All About Eve
Members of the EAST SUSSEX WOMEN’S RIGHTS NETWORK welcome the positive outcome of the
court ruling that sex means biological sex
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?
It has now been just over 100 days since the seismic Supreme Court Ruling, which stated that under the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ means biological sex. The Act lists nine characteristics legally protected from discrimination including ‘sex’ so this means the word ‘woman’ is a clear, legally protected definition. For years, women defending single-sex spaces and services have faced job losses, abuse, and censorship. This Supreme Court ruling marks a significant shift which affects the female half of the population. If ‘woman’ doesn’t mean biological female, women’s rights lose meaning. This isn’t just semantics–it’s about safety, fairness, dignity, and reality. Biological women have specific needs and face distinct risks that can’t be addressed if a ‘woman’ is defined solely by self-identification.
WHAT HAPPENED?
You’d think this win for women and girls would be welcomed, especially by institutions that claim to support us. But in East Sussex there has been mostly silence, or worse.
The local Trades Union Council mounted a noisy protest against the ruling, calling it hateful and ‘anti-trans’. They had nothing to say about their female members’ rights to dignity and safety at work, such as single-sex changing rooms.
A key local charity, which supports therapy for vulnerable youth, posted ‘‘trans rights are human rights” but offered no assurance that girls’ rights matter too. They said nothing about ensuring their young female users will be guaranteed access to female therapists or same-sex peer support groups, that exclude males who identify as female.
Hastings Pride neglected to mention how the Supreme Court ruling finally supports lesbians who wish to create events and spaces that exclude males who identify as lesbians. Not much of the ‘L’ in LGBTQ+ then?
Hastings Women’s Voice, a publicly funded women’s group, were ‘appalled’ at the ruling and declared, “there is no debate” and “there is no feminism without trans women”. Not a single word in support of women or girls who need female-only spaces, services, or support.
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN’S VOICES?
When women speak out, they’re bullied, smeared, and shut down. Institutions don’t defend them, they pile on. Instead of celebrating a legal win, we get name-calling: ‘TERFs,’ ‘fascists’ and ‘haters’.
Women’s rights feminists are opposed to and thus have been stopping ‘gender affirming care’ for children; that is hormone treatments, puberty blockers, breast binders, and surgery . These gender affirming measures have been cited by trans activists as preventing young folk who have body dysphoria from committing suicide, but there is no evidence that’s the case. This isn’t about hate. It’s about facts. And the fact remains that it’s women who are being silenced.
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN-ONLY SPACES AND SERVICES?
The law hasn’t changed – it’s been clarified. Biological sex does matter. That’s why single-sex services exist: for safety, dignity and fairness. Women are disproportionately affected by male violence and in Sussex, violence against women by men is rising. Girls face different challenges during puberty. Women are physically disadvantaged in sports. And some services must be sex-specific: rape crisis centres, hospital wards, toilets, changing rooms, intimate care, school support, and breastfeeding help.
Sussex Police record crimes by trans-identified males as if committed by women. Girls in schools are scared to use mixed-sex toilets. Mothers are told to accept ‘chest feeding’ men in their breast-feeding groups.
Until the ruling, many women-only services included males who identify as female – making ‘women-only’ meaningless. For years there’s been no women-only rape crisis support service in Brighton. Following the SC ruling, a long-standing court case brought by a woman called Sarah was won earlier this month, resulting in a new ‘only biological women’ support group.
This isn’t about saying trans people are dangerous. It’s about safeguarding, and that’s based on risk, not identity. Most violent offenders are male. That’s why we separate spaces by sex. Our sons, husbands, and brothers manage this rule just fine. Women shouldn’t have to justify needing boundaries. Men who insist on accessing women’s spaces show no understanding of these issues or respect for us. It’s especially not our job to validate anyone else’s identity in toilets or sports.
Crucially, women were never consulted before men’s self-identification as women became accepted policy across every part of society.
THE INCLUSION LIE
Many public bodies are now responding to the ruling saying ‘It’s complicated.’ It’s not. A woman is an adult human female. A trans woman is a man who identifies as a woman, otherwise they would simply be a woman. That’s not hate – it’s a fact. Many people who identify as trans agree, but are too scared to say so.
The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t take away trans rights. They’re still protected under the Equality Act. People who identify as trans can and should campaign for inclusive, gender-neutral spaces. But that doesn’t mean redefining ‘woman’ to include men.
By putting males in our spaces, you exclude the very women those spaces were built to protect – especially the most vulnerable: abuse survivors, refugees, girls navigating puberty, or women from cultures that require strict sex segregation.
SPORT MATTERS TOO
Letting males compete in women’s sport – even after hormone treatment – causes real harm. It’s unfair, increases injury risk, and pushes out female athletes. And after all the effort it’s taken for women’s sport to be taken seriously, why undo it now?
THE DOUBLE STANDARD
Unlike abuse towards trans people, misogyny isn’t a hate crime. The slur “TERF” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) is openly used to silence women and was even used at the April TUC protest in Hastings. Meanwhile, women defending our rights are banned from events, de-platformed, and smeared.
This year, East Sussex Women’s Rights Network wasn’t allowed a stall at Hastings’ International Women’s Day event. Consider that: a grass-roots women’s rights organisation, barred from a women’s event. All beliefs were welcomed and protected at the event except the belief that men aren’t women.
Narrow outdated and restrictive gender stereotypes of women and girls have been resurrected by trans identifying men. It’s not at all progressive to think that a male who likes traditionally feminine things must be a woman. It’s regressive. But a man who wants to expand the bandwidth of masculinity without infringing on the rights of women – that would be radical and welcome.
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN SPEAKING UP?
The law is now crystal clear, so don’t be misled by schools, employers, or institutions. If a ‘women’s’ service includes males, it is ‘mixed sex’. Be confident to ask these bodies how they’re now complying with their clarified legal duty.
You don’t have to keep quiet or ‘be kind’ and include males at the expense of your own discomfort. You don’t have to share your changing room, your hospital ward, or your sports category. You don’t have to make space for men in order to be considered good, or progressive, or nice. Biology is not bigotry.
There is no one way to look or behave as a woman, but to be a woman well, that means something.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Fantastic article. Provides an excellent summary of the key issues. Thank you for publishing.
Yes it’s great to see some balanced common sense in a media publication. So many media outlets seem in thrall to what amounts to a religious cult of transgenderism.
Really good to read the voice of reason. Protecting women’s spaces for biological females is not hateful.
Thank you for publishing this article. Women’s voices have been silenced for too long!
Thanks for publishing this. Clear explanation of the situation, particularly the last section. Woman is a sex, not a feeling.
Thank you so much for this article. Well overdue to see some rational thinking regarding women’s rights.
I truly enjoyed this fantastic article. I’m fully aware of the battle women have had, protecting there spaces for the past 10 years or so. It’s nice to see such a clear and honest, factual piece, to bring awareness and clarity to our plight.
I must have missed the facts, references and evidence. Could you highlight them?
Excellent article.
Great to read this article about how important the Supreme Court Ruling is for the protection of women and girls. The ruling simply clarifies what the law already says. So it is crucial that all public bodies and private business follow the law. It’s not a tually difficult.
Thank you for pushing this article.
Thank you so much for this informative piece. I am really glad the law was made clear on the need for and importance of having biological sex as a definition in the Equality Act reserved for female people.
Always amazed at how angry people can get about women saying nothing extraordinary. How the country got to a place where women are openly threatened and bullied for mild opinions will always baffle me
Thank you for this clear, thoughtful and fair article. ‘Biology is not bigotry’ really sums it up!
Thank you so much for publishing this excellent article.
The law has been clarified and now needs to be followed.
Spot on!
Great article – measured, factual and very informative. Depressingly rare to see women being given a voice on this without interruption or censorship but everything here is spot on so hopefully local people will see what is really true. Good on you, HIP! This simply states the law and the consequences for women when that law isn’t followed, why is why the law is there in the first place!
Well done for publishing this well balanced take. Factually correct and sensible. True feminism.
What a refreshingly honest appraisal of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the travesty of the backlash women who fought for their rights have continued to face.
Thank you to Hastings Independent Press for publishing this excellent explanation of why so many women (and men) all over the UK support women’s and girl’s rights to single-sex spaces and sports. These rights were fought for over centuries. Let’s not go backwards, but forwards together.
Thank you to Hastings Independent for being brave enough to print this article which is a clear statement of why women’s rights need protecting. It is clearly unfair and unsafe to women when men are allowed to use our single sex spaces and to compete in women’s sports. It is a violation of women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety. A trans identifying man is a man. A man can never be a woman.
Fabulous article – congratulations on publishing this. I’m sure I’m one of many people who feel we’ve been unheard for a decade or more and finally the situation is being brought into the light. More like this please!
What a well balanced and well written article. I hope it’s read by some of the people who shout down women with gender critical views
So refreshing to read this. Crazy it take courage to write something as basic as a woman is an adult human female and risk the violence of the minority that disagree. I really hope Hastings Women’s Voice have by now changed their mind or changed their name to Hastings Men’s Voice!
Trans women are women. They don’t take anything from cisgender women, they just want to exist freely.
The only reason someone can be called Trans woman is because they are male. There’s only male and female.
Agree
That’s quite simply not true. If a transwoman (aka a biological male) is in a women’s space, it’s no longer single sex. If transwoman who has the benefit of male anatomy and puberty is allowed into women’s sports, women do not win. These are facts, not hate. One can care both about transwomen and fairness to women.
They do ‘exist freely’- it’s absurd to suggest otherwise. What they cannot do is access women’s facilities, safe spaces, sports etc. They are still able to access men’s facilities. Hyperbolic declarations are not worthy of consideration and certainly not a reason to infringe on women’s rights.
