UK Government Cares More About Statues Than Trans People

 

Statues have sparked debate for a number of years now as more people have become conscious to the fact that a number of them have been erected to memorialise people that probably shouldn't be remembered too fondly. Some of the biggest examples of this in recent years were Confederate soldier statues in the United States coming under fire (rightfully so), and here in Britain we've had a statue of Edward Colston, who made a fortune in the slave trade, being torn down and thrown into a river in Bristol.

One event that seemed to galvanise people against statue defacement in the UK was during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, in which the words 'was a racist' were spraypainted on the plinth of a statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. Since then the statue has received added protection during events, up to the point of having police officers form a protective ring around it; lest someone dare come within a foot of something so vitally important.

Winston Churchill is a figure that has become mythologised in Britain to the point where any talk of critiquing the man, or exploring the well documented facts of his life that cast him in a poor light will likely get you shut down on the spot. The Prime Minister during World War Two, Churchill was indeed important to the war effort, and the defeat of the Nazis, but has been transformed into a figure that some believe was so vital to that cause that without him the Nazis would have won, and is therefore immune to criticism or hate. This completely ignored the very real harms that Churchill committed during his lifetime.

'Keep England White' was a Churchill campaign slogan during the 1955 elections. He talked about how white people were a 'stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place' in reference to the destruction of indigenous peoples in countries like North America, Australia, and Palestine. He said that 'Indians breed like rabbits', and oversaw the Bengal Famine, in which three million people starved to death. He expressed his disgust of Asian people in 1954, saying 'I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails'. Churchill pushed colonialism as a form of 'help' for those that were conquered, saying 'by conquering and dominating other peoples, the British were also elevating and protecting them'.

Churchill also believed in eugenics, and pushed for the forced sterilisation of those deemed 'feeble minded'. He wrote openly about his views on the matter, even going so far as to send a letter to the then Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, in which he described the presence of these 'feeble minded' people as 'a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate'. Churchill also played roles in people being sent to concentration camps in multiple countries, and there are some claims that he even supported the killing of 20,000 Kenyans in one such camp following the mau mau revolt.

So we have a man who held awful, racist views and wasn't afraid to share them. A man who wanted to force sterilise people he didn't like. A man who put people into camps. A man who oversaw a famine that claimed the lives of millions. A man who if he was anyone but the man who was in charge of Britain during the fight against the Nazis would be as villainised as they were. Unfortunately, Britain is so steeped in the vestiges of colonialism, it's racist history, and 'wartime nostalgia' that Churchill is seen as a hero despite his awful actions.

Today a new law has passed that would make climbing on the statue of Churchill that stands in Parliament Square a criminal offence, one that could land you with a £1,000 fine, and three months in prison. Whilst the statue is not an official war memorial, it will now be protected under the Crime and Policing Bill.

The Conservative Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer (let's be honest, he's basically a Tory), said 'Sir Winston Churchill stands at the summit of our country’s greatest heroes, and has been an inspiration to every prime minister that has followed him. The justifiable fury that is provoked when people use his statue as a platform for their protests speaks to the deep and enduring love that all decent British people have for Sir Winston. It is the least we owe him, and the rest of the greatest generation, to make those acts criminal.'

'But Amy, what does this have to do with trans people?' I hear you ask. Well, a month ago the UK Supreme Court made a ruling on the definition of woman as it pertains to the Equality Act 2010, and things have gotten very bad for trans people since then. Anti-trans campaigners have called this a victory for their side, with some even being so satisfied that trans people are finished that they've moved on to campaigning against immigrants. Organisations have used this ruling as an excuse to bring in new rules that discriminate against trans people. Some places have even enacted segregation-like tactics, forcing trans people into their own facilities that effectively force them to out themselves as trans and make their lives more dangerous. And throughout all of this Starmer and his government have remained either silent on the matter, or have come down on the side of bigots.

