LGBT MP fears being ‘challenged' in toilets after Supreme Court ruling on gender
An LGBT MP has said she fears being confronted more often in women's spaces after the Supreme Court ruling on gender.
During a Lesbian Visibility Week debate in Westminster Hall, Kate Osborne told MPs that she is 'misgendered frequently', including in the House of Commons and when she was buying jeans last week.
'I suspect I will get challenged even more now when accessing facilities,' she warned on Thursday, after the justices' ruling on April 16 that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the Equality and Human Rights Commission's chairwoman, said following the ruling that 'single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex'.
Ms Osborne, the Labour MP for Jarrow and Gateshead East, said: 'Just last month as I got off the train at King's Cross, I was verbally abused by a man shouting at me that I'm obviously a lesbian, a sexual deviant, and I'm going to hell.
'I'm frequently misgendered and I do not mean occasionally – it's a weekly occurrence.
'In January, I was misgendered three times in one two-hour train journey. I've been misgendered by staff of this House, misgendered whilst buying some jeans last week.
'It's genuinely a frequent issue for me and a number of my lesbian friends.'
Turning to plans for 'guidance regarding the Supreme Court verdict', Ms Osborne continued: 'Actually, that decision will have a huge impact on my life and many other cis lesbians and indeed heterosexual women.
'I suspect I will get challenged even more now when accessing facilities, and whilst the impact on my life will be problematic, the impact on my trans siblings' lives is going to be significantly worse.'
Rachel Taylor, the Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, had earlier intervened and said her 'first political activism' was campaigning against section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which banned town halls from 'promoting homosexuality' or teaching 'the acceptability of homosexuality' in schools.
She asked: 'It was that rhetoric and those comments that our relationships and our families were somehow pretend family relationships that were so hurtful, and does she agree with me that we need to safeguard now against the risks of the rhetoric about trans people, making the same sort of harm to them as it did to us in the 1980s?'
Ms Osborne said in response: 'We will always have 'T' as part of the LGBT community.'
On wider policies, Ms Osborne said she started the IVF process around 16 years ago but since then, the 'hurdles LGBT+ couples have to jump through have increased, with a fragmented NHS, meaning a postcode lottery in provision and the financial cost is significantly higher'.
She also warned that crimes against victims based on their sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be considered 'aggravated offences', in the same way as discrimination based on race or religion.
Labour MP Nadia Whittome described the Supreme Court's ruling as 'discriminatory' and said trans women face being 'at greater risk of violence' if they use facilities reserved for men.
The MP for Nottingham East continued: 'The last Labour government is often remembered as as time for progress for LGBTQ+ people, rightly, but just as rights can be won, they can also be lost.
'And this Labour Government risks being remembered as a period when things went backwards for our community.
'We've only been in Government for less than a year. It's possible to turn this ship around, but we must recognise that actions like the blanket ban on puberty blockers and barring trans women from women's spaces are dangerous steps in the wrong direction and take action to remedy them.'
Conservative shadow equalities minister Mims Davies said: 'For many women, a lesbian – of course, a same-sex attracted biological woman – should not feel the need for that identity to be subsumed amongst other identities.
'And I think all of us in this chamber today can be very clear that we support others and how they identify, and that is perfectly valid and it's important to not allow this to continue to be toxic or hateful, and for any lesbian to feel that they need to identify in any other way.'
Ms Davies said that 'women's rights and freedoms cannot and must not be eroded, but celebrated and protected, particularly as we approach the 100th anniversary of universal suffrage' in 2028.
Equalities minister Dame Nia Griffith said: 'To be seen, known and accepted for who we are truly is not just a privilege, it's a fundamental human need.'
She described prejudice against trans women as 'absolutely horrific, uncalled for, unjustified' and added: 'This Government is clear – trans people deserve safety, they deserve opportunity, they deserve respect.
'There remain protections in place for trans people to live free from discrimination and harassment, and have their acquired gender recognised. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders. Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose. Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals. That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.' Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America. Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either. I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.' Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.' So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire? In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans. 'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.' In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
My sympathies, Rachel Reeves. Cutting public spending isn't easy
This week's Spending Review will expose the obvious predicament of the Government: there is no money. While Labour will continue to blame the Conservatives, it is responsible for most of what has happened in the past year. Decisions it has made have exacerbated the problem. Right from the beginning of its administration, the Labour Government was strangely committed to increased public train drivers, less than eight weeks after the election, received a 'no strings attached' offer of 15 per cent over three years. Within 48 hours of the deal being broadcast to the world, Aslef announced a fresh campaign of strikes. In addition to the generosity shown to the train drivers, about 1.3 million NHS workers – including nurses and paramedics – and around 500,000 teachers got a pay rise of 5.5 per cent. Junior doctors, who had staged a series of strikes over pay since early 2023, struck a deal which showed an average 22.3 per cent pay rise over two years. You can argue that all this was necessary, but the announcement of these sweetheart deals, after only weeks in government, looked too much like a bargain that had been struck before the election itself. To pay for this largesse, the Labour Government proceeded to revert to a tax policy that many commentators have described as, frankly, Marxist. Marx divided society into three groups, namely landowners, capitalists and workers. The Labour Party pledged not to increase taxes on workers. It raised taxes on employers and farmers instead. It increased national insurance for employees on the former and inheritance taxes on the latter. It didn't realise that putting taxes on employers would harm workers. This point was made by none other than the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said that 65 per cent of the £25 billion raid on business would be paid by workers, in the form of higher prices for goods and lower wages. Removing the winter fuel payment from pensioners only made sense to Treasury officials. Yes, it saved approximately £10 