As a cis woman I was deeply saddened to read this article. Defending trans women’s rights doesn’t reduce support for cis women’ rights; on the contrary, it shows support for all women.
By trying to narrowly categorise the definition of a ‘woman’, there is a danger of excluding those cis women that do not fall into the mainstream idea of a woman. This does nothing to promote the rights of women.
The world can be a dangerous place for women, but it is not the trans women we should be afraid of. I have absolutely no problem sharing a toilet, changing room or hospital ward with trans women.
After all, trans women are women too.
100% agree! <3
Thank goodness for the SC ruling! Because of this all persons continue to have protections including in the workplace against discrimination as well as the human right to privacy and dignity—under their sex category.
If a female says “I am male” this is false. If someone affirms this, it becomes lawless. If a female wishes to express a masculine identity through adoption of a particular stereotype, this is fine, not necessarily lawlessness unless it became a universal principle that every female did this, it could then become a problem—hence why we need norms.
However, note, to be lawless removes all freedom, to say persons can act in any way without bounds is to bind all peoples.
Except trans women aren’t literally women are they? If they were they wouldn’t be trans! And we could all be talking about something else…
No, they’re not. Every single one of them is a man down to every single cell in their bodies.
Please define the ways in which a transwoman is a woman, apart from an idea in the mind, and enlighten us as to the ways in which an idea in somebody’s mind should compel the rest of society to fall into line.
Being a woman isn’t about how one looks, but about one’s biology. No person born female will ever be excluded from being a woman because of how she looks. She may be temporarily mistaken for a man, but that can quickly be sorted out. Similarly, a man may be temporarily mistaken for a woman, but again, it can be quickly sorted out – often just by saying the word “No” to him. That usually sorts the men from the women.
There’s nothing “narrow” about a definition of woman based on biology – it includes 51% of the population.
If you allow that anyone who says they are a woman IS a woman then there are no safeguards or protections for women based on biology.
Riikka, you have your argument upside down. It is gender critical women who say there is no right or wrong way to be a woman. You can be bald, make-up free, childless, hysterectomied, in trousers, with unshaven legs, playing football and riding a motorbike while smoking a pipe and still be a woman. The one and only criteria that you have to meet in order to be a woman is that you are biologically a female. If you are not biologically female, then you are biologically male and any idea about making yourself into a woman is based on everything other than biology: stereotypes and ideas about what ‘women feel’ and what ‘women enjoy.’
GC women really don’t care if men feel they want to emulate social stereotypes of women, such as wearing long wigs to cover their male pattern baldness. We don’t care about men wearing makeup. We don’t believe toys have ‘genders’. What we DO mind is men asserting that slipping on a dress or thinking what they imagine are ‘female thoughts’ changes their biology, and that this then entitles them to have access to every single place on earth that women fought for to have as single sex spaces for their own privacy, comfort and safety. The law gives us these safe spaces for a reason. Only someone ignorant isn’t aware than trans-identifying men commit crimes at the same rate as other men. Trans-identifying men are over-represented in UK prisons as sex offenders. Claiming to be trans does NOT turn them into women and it does NOT give them female-level risk of offending. It’s genuinely a worry that you and others are so naive about this.
If men who claim to be women feel unsafe in male changing rooms and toilets, that’s a male problem for men to sort. Instead, they decided they’d take entitled option, which was to just enter female facilities at every opportunity, from open plan showers to rape crisis centres, not caring if THEY made OTHERS feel uncomfortable or unsafe. When offered perfectly reasonable alternatives – unisex or mixed sex spaces with other like-minded people, they refused. Validation as women and access to women was all that was really wanted.
In short, the pushback is because men who identify as women thought their needs were absolutely at the top of the pecking order and women’s came below. They used violent and aggressive threats to bully and force their way into spaces. They showed no willingness to debate, no desire to listen, no interest in any feelings other than their own. And that’s why the Supreme Court has recognised the risk posed by allowing men into women’s spaces and said NO.
Agree
Magnificent
Good to see such clarity. Not an attack on anyone, just a straightforward explanation of what women need and why.
Excellent article clearly setting out the facts. Biology isn’t bigotry – spot on!
Disgraceful that WRN were barred from the Hastings IWD event – “women, know your place! Subservient to men!”
No thank you!
Good article. More please.
You’ve made me cry with gratitude. Thank you for telling it how it really is. To include males in female spaces isn’t progress, it is the erosion of women’s rights. And you can feel sympathy for people with gender dysphoria AND be a feminist. Recognising that females deserve dignity and privacy and safety un vulnerable spaces is not “transphobic”. In gratitude, Laura
I’m hugely disappointed that HIP published such a divisive article without checking the facts. Opinion is one thing, but spreading misinformation is another.
It claims women’s safety is at risk, yet there’s no evidence that trans-inclusive spaces endanger women; crime stats and reviews show no such link.
It dismisses gender-affirming care, despite peer-reviewed research proving it reduces distress and suicide risk.
And these groups aren’t excluded by local orgs because they are ‘pro-woman’, they’re excluded because they reject inclusion.
Framing this as women versus trans people ignores the law, the evidence and the reality which only fuels division instead of solidarity.
98% of sexual assault is committed by men. A higher proportion of transwomen are in prison for sexual offences compared to prisoners who are not trans identified. It seems pretty clear to me that allowing male-bodied people, however they identify, into spaces where women are either vulnerable or in need of dignity and privacy is likely to increase the risk to women.
The case of Katie Dolotowski, the trans identified man who preyed on pre-teen girls in supermarket toilets, indicates that trans-inclusive spaces do indeed endanger women and girls.
Suicide rates among young people are higher for those in households where at least one parent has a degree level education, where the household is not religious, where the household is mixed race, or, for boys, where they have special educational needs. These are not obviously households that also, by coincidence, contain trans children. The idea that being trans increases suicide among young people has not been proved.
There is no evidence that medical interventions to suppress puberty, or using drugs to induce symptoms that mimic the secondary characteristics of the opposite sex, or brutal genital sugeries with high rates of revision & failure “prevent suicide”. The peer-reviewed articles to which you refer all have huge methodological flaws, refusing to account for confounding variables such as engagement with therapy & the use of mood stabilising drugs being the most egregiously obvious & almost universal example. Sample recruitment is often hopelessly flawed, using online surveys that anyone can complete & complete as often as they like being commonplace, sample sizes are usually too small to be of real significance & though studies are often announced as including analysis of suicidality, when published the issue has mysteriously vanished from the findings or, in the few more honest cases, the researchers report little or no change after treatment. To make matters worse, the loss to follow-up of gender clinics is perennially high & Hilary Cass was *refused* access to data on patients who had moved on from the Tavistock to adult services. That refusal by the adults clinics echoes the self-styled “World Professional Association for Trans Healthcare”‘s suppression of studies it had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University & Dr Joanna Ohlsson’s years-long suppression of her own govt-funded research because even she could not massage the figures enough to show that medicalising children & adolescents distressed about their sex did their mental heath any good at all. That research has at last been published but not until after her hospital shut down her “flagship” gender clinic & only because without the shelter of the hospital, outright refusal to publish govt-funded research could leave Dr O-K personally liable should the govt seek to recoup the many $millions she had received in grants.
The rate of completed suicide among trans-identified teens & young adults is mercifully low, as the two long-term Finnish studies discussed here demonstrate; https://segm.org/Suicide-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescent-Young-Adult-Finland-2024
In the UK, irresponsible campaigners & parents with massive sunk cost in the medical transition of minors have made horrific & untrue assertions about suicide in their efforts to overturn the ban on using GnRHas to arrest chronologically normal puberty Consequently, one of the UK’s leading experts on suicide, Professor Louis Appleby, was asked to perform a review to determine whether withdrawing the intervention had indeed resulted in a spike in suicides, as eg; Jolyon Maugham KC, of the Good [sic] Law Project claims.
Reader, it had not. It had obviously escaped the attention of a tax law specialist like Mr Maugham that the suicide of *any* underage person in the UK is investigated & notified to a central database. One cannot simply invent a suicide risk that does not exist, at least not if one wishes to behave ethically. Here are ProfAppleby’s findings; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust-independent-report
Nobody seems to have told you that the patient cohort has changed radically in recent years – a far higher proportion of those presenting to gender clinics, child & adult alike, have serious mental health co-morbidities, something once screened out by the old “gatekeeping” model. In adult services, even severe schizophrenia is no longer a bar to medical “transition” which is an unpardonable dereliction of medical ethics.
Constantly harping on a risk that is at most negligible serves only to inculcate suicidality. Please don’t do it.
Well said.
Correction – should read, “Dr Joanna Olson-Kennedy”.
Really good article. Kudos to Hastings Independent for publishing such a clear explanation of why the clarification of the law by the SC was necessary.
Thank you for publishing this article and to the brave women of ESWRN! Women and girl’s need same sex spaces and the ruling has brought clarity.
How are you promoting this terf nonsense? There is quite literal evidence that access to gender affirming health care saves lives. It’s irresponsible to post this transphobic article suggesting otherwise.
Hi Liam – glad you care so much much. But – that’s not correct. There is no reliable long-term evidence that medical transition reduces suicide risk. The Cass Review and multiple systematic reviews found the opposite: the evidence base is “remarkably weak.” Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones carry serious risks, and outcomes often worsen rather than improve. Saying “affirming care saves lives” is a slogan, not a scientific fact. Safeguarding children means basing decisions on evidence, not ideology.
