Mick Hartley

Hannah Barnes in the New Statesman on Labour and the Supreme Court ruling:

That this was left to the courts at all is an indictment of politicians. The response from Labour has been woeful. It took the Prime Minister six days to say he was “really pleased” with the “clarity” brought by the judgement. His spokesperson confirmed that Starmer no longer believed trans women were women. But the PM hasn’t condemned the threats made to women during the trans rights activist protests that followed the judgement, at which some carried placards bearing abusive messages, including “The only good Terf is a [dead] one” and “Bring back witch burning”. A bust of the women’s rights campaigner Millicent Fawcett was daubed with the homophobic slur “fag rights”. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper (who previously refused to go down the “rabbit hole” of defining what a woman is), condemned the damage, but had nothing to say of the misogyny on display. The Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson was the first in cabinet to criticise the rhetoric.

More embarrassing has been Labour’s attempts to rewrite history. A Labour source told the Telegraph the judgement showed why it was “so important that Keir hauled the Labour Party back to the common-sense position the public take on these sorts of issues”. This was, the source said, “one of the reasons the country felt Labour was safe to elect”. Really? Wasn’t it Starmer who, in 2021, called the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield’s statement “only women have a cervix” “something that shouldn’t be said”. And wasn’t it John Healey, now the Defence Secretary, who said during the 2024 election campaign that clarification of the law around sex and gender was a “distraction” and “not needed”? On 16 April, Phillipson claimed Labour had “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”. But she said in a June 2024 interview that trans women with a GRC should use female toilets. Why can’t politicians admit they got it wrong?

Presumably they think it would damage their reputation for infallibility (!). A reputation for honesty might be more worth the saving – but that's politicians for you.

One group, however, would have faced erasure had the court ruled the other way: lesbians. “For lesbians, this was not merely about safe spaces and same-sex services: it was absolutely foundational to our very existence,” I was told by Sally Wainwright, who helped put together the case for three lesbian organisations granted permission to intervene at the Supreme Court. The judges agreed. Sexual orientation “is rendered meaningless” if sex is not confined to biological sex, they said. Yet press coverage has largely ignored this, Wainwright said.  This was a judgement “all – and only – about women’s rights”. That it has been reported as if it’s an attack on trans people signifies the extent to which parts of the press were “captured”, she argued.

The lesbian history – called transphobic for opposing the influx of bearded men on lesbian dating sites, told they were "sexual racists" for not wanting to have sex with "lesbians" with a penis – surely ranks as the most absurd manifestation of gender culture. And it's also the best response to those who somehow believe that trans women are some poor threatened group who just want to get on with their lives. Does anyone honestly think the vast majority of these men aren't just cynical chancers?

British women are rebuilding sanity brick by brick. Maya Forstater secured the right to say that sex is real and immutable and not be punished. Keira Bell took on the care provided to gender-distressed children at the Tavistock. And FWS has now reinforced the long-fought-for rights of women.

But attempts have already begun to undermine the judgement, with some questioning its legitimacy and indicating they will refuse to comply. The Supreme Court ruling will require businesses, public bodies and other institutions to change their policies in accordance with the law. How will a government that has thus far been weak on women’s rights respond? Despite reports of unease in Labour’s ranks, Phillipson spoke definitively on BBC Radio 4’s Today on 22 April: “I can be crystal clear with you that we welcome the ruling.”

There is now an opportunity to be rid of the lies and toxicity of the past; to ensure that the rights of both trans people and women are respected. But one thing is certain: if that chance is not taken, women will not stay silent. History shows they can, and will, say “No”. And they will win.