Why UK Supreme Court gender ruling is a historic setback for trans rights

In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of a trans woman, Christine Goodwin, who took the UK Government to court over its failure to recognise her legally as a woman or update the ‘M’ on her birth certificate to an ‘F’.

This meant she felt unable to apply for her winter fuel payment as she would have to out herself as trans by showing her birth certificate. It also meant that she couldn’t marry a man or claim her pension at the same age as other women.

The court ruled that being unable to change her birth certificate and having no route to be recognised legally as a woman breached her human rights. The ruling meant that the UK Government had to introduce a law to recognise trans women and trans men as who they truly are. They did that in the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

READ MORE: Supreme Court sex definition will have huge impact and could revive SNP's gender reforms

For trans people, the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman is a real problem (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images

Deep, sincere feelings

Fast-forward to today and the Supreme Court has seriously undermined that law. I’m not a lawyer – and the judgement is long, and complex. But it seems to me that it says the Gender Recognition Act does not apply to the Equality Act because the “ordinary” meanings of the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ or ‘man’ are “biological” ones. That is a real problem for trans people.

A trans person is anyone whose sense of who we are or how we want to move through the world is different from what we’d expect, based on the body we were born with. When a baby is born and the midwife says “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl”, for pretty much everyone that will be a fair description, one they’ll be comfortable with as they grow up to be a man or woman.

READ MORE: UK Supreme Court ruling on definition of woman branded 'abject humiliation for the SNP'

But for trans people, we feel deeply and sincerely that this does not describe who we are, or how we wish to live our lives. That makes us a little… not ordinary.

It means that we aren’t often included when people make laws or policies that apply to sex, or to men and women. The Gender Recognition Act was designed to deal with exactly that.

Privacy and choice

But, of course, in our day-to-day lives – when we go to shopping centres, the gym or into hospital – we are perfectly ordinary. Trans people are your friends, your family, your neighbours and your colleagues – and we just want to be able to go about our daily lives, have privacy and choice about sharing something so personal about ourselves, and be recognised as who we truly are.

That is something most people can take for granted. It is not clear that trans people can do that with the same confidence today that we have been able to for the past 20 years.

READ MORE: NHS Fife urged to concede Sandie Peggie case after Supreme Court ruling

The law has to be able to uphold and recognise the rights of everyone – including those of us whose lives and experiences are a little different from the majority. This decision is no cause for celebration – but for real concern.

I hope that everyone who believes that we should live in a society that is fair, inclusive and equal will join with those of us who will keep making the case that trans people should be accepted, supported and recognised as who we truly are.

Vic Valentine is manager of Scottish Trans