Flawed judgement with detrimental unintended consequences
London, UK – 16 April 2025
“UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that single-sex spaces can only be lawfully used by people according to their sex at birth – not according to their gender identity. This is a flawed judgement that will have detrimental unintended consequences and be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce,” said LGBT+ campaigner Peter Tatchell:
“The implication is that trans men should use women’s toilets and changing rooms, which will cause immense distress to many women on finding an apparently ‘male’ person in their single-sex space. It will also mean that trans men will be obliged to use women’s refuges and rape crisis centres, causing extreme ill-ease to vulnerable women users. Conversely, it also suggests that trans women should use male toilets, which could make them more vulnerable to robbery and rape.
“On top of this, it will likely mean that gender non-conforming women who look or dress insufficiently feminine – may end up being mistaken for trans women and face unpleasant, even aggressive, challenges in women-only spaces. It’s already happened, where non-trans women are accused of being trans and get abused and threatened.
“The court’s ruling says ‘women’ means ‘biological women’ – not trans women. But it did not define a biological woman. Biological sex comprises a constellation of physiological attributes: chromosomes, hormones, genitals, reproductive organs, brain structures & secondary sex characteristics such as breasts and body hair. Which of these define a woman? Trans women who have undergone hormone treatment and surgery possess most of these attributes. Some people assigned as female at birth do not.
“Supreme Court judges made their decision after receiving representations from five trans-critical pressure groups but received no submissions from trans organisations! Judges would never dare make a ruling on race issues following representations by advocates of racial segregation and without hearing from black organisations. Double standards!
“The whole toxic case against trans women is based on stereotypes and generalisations: that they are sexual predators, violent misogynists, wear beards and get sexual kicks from wearing women’s clothes. Trans critics would never dare make such sweeping generalisations about Asians, Jews, Africans, Catholics, LGBs or Muslims. But that’s exactly what they do about trans women. It’s a tactic straight out of the playbook of far-right extremists.
“Indeed, trans critical feminists are saying much the same things as homophobic tyrants like Trump, Musk, Putin, Orban, Erdogan and, closer to home, the UK’s right-wing cheerleaders, Farage and Badenoch. Doesn’t that worry them?
“The court’s ruling has been misinterpreted and exaggerated by opponents of trans inclusion. It only applies to the Equality Act 2010 – not to any other legislation. Trans people are still protected against harassment and discrimination.
“The judgement does not create new law. It merely reiterates the long-standing provisions of the Equality Act: namely that single-sex spaces are allowed to exclude people if it is proportionate, justified and necessary to protect the safety, well-being and dignity of women. A blanket ban on trans women in all women-only venues, which is what some anti-trans campaigners seem to want, would be unlawful.
“As former Supreme Court judge, Lord Sumption, pointed out, the Equality Act allows the exclusion of trans women in certain narrow limited circumstances, but it does not oblige or require their exclusion. Excluding trans people is optional, not compulsory. This means that single-sex space providers can choose to include trans women if they and the users agree.
“A friend of mine works in a women’s centre. For the last seven years, it has welcomed trans women with the agreement of the staff and women users. There has never been a problem. So why would it now make sense, and be reasonable, for trans women to be suddenly excluded?
“The truth is that trans women have been using women’s toilets for decades, without women noticing or caring. The vast majority of trans women pass for women. They are indistinguishable with regard to their physical appearance and dress, and they deport themselves with sensitivity and respect for women.
“There have been only a handful of incidents where trans women have behaved badly and where men with malevolent intent have posed as trans women to commit sexual assaults. What misogynist would-be rapist is going to go to the bother of buying a female wig and women’s clothes and make up, in order to enter a women’s toilet? He will just barge in or, more likely, waylay a woman in a park, on a near-empty train or in a poorly lit street late at night.
“The ultimate problem with the Supreme Court’s ruling is how is it going to be enforced? It’s virtually impossible. Are birth certificates going to be demanded of every woman who enters a women’s toilet and changing room? Will women and girls have to show their genitals? Are police going to be stationed at these facilities to arrest transgressors? These are absurd questions but they have to be asked because the judges’ decision has absurd implications.