Trans senator says 'f*** Rowling' and openly breaks Supreme Court toilet ruling
A transgender Spanish senator stuck her middle finger up in the women's bathroom at Gatwick Airport after defying the Supreme Court's trans ruling.
Carla Antonelli, Spain's first out trans senator, said 'f*** Rowling' as she 'fondly' defied guidelines not to use the women's bathroom.
In April the Supreme Court ruled that the definitions of 'sex' and 'woman' in Equality Act 2010 refer to 'biological sex'.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then recommended in a interim guidance that 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in public spaces.
Lily Allen's hit 'F*** You' is playing in the background (Picture: carla.antonelli/Instagram)
Sign up for all of the latest stories
Start your day informed with Metro's News Updates newsletter or get Breaking News alerts the moment it happens.
With Lily Allen's hit 'F*** You' playing, Antonelli attacked the new rules after using the women's toilets at Gatwick Airport.
She said: 'According to English law, I have just broken the law.
'I just entered the toilets of my sex – woman.
'But I am going back in because I am very fond of breaking the rules.
'Now I am going to wash my hands.'
The 66-year-old senator then walks back inside the toilets with her suitcase and can be seen sticking up her middle finger to the camera.
The video's thumbnail shows the senator, with the text '#f*** Rowling' plastered over it.
JK Rowling praised the Supreme Court's ruling (Picture: Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)
JK Rowling, who is also known for her controversial campaigning for women's rights, said she was 'so proud' over the Supreme Court ruling in April.
In a post on X, the Harry Potter author wrote: 'It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. @ForWomenScot, I'm so proud to know you.'
Five judges were tasked with deciding whether the legal understanding of 'woman' includes trans women with gender recognition certificates (GRC).
The Scottish Government said this definition includes trans women with a GRC, a document that shows a person's affirmed gender is legally recognised.
While For Women Scotland (FWS), which campaigns against trans rights, said this should only be for 'biological women'.
Carla Antonelli has passionately defended trans rights in her career (Picture: ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock)
While presenting the Supreme Court's decision, Lord Hodge said: 'The terms 'woman' and 'sex', in the Equality Act 2010, refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
'But 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 ruling adds that a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because they are perceived to be a woman.
Antonelli, who is a member of the left-wing political party Más Madrid, went viral in February after a stirring speech in defence of trans rights in her country's parliament.
She made history as the first publicly transgender person elected to the Cortes Generales.
The former actress said: 'Trans people – we are everyone's topic of conversation. Everyone has to have an opinion about us. If we are trans, what we are, what we are not.
She continued: 'Do we get surgery or not? Do we mutilate ourselves or not? Just leave us alone, for god's sake!'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Arrow MORE: Fury as mum-of-six reserves sun beds then leaves Spanish resort for breakfast
Arrow MORE: Swimmers flee in terror after woman suffers wound from mystery creature
Arrow MORE: easyJet's summer 2026 sale is here – these are the best destinations to book now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
6 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trans ruling means every lavatory user will need to be checked, museums claim
Staff will have to check the sex of visitors using lavatories after the Supreme Court's trans ruling, museum bosses have claimed. Museums Galleries Scotland, a national body that represents 455 non-national museums and receives £1.7 million a year in public funds, claims organisations will have to close while they reassess lavatory provisions. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that 'sex' in law is a person's biological sex, not gender identity. However, the Scottish Government has so far failed to produce guidance for public bodies on single-sex spaces such as lavatories. In its submission, the museums body says it has concerns the EHRC's initial guidance does not 'uphold the spirit of inclusion' and that the human rights body did not consult with trans people or trans organisations in its development. Policing of toilets is 'unfeasiable' The response goes on to say: 'When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates – but how would you know? It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them to do this 'in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. 'The practical application of policing toilets is unfeasible as, to avoid discrimination, it would require every single person using toilets to be checked adding substantial workload and staff costs to undertake this role.' Museums Galleries Scotland also raised concerns the interim guidance does not make reference to people with intersex conditions and states there are 1.1 million intersex people in the UK. Susan Smith, co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the Museums Galleries Scotland submission is 'a masterclass in legal idiocy and scientific illiteracy'. She said: 'The EHRC guidance aims to protect organisations and ensure they adhere to law: it is not supposed to set out the best way for public bodies to evade or trash their responsibility to protect the public from discrimination or harassment. ''Inclusion' covers all protected characteristics and rights have to be balanced. The time of prioritising the demands of trans-identifying men over the real needs of women and other groups is over.' Ms Smith said the assertion that staff would have to police toilets is 'wilfully misunderstanding' that having policies that align with the law 'does not mean they are required to vet every user'. MGS accused of 'scaremongering' Instead it means if women complain about a man being in the women's lavatories, it will be investigated. 'What is clear is that MGS have had unlawful policies for some time. All parties at the Supreme Court understood that self-identification has never been lawful, including the Scottish Government, which funds MGS,' Ms Smith said. 'Finally, it is outrageous that MGS are happy to spread debunked lies and attempt to scaremonger about serious medical conditions which they call 'intersex'. Last time we checked, museum staff were not endocrinologists. 'The status of people with Differences of Sex Development is not affected by the Supreme Court ruling and the wildly inflated numbers MSG cite should embarrass whoever submitted the report.' The museums body also states that members of the public have been 'policing toilets' at heritage sites by 'making assumptions based on stereotypes' and has created an 'environment of suspicion'. Dr Kath Murray, of the policy organisation Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, said: 'It is deeply concerning that a major national institution signed off and submitted such an ill-informed response to the EHRC consultation. 'The response fails to consider the needs of women and instead repeats trans activist talking points. The figures cited on the 'intersex' population have been widely debunked and bear no relevance to the implementation of the Supreme Court judgment.' The Nationalist government released its response to the consultation late on Friday night, claiming that services needed to justify why they were single-sex.