I’m afraid that the evidence to which you refer is, though peer-reviewed, staggeringly weak. Neither peer-review nor publication are guarantees of robust findings – you need only look at the amyloid plaque scandal that has unfolded in dementia research to understand that, to say nothing of the broader Crisis of Replicability.
In the absence of robust medical evidence you’re going to have to try find solid arguments for your position, framing all disagreement as “transphobia” doesn’t work anymore.
What a pile of manufactured outrage this whole charade is that will end up harming many people including cis-women. Pointless fearmongering not proportional to actual facts and data.
I’d be very interested to know what part of defending females rights to privacy, dignity and spaces without males being in them – is manufactured outrage?
Why do you not feel women’s have rights?
this article is for a certain subset of ‘women’ and feminists who feel all our experiences are the same and therefore we should celebrate something that harms others but doesn’t harm them…yet. not one mention of intersex people or global majority cis women, often misgendered or questioned about whether they are ‘woman’ enough, now being hounded in the ‘safety’ of the bathroom. Also, i don’t understand how mixing up the use of biological sex – male/female and construct of gender – man /woman in law or here makes it clearer for everyone. using them interchangeablely just shows the point that it’s not simple, it’s subjective. To end the article ‘There is no one way to look or behave as a woman, but to be a woman well, that means something.’ but not recognise you are advocating for the opposite would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous.
Deanne, the only person mixing up sex and gender is you. You said: “mixing up the use of biological sex – male/female and construct of gender – man /woman”.
Men and women aren’t constructs of gender. They have meanings based on biological sex. A man is an adult human male. A woman is an adult human female.
Men with gender identities aren’t women just men with a belief. Feelings aren’t physical bodies.
It is you who advocate for regressive stereotypes. That women with short hair and no make up should be called men or men with long hair wearing make up should be called women.
Men are men whatever they look like. Women are women whatever they look like.
Deanne – despite the name “Intersex people” – more properly called peopled with differences of sexual development AKA DSDs, are not in-between sexes – they are people with genetic abnormalities who do not appreciate being dragged into your poor arguments as some sort of gotcha.
Biological sex is always, and I mean always, binary. Everyone is one or the other regardless of genetic conditions or trans identification. Humans can’t change sex.
Great article. Clear, factusl shd exposes the harmful nature (and to be honest, complete madness!) of gender ideology. Thank you!
I can’t believe this piece actually went to press . In this day and age .. really ? I have no more to say on the matter as it has been discussed at length elsewhere but just know that businesses and outlets that received HIP this week have thrown all of the copies out , not even good enough for the bottom of one persons parrot cage . What a waste of copies and upsetting many readers 👏🏻
Yes, Paula, in this day and age women’s rights matter as much as they ever did. Your inability to counter anything in the article, instead resorting to a comment unworthy of petulant adolescent, is duly noted.
Shame on you.
Brilliant!
This article is hateful and nasty and I’m surprised you felt it was a good idea to publish it. Why can you not all just be happy for people being their true selves? When has a trans person ever made you feel threatened? And to say that a a women’s charity or an LGBTQIA+ event should not be trans inclusive is ridiculous – who do you think you are?! Just let people get on with their lives!
Please point me to the sections that are “hateful and nasty “.
Referring to trans women throughout as “men calling themselves women” ignores the legal reality that any trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate is, in law, a woman — whether or not the authors approve. At the very least, they could have chosen the term “trans women” to differentiate without resorting to inflammatory wording.
“M Dresser” – Trans women are male. Entirely 100% male for all purposes. some small point of legal action does not make a male female, ever, in any way whatsoever. It is not hateful to say the sky is blue, water is wet and trans women – are men.
The provisions of the GRA are limited & administrative, they do not create “women” out of men, given that mammalian sex is immutable that would constitute a miracle & as such, it is beyond the powers of law & medicine alike.
He can’t. Calling anything that challenges the ideology that is causing so much hurt and harm to women’s rights and children’s well-being ‘hateful’ is all they have.
What a shame that your editors haven’t noticed yet, that East Sussex is broadly inhabited by wonderful, inclusive and kind humans with a range of gender identities and sexualities.
Just a reminder that trans women are not a threat, men with intent to cause harm are.
But what about women that are afraid of men because of sexual abuse, etc?
Don’t they have a right to have a space where they can feel safe?
Or do they not matter?
To be afraid of ALL men, because of the actions of a few, is bigotry. Try justifying this opinion with any other group of people.
We all have the right to feel safe. Being told that as a trans-person I’m a threat to women’s safety doesn’t help me feel safe at all. There are better ways to help women than hating on men and trans people.
No,it’s not bigotry. Unless you’re proposing that the basis of *all* protective legislation (which applies blanket constraints to prevent the worst excesses of the few rogue players) is bigotry.For example, the vast majority of males have absolutely no problem not having free access to female spaces and services.)
Or are you suggesting that women’s and girls’ (let’s face it, warranted) fear,is bigotry? Accusing women of “hating on men” because we don’t want to share spaces with them when we are vulnerable, and when almost 99% of violent sex crime is committed by males who, on a routine basis, pretend to be something they are not, as part of their dissembling strategy,seems to me extremely manipulative.
98% of assaults are carried out by males.
20% of the UK make prison population is in for sexual crimes.
48% of the male transgender UK population is in for sexual related crimes.
YOU are doubtlessly not a risk. However given those stats – I will not ever permit males in female spaces. And I am afraid that covers all trans people. Clearly everyone, trans people included needs access to dignified facilities, but we do not do that by allowing males in with females.
So you don’t mind using men’s facilities then? Good for you.
Thank you for showing courtesy and empathy to women by keeping to the gents/men change areas. And thanks for making it superclear that you do not speak for women
I don’t fear trans people in restrooms—and I believe most women, including abuse survivors, agree. My real safety concerns are pubs, parks, and public transport. Since you advocate for single-sex spaces, will you push for those too?
You may not fear men in women’s toilets but my sister does. Does she not count? What do you think she should do?
“My real safety concerns are pubs, parks, and public transport. Since you advocate for single-sex spaces, will you push for those too?” really says it all. It says to me that you think that my sister doesn’t matter. That you are entirely blind to another person’s fears. That she should avoid going out and having some sort of life. That’s called self-centred and shows a real lack of empathy.
I don’t fear men in toilets, I just don’t want them there because they are men. Transwomen are men and do not belong in female only single sex spaces, services and facilities. This is not always about fear. It’s about decent men, whatever they call themselves doing the right thing and staying out.
Claudine, the problem is not ‘trans people’ but men – including some of those who ‘identify’ as women. Newsflash: Some men are violent and predatory – most are not. This is true whatever they ‘identify’ as. None belong in women’s spaces.
Claudine – No it’s not trans people who are feared – it is males – and all trans women are male – who are just as likely to carry out sexual or violent assaults – in fact if you look at the UK prison population – it’s higher
Trans women are males. Males carry out violent ands sexual assaults. Therefore they should not be in female private spaces.
Indeed. That these facts need to be stated is evidence how just how far gender ideology has penetrated and undermined the basic human rights of girls and women.
Feel free to share bathrooms with men at your own risk, Claudine. Maybe at home in your “gender neutral bathroom”? Or seek out mixed-sex facilities & enjoy yourself – even though mixed-sex public bathrooms & changing rooms are statistically much more likely to place women and girls at risk of not only sexual assault but the most common “gateway crimes” to male sexual offending, namely voyeurism & exhibitionism.
What you cannot do, no matter how enamoured of your self-righteous virtue-signalling you are, is consent on behalf of the rest of us: not for me, not for my mother, not for my daughter, not for Muslim & Orthodox Jewish women who require spaces free from males.
Other people have rights too: something the transgenderist movement seems woefully resistant to accepting.
So you have asked every single abused woman, women self excluded from a rape centre because they would not guarantee single sex provision, we have had cases where a trans identified male stayed in a female domestic abuse shelter, who took photos to prove his morning wood as it was put at the time. Men who say they are women should not be in places where there are vulnerable women. Single sex spaces are essential, voyeurism is going up due to mixed sex spaces so much so that swim England now state single sex spaces should be provided. Every demographic of men has some males within it that sexually assault or rape or even video, we cannot ignore this we have to protect women and girls.
As a cis woman, trans women aren’t men and therefore I do not fear them, let alone in the bathroom
Natascha – and you can choose FOR YOU but you cannot choose for every other woman and every other child. If YOU want to go into the mens – please do. However we don’t want males – and all trans women are male – in the female spaces. as they keep assaulting and raping people, whether they have a dress on or not.
Cis men (not all cis men) keep assaulting and raping people – fixed it for you. And please Harry, continue to tell me how other women feel. Or better yet focus your anger where it should be directed, not trans women, but cis men. Trying to villainise a minority that just want to *exist* without fear, instead of going after those that make ALL women’s life dangerous (👏CIS👏MEN) is silly Harry.
@Natascha – it’s males that do it, not cis males, not trans males. males.
Though 48% of the UK male trans population is in for sexual crimes.
Only 20% of the UK cis male population is in for sexually related crimes. Why is that?
Natascha, you are so worryingly misinformed.
More than seventy percent of trans women are in prison for sex offences or violent crimes. That’s HIGHER than men who don’t identify as women. Source: ‘ Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates’ – UK Government – Parliament Committee report. Link provided, unless moderators remove it.
They are proven to be an elevated risk, no matter how much you want to be kind.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/24/government-figures-70-per-cent-of-transgender-prisoners-are/
As an abuse survivor I can tell you with certainty I’m not afraid of all men and don’t spend my life only with women. I’m only afraid of the men who rape and beat you until you are close to death. Check the figures on how many are trans.