The UK government could shut this down, they could see that this ruling from the Supreme Court has put trans people in danger and change the laws to make it safe for us. They could condemn those calling for our rights to be taken away. They could be doing literally anything. But they're not. They're allowing this, and even making it worse. Let's not forget that this is the same government that decided that puberty blockers were super dangerous and had to be banned, but only for trans kids of course, cis kids could use them without any problem.

The British government doesn't like trans people. The voices within it that are standing up for us are few and far between, and most of the people in power either hate us, don't care enough to say anything, or will back any view that seems loud and popular to advance their own career. That's why the people who are calling for the eradication of trans peoples lives are given a free pass, and why the people who are kicking and screaming about the safety of statues of racist war criminals are listened to. Hell, they're the same type of old, white, hate filled fuckers. Even Starmer's statement that 'all decent British people' love Churchill frames those who disagree as indecent, terrible people. But why wouldn't this 'Labour' frame people that way?

The British government cares more about a statue than the thousands of lives it's putting on the line every single day to appease bigots. This is Britain in 2025, a Britain where the establishment seems to still hold many of the views they'd rather you not know Churchill had.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

Co-op Boss Says Company Will 'Protect Trans People To The End'

 

Shirine Khoury-Haq, the chief exetcuive of the supermarket chain Co-op has issued a letter to all staff members in which she vowed to 'protect trans people until the end'.

Following last month's UK Supreme Court decision that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means 'biological sex' and would align with what was assumed at birth, multiple organisations and businesses have been quick to enact trans exclusionary policies and practices; some of which even suggest segregation of trans people.

In a letter issued to all 54,000 members of Co-op staff Khoury-Haq seems to have refused to allow Co-op to be added to this ever expanding list of bigoted companies. She said 'These are highly talented people who, if they feel loved, if they feel valued, if they feel like they can bring their whole selves to work, their contribution is immense.' at least 1,000 members of Co-op staff are reportedly members of the transgender community.

In the letter she said that she wanted to extend her 'personal support to all our trans and non-binary colleagues, those with trans and non-binary loved ones and anyone who will be feeling the impact of the ruling.'

She said that Co-op would continue to be a 'safe place for people, where they can do a great job but also be themselves'. She also made it clear that trans colleagues would be able to continue to use the toilet facilities and changing rooms that best matched their gender identity. 'If that's 'woke', I'm fine with it'.

'On a personal level, I need to take care of my trans colleagues. I always will, and, as long as I’m there, they will be protected. I will absolutely protect those people to the end.' She added. 

The Co-op runs more than 2,300 convenience stores across the UK, as well as more than 800 funeral care facilities, and insurance providers. 

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

A Spell For Change by Nicole Jarvis - Book Review

 

'Kate has always been troubled by visions of the future. No matter what she does, her disturbing premonitions are always realized—often with terrible consequences. But Kate has swirling, romantic dreams of a strange boy, and a chance meeting in the woods.

'Oliver returned from the Great War disabled, disillusioned, and able to speak to the dead. Haunted by the death of his best friend and his traumatic memories of the trenches, Oliver realizes that his ability to communicate with spirits may offer the chance of closure he desperately seeks.

'Nora Jo’s mother and grandmother were witches, but she has never nurtured her own power. Always an outsider, she has made a place for herself in the town as Chatuga's schoolteacher, clinging to the independence the job affords her. But when her unorthodox ideas lead to her dismissal, salvation comes in the form of a witch from the mountains who offers her a magical apprenticeship.

'Rumours of a dark force stalking the town only push Kate, Oliver and Nora Jo onwards in their quest to determine their own destinies. But as they close in on their goals, each will have to consider whether what they seek is worth the price.'

Times of great upheaval are a wonderful setting for horror, it's why even some of the most small scale and mundane events used for horror stories tend to be some of the more stressful times in a persons life, such as moving home, having a baby, or losing a loved one. But there are some events that are so big that they change the entire world, and the scars left by a global war the likes of which had never been seen before feels almost tailor-made to explore the complexities of the human condition, and the things that frighten us.

