Latest news with #TERF
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
‘British feminism needs reshaping': Kate Nash on her new single about trans rights
In Kate Nash's new single, released last week, the 37-year-old musician and actor has coined a new acronym, Germ: 'girl, exclusionary, regressive, misogynist'. In the lyrics, she states: 'You're not radical … You're not rad at all,' and that 'using feminism to erase the rights of others and endanger them is inherently un-feminist'. It arose from Nash seeing 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist' – the contentious term 'terf' – as something of a misnomer. Those who espouse gender-critical views are, in her opinion, neither radical nor feminist. The song was written in response to last month's supreme court ruling that the legal definition of 'woman' ought to be based on biological sex (a judgement that doctors at the British Medical Association have called 'scientifically illiterate'). 'I have a lot of trans people in my life that I care about,' Nash tells me on the day the track is released. 'This feminist-trans 'debate' – it's not a debate to me. A friend of mine was the victim of a hate crime last year. I took the ruling very personally.' She says the time felt right for her to speak out. 'The LGBTQIA+ community supports women so much, and they have been there for me in my life and career. That's why I think cis women really owe it to trans people to step up at this moment. This song is for that community.' Within hours of the song going live, Nash was trending on X. On the one hand, Nash was praised by LGBTQ+ advocates and allies for showing support for trans people at a time when their rights are being eroded. 'A lot of the queer community have been really grateful,' says Nash. 'I've received some beautiful messages about what it means, when there's so much uncertainty and fear and a loss of confidence for a lot of trans people. That's been really moving.' On the other hand, gender-critical voices online suggested that Nash was 'enabling abusers' by calling for trans women to be admitted into single-sex spaces. Nash finds the accusation 'absurd'. Critiquing different ideologies is important, she says, 'but there's a difference between critical thinking and what's happening in this debate. I'm really open to nuanced conversations. I was preparing myself for this really amazing argument that stitches me up, a big 'gotcha' moment'. But all the insults are calling me old, a bint, a slag, a has-been. I'm shocked at how juvenile and misogynistic the comments are.' 'Germ', Nash is aware, is another insult now added into the mix. 'I'm taking my artistic liberty there as a musician – I can be highbrow and I can be lowbrow. But I also do think it's important for feminists to voice that transphobia is not feminist, so I stand by it.' She is ready for the inevitable backlash. 'I've been trolled since I was 18. Bring it on. I'm OK with whatever insults people want to throw at me – I can handle it. It's not going to be as difficult as what a trans person is having to go through at this moment.' She hopes the song encourages others to speak up despite it being such a divisive subject. 'It felt like a scary thing to voice, because it's this hot topic, but as a musician you can make something that's quite fun and catchy and a little bit empowering.' Nash has long been an advocate for women's rights, calling herself a feminist in interviews since she started releasing witty, acerbic songs in the mid-2000s, before Taylor Swift and Beyoncé made the term a pop cultural concern. She is worried that the label has been hijacked by a gender-critical group who are 'very vocal and very organised', and that resources would be better spent finding solutions to more pressing problems faced by women, such as sexual violence and femicide, which occur overwhelmingly at the hands of men. 'Taking away the rights of vulnerable people who are not a threat is obviously the wrong thing to be doing,' she says. 'I'm not willing to trample on people that have less autonomy over their bodies and less safety in the world than me in order to protect myself. I do not think cis women are more important or better than trans people.' Nash also made headlines earlier in the year by announcing she was selling photos on OnlyFans to help subsidise her tour. This was done in part to make a serious point about the ways the music industry is failing artists, especially those from working-class backgrounds: 'Artists can't make money from touring and they can't make money from recorded music.' Nash explains that touring comes with a whole raft of costs, such as renting a tour bus, paying for a band and crew, food, petrol, hotels. Streaming was 'built unethically from the start', she says, with major labels and streaming services defining the terms and conditions – not artists – and not updating pre-streaming contracts to reflect the new reality. 'Who you listen to isn't where your money directly goes, and I don't think that's right. The way the music industry has been structured, historically, has been exploiting artists. And we've been exploited yet again.' Nash has personal experience of the shadier side of the business. Her former manager misappropriated large amounts of her money during the mid-2010s. (They reached an out-of-court settlement.) During a lengthy legal battle, Nash had to move back in with her parents. 'It was a really difficult thing for me to experience,' she says. 'But overall I think it's informed me, and I feel capable of speaking on issues like this now. I feel really empathetic to artists – it's made me aware of how toxic the environment is.' The decision to sell her pictures online drew criticism, with people accusing Nash of being a bad influence on young girls. 'I'm a fantastic influence for young girls,' she counters. 'I've fought my entire career for young women – representation is extremely important to me.' The photos were also a way of taking control of her sexuality. As an actor on Netflix series Glow, 'I've been naked on TV,' she says. 'I've simulated a threesome. I use my body all the time on stage to move, to sing, to connect with an audience. But if I'm completely in control of it, that's 'wrong'. Is it wrong? Our bodies are so politicised, and the world has an opinion about how to prevent us from being able to make choices about them.' Last weekend, Nash premiered Germ at the Mighty Hoopla festival along with the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Later this month she will headline Glastonbury's Left Field stage on the Saturday night. She is excited to play the song in front of an audience: 'I think that will be quite a punk, exciting moment in the set.' Nash is undeterred by the internet noise the song has caused. 'I mean, sure, attack me online, but I'm still right,' she says. 'I wanted to leave a record in musical history of a feminist who is outspoken as a cis woman: this is my opinion, and I don't want the loudest cultural voice in the room to be anti-trans. That is not what feminism has taught me.'
