We are entering a new, darker chapter in the fight for trans liberation in the UK
Now, I don’t want to alarm you. In fact, I want to do the exact opposite of that. But it might sound scary to start with.
The tide has changed in the UK. The 2010s saw an increase in visibility and acceptance for various queer groups. We saw the passing of same-sex marriage bills globally, and the rise of the Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion industry. In 2014, we reached what Time magazine called the ‘Transgender Tipping Point,’ with Laverne Cox gracing magazine covers, and, for a while, we all felt pretty hopeful.
However, as the decade rolled on, there was a shift. Second-wave feminists reared their heads and reestablished biological essentialism as a mainstream feminist argument. The false claim that trans rights and women’s rights were incompatible began to bubble, and was fed by the debates around the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.
By the 2020s, something had changed. A previously beloved children’s author publicly declared her transphobia, and debates became increasingly toxic. Vexatious litigation became a favoured tactic of anti-trans lobbyists, and they expanded their reach into Government, with proud ‘Gender Critical’ anti-trans campaigners in all political parties, and in the Houses of Commons and Lords.
As 2022 draws to a close, it has become clear that the ‘Gender Critical’ anti-trans position is no longer a radical fringe stance, but mainstream Government policy.
Just one place we see this is the NHS' service specification (respond to the consultation here!) for the new gender dysphoria service for children and young people (replacing the previous GIDS clinic - I wish this one had an easier shorthand name). This specification makes it clear that the NHS sees transness as an undesirable outcome to be avoided: social transition is being treated as a medical intervention only advisable by doctors (it's just changing name, pronouns, hair, clothes); they are threatening families who access private care with social service involvement; and extra gatekeeping mechanisms have been added at every possible stage.
One of the many very concerning aspects of this specification is hidden deep in the Equalities and Health Inequalities Assessment. It states that a) those on the waiting list do not share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as this makes assumptions about the aims of these individuals; and b) individuals accessing puberty blockers or hormones from private practices or 'unregulated sources' (i.e., internet black markets) also cannot be said to share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the same reasons.
There is a big glaring hole in this logic: the NHS has completely misinterpreted the Equality Act 2010. The Act says that 'a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.' Furthermore, the Equality Act does not just cover people who actually fit that definition, but anyone who is perceived to fit that definition (e.g., a cis person being discriminated against because someone assumed they are trans would be covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment).
To then look again at how the NHS has interpreted the Act, this makes no sense. Anyone on the list is likely, or likely perceived to be proposing undergoing transition: indeed, if they have already come out socially and perhaps changed name or pronouns, they are immediately, inherently covered by this definition. When we then consider this second group identified by the NHS, individuals already taking puberty blockers or hormones, we can clearly see that they are currently undergoing a process to change their gender. The NHS seems to have declared that no matter where in your transition you are, you're only covered by the Equality Act if they've given you a diagnosis for gender dysphoria. And specifically them, no-one else.
While this may appear relatively insignificant, buried deep in an equalities impact assessment, this is actually deeply concerning: the NHS appears to be trying to change the Equality Act via the back door. We can hope this is accidental, an innocent misinterpretation: this hope relies on the assumption that, for some accidental reason, NHS' legal team didn't get a chance to look over this, that somehow this did not go through the correct checks, balances, and sign-offs.
Unfortunately, as we have seen in the (multiple!) leadership debates this year, trans people have been used as a political football, with Rishi Sunak promising a review of the Equality Act to reconsider protections for trans people. That NHS 'mistake' feels less and less accidental.
While various arms of Government and State institutions take increasingly anti-trans stances, we would hope to be able to turn to other, more left-wing parties for support. But we're being failed there too.
While the Conservative Party takes a generally anti-trans and 'culture war' stance, and is of course The Government making these decisions, Labour have offered no alternatives for trans people. One MP has been an outspoken 'Gender Critical' anti-trans campaigner for many years, brushing shoulders with many of the big players in the 'GC' anti-trans lobby. There has been no recourse for their stance, and the damage they have done with it.
