In January I posted a card entitled ‘Contentious Issues in the UK’ (PC 420) as a focus to the New Year. I should have added something about the definition of a woman, as events have defined this also as ‘contentious’. After years of acrimonious debate about the ins and out of changing sex, from man to woman, from woman to man, and for those who would prefer to stay somewhere in between, some LBGT pressure groups were, in my opinion, demanding unhealthy, skewed and biased changes to societal rules.

I left the world of paid work some time ago, so this issue is one I read about, care about, but have no real experience of. I read that everyone was being forced to declare themselves I/me/moi/my etc ….. or else! Thankfully the pendulum has swung back from its extreme position. Those who wish to identify in a certain way, by certain criteria, should be allowed to do so. But it’s rubbish to assume that if you don’t declare your pronouns for yourself, you’re somehow against the whole idea. Sadly the polarisation of any topic, any issue seems to be a feature of the current times and that shuts down reasonable debate and acceptance of opposing views.

Britain has a tolerant attitude, in the main, to diversity, but it seems that, anxious to be tolerant, accepting, we allowed pressure groups like Stonewall to bulldoze their way through and into government departments’ policies, dictating their slightly skewed agenda. The threat to individuals was that if they didn’t sign up to the propaganda they would be cancelled. We have enough bullies at the moment. It really was a clear example of the tail wagging the dog (see PC 421 Not The Way to Go January 2025)

It’s not the end of the debate for sure, but on 15^th April 2025 the UK’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. Chris Mason, the BBC’s Political Editor, headlined it as one of the most contentious issues for 2025. It’s worth just quoting one of those who got the case heard: “For years, a lot of us have felt just completely gaslit. That the truth is no longer the truth, that women cannot speak up. That we should allow anyone who wants to be in our sporting categories, our bathrooms, our hospital wards, our lesbian dating sites, that we should just allow anyone that wants to, to just come in. We’ve been told that we’re cruel and unkind, transphobic, discriminatory, that we’re breaking the law. All these things are completely untrue.”

In late April, the European Court of Human Rights (EHRC) released an update on the practical implications of the Supreme Court’s clarification, saying that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities”. It is now compulsory for workplaces to provide sufficient single-sex lavatories, as well as single-sex changing and washing facilities where needed. The EHRC added that “where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities” should also be offered. (Note 1)

So now local councils will have to provide ‘safe’ places, changing rooms, loos etc for the transgender community. Let’s just put this in perspective. In England and Wales 0.5% of the population, some 262,000, have a gender identity that is different from the one they were assigned at birth. And we have allowed individuals, under pressure from Stonewall, to self-identify, the idea that they are the sole authority to determine their sex, regardless of biology.  Compare their needs with those who have some form of long-term illness, impairment or disability. Shockingly, almost a quarter of the UK’s working-age population meet this criteria. It’s also shocking that 45% of those of pensionable age fit this group. There are estimated to be 1.2 million wheelchair users, who are often unable to travel due to poor wheelchair access. So when councils are asked to allocate dwindling financial resources, surely those with the greater need, the majority, come first?  Of course, in an ideal world everyone would be accommodated but it’s unlikely there will ever be an ideal world!

Even among jubilant women’s rights campaigners, there is a feeling that this is just the beginning. They want to challenge the institutions where they believe gender ideology — and specifically self-ID, the idea that an individual has the sole authority to determine their sex, regardless of biology — has taken root.

Kate Barker, the chief executive of the LGB Alliance, which made a submission to the Supreme Court about the importance for lesbians of the primacy of biological sex, argues this anger is misplaced:

“Why are they so mad at women for protecting our spaces and at gay people for protecting our rights [to same-sex relationships] and not mad at the people who have fed them duff legal advice for the past ten years?” Barker asked. “Stonewall and all those groups have spent ten years pushing the idea of self-ID, saying that it might not have quite been the law but it was practically the law. And institutions — particularly places like the BBC — were captured by Stonewall.”

So common sense will need to be applied to this judgment. Organisations will have to try to accommodate the trans community in whatever way they can, in a climate of stretched financial resources. Already many sports governing bodies have said that trans women will not be able to compete in women’s only events; surely common sense?  

We don’t live in an ideal world and the silent majority need their voice heard; not drowned out by a vocal minority.

Richard 16^th May 2025

Hove

www.postcardscribbles.co.uk

Note 1 On 2^nd May Stonewall posted this: ‘It’s important to remember that the ruling is not law as of yet and organisations should wait to see how statutory guidance is changed before making policy changes.” Actually the Supreme Court’s judgement is exactly that, legal clarity as to how a woman is defined and Stonewall’s advice is encouraging organisations to act unlawfully!