This is essential reading for those, like myself, who missed the bit where malign players successfully replaced equality for women and safeguarding for children with men’s rights. The reality of what’s been allowed to happen under the guise of inclusion and equality is so unlikely, it’s easy to dismiss or ignore – especially as the media seem to be strongly disinclined to report the facts.
Thank you HIP for publishing this, I allowed myself a little kindness in sending you a small donation.
What a bunch of transphobic bull. So disappointed to see HIP publishing this.
Calling facts “transphobic bull” doesn’t change reality. The Supreme Court has ruled that sex means biological sex under the Equality Act — that means women are adult human females, and trans women are men. Defending women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety isn’t hate, it’s safeguarding. Biology is not bigotry.
I do like the way they describe themselves in their own article :Narrow outdated and restrictive.
As a former journalist I can safely say this is an opinion piece. When you start reading words like ‘some, many, all’ you know it’s not factual and is defamatory.
Stand out line :”Most violent offenders are male. That’s why we separate spaces by sex. Our sons, husbands, and brothers manage this rule just fine.”
So who is raping and killing their wives/daughters/mothers? And are these incidents only occurring in shared spaces?
Absolute nonsense. Genuinely thought it was written by a teenager when it was sent to me. It wouldn’t even have made it into the free paper in my city. A disgrace to all humans in society but a great lesson in shockingly poor journalism.
I wonder how many of these comments are made by members of the WRN… As expected, the ruling has made life worse for my wife, a cis woman, who doesn’t fit the ignorant expectation of what a woman looks like. What about her rights and safety?
Your wife’s rights and safety are not harmed by the Supreme Court ruling — they are strengthened. The ruling did not create new definitions; it clarified the Equality Act 2010, confirming that sex means biological sex. That protects all women, including those who don’t fit stereotypes about how women “should” look or behave.
A woman who is gender non-conforming is still female, and her rights are grounded in that reality. Nobody is saying she must look a certain way to be recognised as a woman. What undermines her rights is the claim that men can simply declare themselves women. If being a woman is reduced to identity, then the word becomes meaningless — and with it, women’s legal protections.
So the truth is: your wife’s rights come from her sex. That is what the ruling affirms. Trans women are men, and women are adult human females. Recognising that is not ignorance — it is the legal and biological foundation of women’s rights.
The safety of cis-women comes into doubt when non conventional presentation means that the sex of an individual is unknown.
As a cis-woman using a female space, if there is a question regarding biological sex, i.e. “they look like a man” then the SC ruling gives the law permission to force this woman to reveal her genitals to use the space.
Does this woman now feel safe?
Where in the SC ruling is there any mention of the law forcing anyone to reveal their genitals?!?!
It doesn’t.
But it’s a common erotic fantasy for some of the men who are very invested in the idea of invading women’s spaces.
I’m a highly gender-non-conforming woman. I’ve been (briefly) “misgendered”… and it was fine! I was surprised & then amused – and glad people are interested enough to preserve women-only spaces. (This was about 15 years ago: I doubt they thought I was trans).
The moment I spoke (and laughed) it was obvious to anyone with eyes & ears that I’m female… I didn’t even have to show my c-section scar.
No, it really doesn’t. Where in any law is anyone required to reveal their genitals for any legal purpose? The Equality Act is not criminal law, so it only gives permission for someone to sue the venue that allows a man in, and it is up to the venue to make sure that they accurately identify such men in a way that doesn’t breach that man’s dignity and privacy. If they can’t do that, they can just get sued. No-one is getting physically touched or arrested. Feel safer now?
Why would you imagine that the Supreme Court ruling or the Equality Act allows anyone to force others into revealing their genitalia?
Which part of the ruling or the Equality Act is it that you think allows for that?
I’m afraid that women being forced to reveal their genitals is simply a fantasy that is now being used under the guise of concern for women.
Please can you link to the clause or part of the Supreme Court ruling that you have interpreted to mean this
Thank you Paul for your continuing robust defence of women’s right to safety and dignity, something which these activists routinely treat as irrelevant, because all that matters to them is getting what they want.
Trans women are women. Many, many cis women agree with this statement – please do not act as if you speak for all of us, because you do not. Sex and gender are vastly more complex than chromosomes and genitalia, and the obsession with the latter is disturbing at best. The overwhelming majority of violent incidents against women are perpetrated by cis men, and trans women are 4 times more likely to be victims. But don’t let facts get in the way of your bigotry.
Disappointed in this article, disappointed in the Hastings Independent for publishing it. You could have at least punctuated it properly.
The article doesn’t even mention genitalia though, does it? Doesn’t seem like much of an obsession if it’s not even mentioned.
Trans women are men. Many, many cis women agree with this statement – please do not act as if you speak for all of us, because you do not.
Sex is very simple and always comes down to the binary of Male or Female – always regardless of chromosomes, outward appearance or anything else
The overwhelming majority of violent incidents against women are perpetrated by males – trans or otherwise
Trans women (men) are not more likely to be victims if you tae into account they are males and males assault males.
Wonderful article thank you HIP. Obviously I’m disappointed that people want to destroy the paper rather than let people make up their own minds..that’s the opposite of free speech.
I’m outraged that people think they have the right to decide what other people may or may not be allowed to read.
It’s the actual definition of fascism – i.e. stop people reading anything other than ONE side of an argument.
The tone of this article js stirring up hate towards a group of people who don’t deserve it. They deserve understand and compassion, something that, it seems, is lacking with the readers of this publication.
The author seems to massively misunderstand the law. And after reading I think that’s quite intentional.
Can you be more specific please? Which aspects of the law do you think the author has wrong?
This article for (what it is) is mostly a massive distortion of the truth
It presents a deluded uninformed and prejudiced attack on Trans people
This does NOTHING to further womens rights by attacking Trans people
It is the clearest form of exclusion and cruelty against people who have done nothing wrong
The agenda it represents is a gender critical view which represents a absolutely tiny minority of people
Hasting is well known for being overwhelmingly a welcoming town abd is not represented by this bigoted nonsense!
Can you explain why you believe that you are speaking for the majority?
This is an article supporting biological women’s rights, it does not speak against the rights of trans women.
Disgusting bigotry only a few weeks after the town celebrated Trans Pride Hastings, and in your issue before Hastings Pride. Clearly strategic as the trans solidarity protest that you write so incorrectly about took place back in April. Sack your transphobes. There is no place in this town for vile hate like this. Most of Hastings is proud of its diversity and celebrate the LGBTQIA+ community, as you well know.
Thank you for confirming that “Hastings & Rother Rainbow Alliance” opposes women’s rights & very particularly opposes lesbians’ right to freedom of association.
This is misinformation and is factually incorrect throughout. The assertions are lazy and based on prejudice rather than statistics, research and fact. This is an appalling and one sided article that stokes hatred and prejudice. Please do better.
Please point out every point that is factually incorrect, ideally by reference to the sections of the Supreme Court judgement, the Equality Act & data which you believe has been misrepresented here.
Many thanks
As a CIS gendered lesbian feminist of a certain age the only people silencing my voice are this group of women who claim to talk for me. Don’t know why you published this nonsense that is a narrow and reactionary view of feminism. Adds nothing to the fight against the patriarchy and for the rights of all women.
This article does not represent my feminism and lesbianism, or the opinions of many women and men,queer or straight that I know. I am not threatened by transgender women but I know that they will be less safe since the supreme court ruling.
I am upset that HIP chose to publish this divisive piece that is so full of misinformation, even giving it a whole page. I look forward to reading the counter opinion piece that I hope will be given the same prominence.
Upsetting on so many levels and horribly written. A full page opinion piece with recycled narratives, looking like they chatGPT’d the article to gain their info. Would really love a follow up, if it is independent journalism as in your name, some actual facts would be useful. Harming others to make yourself feel safer is not a ‘we all win outcome’. Trans women are women.
Great article. Men are not, and never can be, women. Otherwise the category of woman ceases to exist. It is apparent from the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that this is a men’s rights movement, given that a man who identifies as a woman does not lose his right to inherit under male primogeniture laws and a woman who identifies as a man can never inherit under those rules. So even the GRA makes it abundantly clear that a certificate containing the wrong sex marker does not give the holder the right to be treated as the opposite sex in all regards. Ergo, it is acknowledged that each holder remains the sex they were born and a GRC is a legal lie produced to appease the holder. Women were not consulted when this Act was being drafted. Whenever ‘trans’ rights are discussed, women and our rights rarely feature. It’s as if male demands conquer all. All this talk about inclusion never considers that this ideology effectively excludes women in a variety of ways. We make up 51% of the population, yet men and their desires override everything.
Well said Alison. I think what supporters of trans ideology also fail to takr on board is that if we allow the definition of ‘woman, to be changed such that it is about identity and not sex, we are telling a lot of females that they are no longer women and therefore no lo ger eligible for the protections whoch have been set up due to the discrimination women face. This is a very bigoted position to take. One does not need to have a gender ide entity to experience discrimination on the basis of one’s sexed body.
That is an excellent point you make, Alison.
Can anyone from the trans side please explain why they are not donning their black balaclavas and paramilitary boots and marching with banners to demand that a woman who identifies as a man cannot leap frog over her younger brother and inherit her father’s title?
Very well said, I completely agree.
This hate-filled article is disgusting, and it’s cowardly that the writer’s name was left out.
I’ve supported this newspaper since it started, but now I worry: will you also let people who support racism hide behind anonymity just to appear ‘balanced’? I stand with the trans community. I’m proud to live in a town that embraces and supports each other.
I’m really disappointed. You need to do better.
