Latest news with #JaneFae
The Independent
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trans people fearing arrest due to ‘confusion' around Supreme Court ruling, say campaigners
Trans rights campaigners have warned that misinformation spreading through the community is fuelling fear and confusion, a month on from the Supreme Court's ruling on the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act. Support and advocacy groups have said 'weaponised misunderstandings' about the practical consequences of the ruling – such as whether trans women can still legally use women's toilets and other spaces – have caused panic among some trans people. They said some trans women have reported feeling nervous about using women's toilets in public spaces out of fear of being arrested, despite the ruling not having created criminal law. jane fae, director of campaign group TransActual and chair of Trans Media Watch, said: 'It's fair to say trans people are afraid they'll be arrested if they go in [women's] spaces, because there are people who are afraid of that. It is creating panic. 'Any person saying now saying if you go in that space you'll be arrested, is talking nonsense. There is no crime. 'But [trans people] are self-limiting because they are scared.' Joanne Lockwood, a 60-year-old trans woman, believes there has been a 'weaponised misunderstanding' of the ruling by gender critical groups, which has aided misinformation being spread about it. She said that even though she had been using women's toilets for many years, the ruling had made her question whether she should continue to do so. She also cancelled her gym membership as she was unsure how her gym would respond. 'Nobody wants to be embarrassed going to the toilet, and nobody wants to be embarrassed going to the gym,' she said. 'I ended up cancelling my gym membership because I couldn't be bothered to have the conversation. 'It affects your mental health, it affects how you perceive your rights. Nobody wants to be seen as a threat or somebody who is trespassing in someone else's space.' Lui Asquith, a solicitor at law firm Russell-Cooke, which represented Amnesty International UK in these proceedings, told The Independent that the Supreme Court did not rule that a trans person would be acting 'illegally' if they accessed a women-only space. They said: 'The fact that this question is even being asked reflects the way this judgment is being communicated to the general public. 'The judgment deals with the rules around possible discrimination by service providers; particularly, when they can rely on the exception which permits discrimination by service providers on the basis of the 'sex' protected characteristic in certain, limited circumstances.' They added: 'The Equality Act is mainly enforced in employment tribunals and the civil (not the criminal) courts – the Equality Act does not involve criminal law, which the state enforces by prosecution in the criminal courts. 'The confusion may lie in the fact that there are forms of harassment that are dealt with as criminal offences, but that isn't what this judgment was dealing with.' Steph Richards, CEO of leading UK trans rights group TransLucent, told The Independent misinformation around the meaning of the ruling had left some people 'deeply distressed' and 'frightened', adding: 'There are people who have just been going to their work, lots of people don't even look at the news these days because frankly its quite miserable. 'So I think there's been a degree of shock, and because it has been so misinformed that this is a criminal issue when it's not - it's a civil issue - there have been concerns.' However, guidance from bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has stated that trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services such as shops and hospitals. The equalities watchdog has been threatened with legal action since the guidance was published, with lawyers acting on behalf of TransLucent sending a letter warning it 'incorrectly states the legal position' of the court ruling. After the ruling, former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption warned that organisations were potentially misinterpreting the landmark ruling, telling BBC Radio 4's PM programme that, contrary to much of the commentary, judges did not take a side and did not provide an obligation to create single-sex spaces. Asquith said the judgment does not oblige services to exclude trans people, and that there was 'a risk that service providers respond hastily without fully understanding the judgment and the Equality Act, undermining access to services for trans people'. They added: 'As the justices repeated, trans people (whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate) continue to be protected by the Equality Act and service providers must be able to justify their exclusion from services as proportionate and legitimate.' Jo Maugham, executive director of the Good Law Project, said the group had seen an increase in trans or gender non-conforming women being confronted. 'Anecdotally, we can see a rise in violence against gender non-conforming women, be they cis or trans,' he said, adding he had seen reports of multiple women being challenged for using a toilet. 'I would describe the EHRC statement as misinformation, which has had a very profound negative effect on the lives of, in particular, gender non-conforming women.' A spokesperson for the EHRC told The Independent: 'At the EHRC we uphold and enforce the Equality Act. Our response to the Supreme Court's judgment has been, and will continue to be, firmly grounded in the law. Those who rely on us are reassured that every explanation of equality law from the EHRC will be accurate and authoritative. That is our job, as Britain's independent and expert equality regulator. 'We know there is uncertainty among duty-bearers and affected groups. The EHRC has been visible in providing clarity on the consequences of the judgment and will continue to be so. 'We will shortly launch a consultation on the detailed draft updates made to our statutory Code of Practice for service providers, public bodies and associations, following the Supreme Court judgment. It is important that our code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it. We want to hear affected stakeholders' views on the clarity of these updates. So we urge interested parties to respond to the consultation when it is launched. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft where necessary following the consultation. 'The EHRC is wholeheartedly committed to upholding everyone's rights and tackling discrimination in all its forms.'