Nicole Jarvis' latest novel picks the days following World War One as it's setting, taking readers to the American south of Tennessee to follow three characters whose lives have been touched, and forever changed, by the supernatural. Nora Jo is a young woman who's using the magics and small spells taught to her by her mother and grandmother to help people, but finds her own life in trouble when she's fired from her job as a schoolteacher when it's deemed inappropriate that a woman of her age to be unmarried. Kate is trying to make enough money to get her family out of their racist small town, but is plagued by terrible seizures that give her frightening visions of the future. And Oliver, the only son of a wealthy family, has recently returned home from the war having become disabled by the conflict, and with the ability to see ghosts. 

Each of the three protagonists are facing personal demons, lives harmed by the expectations and limitations put upon them by society of the time. Whether that's ableism, racism, sexism, or queerphobia, the three of them are harmed as much as, if not more than, the supernatural realm that starts creeping into their lives. And the first part of the book spends a lot of time establishing this, with the book being something of a slow burn, giving its characters and setting time to settle in and breathe before things really start to ramp up. I enjoyed this structure, and whilst I'd have liked the three of their narratives to come together a bit sooner as one of the characters was on their own of a bit whilst the other two intersected, I liked being able to learn more about these people before the horror became more overt.

A lot of this first half was also given over to establishing the setting, from the ambiance of the change of seasons to the places that we'd spend a great deal of time. But Jarvis also played around with folklore a lot too, crafting a darker history to Chatuga that gets under your skin and gives the setting a feeling of disquiet that never quite leaves you. It has a quiet folk horror flavour that isn't always explainable, and relies on deeper fears that have been passed down for generations.

Because of the slower pace of story, the trio of lead characters, and the way that the horror creeps rather than jumps out at you A Spell For Change is a book that is best savoured rather than read in a single sitting. It feels like the perfect book to spend a lazy weekend reading, or something to take away on a quiet holiday with you. People might be looking for more historical horror right now, especially ones that put characters first and deal with themes of pain, trauma, and the ways in which society treats those without power. Sinners has ignited a discussion about such themes, and whilst I would definitely recommend a lot of Black written books that touch upon the specific themes of that film those who are looking further afield, and who are looking to read historical horror of any type, will certainly want to take the time to consider A Spell For Change.

A Spell for Change is available now from Titan Books for £9.99.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

Transphobes Protest Trans Inclusion at Highgate Men's Pond

 

Since the UK Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010 numerous organisations have been falling over themselves to use this very specific ruling as an excuse to ban transgender people from spaces and services, claiming that the law has changed and that the are required to do so; something that is incorrect.

One place that has refused to ban transgender people, and change their long standing stance on the matter, are the Highgate Men's Pond. The pond, which has been inclusive of trans men for many years, has a statement on their website (the very first thing you will see there) that informs the public that they are 'working through the implications' of the ruling before they make any changes. They have also instructed their staff at the pond not to engage the public in discussion on the matter, likely so that misinformation isn't given out, staff are safe, and that no one is left upset.

However, a number of transphobic campaigners, who have made the eradication of transgender people from public life their goal, do not find this to be acceptable. These 'feminists' have called the decision to not segregate a minority group 'unlawful', demonstrating that they have about as much of a grasp on the law as they do reality in general.

A very small group of protestors, apparently just three of them if their photo is anything to go by (we'll be generous and say a fourth is taking the photo), decided that the Ponds choice to be careful and thoughtful in their actions was so enraging that they would give up their time to protest the matter. Calling it 'Bank Holiday Men-day' these three/four old white women went to the pond 'dressed as men', donning inflatables, a crown with the word 'thief' scrawled on it, and a fake beard.

49-year-old Venice Allen, one of the transphobes in attendance, said 'We will continue to invade the men’s space until ours is female-only again! There are three ponds and people with gender identities are safe and welcome at the mixed sex pond.