There is nothing “hate-filled” about stating legal and biological reality. The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Equality Act, sex means biological sex. That is the foundation of women’s rights, not prejudice. Comparing that to racism is unfair and wrong — women defending their right to single-sex spaces are not attacking anyone, they are safeguarding their own safety, privacy and dignity.
Standing with the trans community should not mean standing against women. A town that truly “embraces and supports each other” must also respect women’s boundaries and acknowledge that trans women are men, and that women are entitled to spaces of their own. That isn’t hate, it’s fairness.
What Claudinbe said! There is balance and then there is misinformation and fear mongering labelled as opinion. It is a very slippery slope in these times. HIP needs to take its responsibility to factual reporting on these dog whistle divisive issues much more seriously.
“hate-filled article”
Hey Claudine I read it three times searching for the “hate” you can see. I cannot find it. Would you please point out the “hate-filled words”? Thank you kindly.
Are you really equating women’s rights with racism?!
Racism is rightly condemned by the laws of this country. No public authority approves of racism.
Sex realism, or being critical of gender ideology, is a protected belief (like veganism and belief in climate change) have passed the tests in Grainger to be “worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Racism, however, would never become WORIADS because it threatens the fifth Grainger test, in that it “conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.”
It is worth reflecting whether the thought-terminating cliché “transwomen are women” would also fail Grainger V, as it clearly conflicts with the fundamental rights of women.
On reading this article again, I am struck by it’s tone of reasonableness to disguise bigotry.
Also,maybe local services are quiet about SC ruling because it is a load of nonsense, still being challenged in the courts, and the services care about human rights and dignity
How did we get to the point where respecting women’s rights is called bigotry? The Supreme Court ruling isn’t “nonsense,” it’s the highest court in the land clarifying that sex means biological sex. Nothing is “still being challenged in the courts” — you can’t challenge the Supreme Court, that’s why it’s called Supreme. This matters because women’s rights have always been based on us being female, not on identity. Local services may be quiet because it’s uncomfortable for them, but pretending women don’t need single-sex spaces is what strips away dignity not defending them.
You e misunderstood a lot here Henry. Disappointed in you. You should look a lot more at that ruling.
It’s a very clear ruling & runs to only 88 pages, can you specify what it is that you think Henry has overlooked?
The SC clarification is most certainly not being challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court is just that: the highest court in the UK and no lower court can ever overrule it.
Only Parliament can change the EQ Act the way you want it changed, and there is no movement to do so. In fact the Labour government thanked the SC for the clarification and stated that it would make sure the law as it stands is upheld.
And PS women are also human, and also have rights. Your side wants to deny that, but legally it is the case.
I am saddened that this article has provoked such a hostile reaction to the extent that people are angry with HIP, a volunteer run, free and informative community newspaper. Do I agree with everything written, no of course I do not and there are other pieces in this edition which I found unhelpful. Should I organise a petition and a dumping of the newspaper for that? If I want to read only things I agree with I will stay in my bubble. Surely the important thing is to discuss these issues and address the concerns raised hin that and, of course, the concerns raised by many trans women and trans men. How can we increase understanding and potentially change our opinions if terms like Transphobic and TERF are bandied about rather than taking the concerns seriously. Many disagree with the points made and, of course, that is their right and there is this online space and letters too. But I am interested in everyone living a dignified and fulfilled life, where they feel safe and secure. What are the barriers to that for our communities and what are the causes and the solutions? I believe that as well as creating a society that is not based on capitalism, there are practical things we can do now to address the concerns. I believe that working o develop them would also help increase understanding, at least about the reasons for the concerns from “both sides” even if we think the concerns are unfounded. Working together may create that reassurance that trans women are not hated by feminists and that feminists raising concerns, eg about self ID deserve to be heard and taken seriously. Surely we need to be able to have conversations without shouts of “transphobe” or “misogynist” banded at people who are trying to find a way through. Natal women in some situations often really do feel vulnerable, eg in prisons, in health settings and so on. We are not going to be able to create a society that works for everyone if we dismiss rather than engage with those who have views we disagree with. Otherwise we just stay in our bubbles and little changes.
I’m in my 60s and have encountered male-to-female transsexuals from time to time over decades. But I never witnessed any hostility on either side until about ten years ago, when one side exhibited entitled demands, anger, aggression, intimidation, threats, and indeed actual violence against women.
I was caught completely off guard, not knowing what to think and not understanding where all this fury and hatred had suddenly appeared from.
Then one of my Facebook friends was actually punched in the face by a man who, although he made no effort whatsoever to look, act or live like a woman, demanded that everyone say he was one. (He was tried and found guilty of assault.)
When in 2018 a small group of concerned women in Hastings planned a small, peaceful, indoor public meeting, open to all, the venue and its staff were threatened with violence and was forced to cancel. During the meeting, the new venue had to be guarded by the police! Nearly 30 such meetings across the UK were forced to change venues, or to be guarded by police officers, for exactly the same reason.
And yet every pro-trans meeting in Hastings and everywhere else went ahead without the slightest objection from the concerned women.
Since then I’ve witnessed more violence, death threats being made, banners demanding that any woman who won’t adopt and parrot the beliefs of the other side be hanged, raped, etc, and I’ve seen on YT men with megaphones calling for women be punched if they don’t agree with him.
If someone can find a solution Leah, that would be grand.
SHAME ON THE HIP for publishing such disgusting bigotry and misinformation.
SHAME ON THE WRITERS of this “article” for hiding behind anonymity.
Can’t wait to see you (HIP) follow up on lines 1.) 3.) 5.) 6.) and 8.) from your Mission Statement.
Trans rights are women’s rights.
In solidarity,
A cis woman/feminist/trans ally from East Sussex
“Trans rights are women’s rights.”
ALMOST right. The fact is, trans rights destroy women’s rights.
Publishing an anonymous piece that exhorts people not to “keep quiet or be kind”, and challenge anyone they think might be trans in changing rooms etc, is dangerous and irresponsible.
What kind of world do these people want to live in? One with constant scrutiny of anyone who might not present as feminine enough? Doesn’t sound like a win to me.
The only good thing this article has done is shown the strength of support for trans folk in our local community. Hastings is a welcoming and tolerant place and most people have no time for this nonsense. Over 300 people have today signed an open letter in support of trans people and against the misinformation repeated in this article. Please add your signatures. http://www.change.org/HastingsIsTransInclusive
The only good thing this article has done is shown the strength of support for trans folk in our local community. Hastings is a welcoming and tolerant place and most people have no time for this nonsense. Over 300 people have today signed an open letter in support of trans people and against the misinformation repeated in this article. Please add your signatures. http://www.change.org/HastingsIsTransInclusive
There are men and women. Maybe trans should identify as Femman and Maman. All with their own private spaces. Just a thought
I am truly disappointed at this sorry excuse for journalism – how on Earth has this horribly biased and factually incorrect article been published?
Trans people – especially trans women – have been subjected to an ever increasing barrage of hate in recent times, fuelled by the hateful and false rhetoric purveyed by JK Rowling and her ilk. This has not just taken the form of online abuse, but has been evidenced by a disturbing increase in the amount of physical attacks and bullying meted out to trans people. This article has just added more fuel to the fire.
Hastings Independent please do better…
I am truly disappointed at this sorry excuse for journalism – how on Earth has this horribly biased and factually incorrect article been published?
Trans people – especially trans women – have been subjected to an ever increasing barrage of hate in recent times, fuelled by the hateful and false rhetoric purveyed by JK Rowling and her ilk. This has not just taken the form of online abuse, but has been evidenced by a disturbing increase in the amount of physical attacks and bullying meted out to trans people. This article has just added more fuel to the fire.
HIP please do better…
It isn’t hateful to recognise reality or to defend women’s rights. Trans people already have the same legal protections as everyone else under the Equality Act. What’s being debated is whether those rights override the single-sex protections that women are entitled to in law.
The claim of a “wave of attacks” is often repeated, but the data doesn’t show rising hate crime convictions – reports have gone up, but prosecutions and evidence of actual violence have not. Meanwhile, women and girls are losing privacy and fairness in sport, changing rooms, and refuges.
Journalism should be able to discuss these conflicts openly. Asking for balanced safeguarding is not “hate,” and defending women’s rights is not “fueling violence.” Both trans people and women deserve safety, but safety cannot come at the expense of erasing sex-based protections.
I have contacted the area regional managers of the coop supermarket chain and they will be removing the Hastings independent and no longer stocking the paper. Coop is an inclusive, pro trans company which supports our LGBT colleagues. This article is shameful in its prejudice towards trans people and makes our trans colleagues feel unsafe in the locale.
Ah, yes, censorship instead of engaging with the issues.
By what right do you decide for others what they can read?
This just looks like the actions of someone who doesn’t have any real arguments to counter those put forward in this article, so just tries to suppress women’s voices.
Why have you done this? It’s not up to you to police what others read.
Thank you for providing a demonstration of exactly the hostility to women’s rights & legal protections that made the Supreme Court judgment necessary.
As you’ve brought up the Co-op, it’s worth pointing out that their trans policy does not conform with the law & never did. They have their own lawyers (though they do seem to need better ones) & therefore are not reliant EHRC guidance as a small business might be, they should already be compliant with the law & should never have been in breach. I hope they soon find themselves answering to an Employment Tribunal for their discriminatory practices.
Could you supply the name of the manager you contacted so I can pass it on to the CoOp head office to ask what they think of a branch banning a publication based on ONE article that some people don’t like?
Bigotry is simple.
Biology is not.