STV News
3 hours ago
- STV News
Publicly-funded museums body criticises EHRC proposals
A publicly-funded body representing museums in Scotland criticised Equality and Human Rights Commission proposals and warned 'an environment of suspicion and policing of gender' already existed at some heritage sites. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) closed a consultation on proposed changes to statutory guidance last month, following the Supreme Court ruling in April that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the act. An interim update from the EHRC, published in May, said that 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities'. However a response from Museums Galleries Scotland (MGS), which supports around 455 non-national museums and is funded by the Scottish Government, said EHRC's proposals may 'force some museums to close', or 'risk leaving trans people with no facilities at all' if changes could not be made. It urged the UK-wide watchdog to 'understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion'. A consultation response from Museums Galleries Scotland said: 'We have concerns that the content and process of the EHRC Code of Practice does not uphold the spirit of inclusion. 'There is no guidance on how to include trans people, there is only information on how to exclude them. This has not made sufficient effort to offer advice to organisations who wish to remain or become trans inclusive.' It warned that due to 'lack of clarity' from EHRC, 'there is a significant potential that human rights of trans people will be impacted for example, being banned from toilets that align with lived gender', and also raised concerns about the responsibilities of front-of-house staff. The response said: 'When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates. It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them.' It added: 'To avoid discrimination, it would require every person using toilets to be checked, adding substantial workload and staff costs. 'The guidance implies that to allow trans people to use toilets that fit their identity would put organisations at risk of legal consequences. Yet, to not check everyone could lead to individuals in museums taking decisions to exclude trans people based on subjective tests, related largely to appearance.' It warned this could 'potentially put trans and non-trans people in humiliating and offensive situations', and that some museums may be forced to close 'while they invest time and resources to ensure adequate facilities', and if changes could not be made 'this risks trans people having no facilities to use at all'. The response said it was aware of the public 'policing toilets at heritage sites by making assumptions based on stereotypes', and said this created an 'environment of suspicion and policing of everyone's gender presentation, and increases the risks of harassment, distress, and offence'. It added: 'For some museums, they may need to change their toilet facilities to avoid the higher risk of legal consequences, however, there is unlikely to be capacity or resource for many of them to do this, putting them in a difficult position.' The response concluded: 'We strongly encourage the EHRC to review their processes around this guidance and take the necessary time to understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion.' Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister Tess White MSP said: 'Museums Scotland seem to be following the Scottish Government in their mistaken bid to avoid implementing the Supreme Court's verdict. The judgment from the UK's highest court was crystal clear. 'By criticising the EHRC's guidance, Museums Scotland are flouting the law, putting women and girls in danger and laying themselves open to legal challenge. There is no excuse for evasion on this issue. 'Instead of trying to pander to the gender extremists, John Swinney must act now and order all public bodies immediately to comply with the law and provide single-sex spaces.' The Scottish Government, EHRC, Sex Matters, and Scottish Labour and have been contacted for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Trans toilet rules 'may force Scottish museums to close'
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) closed a consultation on proposed changes to statutory guidance last month, following the Supreme Court ruling in April that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the act. An interim update from the EHRC, published in May, said that 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities'. However, a response from Museums Galleries Scotland (MGS), which supports around 455 non-national museums and is funded by the Scottish Government, said EHRC's proposals may 'force some museums to close', or 'risk leaving trans people with no facilities at all' if changes could not be made. READ MORE: Kemi Badenoch: Pictures of starving children haven't shifted my support for Israel It urged the UK-wide watchdog to 'understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion'. A consultation response from Museums Galleries Scotland said: 'We have concerns that the content and process of the EHRC Code of Practice does not uphold the spirit of inclusion. 'There is no guidance on how to include trans people, there is only information on how to exclude them. This has not made sufficient effort to offer advice to organisations who wish to remain or become trans inclusive.' It warned that due to 'lack of clarity' from EHRC, 'there is a significant potential that human rights of trans people will be impacted for example, being banned from toilets that align with lived gender', and also raised concerns about the responsibilities of front-of-house staff. The response said: 'When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates. It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them.' It added: 'To avoid discrimination, it would require every person using toilets to be checked, adding substantial workload and staff costs. 'The guidance implies that to allow trans people to use toilets that fit their identity would put organisations at risk of legal consequences. Yet, to not check everyone could lead to individuals in museums taking decisions to exclude trans people based on subjective tests, related largely to appearance.' It warned this could 'potentially put trans and non-trans people in humiliating and offensive situations', and that some museums may be forced to close 'while they invest time and resources to ensure adequate facilities', and if changes could not be made 'this risks trans people having no facilities to use at all'. The response said it was aware of the public 'policing toilets at heritage sites by making assumptions based on stereotypes', and said this created an 'environment of suspicion and policing of everyone's gender presentation, and increases the risks of harassment, distress, and offence'. It added: 'For some museums, they may need to change their toilet facilities to avoid the higher risk of legal consequences, however, there is unlikely to be capacity or resource for many of them to do this, putting them in a difficult position.' The response concluded: 'We strongly encourage the EHRC to review their processes around this guidance and take the necessary time to understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion.'
