Supreme Court judgment on trans rights was not a win for women
The judgment at the Supreme Court achieved nothing in the bid for progress for women's rights and equality. It has dealt with none of the most pressing concerns and risks facing women in Scotland today. And feminists know this, and they know too what is at further risk.
Thousands, if not millions, of feminists are appalled by what has just happened. Women being, once again, reduced to biological sex and reproductive capability is a grim leap back in time, undoing decades of the work of those who came before us. Sadly, these feminists are not the ones being given the media spotlight this week, despite their scale and strength.
Nobody won anything at the Supreme Court.
Susan Smith and Marion Calder of For Women Scotland celebrate their victory outside the court (Image: free) The judgment said that for the purposes of the Equality Act 'sex' in the Act refers to 'biological sex'. It did not in fact generally define women by this, however this is the narrative that is being spun, and celebrated in some corners of the media and amongst small and loud groups of gender critical activists. I do not refer to this group as feminists, and for good reason.
Feminism fights for the rights of women and girls to be everything they want to be, with the freedom to decipher their own future. Feminism recognises and knows sexism and the many guises of misogyny and the continued patriarchal control over their lives.
Feminism recognises the threat of gender-based violence and its likely perpetrators and knows exactly where to point that finger. Feminism understands the need for all who are vulnerable to have a safe space to turn to – safety from abuse, their abusers, and further harm – and wants this for all women. Feminism fights for the protection, equality and human rights of those who are most marginalised. Feminism recognises privilege, and who they need to lift up. Feminism recognises equity, fairness and justice and who has access to none.
A win for feminism would have seen a change or interpretation in legislation or the law that saw positive progress on the most pressing concerns for feminists in Scotland and internationally: Inequality in the workplace, access to work and to benefits, racial injustice – felt acutely by women of colour – gender based violence and a push for justice to be enacted on those most likely to commit it, horrendously inadequate healthcare and a lack of funding and research into the most serious of women's health concerns, threat to reproductive rights, access to education, food insecurity, poverty, carers' rights and the burden of care and the barriers faced by women supporting families, climate change and its implications for women, unequal representation, discriminatory social and political institutions, human trafficking, limited freedom of movement, threats and risks in migration, immigration and in seeking refuge, discrimination based on disability, lack of adequate support for poor mental health, digital divide, digital poverty and digital inclusion, online harassment, unpaid labour, inadequate maternal healthcare, period poverty – the list goes on…
Read more
This judgement did nothing to better any of these dire circumstances. Nothing. It is no win, for anyone.
Feminism is not exclusionary, it does not require proof of womanhood, it does not require women to look any certain way. Living as a woman means experiencing sexism, misogyny, violence and derision regardless of what body parts, chromosomes or gametes you have, regardless of your body, how you dress, how you carry yourself, where you're from or how much money you have. Feminism recognises this. Misogyny derides women, femininity, womanhood. Misogyny subjects women to harassment, violence, poverty, illness. This judgement has done nothing to change that.
Biological determinism being hailed as a win for feminism is a massive knock back to the feminist movement. If our entire being can be determined by our anatomy as observed at birth, and as such in a binary way, then we have all lost, painfully. Being boxed in to a binary progresses us nowhere, it shoves us violently backwards. It can only serve to limit women.
This is a patriarchal dream; this is not women's liberation. Feminists, allies, women are not being heard. They are not celebrating now as there is nothing to celebrate. Instead, they took to the streets in despair and in anger, they saw this as the loss it was. They want real action, real progress, that means something, and that benefits women. This was not it. This was not a win for feminism.