'Not content with breaking the law, the City of London Corporation is now dragging its own staff into complicity. This draconian order appears to gag workers from even acknowledging their employer’s unlawful conduct to the public,' she said. 'It also instructs staff to report any instance of a swimmer having the temerity to question the breach – effectively encouraging them to inform on concerned members of the public to senior corporation bosses. It’s chilling.'

The Pond has indeed instructed its staff not to speak out on the matter, with notices in their staff huts outlining the best course of action to take if someone brings up the matter with them. It states 'Until further notices from our senior management team we must not get drawn into any conversations with swimmers or visitors about the ruling.'

In regards to questions from the public it tells them to reply 'We are continuing as we are until we hear further from our senior management team.' They are also told to pass any questions on to the press office, and report any swimmer who raises concerns over the lack of single-sex provision to their line manager. 'Please make sure you report any issues or inappropriate behaviour related to the above, using our incident reporting form and let your team leader know so we can escalate accordingly.'

Hardly 'draconian', the instructions seem to have been crafted as a way of protecting its staff from potential abuse, whilst also being able to gauge the public response on the matter. Of course, for people obsessed with the genitalia of complete strangers who want the world to work only their way, this would seem like a nightmare scenario.

A spokesman for the City of London Corporation said 'It is completely false to suggest that the City Corporation is not compliant with existing UK law. We take our obligations very seriously and a carefully considered decision in this complex matter will be taken in due course. In line with many other affected organisations we are carefully considering the judgment and awaiting statutory guidance from the EHRC which, by law, service providers must take into account.'

This anti-trans demonstration, which seemed to only consist of three/four people is overshadowed by the multiple pro-trans demonstrations that have taken place across the UK since the Supreme Court ruling, demonstrations that have attracted hundreds of thousands of people, and shows that the general public back trans people more than it does silly women in fake beards who want to boil people's lives and rights down to what genitals a doctor saw when they were born. 

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

More Than 2,200 UK Writers Sign Open Letter in Support of Trans People

 

Over 2,200 UK writers have signed an open letter condemning the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has been used to ostracise trans people, and has sparked changes in policies and guidelines across multiple organisations and businesses that have effectively barred trans people from safe spaces. The letter expressly supports the trans community and calls for others to do the same.

The letter says 'As outlined by the Good Law Project, this Supreme Court hearing took place on shaky legal ground and without the involvement of any trans voices; they also noted that had any trans organisations been involved, they would likely have been faced with harassment and threats.

'The UK has become an increasingly hostile place for trans and non-binary people, with a 186% increase in hate crimes against trans people in the last five years. We are deeply concerned that this ruling will embolden a bigoted but powerful minority in their harassment of trans and non-binary people and attempts to hound gender non-conforming people out of public spaces. This will have consequences not just for trans people but for anyone who deviates from gender norms, making society less safe for everyone.

'This Supreme Court ruling contributes to the erosion of the rights of marginalised LGBTQ+ communities globally. This has been seen recently in Uganda, Hungary and the US, to name only a few examples. Transparency International UK, which aims to fight corruption worldwide, warned two months ago about the impact of private donors’ influence in British politics, “with the US showing what could happen here if money in politics is left unchecked”.'

Signatories of the letter include high profile names such as Russell T Davies, Sara Pascoe, Billy Bragg, James Acaster, Aisling Bea, Kat Ellis, Una McCormack, Lewis Hancox, Jay Hulme, and others.

The open letter can be found here.

This letter is one of many that have been created over the last week from various groups, including UK writers, sportspeople, and historians.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

More Than 1,300 Actors and Industry Professionals Sign Open Letter in Support of Trans People

 

More than 1,300 actors, writers, producers, directors, and other members of the arts and media industry have signed an open letter expressing their support of trans people, and condemning the recent UK Supreme Court decision that has led to widespread transphobia and the roll back of trans rights.

