Thousands of trans rights activists gather in London after Supreme Court ruling on definition of a woman
Thousands of trans rights activists have been demonstrating in central London days after the Supreme Court ruled the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
Trans rights groups, trade unions and community organisations came together for what was billed as an "emergency demonstration" in Parliament Square in Westminster.
Activists demanded "trans liberation" and "trans rights now", with some waving flags and holding banners.
A rally and march organised by Resisting Transphobia was also taking place in Edinburgh on Saturday afternoon.
In a long-awaited judgment delivered on Wednesday, the UK's highest court ruled the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 "refer to a biological woman and biological sex".
It essentially means trans women who hold gender recognition certificates are not women in the eyes of the law.
This means transgender women with one of the certificates can be excluded from single-sex spaces if "proportionate".
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said on Thursday that the ruling means trans women can no longer take part in women's sport, while single-sex places, such as changing rooms, "must be based on biological sex".
The UK government said the unanimous decision by five judges brought "clarity and confidence" for women and service providers.
Meanwhile, a Labour Party source said Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had brought the party to a "common sense position" on the subject from an "activist" stance.
Among the groups supporting the London protest were Trans Kids Deserve Better, Pride In Labour, Front For The Liberation Of Intersex Non-binary And Transgender people (Flint) and TransActual.
Keyne Walker, strategy director at TransActual, told Sky News the government needed to put equality laws back on a "sound footing".
Speaking from Parliament Square, they said: "The mood is jubilant and also angry and also people are anxious... Right now trans people are coming together to demonstrate to the country, and to everybody else, that we're not going anywhere because we don't have anywhere to go...
"Queer people have been through worse than this before, and... we'll suffer through whatever is to come in the next few years."
The activist continued: "The government needs to immediately clarify how they are going to protect trans people and what this ruling actually means for spaces.
"It does not bring clarity... businesses and venues at the moment don't know what they can and can't do... the government needs to step in and put equalities law back on a sound footing."
It comes as Bridgerton actress Nicola Coughlan announced she has helped raise more than £100,000 for a trans rights charity following the Supreme Court decision.
Following the ruling, the Irish star said she was "completely horrified" and "disgusted" by the ruling and added she would match donations up to £10,000 to transgender charity Not A Phase.
The fundraiser has since raised £103,018, with a revised target of £110,000.
2:10
Why was the case heard in court?
The Supreme Court ruling followed a long-running legal challenge which centred around how sex-based rights are applied through the UK-wide Equality Act 2010.
The appeal case was brought against the Scottish government by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) following unsuccessful challenges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
FWS called on the court to find sex an "immutable biological state", arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people born female.
1:41
The Scottish government argued the protections should also include transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
The Supreme Court judges were asked to rule on what the Equality Act 2010 means by "sex" - whether biological sex or "certificated" sex as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: "We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
"The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer is a soft and unimaginative man who cannot comprehend the true evil that Britain is facing. I fear for our future: STEPHEN GLOVER
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could one day genuinely praise Sir Keir Starmer. How I would love to say that, yes, for once our stodgy Prime Minister has shown a smidgen of vision and inspiration. Back in February I thought such a moment might have come as he seemed to grasp the seriousness of the crisis we face: 'This is a once-in-a- generation moment for our national security where we engage with the reality of the world today and the threat we face from Russia.'
