Trans Friend

  According to The Guardian there’s a certain amount of turmoil both in Westminster and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.   They report that a number of MP’s are concerned that the interim guidance of the EHRC doesn’t correctly represent the true meaning of the High Court Judgement and that they have little confidence in either the EHRC’s ability to produce its final guidance any time soon, or in Falkner herself. One said “she’s not neutral”.  Meanwhile, according to The Guardian, there is disquiet within the EHRC itself over Falkner, the interim ruling and the process by which it was drafted. Insiders say it was largely produced by Falkner herself, and many senior officials were unaware of its contents until after it was released.  According to The Guardian one staffer asked Faulkner in an internal meeting why the only additional legal counsel she had taken on the interim guidance was from a barrister who had previously acted for the women’s groups which had...

I read today that another significant voice has joined the chorus. Lady Hale, the former chair of the Supreme Court, has said that the ruling of the Supreme Court as regards the Equalities Act has been widely misinterpreted. She, like Lord Sumption, points out that the ruling does not mean that there is an obligation to exclude trans people from any single gender space, merely that it isn’t unlawful to do so. She was speaking at a literary festival which had provided unisex facilities in defiance of the interim guidance by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.  Interestingly she, like some others, expressed scepticism about the very concept of “biological sex”.  Unfortunately no matter how learned Lady Hale and Lord Sumption are they have no formal role. But I think it’s safe to say that, unless parliament changes the law, the EHRC can be safely ignored. 

  I had an interesting discussion the other day with someone in transition, which led me to question the very term “transition”. The term implies that there are broadly two states, male and female, and although some people choose to move part of the way along the line joining the two - non binary people - it nevertheless implies that the gender state is a one dimensional space. But is that correct? Much of what delineates gender as opposed to sex, is a social construct. Men wear trousers because that’s what men do, not because they are genetically programmed to do so. Some gender markers are physical, some are tied to the psyche (for want of a better word).  I remember reading an account of an interview with Jan Morris, an early transitioner, who said that she (her choice of pronoun) didn’t really feel as if she was a woman in the full sense of the word, but that she was closer to that state than the she had been before the transition. Jan Morris was just Jan Morris, not ...

  I was saddened but not surprised when I read that the UK has plummeted down the European rankings for LGBT+ rights*. We now rank 22nd in Europe. The fall of six places compared with last year is largely due to the laughably named Equality and Human Rights Commission and its interim guidance on gender recognition.   Only ten years ago we were at the top of the league.   A spokesperson for the EHRC said “Our response to the Supreme Court’s judgement has been, and will continue to be, firmly grounded in the law.” I understand the spokesperson said this with a straight face.  *The rankings are produced by ILGA Europe, an LGBT+ advocacy group

  I’m delighted to report that the     Equality and Human Rights Commission has been threatened with legal action after saying in its interim guidance that trans women must use men’s toilets, according to The Independent.   The guidance states that trans women “should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities” in workplaces or public-facing services such as shops and hospitals.  But lawyers acting on behalf of leading UK trans rights group TransLucent have now sent a letter to the watchdog warning that the guidance “incorrectly states the legal position” of the court ruling.  The letter also criticises the body for failing to consult with trans people before publishing its interim guidance, ahead of an ongoing consultation on the issue. Alas it’s still possible that the EHRC goes ahead with its guidance, and that the government follows the path of least resistance and rubber stamps it into law.  What the government  should  do is redraft...

  Whatever the outcome of the current debate over gender reassignment, whatever laws we end up with, I will always believe that if someone wants to change their gender they should be allowed to do so, and they should be welcomed into the community of their adopted gender.   Clearly there are some who don’t accept that view.  If my beliefs became universal there wouldn’t be many questions left to answer. In fact I can’t think of one. Those societies who share my view are relaxed and ready to move on.  But if you are of the view that trans people shouldn’t exist, or shouldn’t be treated according to their adopted gender, then there are lots of questions you need to answer. You can’t just move on.  The Times published a letter from a doctor who suggested that gender disphoria is a mental illness. My first reaction was that I’m pleased he’s not my GP. But how does he propose to treat this “mental illness”. Conversion therapy, which seems to me to be just a renamed f...

  When I was growing up there was a young man in the West Country who had lost a leg in some sort of accident. Rather than feel sorry for himself he decided to try to overcome his disability on the sports field. He took up high jumping. He would hop rapidly up to the bar and perform a forward roll onto his back on the other side. After a lot of practice he got to be pretty good and started to win competitions against able bodied athletes. But then complaints were made, on the grounds that he had an unfair advantage; his centre of gravity was higher than normal by reason of his missing leg, and this made it easier to clear the bar. So the Amateur Athletics Association banned him from competition.   There was an understandable uproar, and his case was reconsidered, though after the initial novelty the story faded from the papers so I don’t know the outcome. I remember thinking that perhaps the AAA was afraid young men all across the country might start having their legs amputate...

Alas politicians today seem to base their policies on focus groups and surveys of public opinion. They lick their forefingers, raise them to the sky and follow the prevailing wind. True leaders who have a strong conviction and pursue it, sometimes changing the national mood, have gone.   The political response to the Supreme Court ruling has been limp to say the least. The main parties have all said that the ruling gives clarification, which it doesn’t. It introduces a huge anomaly in which trans people have two legal sexes at once.  Is that clear enough for you?  The right, not surprisingly, has misrepresented the ruling as a blanket decision that men are men and women are women. As far as they are concerned it’s all woke nonsense and this clears it up. Farage predictably, has said “the lunacy is over!” Alas no, he is still with us.  Sadly the progressive parties have kept their heads down and failed to point out what the ruling really means. Keir Starmer is, I susp...

  In 1857 there was a case before the Supreme Court of The United States, Dred Scott v Sanford. It found that black people could not be citizens of the USA.   I’m sure there were people celebrating on the steps of the court after the judgement was announced. There would have been people for whom it was common sense from the beginning. White people are white, black people are black, you can’t change from one to the other, it’s simple biology.  So it’s ok to keep them out of our toilets (and bars and restaurants and buses…)  I expect they thought they were on the right side of history.  Sound familiar? 

  One of the things I don’t understand about the trans debate in this country is why it generates such heat. Why do we have people shouting and screaming “the only good terf is a dead terf” or “women are born not made” depending on which side of the debate they’re on?   Internationally this isn’t the norm. Argentina, Malta, Ireland, Portugal and Denmark have adopted very relaxed and trans friendly laws with little or no fuss or push back. I’m sure there must have been opponents, but by and large there seems to have been a collective shrug, and trans people were welcomed into their adopted gender communities without fuss or incident.  The exceptions include the USA which has a similar confrontational attitude to the UK, driven by the culture wars, with some States being trans friendly while others adopt anti trans legislation. Poland has a lot of suspicion and hostility, but that looks to me to be bound up with religious conservatism, as is their national politics.  R...

  If I were trans and could ”pass” as I gather trans people say, I would keep my head down, not say anything and allow everyone to assume that I was my adopted gender. I’m sure there are many people out there who do exactly that.   There are others who proudly claim the label “trans”, tell the world all about it, and share their experience. I admire people like that very much. There is no doubt that doing so attracts what one might call “unwanted attention” which will include insults and threats.  I am thinking about people like Abigail Thorn, the philosophy educator and YouTuber, who could certainly pass, but chooses not to. I recently watched a video interview with her. I found it very emotional. She made it clear that she had no choice, that she simply couldn’t continue to pretend; that the process was emotionally draining; and that now she is completely at peace with herself.  It’s people like her who will eventually persuade the vast majority of people, cis peop...