cancelled after Scottish Enterprise refused to provide a £2.5 million grant, branding the centre a 'munitions' project. The UK government said it would provide the funding instead, with Labour claiming the SNP's 'ill-informed dogma' was costing young people and the Scottish economy. At prime minister's questions, Starmer accused the SNP of 'blocking opportunities' for young people while also attacking cuts to college budgets in Scotland. An independent report last year found that real-terms funding for the sector had been cut by 17 per cent since 2021. 'At a time of global conflict, it is staggering that the SNP policy is to block an £11 million investment for a new national welding centre on the Clyde,' Starmer said. 'I was there earlier this week. I saw the huge potential for apprenticeships, for job opportunities and for young people. I support it, they block it. 'Despite the highest funding settlement in the history of devolution, they're cutting college budgets, they're blocking opportunities, they have no plan for Scotland's future.' SNP ministers have said their agencies have a longstanding policy that public money should not support 'the manufacture of munitions'. They have argued that the welding skills centre is ineligible for funding due to links with an attack submarine programme. However, the Scottish government-owned shipyard, Ferguson Marine, has taken on work supporting the construction of Royal Navy frigates. Meanwhile, Swinney has also faced criticism for turning down a briefing with the UK government about the defence review and instead going campaigning for the SNP in the Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse by-election. 'We have a longstanding policy that we don't use public expenditure to support the manufacture of munitions, and that's been a policy position that has been well set out and well understood within parliament for many years,' Swinney said. 'As would be expected, it's been applied in this case in the proper fashion. We do not support the use of public expenditure to support the manufacture of munitions. It's a very clear and a distinctive position.' However, Stephen Kerr, a Scottish Tory MSP, claimed that the position could not be reconciled with the SNP 's claim to support the defence industry and causes such as providing more backing to Ukraine. 'This is not a serious policy,' Kerr said. 'It is posturing, bound up in the pacifistic ideology that requires ignoring the hard realities of an increasingly dangerous world.' Meanwhile, Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said Swinney's position on the issue was 'stupid and dangerous'. He told journalists: 'I think you should ask John Swinney, quite clearly, whether he wants to live in the real world or if he thinks he's a university student in the debating chamber. 'If he says there's no public money going towards munitions, are we going to Uber the missiles in? Are we going to Deliveroo the equipment if someone tries to attack us? 'It is completely and utterly incoherent, frankly stupid and dangerous, and it demonstrates why he's not fit to lead our country.'