Dr Rebecca Don Kennedy, CEO, Equality Network
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
UK urged to reverse ruling on litigation funding, introduce 'light-touch regulation'
LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - Britain should urgently reverse a landmark ruling that threw third-party funding of lawsuits into disarray, an influential advisory body recommended on Monday in a report which was welcomed by funders and industry critics alike. The Civil Justice Council (CJC) also called for "light-touch regulation" of the litigation funding sector, which is currently self-regulated, particularly where funding is provided for class action-style lawsuits or to consumers. Monday's report comes after Britain's funding industry was dealt a surprise blow in 2023, when the UK Supreme Court ruled that agreements used to fund many mass lawsuits were unenforceable as they did not comply with rules on so-called damages-based agreements. The CJC said the government should pass legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's decision "as soon as possible", citing the importance of funding for access to justice. Britain's previous government, which asked the CJC to review the sector, said last year it would reverse the Supreme Court decision, before the current government put legislation on hold pending the CJC's report. The Ministry of Justice said in a statement that it welcomed the report and would "outline next steps in due course." The CJC – which advises the government and judiciary on the civil justice system – called for some regulation, including requirements for funders to have adequate capital and provisions to prevent conflicts of interest. It also recommended that class action-style cases need court approval of funding agreements, to allow the court to consider whether the funder's return is fair, just and reasonable. The report rejected, however, the introduction of caps on funders' returns, which the CJC said could not properly take account of the risks of funding cases and was unnecessary for consumer protection if courts had to approve funding deals. Neil Purslow – chair of industry body the International Legal Finance Association, who also founded litigation funder Therium – welcomed the CJC's recommendation to legislate to reverse the Supreme Court ruling. Seema Kennedy, executive director of Fair Civil Justice, which has called for greater regulation of litigation funding, said the CJC's call to regulate the industry was "long overdue". She said: "Proper oversight is essential to protect consumers, ensure transparency, and restore public confidence in a sector that currently operates without sufficient safeguards." Litigation funding is increasingly used in Britain, with the CJC citing figures that funders in England and Wales had assets of 2.2 billion pounds ($3 billion) in 2021. English courts have repeatedly recognised the need for funding to bring mass lawsuits, where the case's total value is often in the billions but payouts to individual consumers can be as low as double figures. The CJC report comes after court approval of a 200 million-pound settlement in a case against Mastercard, despite the opposition of funder Innsworth, which stands to receive around 68 million pounds.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
GRAHAM GRANT: Drained of credibility by a woke crusade, Police Scotland is now disconnected from the lives of those it serves
You might dimly remember that the police are supposed to be impartial, refusing to take sides in political debate. But that is a fast-receding memory in Scotland, where officers were told gender-critical campaigners are on a par with Nazis. As we revealed last week, a dangerously barmy message was circulated within the ranks making the obscene comparison. It came to light just as top brass were preparing to host a summit with diversity groups about the Supreme Court transgender ruling. In the best traditions of the single force, the media were kept out and we've no idea, officially, about what went on behind closed doors. The timing couldn't have been much worse – it's hard to build bridges with people you've just smeared as fascists. Police officers and staff were told that 'gender binary' - the belief there are only two genders - was a 'key feature' of Nazism. The identities of the person who sent the memo, or the officers who okayed it, haven't been disclosed - but it was removed from the force intranet and 'advice will be given around the use of language'. Police Scotland officers were told gender-critical campaigners are on a par with Nazis Well, that's all right then – but doesn't it seem a woefully inadequate response, given the seriousness of the charge the document contained? In any sane universe, whoever gave the green light for this inflammatory and grossly offensive document would be sacked, or at the very least severely disciplined, with questions asked about how they passed vetting procedures. Tory MSP Tess White is pressing the Chief Constable, Jo Farrell, for answers - but so far the force hasn't gone beyond the rather woolly statement about 'advice' on language. There's a deafening silence, as you would expect, from John Swinney and his colleagues - passionate advocates of the radical transgender policies recently found to have been without legal foundation by the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court ruling in April stipulated that 'sex' means biological sex under the Equality Act 2010 - which presents something of a challenge for the public sector, including Police Scotland. Trans ideology is baked into their protocols to comply with SNP government diktats - and now it will have to be rooted out. Much dragging of feet has ensued - though we're promised a new Police Scotland gender strategy soon, which will make everything crystal clear. Presumably, it won't repeat the Nazi slur - but who knows? The police position on these issues is hopelessly muddled. It had to write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for guidance on whether rapists should be allowed to self-identify as women. And last month Ms Farrell said police wouldn't be rushed into change in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, while her deputy Alan Speirs said it had had 'no bearing' on how the force does business. The Scottish Police Authority, which is supposed to hold the force to account, seemed largely content with this inertia, with some honourable exceptions on the board. The lack of urgency comes as the United Nations warns against letting criminals choose their own gender, after a new report found that 49 rapists were allowed to identify as female offenders in the UK. Reem Alsalem, the UN's