The letter mentions both the Supreme Court Ruling, as well as the interim guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which calls for the segregation of trans people into spaces away from cisgender people, as being harmful.

The letter in part says, 'The UK film and television industry is at the forefront of cultural change. In recent years we have come together in response to the Me Too and Black Lives Matter movements to reflect upon our working practices and uplift a broad spectrum of voices in our society. We must now urgently work to ensure that our trans, non-binary, and intersex colleagues, collaborators and audiences are protected from discrimination and harassment in all areas of the industry - whether on set, in a production office, or at a cinema.

 'We applaud Equity’s response to the Supreme Court ruling and commitment to its trans members, and call upon our cultural institutions, including Bectu, BAFTA, BFI, Directors UK, Picturehouse, BBC, Writers Guild and Channel 4, to join us in condemning the Supreme Court ruling by using their public platforms to make meaningful commitments to protecting trans, non-binary, and intersex members, talent, and staff from discrimination within their respective organisations.  

'Film and television are powerful tools for empathy and education, and we believe passionately in the ability of the screen to change hearts and minds. This is our opportunity to be on the right side of history.'

Signatories of the letter include high profile names such as Bella Ramsey, Ncuti Gatwa, Nicola Coughlan, Emma Watson, Emma D'Arcy, Neve Campbell, Hailey Atwell, Ken Loach, Alice Oseman, Russell Tovey, Katie Leung, Sonam Kapoor, Arthur Darvil, and others.

The open letter can be found here.

This letter is one of many that have been created over the last week from various groups, including UK writers, sportspeople, and historians.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

Open Letter to the Football Association Demanding Reversal of Trans Player Ban

 

On the 1st June the Football Association (FA) announced that it would be banning trans women from playing football across England, following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex in the Equality Act. This decision will affect players on teams down to the grass roots level, and will include children's games.

The announcement from the FA said 'This is a complex subject, and our position has always been that if there was a material change in law, science, or the operation of the policy in grassroots football then we would review it and change it if necessary.' It is worth noting that the Supreme Court ruling was not, in fact, a change to the law that requires the exclusion of trans people, but simply allows for organisations to be able to segregate them if they wish to.

'The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 16 April means that we will be changing our policy. Transgender women will no longer be able to play in women’s football in England, and this policy will be implemented from 1 June 2025.' They continued. 'We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify, and we are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game.'

This decision was met with loud applause from transphobes, idiots, and bigots, but has received harsh condemnation from the majority of people, including huge swathes of female football players, who have been open and welcoming to trans players on their teams. My own sister plays on a team that has happily played against multiple trans women, and has indicated shock and anger at this decision.

Goal Diggers FC, a non-profit football club open to all players, including trans and non-binary people, established in 2015 has created an open letter to the FA demanding that this unfair and unreasonable ban be reversed. The letter compares the ban on trans players to the 1921 ban on women playing football, and has described the Supreme Court ruling as a 'stain on this country's reputation'.

The letter is open to anyone involved in football to sign, and I urge anyone who is able to add their voice to this letter to help try to raise awareness, and attempt to force the FA to see reason and decency.

The letter can be found here.

The FA are only one sports body to use the Supreme Courts unscientific decision as an excuse to ban trans people from their games. England Netball has banned trans players from single sex categories and forced them to play in mixed games only, the England and Wales Cricket Board has banned trans women even down to the recreational level, and the Scottish Football Association has banned trans women from playing. These new bans follow on from a number of sporting and recreational bodies that banned trans players before the Supreme Court ruling.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

Biology is not Binary - A Letter From Doctors, Biologists, and Other Experts to the Minister For Women and Equalities

 

A group of UK biologists, doctors, and experts in science have created a letter to Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities, outlining how sex is not only not binary, but that trying to create legislation that restricts people's rights under this assumption leads to active harm.