Biology is actually very simple: humans are male or female, defined by whether they produce (or are organised to produce) sperm or eggs. Disorders of sexual development don’t create new sexes, they are medical variations within the two. Recognising this isn’t bigotry, it’s basic science — and it’s the foundation of women’s legal rights to single-sex spaces.
This column is just that, an opinion piece not based on facts (gender affirming care IS life saving, please find information on higher suicide rates of under 18s and the corelation with longer waiting lists on receiving such care)
Trans women are women and should be in all women spaces.
This group’s focus should be on cis men, not trans women.
Stop punching down on minorities who just want to exist in safety and have equal rights.
Trans people already have the same rights as everyone else under the Equality Act. What they do not have is a greater right to override the privacy, safety, and dignity of women and girls. Your right to go into a mixed-sex space does not give you the authority to open up female-only spaces to males. That is not your right to give away.
The claim that under-18s have higher suicide rates is not supported by evidence. The Cass Review and NICE both found no robust correlation between waiting times, medical transition, and suicide outcomes. In fact, the suicide rate for gender-distressed youth is comparable to other groups with mental health conditions, and the evidence shows no improvement in long-term mental health from puberty blockers or hormones. “Gender-affirming care saves lives” is a slogan, not a proven fact.
Trans people deserve respect and safety, but women’s rights are not negotiable. Equal rights cannot mean erasing single-sex protections for half the population.
I see very few ‘facts’ in this article that would stand up to things like science and statistics.
Sure, it’s ‘only’ an opinion piece, but filled with hateful and harmful bigotry.
Think about this: It’s statistically more likely for someone to have genitals that fall out of the usual binary (~1%) than for someone to be born with natural red hair and green eyes (~0.5%). So why is the latter more accepted by people than the former?
Anyway, I’m currently reading a scientific article on PubMed about a genetically XY, typically presenting woman giving birth to her second child, who is also genetically XY.
PubMed ID 18000096.
It’s a good, if dry read.
I think a few points need clarifying here:
• Intersex ≠ transgender. The 1% figure you mention is misleading. True disorders of sexual development (DSDs) that result in ambiguity are very rare (closer to 0.018% according to the largest medical reviews). Most intersex conditions are minor chromosomal or hormonal variations that do not change the fact of being male or female. They don’t create a “third sex.”
• Red hair comparison isn’t relevant. Red hair is a visible trait variation within male and female bodies. Intersex conditions are medical disorders, not identities, and don’t change the binary of human reproduction.
• PubMed case studies don’t overturn biology. The article you cite (PMID:18000096) is about an XY individual with a specific DSD (most likely androgen insensitivity). These very rare conditions don’t demonstrate that sex is mutable – they show how disorders can affect sexual development, while the categories male and female remain biologically defined by gametes.
• Evidence on medical transition is weak. Major reviews (NICE 2020, Cass Review 2024) concluded there is no high-quality evidence that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones improve long-term mental health outcomes. Suicide risk is not demonstrably reduced. This is why countries like Sweden, Finland, and the UK have moved away from “affirmation only” models.
Recognising biological sex is not “hateful.” It’s a factual safeguard for women’s rights and child welfare. Trans-identifying people deserve respect and dignity, but that doesn’t mean we abandon evidence or women’s protections.
What Claudine said! There is balance and then there is misinformation and fear mongering labelled as opinion. It is a very slippery slope in these times. HIP needs to take its responsibility to factual reporting on these dog whistle divisive issues much more seriously.
Excellent article. Thank you HIP for providing a space where this can be discussed. As can be seen, there is a great diversity of views on this subject. We should all be allowed to say what we think, rather than terrified into silence by the trans lobby, as has been the case for the past eight years.
I am very surprised that this article was published especially without any reply or balance or the counter view being represented. I sadly think the only thing this achieves is whipping up the debate and causing more division. The debate has already been divisive and extreme. I imagine if there was a proper dialogue there would be space for agreement and consideration. The debate itself is becoming too polarised. The rights of women are not advanced by the taking away of rights of trans people. If you do not fight for the rights of others your own are lots. Let’s me constructive
The trans-activists will be given a right to reply. They’ve already replied on other platforms and attempted to ‘cancel’ Hastings Independent Press by bullying local businesses to boycott it. No rights are being taken away. The only rights in danger are the rights of women, girls, and gays. People in the UK who call themselves trans have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
Astonishing you publish a terf “opinion” piece like this. As it has been up for a week it can’t just be a rogue staffer. I have to assume this is HI saying what they believe. That will be my direct debit cancelled then.
Operation women must not speak unless it’s to agree with men is alive and well I see
Who is the author of this opinion piece? They keep mentioning facts but provide no evidence. Even at GCSE level we were always taught to use citations, evidence and to present both sides to an argument before reaching a conclusion.
I’m a lesbian and I really resent anti-trans people trying to act as if they are acting in our interest. How ironic that they mention pride when trans people literally started pride. Please stop using us as ammunition in your hate war.
I’ve played sports for years and never thought twice about playing contact sports against and with trans-women, or sharing changing rooms with them. Has the author ever actually sat down and spoken to a trans person before?
A really disappointing, unsubstantiated, cowardly piece. An actual journalist could have interviewed a wide variety of people affected by this (both cis and trans women) and written a thoughtful, well-written piece but clearly this newspaper is not run by journalists.
Helen – yo are free to go to mixed sex changing rooms, toilets, sports teams. That is your choice and it always will be .
What you cannot do, is decide for every other woman and girl, that THEIR changing rooms, toilets and sports teams are suddenly mixed sex and if they object, they are filthy bigots.
Do you see how this works?
You have control of your life. Not every other woman in the world.
Thankyou for publishing this.
This culture war is over, and the truth won. It seems some people have not accepted the outcome, but the writing really is on the wall. They can fight on, but there is no longer any doubt about the long-term cultural outcome.
HIP has become everything it was founded to oppose. A tragic fall from what was once an awesome paper. I’ll be avoiding it from now on.
Why do you not feel women’s rights are important Tom?
Is it because you are male?
Thinking of Glenys Jacques
Finally someone printing the truth. Men can never be women and transitioning children is child abuse.
After several years of supporting HIP I have today cancelled my membership after such a biased and factually inaccurate article that is doing no more than creating division in a community that is already diverse.
Shame on HIP for allowing such a one sided piece to be published by a “faceless” group.
The real danger for women comes from cis men not trans women. The statistics show that and that is really where everyone’s energy and focus should be.
Shame on you HIP.
Can you explain what you believe is “factually inaccurate”?
Wow, why on earth are people on here getting so livid just because another point of view from theirs is being given just one page (ever) in a free local rag?
We live in a pluralistic, democratic society, not an authoritarian one.
People have not only freedom of speech to hold and express their own opinions, but we also have the right to hear and read differing opinions.
To demand that only ONE side should be allowed to be said or printed, and that the population should never be allowed to hear other opinions is the actual definition of fascism.
Exactly. There’s some real book-burning types in these replies, horrified that the paper has dared publish something they don’t personally agree with. But exploring the issues is exactly what good journalism does. Well done to the editorial board for carrying this piece.
whoops that should have read
“should be allowed to leap frog over her younger brother and inherit her father’s title”
Stop lying. “there’s no evidence that trans-inclusive spaces endanger women” Here’s the evidence: Stephen Wood who called himself Karen White, a male rapist placed in women’s prison sexually assaulted female prisoners, the harm done to women is why male rapist Adam ‘Isla’ Bryson was removed from the female estate.
Another fact for you is that 48% of trans identifying prisoners in England and Wales are sex offenders which is more than double the usual percentage of convicted male prisoners (20%).
The stats are on the FairPlayForWomen website for all to see.
Men shouldn’t be in women’s spaces because of male violence and sex crimes against women, this includes all men calling themselves trans.
Cannot remember the URL but there is a massive website listing all the crimes committed by trans people. Sex crimes are completely out of proportion to the number of trans people who exist. This means they commit these crimes at a far higher rate than the average “cis” male.
It may be called transcrimes.com or something.
Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization than cisgender households.
Researchers analyzed pooled data from the 2017 and 2018 National Crime Victimization Survey, the first comprehensive and nationally representative criminal victimization data to include information on the gender identity and sex assigned at birth of respondents.
Results showed that both transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization than their cisgender counterparts, but there were no differences between transgender men and women.
“The media has rightly given attention to the 2020 increase in murders of transgender women of color,” said lead author Andrew R. Flores, Affiliated Scholar at the Williams Institute. “Our study shows that both transgender women and men are also highly vulnerable to non-fatal physical and material victimization.”
All of that information appears to be American.
For a British perspective; https://thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/
Hi Doris – sorry to refute your points on such a sensitive and terrible issue but:
The Williams Institute statistic is very often repeated, but it does not say what people claim. A few points:
1. Most violence is male violence against males. Trans-identifying males are still male, and overwhelmingly their risk of victimisation mirrors that of other young men. Being attacked is not proof they were targeted because they are trans.
2. Sex work skews the numbers. A large proportion of the violence counted in these surveys involves prostitution. Male or female, people in sex work face higher risks. Remove that factor, and the alleged “epidemic” of violence against trans people all but disappears.
3. The study is limited. The NCVS data is pooled, self-reported, and based on very small numbers of trans respondents (out of a national sample). The authors themselves caution about the limitations. It is not evidence of systemic “anti-trans” targeting.
4. No higher homicide rate. Despite the headlines, trans-identified people in the US are not murdered at a higher rate than the general population once age, sex, and lifestyle factors (such as involvement in sex work or drugs) are accounted for.
It is important not to conflate general male risk of violence, or the vulnerabilities of sex work, with some unique epidemic of “transphobic attacks.” Trans-identified people are not being victimised simply for being trans.
