“The powerful tendency for public discussion of gender issues to drift, inexorably, back to the male point of view.”

As on here. And in the media. Take Channel 4 news: after interviewing Maya Forstater, they interviewed men from trans groups and 2 sad trans-identified males. What about other trans people interviewed about a judgment which, in paragraph 248, stated:

“we have concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people (whether with or without a GRC). Our reasons for this conclusion follow” (in 15 paragraphs).

How many of these were male vs female? So far, 15 trans-identified men vs 1 trans-identified female. Why should this matter? Well, as said by Susan Smith of FWS immediately afterwards, it protects trans-identified females by ensuring they get the Equality Act’s protections for pregnant women. By contrast ScotGov explicitly told the court that trans-identified women should lose these protections. Only what men wanted mattered. It was women who fought for the rights of all women, even those who feel they are men. So a 15:1 ratio is quite the drift.

Tax KC Jolyon Maugham complained bitterly that the court refused to hear from trans groups. An outright lie. As he wrote last year none applied to intervene. Why not if this was so important? Women’s Hour had a short interview with Joshua Rozenberg in which he reassured men who use women’s spaces now that it’s not a big deal really, and they can carry on as before. Er… no, they can’t and he should know that. Harriet Harman, a lawyer and former Solicitor-General, who piloted the Equality Act through Parliament and is now Envoy for Women & Girls managed to get the law wrong in her post-judgment comment. The male head of Unison announced that none of their trans policies would be changed. Never mind the law, eh! Never mind his many women members, many of them nurses. Might their rights interest him? Apparently not. Perhaps the union’s insurers will remind him of the cost of defying the law. We have not yet reached Trumpian levels of contempt for legal judgments.

The beclowning by people who really ought to know better continued with Anas Sarwar, Scottish Labour leader, stating that he had always been in favour of single sex spaces. Why lie so transparently when we can see precisely how he voted on the GRR Bill, sacking two women MSPs who had concerns? Politicians are entitled to change their mind but if they want to gain any credit, doing it while being flagrantly dishonest about your previous position is ill-advised. As they should have realised by now, women keep the receipts. One day the SNP might explain, apologise even, for putting arguments before the Supreme Court which were the opposite of what they said would happen when pushing their bill through Holyrood. When your choice is being dishonest to Parliament or to the courts, it is you who have the problem. Not those objecting.

Most insulting of all was the suggestion that women should not be triumphant at their victory. The opposite verdict would have removed women’s protections and only a naïve fool would think that men would be told not to be gleeful in order not to upset women. Women won. They are entitled to be pleased and, frankly, relieved. As one of those involved said to me, the judgment is a joy, but also feels like escaping an abuser. Relief, yes, but regret and absolute fury at all that had to be done to get here. Women have been fighting to protect their rights since 2018. It has been an astonishing grass roots movement involving women of all ages, classes, political views across the UK, mediated through Mumsnet, women’s groups, official and unofficial networks in political parties, within professions, in feminist organisations, volunteers, lawyers acting pro bono and many others, women learning about the law, doing the research, demonstrating, speaking, arguing, writing, informing the public and funded by donations from ordinary women (Rowling provided less than 1/3 of the cost of the appeal). Not just this case – but many other victories (Forstater, Phoenix vs the OU – which has settled 3 other similar cases, Bailey, the 2021 census, Meade vs Social Work England, Adams vs the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Pitt vs Cambridgeshire County Council, Higgs v Farmor etc). They have done so in the face of insults, attacks, being told “No Debate, their concerns were not valid,” accusations of every sort of “ism” and “phobia,” loss of jobs, contracts, professional isolation and so on. So, yes, to many women who know the reality, it felt like classic male abusive behaviour.

Those who fought and won are entitled to take pride and joy in what they’ve done. Telling women they mustn’t be triumphant about a victory they’ve worked bloody hard for is just another version of “be kind” ie don’t make the men feel bad. No. You don’t get to tell us – again – that we should put your feelings first. We’ve won the right not to be forced to do that. That is the point of this case. Difficult as this is for commentators to grasp, the important thing about women’s definition in law is not men’s feelings. Women have been saying this for the best part of a decade. Pay attention this time.

Politicians and political commentators might do well to understand how and why this movement happened and how it worked. This is politics in the raw: real, passionate, and effective. They might contrast it with how they tied themselves to and funded lobby groups who sought to embed self-ID without bothering to consult or get agreement or think about anyone other than those who wanted it. It was a dishonest malicious way of proceeding. One example will suffice: the deliberate decision in 2019 in Scotland to make female prisons the place where they would embed self-ID regardless of the law to create a precedent for the rest of the public sector, a decision recorded in writing, such was their arrogance. Targeting vulnerable, voiceless women without the vote, women no-one really cares about and who are often the victims of male violence, by placing dangerous male prisoners with them – a practice which continues to this day – is not a progressive civil rights cause. Hubristic politicians heard only what they wanted to hear from those they funded to tell them. Nemesis will involve learning to follow the law and think about the consequences of the mantras they have so blithely and unthinkingly been chanting like a child’s catechism.

So what is this at heart about? Safeguarding.

Men – because of their superior strength – can overcome women physically and sexually, can make life hellish for them. It is precisely because of this that all decent societies have sought to teach (supported by laws and social conventions) men not to use the physical power they have against women, to restrain their desires and capabilities in order to allow women to live their lives freely and fairly, to the benefit of women, yes, but also men and children.

Safeguarding’s fundamental principle is that you look at which group poses a potential risk to the vulnerable and limit or control access. It is necessarily exclusionary, not inclusive. The group isn’t the issue; the access is. The group to focus on is the vulnerable one and what it needs to mitigate its vulnerability. That is why all men are kept out of spaces and services where women are vulnerable. It is their sex (the single most important factor determining whether someone will be a criminal) which makes them a risk as a category regardless of what individuals in that category are like. Their gender or feelings are irrelevant. It is potential which matters, not any individual man’s intention. A case-by-case assessment might work when choosing wine or hiring an employee but not in a changing room or loo. That is why we should view with some suspicion any group of men demanding access to such spaces. That is why you should never privilege any group with access to the vulnerable because, if you do, that group will inevitably attract predators. That is why the exceptions in the Equality Act exist and why they must be sex-based to achieve their purpose.

Finally: women do not actually have any legal right to single sex spaces. It is the service provider who decides. This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people). One directly enforceable by women not just the EHRC or the HSE. Women should not have to depend on the kindness of strangers for their privacy, dignity, and safety, especially not when the once widely understood social conventions that women need & should be entitled to such spaces are being deliberately broken by those who won’t take No for an answer.

Cyclefree