Moreover, Starmer recently gave an interview (which appeased neither side) for Mumsnet, a website originally set up for mothers to share helpful advice with one another, that has been overrun with anti-trans campaigners for many years now. In this interview, he stated that children should not be able to access transition care without their parents' support. This is a deeply anti-trans, anti-child, anti-woman, and anti-disability stance. Not only is Starmer involving himself in a conversation that he clearly has no knowledge on (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, leaders in best practice for trans healthcare, has stated that access to transition care should not be contingent on parental support), he has, seemingly inadvertently, challenged the importance of Gillick competence.
Gillick competence is a standard introduced through case law in the 1980s. It was determined that someone under the age of 16 can consent to medical care without their parents' knowledge or consent if they are shown to be Gillick competent, i.e., they are capable of understanding the impact and meaning of consenting to the treatment. This was a vital win in the fight for reproductive rights for women, and allows children, particularly girls, under 16 to access contraceptive and reproductive care. It also allows, for example, children with cancer to consent to their own treatments. For trans kids, it allows them to consent to puberty delaying and hormonal treatment (which, for the record, never happens pre-puberty). Gillick is a vital framework for children's rights and bodily autonomy - not just trans kids. In undermining this, Starmer has demonstrated how damaging the anti-trans rhetoric is to all people.
I wish I could stop there and say 'but hey it's just the biggest two parties', but when we turn to the Liberal Democrats and the English Green Party, we're no better off. The Liberal Democrats recently released a statement clarifying their position on transphobia, in which they undermine the violence of transphobia, giving more protection to the beliefs of 'Gender Critical' individuals than trans people, and stating that allegations of transphobia will only consider the misconduct itself, not the views of the offender. This is ludicrous: there is no other protected characteristic that should reasonably expect the discriminatory views someone holds to be irrelevant to the discriminatory actions they took.
The English Green Party is currently embroiled in an internal debate around trans rights, with the Party's official stance still technically being trans inclusive, but with internal disputes: for example, earlier this year, one local group stated that they were welcoming to both trans people and those holding 'Gender Critical' anti-trans views (which, of course, means that trans people are not safe in that space, and will likely have to exclude themselves for their safety). The jury is still out on where the Green Party will land, but the lack of clear pro-trans support and pushback against anti-trans views does not instil confidence in many trans people.
North of the border, the Scottish National Party are doing a far better job, and not only have full support for trans people, but are pushing forward with a number of pieces of legislation, including reform of the Gender Recognition Act, to ensure the full right of trans people to self-determine their gender. It's a huge relief to know that there is solid political support for the existence of trans people somewhere in the British Isles.
But where does that leave the rest us, particularly those of us in England, where our only national political recourse is Westminster? (*I am very aware that things aren't much more accessible in Cymru/Wales or Northern Ireland, but because I don't and haven't lived there I don't want to speak for you!)
We need to invest in activism and campaigning outside of party politics. And I say that as a policy wonk.
There is no-one left to help us but ourselves and our allies. While the public opinion at large is supportive of trans people, this is not reflected in the views of decision makers.
Engaging with party politics is not without value: we must resist our oppression in every form, and we must have a record of that. But we cannot expect that to be where our change comes from. We can keep nicely asking and begging for our rights, but that's not enough. We need to demand and take our rights.
And speaking of rights, that's going to be one of the defining features of this next chapter: we're no longer fighting to extend our rights so that we're equal members of society, but fighting to preserve the few hard-won rights we already have, such as protection from discrimination, legal recognition, and access to healthcare.
This new, darker chapter that we're entering with the advent of 2023 is a chance for us to take stock and re-strategise. We need to consider what our priorities are (healthcare, housing, and media regulation are my personal top three), what our tactics are, and how we will support and care for one another throughout this fight. We need an approach of no-one left behind, none of us are free until all of us are free, and demanding safety and care.
I started this piece saying I didn't want to alarm you, and I'm aware I've probably done the opposite of that. I've tried to be honest with my analysis and opinion, and I'll be honest here: I know it sounds scary, and I know things are bad.
But I want to end on a note of hope. Our community is already strong, and it's growing every day. We have support from people of all walks of life. We have countless individuals working tirelessly, dedicated to this fight. And we have our love of one another and our community. That love will both ground us and drive us, keeping us connected, fighting, and rested.
Keep building those connections. Keep reaching out to your community. Keep sharing your love with those around you.
I promise you, we are going to win.
We will achieve the respect, dignity, and love that all humans are entitled to.
And I won't leave anyone behind.