Daily Mail
28-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
John Lithgow defends JK Rowling amid backlash from Harry Potter fans over trans debate after landing Dumbledore role
Harry Potter star John Lithgow is standing firmly by his decision to accept a role in the upcoming HBO series amid backlash from fans. It was announced earlier this year that the 79-year-old actor is set to play Professor Albus Dumbledore in the new drama, which is based on the books by J.K. Rowling and due for release in 2026. Following the news of his role, Lithgow has received an outpouring of messages urging him to reconsider being a part of the series because of Rowling's controversial views on transgender people. In a recent interview, however, Lithgow has addressed the furor and insisted that he isn't going to back away from the job. Before he signed the contract, Lithgow revealed that 'a very good friend who is the mother of a trans child' wrote to him 'an open letter to John Lithgow: Please walk away from Harry Potter.' 'That was the canary in the coalmine,' he added. 'I thought, "Why is this a factor at all?" I wonder how J.K. Rowling has absorbed it. I suppose at a certain point I'll meet her, and I'm curious to talk to her.' Speaking to The Times of London, Lithgow said he 'absolutely' didn't foresee getting so much hate from the author's many critics. But when asked by the publication if the backlash has made him reconsider joining the cast, he replied, 'Oh, heavens no.' Rowling has made headlines for her vocal 'TERF' views in recent years. Last week, the author sparked global upset after she celebrated the UK Supreme Court's landmark judgment that trans women are not legally women. Justices in London ruled last that in the 2010 Equality Act, the definition of the term 'women' relates only to biological women, and Rowling reportedly helped fund the campaign group which brought the case. Lithgow previously addressed his new role in an interview with Screen Rant. 'I just got the phone call up at the Sundance Film Festival, and it was not an easy decision because it's going to define me for the last chapter of my life. I'm afraid,' he told the publication. 'But I'm very excited. Some wonderful people are turning their attention back to Harry Potter. 'That's why it's been such a hard decision. I'll be about 87 years old at the wrap party, but I've said yes.' Dumbledore, the fictional headmaster of Hogwarts and a mentor to the title character, has become one of the most-beloved characters among fans of Rowling's original books and the film series. In the Harry Potter films, Dumbledore was first played by Richard Harris, before Michael Gambon took over the role. Lithgow — who has been nominated for back-to-back Best Supporting Actor Academy Awards for The World According to Garp and Terms of Endearment — recently received a fresh round of critical acclaim for his major role in the Oscar hopeful Conclave. Though Lithgow is an American, which would be a departure for the series after the original films featured an almost exclusively UK-based cast, Dumbledore wouldn't be his first British character. Lithgow nabbed his sixth and most recent Emmy Award for playing former Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Netflix's hit drama The Crown. More recently, Lithgow has been portraying the writer Roald Dahl on stage in London in the play Giant, which explores the writer's infamous antisemitism.