The letter, which has already been signed by dozens of people with expertise and knowledge in the field, urges Phillipson and the government to take action to restore the rights of trans and non-binary people in regards to their access of public spaces. The letter goes on to explain why a strict binary doesn't exist in biology, and breaks down how there are multiple factors that make up a persons sex.

The letter can be accessed here.

Those with relevant expertise in the field are urged to add their names to the list of signatories to try and show the government how this new ruling has no actual basis in science, and must be reversed.

The British Medical Association, which represents more than 50,000 young doctors, has also spoken out on the matter, calling the decision 'biologically nonsensical' and 'scientifically illiterate'. 

Anyone with a basic understanding of human biology and sexual development understands that sex isn't a strict binary, and that this is only told to very young children in order to give them a foundational understanding of human biology. Unfortunately, many transphobic campaigners only have a five-year-old's understanding of science, and are ignoring actual experts in the field. Hopefully this letter, and the BMA condemnation, will go some way to showing why this is a complex issue, and restricting rights based on unscientific views is dangerous.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

Barclays Bank To Ban Trans Women From Toilet Facilities

 

The chief executive of Barclays Bank, CS Venkatakrishnan, has confirmed to news outlets that Barclays branches will ban trans women from women's toilet facilities, claiming that they have made this decision to 'comply with the law'.

This decision comes in the wake of the UK Supreme Court ruling that woman is limited to 'biological woman' only, when it comes to the Equality Act 2010, and that sex means sex assigned at birth. The Supreme Court made this ruling without receiving any evidence or consultation from trans people or trans groups, but allowed evidence to be given by openly transphobic organisations. They have also failed to define what 'biological sex' actually is; something that is impossible to do as people exist on a spectrum of sex, and trying to define sex would lead to massive exclusion for people who do not fit a narrow, incorrect definition. 

Following the Supreme Court decision the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) rushed out interim guidance in the middle of the night that said trans people should not only be excluded from the single sex spaces that match their gender expression, as they have been doing forever, but that they should also be excluded from the spaces that match their assigned birth sex. This guidance effectively segregates trans people into a third space, or excludes them entirely. 

Neither the EHRC interim guidance, nor the Supreme Court ruling call for the exclusion of trans people from these spaces under law, but simply allow businesses to be able to do so if they so choose. As such Venkatakrishnan's claim that Barclays are barring trans women from women's spaces is to comply with law is blatantly false, as this is not law. Barclays have instead made an active, willing choice to make the lives of trans women harder, and to further marginalise them.

CS Venkatakrishnan, a man who talks about inclusivity
whilst harming his staff.

Venkatakrishnan told reporters 'Following the Supreme Court ruling… we believe that we have to comply with that by not allowing trans women to use female bathrooms.' He went on to add 'We strive in every way to make the appropriate facilities available in a comfortable way for people to use and to provide equality of opportunities and development.'

In perhaps the most tone deaf and insulting moment Venkatakrishnan claimed that Barclays was 'committed' to equality and equal opportunities for all of its staff, a statement completely undercut by his actions. 

'There should be an inclusive working environment where everybody should be comfortable and have the best form of personal expression.' He said, after announcing that that will not apply to trans women. Perhaps his ideal workplace where everyone is comfortable is a workspace that doesn't have trans people in them, something that his new toilet policy would be pushing for.

Barclays is a bank that is not safe for trans people. It's not safe to be there as a member of staff, and it will not be safe to bank with them. Their bosses spout buzzwords about inclusion, yet will introduce policies designed to segregate, humiliate, and harm a vulnerable minority group. I urge all those who bank with Barclays and believe in trans freedom and trans rights to move their accounts to another bank, and show these disgusting wankers (not, that's not a typo of bankers) that we will not approve of their bigotry.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky

Questioning Supreme Court Gender Ruling 'Unacceptable' Says Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood

 

The Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has claimed that questioning the decision made by the Supreme Court in regards to their recent ruling on sex and gender under the Equality Act is 'absolutely unacceptable'.