Do you agree that it’s difficult to use data collected from a rather small sample of US citizens on violence and crime (where levels of violence, crime, laws and judicial system are rather different) and extrapolate it to the situation in the UK?
Your point does not address Craig’s. There is likely to be overlap between those who perpetrate violence and those who experience violence. In respect of murder, trans identified people are the safest demographic given that there is less than one victim per year on average in the UK
Don’t you agree that it’s difficult to use data collected from a rather small sample of US citizens on violence and crime (where levels of violence, crime, laws and judicial system are rather different) and extrapolate it to the situation in the UK?
The above comment was a reply to Katy Baird’s comment saying “there’s no evidence that trans-inclusive spaces endanger women” and has been published in the wrong place. 🤦🏼♀️
Well done WRN for your article.👏🏼
Thank you for publishing this article. The age of no debate is over and everyone is entitled to have their views aired. Many people recognise that no man is a woman and vice versa and that sex matters in certain circumstances, not gender identity whilst also recognising that people may believe what they wish about their identity. That belief should not translate into requiring others, who disagree, to go along with it. I hope the people calling for censorship and/or your failure as a news outlet rethink their position. It is important to have a local, independent source of journalism for many reasons.
It’s really interesting looking at those who favour this article. How inconsistent they are across each other. Like they’re not even commenting about the article (not counting the empty and generic “Clarity! So balanced!” ones.
They do have two actual consistencies though:
1) making life more difficult for trans folks (particularly women) overall, as most just take it as a green light to just open fire on a whole community. No one talking about trans people as actual people. Just that they’re all criminals out to get you and ruin your life. Seriously, look at the comments. It’s fascinating.
2) worrying about censorship. Being the first to say how their words will and are being taken away as we all comment on a full page article of their words. Saying how balanced it all is with just this one side whilst proclaiming they can’t have their say,
This is an agenda. Not real concern. And it’s not about Hastings at all as most of these people directed here from the call-outs on the WRN twitter have never stepped foot in the town.
I know as you read this comment thread you must be able to see it. It’s why they’re being directed here instead of our local groups online where the discourse has been overwhelmingly in support of the trans community. Sharon from Milton Keynes can’t join that discussion can she?
Please point to the comments that say that Trans people are all criminals and out to get you and ruin you life.
All Trans people are human beings, some human beings carry out criminal activity, therefore some Trans people carry out criminal activity.
The comments about censorship refer to where posters have mentioned that they have taken steps to remove the paper from display in some places. I’m sure you would be welcome to write a rebuttal to this article and submit it for publication.
Hey Jessica
1) Nobody is making life difficult for trans people – but trans people. Trans people do not deserve more rights than others, especially not more than females and children. Trans people have the same rights as everyone else.
2) Censorship, no debate, conversations being shut down happens every single day. We have decided that the age of no debate is over – and hence we are talking about this in public
The thing is about the purity spiral, and the need to be seen to be virtuous in the eyes of a social group – is that people lie for an easy life and not to be ostracised by the major virtue signallers. Most people do not overwhelmingly support the trans community – over and above them having the same rights and respects as everyone else.
The vast majority of the country, Hastings included, thinks that sex is binary, immutable and damned obvious when you see a trans person, and they do not think female rights to should be thrown on the skip because of a bloke in a dress.
Sorry that the world does not agree with you.
“Trans people have the same rights as everyone else.”
That’s not quite correct. Some trans people additionally have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which gives them additional anti-discrimination protection under the Equality Act that the rest of us don’t have.
Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic meaning that people with this characteristic cannot be discriminated against because of it. One example would be in housing allocation. Or access to services. Or at work unless they are trying to a job reserved for the opposite sex to their biological sex. It does not give them rights to intrude on the spaces, sports or services of the opposite sex where those are single sex for a reason.
It’s certainly “interesting” to see that your reply boils down to misrepresenting the views expressed by others & then complaining that people from outside Hastings have read & responded to an article on the World-Wide Web.
The concerns are real & pertain to the legally-protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation, disability, religious/ philosophical belief, & pregnancy & maternity – had the Scottish govt & Amnesty won at the Supreme Court, the pregnancy & maternity protections of trans-identified females would have vanished at a stroke. Odd that the people in this thread complaining about “rights” that never existed don’t seem to care that the SC judgment removed no rights but did uphold the actual rights of trans-identified females. It’s almost as if when people speak of “trans rights” all they mean is “male privilege”.
A picture of the Queen backed by the union flag in suffragette colours – saying save our spaces…strange… do you mean save the spaces of those women who have power and status bestowed and protected by the patriarchy? I think you do. And the rest of us can go to hell in a handcart
Janis, it’s the patriarchal mentality which insists that women must give up their safe spaces, sacrifice their privacy and dignity, and which seeks to end women’s participation in sports, to place rapists in female prisons, and to ban lesbians fromever holding a meeting without men being allowed to attend.
These are some of the things we sex realists are fighting against.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The women most at risk are the most vulnerable eg women in prison and women and girls with disabilities needing intimate care. And what could be more patriarchal than a man telling women he is one too and they have to give up their privacy to him. Look at the Darlington nurses and the Sandie Peggie tribunal case.
Trans Rights is a mens rights movement, there could not be anything more patriarchal than a man stating he’s a woman and assuming he can just take on all of their aspects, suffering and issues in society – by popping on a dress.
Thank you HIP for publishing this piece. I can’t see anything hateful or bigoted in supporting women’s rights.
A few people have commented that they don’t have a problem sharing single sex spaces with Trans women- well good for them but not every woman feels the same and it’s absolutely OK for them to express this.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I am very surprised that this article was published especially without any reply or balance or the counter view being represented. I sadly think the only thing this achieves is whipping up the debate and causing more division. The debate has already been divisive and extreme. I imagine if there was a proper dialogue there would be space for agreement and consideration. The debate itself is becoming too polarised. The rights of women are not advanced by the taking away of rights of trans people. If you do not fight for the rights of others your own are lost Let’s be constructive
“The rights of women are not advanced by the taking away of rights of trans people.”
No rights have been taken away from trans people.
Girls and women have regained their rights to have single-sex spaces free from males.
The protections afforded to women under the Equality Act are non-identical with the protections afforded to persons with the Protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the same Act.Every one of trans people’s protections remain in force, & they still enjoy the same human rights as any of us, not one legal right or protection has been removed from trans-identifying people.
You’ve probably heard people say that those few trans-identified people who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate have “changed gender for all purposes” (Section 9:1 of the Gender Recognition Act). What they never tell you is that Section 9:3 of the GRA goes on to say,”Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.” in other words, no male person with or without a GRA ever had any right to impose himself on single sex provisions made for the female sex.
What you’ve been told to view as “trans rights” were never rights at all, they were unwarranted privileges secured via the astroturfing of lies & by bullying dissenters.
Great article! 👏
Every Progress Flag makes me feel unwelcome and sad. Businesses need to be aware that some people will avoid anywhere showing that flag. It stands for the aggressive bullying we are seeing on this thread. Please stick to the Pride Flag.
Absolutely – the progress flag stands for homophobia (denying homosexuals the right to be attracted to their own sex), forced speech, no debate, science denial. It has no place on our streets (incidentally it also needs planning permission to fly it, unlike the Pride flag)
No,it’s not bigotry. Unless you’re proposing that the basis of *all* protective legislation (which applies blanket constraints to prevent the worst excesses of the few rogue players) is bigotry.For example, the vast majority of males have absolutely no problem not having free access to female spaces and services.)
Or are you suggesting that women’s and girls’ (let’s face it, warranted) fear,is bigotry? Accusing women of “hating on men” because we don’t want to share spaces with them when we are vulnerable, and when almost 99% of violent sex crime is committed by males who, on a routine basis, pretend to be something they are not, as part of their dissembling strategy,seems to me extremely manipulative.
I am incredibly saddened by the amount of support this article has in my home town. Hastings will always support our trans siblings. this kind of trans exclusionary feminism is not welcome here. Any cis woman thinking excluding trans people from single sex spaces is a good thing, is grossly misinformed. Trans people are not the problem, cis men are. Do not let this or any propaganda tell you otherwise. No court ruling which jeopardises human rights of trans people is valid. It was a ploy to divide us at a turbulent political time. If we do not stand with our trans siblings we allow men to win, again. Do your own research, speak to the LGBTQIA+ community and make your own damn mind up rather than reading this misinformation, and give into the hate of another marginalised community.
Any trans folk reading this, you are loved and you are welcome in whatever bathroom you choose is safest. You have ally’s, you have siblings which will fight and protect you. These options here are not the majority and we will never rest until your rights are protected. Keep strong my loves, you are and always will be loved. Trans rights are human rights.
Hi Aura –
The problem as you say – is not “cis” men – it is all males. Not trans or otherwise.
It s males who carry out 98% of assaults. And all trans women – are male (men). Males, trans or not, are just as likely to assault someone.
Incidentally, 20% of the UK “cis” male population is in for sexual crimes.
48% of the Trans male population is in for sexual crimes, why is that?
—
You say “No court ruling which jeopardises human rights of trans people is valid” and yet fail to see that A) no trans person has lost a single right. and in fact females, had lost the right, specifically to privacy and dignity. Do you now think women deserve rights?
—
You say “you are welcome in whatever bathroom you choose is safest.”
No – that is at worst a crime and at best very ill advised. Why are you encouraging men to go into private female spaces where women need to go to be safe from males? That is clearly not safe, why would you encourage such unsafe behaviour?
—
Lastly you say “Trans rights are human rights.”