Irish Examiner
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Suzanne Harrington: Trans women are not a threat — there is plenty of room for all
Outside the Houses of Parliament in London last weekend, an unplanned gathering happened. It was huge. Police weren't prepared, roads hadn't been closed off, yet people were pouring out of Westminster station in their hundreds, their thousands. Pink blue and white flags fluttered in the breeze, as trans people gathered, surrounded by their allies. There were a lot of allies — friends, families, loved ones, gay people, straight people, non-binary people — with not as much as a microphone between them. There'd been no time to organise. Just a shout-out on social media to turn up, to show support for the fact that two days earlier, a judge had decided that in the UK, trans people no longer legally exist. People who have been living peacefully as women were now legally men, and vice versa. Like the lady standing in front of me, whose passport, driving licence, health and credit records are all registered as female, because she's lived as a woman for decades. Except now she's legally a man. She might as well be legally a hatstand or a banana. Other women, who identify as TERFs, have been celebrating this judgment. They have been worried that women like the trans woman standing in front of me, in her floral dress with her legal paperwork, will bombard and overrun female spaces, posing a danger to all women. That trans women are dangerous and invasive to cis women, like Japanese knotweed in gardens. A genuine threat. This is genuinely baffling. Trans men and women are estimated to be between 0.44% and 0.55% of any given population. They are a micro minority. Yet these other women, the ones who identify as TERFs, are overjoyed to have caused the legal erasure of this tiny group, a minority statistically far more likely to be on the wrong end of discrimination and male violence than cis women. How is this a cause for celebration? TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, but there is nothing radical or feminist about othering and excluding, about making another person a non-being. It's not feminism, says feminist philosopher Judith Butler — it's fascism: 'Once you decide that a single vulnerable minority can be sacrificed, you're operating within a fascist logic. That means there might be a second one you're willing to sacrifice, and a third, a fourth. Then what happens?' Perhaps women who identify as TERFs are getting trans women confused with the real threat to all women; the violent men who assault, rape and murder us all, day in, day out, year in, year out. Also – and here again is the utter illogicality of the UK's legal ruling — do TERFs want trans men in the Ladies, as we send trans women to the Gents? Who polices this? Who gatekeeps? Will they be scanning genitalia at the door? Because that's what this ruling decrees. Outside the Houses of Parliament, amid the fluttering flags and people hugging each other, a large square of turf is surrounded by crash barriers, so that everyone is squashed onto narrow pavements. In a moment of exquisite symbolism, a lone woman carrying a trans flag moves a barrier, opening the space for everyone. Everyone files peacefully onto the turf. Nothing bad happens. There is plenty of room for all.
Daily Mail
23-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Harry Potter star's show of support amid ugly spat between JK Rowling and the child actors she made famous
Harry Potter star Afshan Azad has shown her support for the franchise amid its other stars speaking out in opposition of JK Rowling over her views on transgender rights. Harry Potter author Rowling, 59, has repeatedly made headlines for her vocal TERF views and controversially celebrated the Supreme Court 's judgment that trans women are not legally women. Justices in London ruled last week that in the 2010 Equality Act, the definition of the term 'women' relates only to biological women, and Rowling reportedly helped fund the campaign group which brought the case. There have been widespread protests following the ruling and Harry Potter's Sean Biggerstaff - who portrayed Oliver Wood in three movies - passionately condemned Rowling. Biggerstaff showed his solidarity with the wizarding franchise's leading stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, who have all spoken out against Rowling in the past but have so far not commented on the ruling. Amid the ongoing row, Azad - who is well-recognised for having starred as Padma Patil in five of the eight movies - has shown her support for the wider franchise. Though not mentioning the recent storm, Azad took to Instagram in the days following Rowling's comments on the ruling to share a tribute to the wizarding franchise. She posted a photograph of herself grinning alongside a poster of herself starring as Patil as she attended German Potter Con at Arenfels Castle in Neuwied. Remaining silent on the Supreme Court ruling, she gushed over how 'lucky' she is to still be involved with the wizarding franchise 24 years after the first movie hit screens. In a seeming show of support, she penned in a caption: 'I was once in a film you may have watched.. how lucky are we that we still get to travel to meet our incredible fans!' MailOnline has contacted Azad for comment. Azad starred as Padma Patil in five of the Harry Potter films, starting with 2005's Goblet of Fire, with Shefali Chowdhury playing her twin sister Parvati Patil. The Manchester-born star also appeared in 2007's Order of the Phoenix, 2009's The Half-Blood Prince and both of the final films, The Deathly Hallows' Parts 1 and 2. The actress has previously thanked Rowling for launching her career after other Harry Potter child stars have distanced themselves from the embattled author. Back in 2021, Azad, took to X - formerly known as Twitter - to say she 'owes everything' to Rowling and Harry Potter's casting directors. 'When the Philosophers Stone film came out I was sucked into the magical world like every other kid,' she penned at the time. 