BBC News
19-04-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity - now comes the hard part
"A victory for common sense" or "devastating" – the contrasting reactions to the statement by five Supreme Court judges that legally the term "woman" means a biological the different responses lie many of the often bitter and vitriolic arguments that set the country on a long, tricky road towards Wednesday's unambiguous the highest court in the land ruled that sex is binary - meaning legally it should be interpreted as referring to either a biological man or a biological woman - it was providing clarity that had been missing from such conversations for like "woman" and "sex" had become loaded with different meanings depending on your viewpoint. Language that for centuries had been uncomplicated and accepted, became a judgement is intended to draw a line under that. It argues that for the Equality Act to be consistent, the term woman has to mean a biological woman. That does not include biological males, even if they have certificates to say they have changed means that where there are, for instance, women-only spaces, then a biological man who identifies as a woman cannot use them. That includes changing rooms, toilets, women's refuges, single-sex hospital wards and anywhere designated as for one sex much change that will mean in practice will be set out in detailed guidance. Until then, there remain lots of questions and some confusion - and that is challenging in an area where views are so polarised. From jubilance to devastation It was Baroness Falkner, the woman who heads the watchdog that regulates equality laws, who described the judgement as a victory for common added it was only such a victory if you recognised trans people, "that they exist, they have rights, and their rights must be respected".She also told the BBC about the abuse she had faced since taking over as chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in had previously told the Times that women had the right to question gender identity, and that had led to some very personal abuse from those who disagreed with her."I had not realised how difficult the job would be," she said. "It has taken a toll, but if you are in public life you have to take that." The second response to the judgement was from the trans rights campaign group TransActual, which described the Supreme Court judgement as of its activists, Jane Fae, told the BBC the judgement felt like a physical body blow, and that it was as if trans people were being excluded from society."Today we're feeling very alone" she said. "What does this mean - can I use this loo, can I do that, can I do the other?"In contrast, the women's groups who fought the case feel vindicated and Joyce, the director of advocacy at the campaign group Sex Matters, says the ruling is "incredibly important for the half of humanity who need single-sex spaces".Women's groups argue that the ruling is important for reasons of privacy, safety, dignity and Supreme Court case was brought by a group called For Women Scotland. It wanted to overturn Scottish legislation which said 50% of members on public boards should be women - and trans women were included in their definition. The group lost its case in Scotland's highest court but appealed to the UK Supreme Court. The case was heard towards the end of last year."What we wanted was clarity in the law - when something is described as a single-sex service, a single-sex space, that this relates to biology," Susan Smith from For Women Scotland told the BBC. Beginnings of the culture wars Over time the arguments over how a woman is defined had become increasingly angry, bitter and divided, because the stakes were high for all transgender people, who say they often face victimisation and harassment, the battles were rooted in attempts to win better legal protection."Legal gender recognition is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of rights each of us is entitled to, including safety, health and family life," according to Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK. The charity opposed For Women Scotland's case in the Supreme question of how to achieve legal recognition rose to prominence in 2002 when two judgements at the European Court of Human Rights found the UK was breaching human rights by failing to legally recognise transgender people in their acquired eventually led to the 2005 Gender Recognition Act, which allowed a trans person to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This recognised their preferred gender rather than their biological sex, allowing official documents like birth certificates to be changed to reflect that. But it was a long-winded process requiring two doctors to sign it off and for the person to "live in their acquired gender" for at least two years. Only about 8,000 people have applied for a GRC since they came into being, according to government began calling for the process to be simplified. In a response to a 2020 government consultation on amending the GRA, Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ rights organisation, called for a "move to a de-medicalised and straightforward legal gender recognition process".Gradually these calls gained momentum. In 2022, the Scottish government introduced a law that would allow people to "self-identify" in their desired gender. This was later blocked by the UK government and eventually dropped as a Scottish the rights of trans people were being debated, women's groups started pushing back about what that meant for biological meaning of words like "woman" and "sex" took on new significance, if someone who was biologically male had a certificate that identified them as a woman for legal the 2010 Equality Act, sex was a protected characteristic, and