What is a person? This has reportedly turned out to be one of the most challenging questions of our day. Not least for Labour officials. On this insurmountable issue, we’ve witnessed a plethora of positions from His Majesty’s Opposition. There’s the “Starmer Classic”– specifically, that a small percentage of women have a penis. We’ve had the “Cooper Dodge,” in which Labour frontbenchers squirm to avoid answering any questions. And then the standard Labour stance, a line we all waited for: “a woman is a woman”. That makes it clear.
The sad fact is that reasonable people are hesitant to speak out because the transgender rights debate has become so loud. It has become a courageous and risky endeavor to describe the fundamental facts of life. To utter quite evidently maddening truths as “a woman cannot be a man” or “boys and girls are different” will undoubtedly lead to accusations of transphobia, much-maligned extremism, bigotry or worse.
However, the tide is changing in the UK. And that is attributable to the courageous people who stood up for common sense. This is the reason why the female erasure movement has gained less momentum in the UK than it has in the US or Canada. The State has complied with the government’s request to outlaw the use of puberty blockers on the NHS. J.K. Rowling served as the force behind this campaign for people. You’d be forgiven for thinking she’d committed atrocities deserving of long stints behind bars based on the abuse and vitriol she’s received. In a world of fraud and doublespeak, she has transcended politicians to become a representation of reality.
Now she has been accused of “misgendering” – or, to adapt, referring to a man by their biological sex. For perspective, India Willoughby is a trans person. That means, with all regard to India, he is a man. And J.K. Rowling dared to treat him in this way. I was relieved that the authorities determined that her statement of natural truth was not a crime, but I’m concerned that it was later found that it was a non-crime hate incident. If real – and if it contained J.K. Rowling’s private data – this decision has been reviewed.
As home secretary, I changed the guidance on non-crime hate incidents last year to more specifically shield the expression of sex realist views. In fact, Miller v. College of Policing and Forstater v. CGD Europe cases both upheld this principle. In the guidance, I made it clear that a higher threshold was necessary to allow the saving of a non-crime hate incident with personal data, with the test being whether there is a real risk of serious harm to the victims or whether there is a real risk that a potential criminal offense might be committed.
The law is ambiguous, which is the cause why there is so much confusion about everything, from pronouns to how to support gender-questioning students in classrooms. And that is why no amount of guidance, whether on non-offense hate incidents or for schools, can fix the problem. This is the justification for the Equality Act to be amended.
The Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act, in particular, are at odds with one another, which is the root of the issue. When someone acquires a Gender Recognition Certificate in the eyes of the law and doesn’t necessarily need to have their sex changed, they won’t unequivocally be entitled to all the rights that come with having sex.
But the Equality Act protects both sex change, broadly interpreted, and gender reassignment. There is a certain degree of uncertainty about where the line is drawn and where a transgender woman is, for all intents and purposes, still to be treated as a biological man when it comes to using one-sex spaces, access to activities, and the protection of children in schools. In order to ensure that sex means biological sex, as my colleague Liz Truss suggested, we must clarify the Equality Act.
Fundamentally, we cannot legislate for what people may “feel”. It is wrong that those who identify as a different gender must always expect the rest of us to adapt our language or behavior to their feelings. Otherwise, where does it stop? What’s to prevent me from declaring myself a different race, age, or nationality, simply based on my feelings?
A breakdown of truth and justice is the logical conclusion of this debate, which is why we must support heroines like J.K. Rowling in this conflict. From more than 100 years ago, Millicent Fawcett’s rallying cry of “courage calls to courage everywhere” applies now more than ever.
Too many of us squabble and pass this discussion off. More of us have found the courage to speak out for women, for safety, and for sanity thanks to people like J.K. Rowling. The Government must demonstrate that same tenacity and support a legislative change.