'Little did I know years later I'd audition for a role that would change my entire life upside down. I owe everything to JK Rowling, the casting agents and the Potter films.' Rowling has faced much backlash from the Harry Potter child stars over her views and has been branded a 'bigot' after the latest Supreme Court ruling. Oliver Wood actor Biggerstaff condemned Rowling's post about the Supreme Court ruling, in which she raised her glass and smoked a cigar on her $150million superyacht in celebration. After the picture prompted accusations she was 'smoking a blunt', she hit back on social media, clarifying that it was 'objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar'. Responding to her post, Biggerstaff claimed the billionaire writer had no sense of humour about the comments, writing: 'Bigotry rots the wit.' He also backed one person who compared her to Andrew Tate for puffing on a cigar, much like the self-proclaimed misogynist does in his own videos, which many argue stir violence against women. The tweet read: 'lol, huffing on a cigar now? Is she Andrew Tate?' with Biggerstaff simply re-posting the words to his own profile. Rowling had shared a picture of Susan Smith and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrating the ruling and told people not to 'f**k with Scottish women'. However, Scotsman Biggerstaff clapped back with: 'The majority of Scottish women, who don't agree with these d**kheads, aren't being bankrolled by an obsessed billionaire,' referencing reports that Rowling helped fund the case. He also showed solidarity with the leading Harry Potter trio as he slammed one user who referred to Radcliffe, Watson and Grint as 'disloyal bags of s**t' for speaking out against Rowling, asking how they are doing today. In response, an unimpressed Biggerstaff said: 'You don't have to wonder. You know what they're doing - leading happy and successful lives, having not driven their families away with their hateful obsessions.' Biggerstaff additionally rubbished accusations that Rowling - who is currently having her Harry Potter books adapted into a new TV series - was 'cast out' and 'smeared' for her views. Responding to one post, Biggerstaff quipped: 'Christ, if that's what being cast out looks like I'll take some,' referring to her net worth of approximately £1billion. Biggerstaff shared further general posts defending the transgender community as he shared his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling, arguing that the 'loudest voices' were 'using concern for sex-based rights as cover for entirely reactionary politics'. 'Today is just a torrent of people being willfully simple-minded. A performance of pragmatism to cloak their instinctive distaste for the Other,' he added in another post. Biggerstaff starred in first two Harry Potter movies - The Philosopher's Stone and the Chamber of Secrets - and returned for a brief, uncredited cameo in the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. Though forthrightly speaking out against Rowling herself, Biggerstaff remains involved with the wider Harry Potter universe and often attends fan conventions. He most recently appeared at a signing at the Gibert-Joseph bookstore in France in February 2025 and attended another meet and greet in Italy in December 2024. Biggerstaff additionally appeared at the New England WizardFest & Magic Convention in Boxborough in August 2023. The Supreme Court case saw judges rule that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'. It marked the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and women's group For Women Scotland over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish law. The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act. In his diatribe against Rowling, Biggerstaff responded to her controversial post about the Supreme Court ruling, in which she raised her glass and smoked a cigar on her superyacht Biggerstaff additionally rubbished accusations that billionaire Rowling - who is currently having her Harry Potter books adapted into a new TV series - was 'cast out' for her views The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women's quota. But campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female. The Supreme Court ruled that the words 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act must mean 'biological sex', rejecting any alternative interpretations as 'incoherent and impracticable '. Rowling reacted last Wednesday by posting on X: '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.' She later added: 'Trans people have lost zero rights today, although I don't doubt some (not all) will be furious that the Supreme Court upheld women's sex-based rights.' Amid Rowling's divisive celebrations, leading Harry Potter stars Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have so far remained silent after speaking out against her in the past. They have previously spoken publicly in support of gender ideology - that biologically male trans women should be regarded as women - which Rowling disagrees with. The author herself appeared to aim a jibe at them last month, when sharing on her X account a response to another user who asked: 'What actor/actress instantly ruins a movie for you?' Rowling wrote: 'Three guesses. Sorry, but that was irresistible.' She previously indicated in April last year she would not forgive Radcliffe nor Watson as she criticised celebrities she said had 'cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights'. She hit out at stars accused of using their 'platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors' after the release of the long-awaited Cass report into gender treatment in the UK. That government-commissioned study deemed there to be 'remarkably weak evidence' for gender-affirming techniques in children such as puberty blockers. When one fan said they were 'just waiting for Dan and Emma [Watson]' to offer a 'very public apology' knowing they'd be safe in the knowledge the author would forgive them, Rowling wrote: 'Not safe I'm afraid. 'Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.' What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean? What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. What does