Speaking to Parliament's Human Rights Joint Committee, Mahmood has condemned criticism of the ruling. She said 'I think it’s disappointing since then that some individuals have sought to question the validity of the Supreme Court or cast aspersions, which is absolutely unacceptable.

'I think they’ve done their job and I think they’ve sought to do it in a way that recognises that we’re talking about a balance of rights, but sought to give confidence to a minority community that they still have protections.' She went on to say that she believes the ruling 'provided legal clarity'.

This is not the first time that Mahmood has spoken out on topics that directly impact trans and queer people, and has been criticised in the past for taking positions against LGBTQ+ rights. In 2019 she came under fire for complaining about relationship and sex education and it's age appropriateness. She was criticised for this, as she only complained about LGBTQ+ relationships being taught, implying that primary school children learning about some families having two dads was somehow not acceptable, yet finding no issue with children of that age learning about heterosexual families.

She has also been vocally in support of 'gender critical' people (anti-trans activists and bigots), claiming that they have faced harsh treatment when they've been held accountable for holding awful views. Mahmood said that she agreed with 'gender critical' people on their stance of biological sex, and that she supported comments made by known transphobe JK Rowling.

It would appear that Shabana Mahmood is no stranger to skirting controversy around the queer community, and with having spoken out in defence of transphobes in the past she would seem to likely share many of their views on trans women, and the larger trans community. As such, it's no surprise that she has come out in defence of the Supreme Court ruling.

'Gender critical's' celebrating the loss of trans rights.

Now for some language that will probably be a little offensive, so I apologise for that in advance, but fuck Shabana Mahmood, and anyone else who claims that we should be unable to question this disgusting ruling. It is frankly offensive and insulting to suggest that people rightfully questioning the law, especially one that is being used to enforce segregation and strip a vulnerable minority group of rights, protections, and safety. I believe that it's unacceptable to not question that.

Two week after the Supreme Courts ruling that women under the Equality Act is defined as 'biological women', they have yet to clarify what this actually means. What is a biological woman? What is the necessary condition required for being a woman? Is it chromosomes, and if so what about all of the various chromosomal configurations that fall outside of this supposed binary the court has claimed exist? If it's the ability to produce eggs and have children, what about infertile women? If it's genitals, what about people with intersex conditions that don't have clear, defined genitals that fall into one of two rigid boxes? Of course we have to question this ruling Shabana, it makes no fucking sense! There is no clarity whatsoever, and the Supreme Court's response of 'well common sense' means absolutely nothing, differs from person to person, and is completely unenforceable.

This ruling has to be questioned because it's impractical. Organisations are falling over themselves to be the most exclusionary ones around, introducing policies that ban trans people from all single sex spaces. But how will that be enforced? Are we going to have to show ID to use public bathrooms and changing rooms? Will there be someone there to test chromosomes? Are we going to have to undergo genital inspections before being let through the door? Again, none of this has been explained, so of course it needs to be questioned. But then also anyone with an ounce of real sense knows that it's only ever going to be enforced by bigots who are going to judge based on appearance, and that we're going to see a huge uptick in people being harassed for not looking 'woman enough' to be in certain spaces; something that will affect trans and cis women equally.

All of this is ignoring the fact that the UK Supreme Court doesn't create the law, it simply interprets the law, and that the government has parliamentary supremacy, which means that we could simply create a new law that makes things fair and clear, rather than listening to this ridiculous decision that's already started to ruin lives and makes no sense.

Question this law. Question most laws. If people didn't question the fairness, validity, and worthiness of laws there would still be countless injustices happening in the world that were at one time fully legal and acceptable that we've now agreed are terrible things. The ill treatment of trans people is of course unjustifiable. It's a reactionary hate movement based on recycled prejudices and open hate that is actively making the world worse. Not only should it be questioned, it should be openly opposed at every turn.

Support Amy on Patreon

Buy Amy A Coffee

Go to Amy's Blog

Follow Amy on Bluesky