billion. But for a Labour Government that vaunted its social-democratic 'values', the policy was a disaster. It went against the core message of the Labour Party – that it was 'caring' and benevolent, even when money was tight. This policy has been reversed. People think politicians embark on U-turns to regain support. This is naive. Politicians know that the damage has been done; the U-turn merely prevents further loss of support. There have been swerves, U-turns and missteps. The backlash from Labour MPs against any suggestion to reduce the welfare bill or reform the system suggests that Reeves will not be able to reduce public expenditure, as she would like. In addition, it is obvious that more money will have to be found for defence. There is an expectation, particularly after President Trump's equivocal statements about US support for Nato, that Labour will have to increase defence spending. The Prime Minister himself has said that he would commit his Government to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP by April 2027. Where will this money come from, if no attempt can be made to constrain welfare spending? Higher taxes, of course. Yet the problem here is that tax levels are already very high. VAT is at 20 per cent; the top rate of tax is at 45 per cent and kicks in at £125,000. Changes to the non-dom regime have resulted in wealthy people leaving the country, and the so-called 'Energy Profits Levy' is now proving to be a major disincentive to invest in the North Sea. A lot of this foolishness can of course be attributed to the last government, of which I was a senior member. The Conservatives, remarkably, introduced the Energy Profits Levy. We changed the non-dom regime – influenced by the Civil Service, I were always told that we had to spend more money. Of course, to our social-democratic establishment, spending more money meant more tax revenues, not by growing the economy and increasing wealth, but by imposing ever higher tax rates. The logic of this cycle will result in new taxes, as there is only so much 'ketchup' you can squeeze out of the existing 'bottles', so to speak. Capital taxes, a mansion tax and increases in capital gains tax will surely be on the menu presented to the Chancellor if, as is likely, growth rates are revised downwards in the autumn. The fiscal situation cannot be understood simply as a result of the past few years. All governments in the Western world have faced increased public expenditure without a commensurate increase in growth rates or national wealth. All Western governments are saddled with welfare payments, exacerbated by high levels of immigration. All except the United States have experienced anaemic growth rates since the financial crisis of 2008. Yet, in the UK, it has been Labour that has been buffeted around more than most other governments, by giving in to spending demands. Much like an overweight man trying – and then promptly giving up – his umpteenth diet, the Government seems to have simply stopped bothering to reduce public expenditure. In this way, the tail of welfare spending starts to wag the dog. The productive economy – indeed all the nation's economic activity – begins to be seen as merely an appendage of the welfare state. It is as though the only justification of economic activity and wealth creation is to pay for ever-increasing welfare spending. This cannot be the right way to run an economy. In fact, for most of British history, entrepreneurialism and innovation have been driven by the private sector. That is what made the UK prosperous. Today, under this Labour Government, public spending will crowd out the private sector. Higher taxes are already stifling productive enterprise. Wealthy people are leaving the country, while our borders seem out of control. The sadness is that this Government has reached this position after less than a year. Who can tell what another four years of the same policies will bring? Higher taxes, higher immigration and flatlining growth seem the most likely outcome. If this happens, the Government will simply be turfed out, like the last government, much to everybody's relief. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chamberlain hoped to ‘avoid worst' as Second World War loomed
Neville Chamberlain wrote 'I still hope we may avoid the worst' six days before the start of the Second World War, a letter has revealed. The former prime minister is infamous for his failed appeasement policy, which saw him offer Adolf Hitler numerous concessions to try to avoid war. Now a newly discovered letter suggests he clung on to the hope his strategy would pay off up until the moment Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1 1939. Writing to Captain William Brass, the Conservative MP, on Aug 26 1939, he said: 'I still hope we may avoid the worst, but if it comes we are thank God prepared for it.' Chamberlain's confidence in Britain's readiness for war would prove to be misplaced as within nine months the Nazis had captured swathes of Europe. More than 330,000 British Expeditionary Force troops had to be hastily evacuated at Dunkirk between May 26 and June 4 1940, to enable Britain to 'fight another day'. The day before Chamberlain's hopeful note, however, Britain had signed the Anglo-Polish military alliance, promising to support Poland if its independence was threatened. Hitler had originally scheduled his invasion of Poland for Aug 26, but when news of the Anglo-Polish pact reached Berlin, he temporarily postponed the attack by six days. Chamberlain's policy of appeasement saw Britain make no response to Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938, a move Winston Churchill warned at the time was a mistake. During a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said: 'The gravity of the annexation of Austria cannot be exaggerated.' Hitler quickly moved on to trying to control the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and by Sept 1928 Chamberlain had flown to Hitler's holiday home to negotiate in person, to no avail. Chamberlain said at the time: 'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.' The Munich agreement saw Chamberlain sign over the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany from Oct 1 1938, in exchange for Hitler giving up on plans for further expansion across Europe. Churchill called it a 'total and unmitigated defeat' and it failed to stop Nazi Germany annexing more Czech land, including Prague, and launching an invasion of Poland – which finally sparked war. Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament and resigned as prime minister in May 1940, when Churchill stepped up to lead the nation. The one-page letter, on 10 Downing Street letterhead and dated Aug 26 1939, has emerged for sale at RR Auction in Boston, US. It is tipped to fetch $20,000 (£15,000) because of its historical significance. An RR Auction spokesman said: 'Behind the scenes, British diplomats were still scrambling to avert war. Chamberlain hoped that deterrence, through strong alliances and military mobilisation, might still dissuade Hitler. 'At the same time, Britain was accelerating preparations – air raid precautions were being implemented across cities, reservists were being called up, and public morale was being steeled for the possibility of conflict. 'Thus Britain found itself in a state of grim resolve: committed to defending Poland, preparing for war, yet still clinging to fragile hopes that Hitler might yet be deterred. 'Within a week, however, those hopes would be extinguished as Germany launched its invasion of Poland on September 1.' The sale takes place on Wednesday. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
