On Wednesday, 16^th April, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the definition of “women” under the Equality Act 2010 shall be based on binary understandings of sex-based biology. Legally defining “woman” in such narrow “biological” terms means the Court has effectively limited the scope of protections for trans women and other people who do not fit these narrow criteria of womanhood. Defining womanhood in a limited way overlooks women’s intricate and diverse experiences and upholds antiquated, patriarchal beliefs that reduce women to their reproductive roles. (for the full Trans Virtual Centre of Excellence response see the zine below)

Having trouble with accessing this on this page? It is also here.

I was privilege to be one of the speakers at the recent Trans Pride Portsmouth protest. This is what I shared:

The recent decision by the Supreme Court harms many people. This is not incidental it is an intentional choice. It’s racism is not incidental, it’s ableism is not incidental, it’s misogyny is not incidental, it’s transphobia is not incidental.

The new legal understanding of “woman” harms many and makes many of us vulnerable to legal violence. Those of us who do not conform to colonialist ideas of gender. Those of us who are perceived as not inhabiting the ideal body. This decision will effect us the most. Black people and people of colour, immigrants and those seeking asylum, disabled people, mad people, fat people, queer and trans people. And those of us who live at these intersections of these identities and experiences.

The supreme court decision, supported by the patriachy under white supremacy, is all part of the government and 1%s plan to keep us down, to make us feel weak, to divide us. But as I look at this crowd today we are not down, we are not divided and we won’t stay silent!

So, what do we do in the wake of this newest state-sponsored violence?

We look after each other, we show up at protests, we check in with those most effected, we write letters, we give to organisations that are helping to repeal this decision. We give to mutual aid, directly to people affected. We give time, money and energy to trans+ organisations and groups, like Trans Pride Portsmouth and Beyond Reflections and many others. We speak up, loudly and often, in institutions we are a part of. We organise, we create coalitions of trans+ groups, women’s groups, mental health groups, pro-palestine groups, antiracism groups… we have to come together to fight this. And to give ourselves time and resources to rest, recover and heal. 

If you were looking for a sign to get involved in any of this work. Let this be the sign. 

resources

Following information shared by Ruth Pearce (academic researcher), Meg Lightheart (leadership development specialist), Claire Mahon (Exec Dir Global Human Rights Group), Julia D Rowland (Human Rights Officer at GHDR), and Stephen Whittle, renowned UK human rights lawyer, Matthew Carlile developed  a series of resources following the April 2025 Supreme Court Ruling:

1.⁠ ⁠Guidance for Trans Inclusion in Higher Education Institutions

2.⁠ ⁠Guidance for Trans Inclusion in Education (Schools)

3.⁠ ⁠Guidance for Trans Inclusion in the Workplace

4.⁠ ⁠A letter people can send to their employer following the ruling

5.⁠ ⁠A letter which parents/carers/teachers/governors can send to schools, following the ruling.

Please do use, share and edit for your own context, and also give feedback/advice on edits.

The resources are here: 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fO6bSXBmYOCr4GFQO1bZv5l40wkSNesi

The Cass Review had also been critically appraised by the BioMed Central. Read for free here.

My response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) consultation

On the 20th may 2025 the EHRC launched a consultation on updates it has made to its Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, following the Supreme Court’s judgment of 16 April 2025 in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers.

The questions were geared towards the clarity of the ruling as apposed to asking whether the rulings were right, appropriate, ethical or a good use of resources.

Here are some of the thoughts I shared in the consultation:

• The ruling is clear however it is majorly harmful. This strips away the rights for trans+ people who have a GRC and women more generally.
• People in authority feel (and some have acted on) their supposed ‘right’ to call out anyone they believe to not fit the white-centred standards of women’s beauty. It is disgusting and wrong that a few days after the For Women Scotland ruling that Transport for London changed the stop and frisk policy so that trans women would be searched by men. How would they know who is trans and who isn’t? This makes it dangerous for all people, especially trans+ people and people who do not look the typical “woman” including those with short hair (or no hair due to illness), masculine presenting women, intersex people, older women who happen to have facial hair etc.
• It’s dangerous and completely unnecessary.
• The clarity is not the problem, the continued violence towards trans+ people and intersex people is the problem.
• People are scared and you are policing a people that take up less than 2% of the country. Why? For what reason? How completely unreasonable and a complete waste of government money and resources.
• Transphobia and intersexphobia, underlined by misogyny is the issue here. It puts so many people at danger of individual and state violence.
• All of these changes on sex assigned at birth, women-only spaces, sex-based protections are evil.
• It is dim-witted to police a group so small in our country, especially from a group For Women Scotland who do nothing but evoke the patriarchy onto other women and gender minorities. They are a hate group and to have a hate group speak so loudly in court is a disgrace to our judicial system. 

For more information on how you can respond to the EHRC consultation please visit TransActual