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's family business death tax won't help keep us safe
To govern is to choose. And this week we have heard ad nausem from Sir Keir Starmer about the tough choices he claims he is having to make to fund our islands' defence. Or rather presumably would have to make in order to get to a firm 3 per cent of GDP in this Parliament rather than the equivocal 3 per cent at the end of the next one he will not even commit to. But amidst the menu of choices, like the Chagos surrender costing our forces £100 million a year, there's one very easy choice that would pay back on many levels. To reverse his family business (and family farm) death tax. This prejudiced decision may turn out, according to new analysis, to cost more money than it raises, punishes aspiration and risks wiping out centuries-old businesses in a single parliamentary term. New independent research published by CBI economics confirmed in another example of Rachel Reeves 's dodgy accountancy that this one tax will put 200,000 jobs at risk and lower the size of the wider economy by £15 billion. The Prime Minister must not go ahead with it. Family businesses represent years of work, skills and investments made, passed down carefully through generations. They currently receive relief on inheritance tax when passing it down to the next custodians. This is a feature introduced by a previous Labour government to ensure the success of a constituent part of the economy providing 14 million jobs in the UK. But this is an anti-business government, driven by what works in socialist screeds rather than the shop floor. So, it's no wonder Starmer and his ministers are intent on attacking them. 'Working people will pay the price' The Cabinet don't have any real business experience between them – the Business Secretary [Jonathan Reynolds] embarrassingly lied on his CV even about being a qualified lawyer – and it shows. Labour came into the general election promising not to tax working people, but that is exactly what they are doing. This is a small business death tax, which will be paid for in the jobs of working people. While some businesses' assets may be valuable on paper, they don't equate to hard cash. There are plenty of family businesses for whom being forced to sell assets (like machinery) on the factory floor will mean emptying the factory floor. They're asset rich but cash poor – and they'll be forced to shut up shop. This is the latest in a long line of decisions aimed squarely at punishing wealth creators and risk takers by a government that at the most charitable interpretation doesn't know about business interests, nor foresee the outcome of their assaults on business. All the more reason to listen when independent forecasters say your numbers are wrong. More shockingly, what started as a pre-election prawn cocktail offensive aimed at charming business has become an all-out war on private enterprise. Because this is only the start. The Employment Bill, which will do the exact opposite of what it says on the tin, is costing businesses £5 billion and allows trade unions to reconquer private businesses. Many of those who won't be able to cope with its hundreds of pages more regulations will be the same small, family businesses already suffering under the burden of the death tax. As part of my role as shadow business secretary, I have been going around the country engaging with businesses from the biggest automotive firms to village shops. 'Millionaires are fleeing UK' All seriously worried about what this government will do next. It is no wonder that there has been an exodus of wealth creators since Starmer has taken office. Last year, over 10,000 millionaires fled Labour's socialist attacks on businesses and wealth creators. The tax bills they took with them are the equivalent of losing 300,000 average taxpayers. These are ambitious, courageous people, many of them entrepreneurs who have choices – and they're not choosing Labour's Britain. These people create jobs, drive growth, and pay for our public services. We will all be worse off without them. But still, Reeves dogmatically ploughs on, not paying attention to the warning lights on the dashboard flashing red or the millionaires leaving every 45 minutes. It is a stark reminder of what socialists are capable of when they get their hands of the levers of power. The Conservatives understand family businesses and wealth creators because so many of us have worked in the private sector. While other parties fight over who can spend the fastest more taxpayers' money we cannot afford, we continue to advocate for government that spends only within its means and balances its books without fiddling the rules. That means making the genuinely tough choices that will prioritise defence over ballooning welfare costs. We know that those who start businesses are taking a risk. We need to create a society where people aren't afraid to fail and are rewarded for those risks when they pay off. At the very least, those who start family businesses should know that they are able to pass their business down to the next generation. Unless the Prime Minister sees sense soon, Britain's legion of quietly successful family business will be consigned to the dustbin of history and our future with them.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Pensioners could have their winter payments restored from NEXT WEEK after Labour's U-turn
Winter fuel payments could be restored to all but the wealthiest pensioners as soon as next week, Keir Starmer hinted yesterday. The Prime Minister, who announced a major U-turn on the controversial cut last month, suggested the details could be unveiled in next week's comprehensive spending review. Ministers are looking at a range of options for restoring the payment to most pensioners following a furious public backlash and warnings from Labour MPs that means-testing the vital payment has hurt the party at the polls. Under the leading option, the payment would be restored to all pensioners except those who pay higher rate tax. Around 10million pensioners lost the payment last year after Rachel Reeves used her first major act in government to restrict it to those with incomes of less than £1,000 a month. Campaigners have warned failure to say who would have their payments restored and when is causing further anxiety for pensioners. Dennis Reed, of campaign group Silver Voices, said it would be 'completely unacceptable' to leave pensioners in limbo until the autumn Budget, as No 10 originally suggested. 'Leaving it to the Budget would be far too late to get payments out this winter, which would be seen as yet another betrayal,' he said. Sir Keir declined to comment on the detail of the proposed changes yesterday. But he indicated the Chancellor could release the plans next week. The PM told BBC Radio Four's Today programme ministers 'need to be absolutely clear where the money is coming from' before they set out full details of the U-turn. He added: 'The sooner we have clarity on that, the better', but said there were still 'lots of moving parts' before the review is finalised.