it mean for single sex spaces? The court's decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts said today. The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms. The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'. The government said the ruling 'brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs'. What does it mean for employers? Employment experts say it will provide companies with greater 'clarity' over single sex spaces for their staff. Lara Brown, senior Research Fellow in the Culture and Identity Unit at Policy Exchange, said a trans woman with a GRC who is excluded from single-sex spaces cannot say she is being discriminated against as a woman. She explained: 'This ruling makes it legal for any space that wants to be single sex to exclude biological men.' Could employers still be at risk of discrimination? The Supreme Court made it clear that trans people are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed. Experts say a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman. Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, said failure to be an inclusive workplace, regardless of any protected characteristics, could result in a discrimination claim. What does the ruling mean for competitive sports? In recent years, many sports have cracked down on rules around transgender athletes at the elite level. Athletics, cycling and aquatics are among those who have banned trans women from taking part in women's events. The UK government said it hopes the decision will provide clarity for sports clubs. Although today's ruling did not concern sport directly, former Olympian Sharron Davies welcomed the decision, saying it was important to 'define what a woman is'. Could a pregnant woman with a GRC be entitled to maternity leave? Experts said today that the ruling that only women can become pregnant shows a trans man (biological woman) would be able to take maternity leave, while a trans woman (biological man) would not. Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: 'The Supreme Court acknowledged that only women can become pregnant. Therefore a trans man (a biological woman who identifies as a man) can take maternity leave. 'Had the court reached a different decision, it's possible that trans men with a GRC wouldn't have been entitled to protection in relation to pregnancy under the characteristics of 'pregnancy or maternity'.'
Daily Mail
22-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Harry Potter star savages JK Rowling as a 'bigot' and compares her to Andrew Tate over her trans views - despite STILL cashing in on the fame she brought him
Harry Potter star Sean Biggerstaff has savaged JK Rowling on social media, calling her an 'obsessed billionaire' and 'bigoted' for her views on transgender rights. The Harry Potter author, 59, has repeatedly made headlines for her vocal 'TERF' views and has celebrated the Supreme Court 's landmark judgment that trans women are not legally women. Justices in London ruled last week that in the 2010 Equality Act, the definition of the term 'women' relates only to biological women, and Rowling reportedly helped fund the campaign group which brought the case. Amid widespread protests following the ruling, Harry Potter actor Biggerstaff - who portrayed Oliver Wood in three of the movies - has passionately condemned Rowling. Biggerstaff showed his solidarity with the wizarding franchise's leading stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, who have all spoken out against Rowling. He starred alongside the trio in first two Harry Potter movies - The Philosopher's Stone and the Chamber of Secrets - and returned for a brief, uncredited cameo in the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. Though distancing himself from Rowling herself and forthrightly speaking out against her, Biggerstaff remains involved with the wider Harry Potter universe and often attends fan conventions, doing so as recently as February of this year. In his diatribe against Rowling, Biggerstaff responded to her controversial post about the Supreme Court ruling, in which she raised her glass and smoked a cigar on her $150million superyacht in celebration. After the billionaire author was hit by accusations she was 'smoking a blunt', she hit back on social media, clarifying that it was 'objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar'. Responding to her post, Biggerstaff claimed she had no sense of humour about the comments, writing: 'Bigotry rots the wit.' He also showed his support for one person who compared her to Andrew Tate for puffing on a cigar, much like he does in his own videos, which many argue stir violence against women. The tweet read: 'lol, huffing on a cigar now? Is she Andrew Tate?' with Biggerstaff simply re-posting the words to his own profile. Rowling also shared a picture of Susan Smith and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrating the ruling and told people not to 'f**k with Scottish women'. However, Scotsman Biggerstaff clapped back with: 'The majority of Scottish women, who don't agree with these d**kheads, aren't being bankrolled by an obsessed billionaire,' referencing reports that Rowling helped fund the case. He also showed solidarity with the leading Harry Potter trio as he slammed one user who referred to Radcliffe, Watson and Grint as 'disloyal bags of s**t' for speaking out against Rowling, asking how they are doing today. In his diatribe against Rowling, Biggerstaff responded to her controversial post about the Supreme Court ruling, in which she raised her glass and smoked a cigar on her superyacht He slammed Rowling for sharing a picture of Susan Smith and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrating the ruling and told people not to 'f**k with Scottish women' Biggerstaff additionally rubbished accusations that billionaire Rowling - who is currently having her Harry Potter books adapted into a new TV series - was 'cast out' for her views In response, an unimpressed Biggerstaff said: 'You don't have to wonder. You know what they're doing - leading happy and successful lives, having not driven their families away with their hateful obsessions.' Biggerstaff additionally rubbished accusations that billionaire Rowling - who is currently having her Harry Potter books adapted into a new TV series - was 'cast out' and 'smeared' for her views. Responding to one post, Biggerstaff quipped: 'Christ, if that's what being cast out looks like I'll take some,' referring to her net worth of approximately £1billion. Biggerstaff shared further general posts defending the transgender community as he shared his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling, arguing that the 'loudest voices' were 'using concern for sex-based rights as cover for entirely reactionary politics'. 