special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, said at least a third of UK forces were still collecting data on criminals and victims' self-identified gender rather than their assigned sex at birth. Police Scotland has been accused of misleading parliament over its own policy on recording gender, after any number of apparent flip-flops. Ms Farrell said last year that a man who commits rape or serious sexual assault will always be recorded as male. But in March it emerged that this stance - which campaigners said was a major policy U-turn - was not communicated to officers. With the number of claims of rape and attempted rape soaring to a record level, it's hard to see how any of this will provide reassurance to victims who might be considering whether to report their ordeal to the police. A woke crusade has drained credibility from a force which seems to be disconnected from the reality of life for those it is supposed to serve. Outside the sanctuary of police bosses' Zoom chats, gangland and youth violence are spiralling out of control. A diminished front line is battling this rising tide while police chiefs, who once kowtowed to a legally baseless equalities agenda, are busy trying to reverse out of the cul-de-sac they built for themselves. On streets where the reek of cannabis fumes is ever-present, young people are being stabbed and addicts are openly injecting drugs, sometimes only yards away from the SNP-backed heroin 'shooting gallery' - which costs us more than £2million a year. Beat bobbies are rarely seen on patrol and police stations are being sold off, reinforcing the impression that the force is in headlong retreat. More than 12,000 supposedly 'minor' crimes have been effectively written off under the 'proportionate response' approach, which is good news for criminals - but just another slap in the face for long-suffering victims. Yet the many mistakes of the SNP as it inflicted swingeing cutbacks on policing have been compounded by the misjudgments of police chiefs who approved this disgraceful abdication of responsibility. Last month a senior officer broke ranks to suggest that police need to stop 'wasting their time' probing social media posts and get back on the streets to deter crime. Rob Hay, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, deserves praise for pointing out that it is not the job of police to intervene when people were offended by posts. He said unless a crime was suspected, officers should be 'nowhere near' social media and must get back into the community to prevent and fight crime. Mr Hay has previously warned police must be 'pacifists in the culture war' and stay away from the 'divisive, political and toxic nature of some of the debate raging in wider society'. It's the kind of common sense which Police Scotland badly needs - but it shows no sign of heeding Mr Hay's wise counsel. For proof, consider the case of Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, whose mocking tweet about the SNP government's transgender policy was logged as a 'hate incident'. He shared a column which claimed the government's non-binary equality action plan would lead to children being 'damaged by this cult'. The row over Police Scotland's Nazi claim gives us an insight into the mindset of police chiefs - and makes it easier to see why police would regard an MSP's honestly held view as something akin to a thought crime. Once again, the only beneficiaries of this absurd shambles are the real criminals who are running riot - while policing is reduced to a laughing stock.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to review GEO Group's loss in immigrant detainee forced labor case
June 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if GEO Group can quickly appeal a judge's ruling denying the private prison operator governmental immunity in a class action claiming immigrant detainees were forced to work and paid $1 a day. The justices will consider, opens new tab whether the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct that it could not immediately hear GEO's appeal of that ruling because it was incremental and merely allowed the 2014 lawsuit to proceed. The issue is technical, but a Supreme Court ruling in favor of GEO could be an important victory for other federal contractors who are sued in connection with government contracts and raise immunity as a defense. The lawsuit in Colorado federal court accuses GEO of engaging in labor trafficking by threatening detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, facility with solitary confinement if they refused to participate in a work program. GEO operates more than a dozen federal civil immigrant detention centers across the country and has faced at least two lawsuits over a work program at a Washington facility. The company in its petition said the appeal issue has divided federal appeals courts and created uncertainty for federal contractors. The government is generally immune from legal liability arising from its performance of typical governmental functions, and that can extend to contractors in some situations. "The alternative is a legal backdoor through which activists can undermine policies with which they disagree by targeting contractors with lawsuits they could never bring against the government," the company said in its petition. Florida-based GEO and lawyers for the former detainees who filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GEO has said that work programs at its facilities are voluntary and that federal regulations permitted the company to pay detainees as little as $1 a day to cook, clean, perform repairs, and staff a barber shop and library. The plaintiffs in a brief, opens new tab urging the Supreme Court not to take the case said the immunity issue overlaps with the merits of their claims against GEO, which should first be reviewed by the lower court. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld rulings in separate cases requiring GEO to pay more than $23 million to the state of Washington and hundreds of immigrant detainees in the state for failing to pay the minimum wage to detainees who worked. The court rejected GEO's claim that it was entitled to immunity, saying the government did not dictate the wages GEO must pay to detainees or require it to operate the work program. The case is GEO Group v. Menocal, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-758. For GEO: Dominic Draye of Greenberg Traurig For the plaintiffs: Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler Read more: GEO Group can't nix $23 mln verdict over immigrant detainee pay GEO Group must pay minimum wage to immigrant detainees, court rules GEO Group wins legal challenge to California ban on private immigrant prisons