so was gender reassignment. With the very meaning of those categories in dispute, legal experts said it set the protections of one group against the protections of complexities mean courts and tribunals have frequently been called on to social media has often provided a starting point for angry disputes, connecting and amplifying voices, and in many cases, leading to more entrenched viewpoints. It had become a culture war. How the debate began to change In 2019, tax expert Maya Forstater lost her job because she tweeted that she did not believe people could change their sex. She said biological sex was immutable and not the same as gender identity. As a result, her work contract was not renewed. Her employer said it wanted to build an inclusive lost her case at an employment tribunal case, but an Appeal Court judge later ruled that gender critical beliefs were protected by the Equalities Act. In 2023, she was awarded £100,000 compensation for unfair was a high-profile battle through tribunals and courts which put employers' policies on inclusion under the spotlight and raised questions about whether by protecting the rights of one group, another was being discriminated against. Ms Forstater went on to set up the campaign group Sex Matters, and was among those celebrating outside the Supreme Court on have been other similar cases brought against employers since then. Sex Matters lists 11 settled or ongoing cases on its other high-profile cases have also shaped the broader March 2020, 23-year-old Keira Bell took legal action against the only children's NHS gender clinic, saying she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male whilst a she eventually lost her case, it started a chain reaction, which led to a shake-up of gender services for children and young in 2021 the Sussex University professor, Kathleen Stock, quit her job after being accused of having transphobic views. She had published a book that questioned whether gender identity was more significant than biological sex. She denied being transphobic but was subjected to a student campaign to remove her from her post. The university was later fined for failing to uphold freedom of and other cases put an uncomfortable spotlight on a debate that many preferred to ignore or dismiss as mainly happening on social media, because it was too tricky and using the wrong language could lead to fundamental questions were being raised about freedom of speech, how we treat each other and how you define a woman. The need for clarity had become terms of equality law, the Supreme Court ruling provided women's groups there is sheer relief that biological facts will now drive for many trans people there is distress. Even though they still have protections under the Equality Act, for many it does not feel like that. They worry that harassment will Charlie Craggs, who is a trans woman, told the BBC it was really sad that this tiny community of less than 1% of the population was being "thrown under the bus". Supreme Court ruling in practice Crucially, the ruling provides a clear framework for what equality laws mean. The EHRC says it is "working at pace" to update its guidance, and expects that to be ready by the has already made it clear that if a single-sex space, like a toilet or changing room, is women-only, that means biological males who identify as women should not use says instead that trans people should use their "powers of advocacy" to campaign for third spaces, such as unisex it has said it will pursue the NHS if it does not follow the latest service guidance on single-sex wards currently says that "trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation, the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use".Currently this allows trans women to be offered beds on women-only NHS says its policy is under Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption says that while the ruling means organisations can exclude trans women from women only facilities, they are not necessarily obliged to do told Radio 4's PM programme that in sport, for example, it would be down to individual governing bodies to decide who is allowed to compete in women's sport."They could decide to allow trans women to compete on the same basis as biological women, some sporting authorities do, although I think that in light of the latest judgement, they would be wise to say so expressly in their rules," he Transport Police has been the first body to actually change its policies. It says strip searches of people in custody will be carried out by officers of the same biological sexIt means a trans woman would be searched by a male officer, and a police officer who is a trans woman would not be able to search a biological woman. The domestic violence charity Refuge says the ruling will not change the way it chief executive, Gemma Sherrington, says, "we remain firmly committed to supporting all survivors of domestic abuse, including trans women".But for many businesses, sports clubs and other organisations it is too soon to know what this will mean in will need to see the detailed guidance from the Equality Commission first. Until then it is difficult to know how much change, if any, they will need to make or what new issues might organisations will also have to decide whether they have the space and money to provide so-called third spaces or unisex facilitiesFor trans people there is also a lot of uncertainty. They will have been used to using spaces which correspond to their gender identity - changing that may be difficult and, for some, Equality Commission expects to publish its new statutory code of conduct by the summer. Only then will these questions begin to be answered. Top picture credit: Reuters BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