'Today is just a torrent of people being willfully simple-minded. A performance of pragmatism to cloak their instinctive distaste for the Other,' he added in another post. Though he has been vocal in his distaste towards Rowling's views on transgender rights, Biggerstaff has continued to cash in on his Harry Potter fame over the years. He frequently attends conventions and meet and greets with fans, appearing at a signing at the Gibert-Joseph bookstore in France as recently as February 2025. Biggerstaff also attended another meet and greet in Italy in December 2024 and appeared at the New England WizardFest & Magic Convention in Boxborough in August 2023. The Supreme Court case saw judges rule that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'. It marked the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and women's group For Women Scotland over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish law. The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act. The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women's quota. But campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female. The Supreme Court ruled that the words 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act must mean 'biological sex', rejecting any alternative interpretations as 'incoherent and impracticable '. Rowling reacted last Wednesday by posting on X: '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.' She later added: 'Trans people have lost zero rights today, although I don't doubt some (not all) will be furious that the Supreme Court upheld women's sex-based rights.' Amid Rowling's celebrations, leading Harry Potter stars Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have so far remained silent after speaking out against her in the past. They have previously spoken publicly in support of gender ideology - that biologically male trans women should be regarded as women - which Rowling disagrees with. The author herself appeared to aim a jibe at them last month, when sharing on her X account a response to another user who asked: 'What actor/actress instantly ruins a movie for you?' Rowling wrote: 'Three guesses. Sorry, but that was irresistible.' She previously indicated in April last year she would not forgive Radcliffe nor Watson as she criticised celebrities she said had 'cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights'. She hit out at stars accused of using their 'platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors' after the release of the long-awaited Cass report into gender treatment in the UK. That government-commissioned study deemed there to be 'remarkably weak evidence' for gender-affirming techniques in children such as puberty blockers. When one fan said they were 'just waiting for Dan and Emma [Watson]' to offer a 'very public apology' knowing they'd be safe in the knowledge the author would forgive them, Rowling wrote: 'Not safe I'm afraid. 'Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.' What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean? What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. What does it mean for single sex spaces? The court's decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts said today. The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms. The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'. The government said the ruling 'brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs'. What does it mean for employers? Employment experts say it will provide companies with greater 'clarity' over single sex spaces for their staff. Lara Brown, senior Research Fellow in the Culture and Identity Unit at Policy Exchange, said a trans woman with a GRC who is excluded from single-sex spaces cannot say she is being discriminated against as a woman. She explained: 'This ruling makes it legal for any space that wants to be single sex to exclude biological men.' Could employers still be at risk of discrimination? The Supreme Court made it clear that trans people are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed. Experts say a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman. Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, said failure to be an inclusive workplace, regardless of any protected characteristics, could result in a discrimination claim. What does the ruling mean for competitive sports? In recent years, many sports have cracked down on rules around transgender athletes at the elite level. Athletics, cycling and aquatics are among those who have banned trans women from taking part in women's events. The UK government said it hopes the decision will provide clarity for sports clubs. Although today's ruling did not concern sport directly, former Olympian Sharron Davies welcomed the decision, saying it was important to 'define what a woman is'. Could a pregnant woman with a GRC be entitled to maternity leave? Experts said today that the ruling that only women can become pregnant shows a trans man (biological woman) would be able to take maternity leave, while a trans woman (biological man) would not. Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: 'The Supreme Court acknowledged that only women can become pregnant. Therefore a trans man (a biological woman who identifies as a man) can take maternity leave. 'Had the court reached a different decision, it's possible that trans men with a GRC wouldn't have been entitled to protection in relation to pregnancy under the characteristics of 'pregnancy or maternity'.'