And thats 100% true. However – Trans people have as many rights as anyone else, their rights do NOT supersede female rights. Not now, not ever
Very very soon the EHRC binding guidance will keep men out of female spaces permanently. This is what we must do to protect women and children right to privacy, dignity and reducing assaults.
“Any cis woman thinking excluding trans people from single sex spaces is a good thing, is grossly misinformed. Trans people are not the problem, cis men are.”
No trans person is being excluded from single-sex spaces. Everyone can use the single-sex facility for their sex. No one’s human rights are breached by requiring everyone to use the spaces for their sex: it is not a human right for a male to use the single-sex spaces reserved for girls and women. The fact that some males demand access to single-sex spaces for girls and women is the problem – regardless of how they identify.
But you are right in saying “Trans people are not the problem”: it’s just the male ones who think they are somehow entitled to use the single-sex spaces for the sex they are not.
I really worry that comments like this, equating support for women’s rights with hatred of trans people, just creates a feeling of persecution and paranoia among people who identify as trans.
Trans people are not excluded from single sex spaces; the law just requires them to use the single sex spaces that match their biological sex. This does not “jeopardise” the “human rights of trans people.”
I hope that trans people do have people in their lives who love them; I hope that everyone has people in their lives who love them.
Some women will welcome men who identify as transwomen in female facilities, including public toilets, but other women will not want this to happen. Please don’t encourage people to break the law.
People who identify as trans have the same rights as everybody else. They are also protected from discrimination or harassment under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act. Their human rights are not under attack.
This article is really cleverly engineered. It is laden with dog-whistles, and seemingly ordinary terms used in an interchangeable way that can easily be dismissed as the writer having a poor standard of English writing ability, rather than an attempt to erode the differences in definition of those terms. The accessibility of this article is a baited hook at the entrance to the “alt-right pipeline”. Every person reading this article, finding themselves nodding along in agreement, they are inching further and further down the pipeline. There is misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, mixed together with valid opinions to just a degree of watered-down that many who may be uninformed and unread on this subject matter will be swept up in the fervour. I have spoken to some, who consider themselves allies to the transgender community, who fail to read the subtext, who were insensitive to the dog-whistles. They may read this article and say that it is reasonable, that it centres women, that it is even handed. Even those who remain neutral, not transphobic, but not an ally per se, will struggle to spot anything hateful or unreasonable.
Men are not women, females are not males, but men are not always male and women are not always female. Intersex people exist, non-binary identities are valid, trans women are women and trans men are men. I agree that the spectrum of “man” and “woman” have spread, that the definitions of “masculine” and “feminine” are broadening and this is a good thing, but this isn’t proof to undermine the existence of transgender and non-binary identities. The definitions of terms change over time, new terms come into being, common usage changes, and the resistance to this change can cause conflict and suffering. The best way to find out how this article makes trans people feel, is to listen to trans people when they tell you how it makes them feel. If you don’t care how it makes them feel, then that could mean that you are transphobic.
“There is misinformation”
Can you say what you believe is the most egregious bit of misinformation in the article?
The most egregious bit of misinformation in the article is:
“These gender affirming measures have been cited by trans activists as preventing young folk who have body dysphoria from committing suicide, but there is no evidence that’s the case. This isn’t about hate. It’s about facts. And the fact remains that it’s women who are being silenced.”
There have been at least 23 studies over various periods of time involving dozens, and sometimes hundredsof participants, that all prove otherwise. So there is definitely evidence that gender affirming care reduced suididal ideation, self-harm and attempts at suicide.
Oh dear, the irony! You said “ The best way to find out how this article makes trans people feel, is to listen to trans people when they tell you how it makes them feel. If you don’t care how it makes them feel, then that could mean that you are transphobic.” Let’s just make few changes shall we?
“The best way to find out how (something) makes WOMEN feel, is to listen to WOMEN when they tell you how it makes them feel. If you don’t care how it makes them feel, then that could mean that you are a MISOGYNIST.”. 🤷♀️
Hi Shirley, I do listen to women, and care how this issue makes them feel. I have only heard the rhetoric from this article coming from a minority of women I speak to. This doesn’t mean that I don’t listen to and care about their opinion, I actively question where it comes from, why they feel this way. Often, it is coming from a fear or men. I don’t begrudge women for having a fear of men. I do point out the conflation between men and trans women is unfair and undeserved, based purely on the statistical data. If you think that this makes me a misogynist, you are entitled to that opinion and belief.
There is no subtext to the article despite your desperate attempts to shame readers into doubting their own judgement and beliefs and make them feel as if they’ve failed to realise just how ignorant and unkind they must be.
Your statement ‘ Men are not women, females are not males, but men are not always male and women are not always female’ is legally wrong and if you present your argument in ignorance of the Supreme Court ruling that the term ‘woman’ is based on biological sex, nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Furthermore you use the outdated term ‘intersex’ and link it with a statement about identity. This is unforgivable and offensive.
I am deeply sorry to have offended you Janet with my usage of the term intersex, a term you belive to be outdated. Could you let me know the newer and more acceptible term to use to describe such people? I don’t wish to shame anyone, shame is a powerful negative emotion that is linked with self hatred and loathing. I would never hope to have my words trigger such emotions in people. If my words have provoked such as strong sense of self-disgust in you, I of course apologise. I am stating my opinion here, as this is a forum for the sharing of opinion. If my opinion is incongruous with the Supreme Court or the Law of The Land, then so be it. I also have an opinion that sex work should be decriminalised, that narcotics use should be a medical and not criminal issue and that gambling advertising should be banned much as tobacco advertising has been. It is quite possible to want a law to be changed, and still follow that law. It is quite possible to campaign for a law to be changed, and still follow that law. You don’t have to take me seriously if you choose not to.
Michael – thanks so much for putting your position out there clearly – women’s rights are far right, anyone who is worried about women’s rights above mens, is transphobic, and indeed far right.
Let me address your points one at a time:
1. “Dog-whistles” and manipulation
“It is laden with dog-whistles… baited hook at the entrance to the ‘alt-right pipeline’.”
Labelling women’s safeguarding concerns as “dog-whistles” is a way to silence debate. Wanting single-sex spaces, fairness in sport, or accurate definitions of sex is not coded extremism — it is mainstream, lawful, and based on evidence. Suggesting that ordinary people agreeing with basic biology are on a path to the “far right” is absurd scaremongering.
⸻
2. “Seems valid but is not”
“Many who may be uninformed… will be swept up in the fervour.”
This assumes women can’t think for themselves and must have been tricked. In reality, ordinary people recognise the difference between men and women, and the importance of sex-based protections. Calling agreement “fervour” is just dismissing genuine concerns.
⸻
3. “There is a spectrum to sex”
“Men are not women, females are not males, but men are not always male and women are not always female. Intersex people exist…”
This is wrong. Sex is binary, defined by gametes: male = sperm, female = eggs. Intersex/DSDs are disorders of sexual development, not a third sex. Saying “women are not always female” is wordplay, not science.
⸻
4. “Intersex people prove the binary wrong”
“…intersex people exist, non-binary identities are valid…”
Intersex conditions are rare medical variations, nearly always diagnosable as male or female with reproductive biology. They do not erase the male/female binary. Non-binary is an identity, not a sex. No body is in-between sexes. Nobody.
⸻
5. “Terms change over time”
“The definitions of terms change over time, new terms come into being, common usage changes…”
Words do evolve, but material reality does not. “Woman” means adult human female. Re-defining it to include males undermines women’s legal protections. You cannot legislate biological facts away by changing definitions.
⸻
6. “Thinking women’s rights matter = transphobic”
“If you don’t care how it makes them feel, then that could mean you are transphobic.”
Feelings do not override rights. Women caring about their safety and privacy is not transphobic. It is perfectly consistent to respect trans people’s dignity and maintain single-sex protections. The law must be based on facts, not subjective feelings.
⸻
7. “Path to far-right thinking”
“…inching further and further down the pipeline.”
Most women defending sex-based rights are left-wing, feminist, or apolitical. Suggesting they’re on a conveyor belt to extremism is a smear designed to shut down debate rather than address the actual arguments.
⸻
To summarise:
Your comment tries to reframe ordinary, lawful positions on sex and women’s rights as bigotry, extremism, or ignorance. It confuses intersex conditions with multiple sexes, mistakes wordplay for science, and elevates feelings above facts. Recognising sex-based reality is not hat, it is the foundation of women’s equality and safeguarding.
There’s nothing “cleverly engineered” in the article, “dogwhistles” means only that you can find nothing untrue so you resort to implying that you have privileged knowledge of some dark subtext, one that does not in fact exist. The article is fair & truthful.
You are correct that words change in usage but that’s an organic process, not the top-down imposition of new usages by well-funded lobby groups who so long relied on “No Debate!” & the dishonest framing of all & any disagreement as “hate” & “transphobia” in order to silence opposition, & particularly women’s voices.
Men are not women, neither are they female, women are not men & nor are they male. By all means coin new words to denote those individuals who wish to live as if they were the opposite sex but attempting to brute-force or manipulate others into accepting your novel usages & beliefs is a fool’s errand. You yourself might for novelty’s sake if nothing else, try listening to those women who do not share your views.
Also, please stop trying to use people’s entirely unrelated medical conditions as debating points. People who have DSDs (don’t Other them by using the archaic & inaccurate term “intersex”) are not 3rd, 4th or further sexes, they are people whose sex was determined at conception like everyone else, but whose medical conditions affected the development of their anatomy. Those medical conditions can involve many other lifelong or even life-limiting effects & it is completely unethical to keep dragging people with DSDs into wholly unrelated discussions of trans issues.
Incidentally, far from being “valid” the entirely personal notion of “nonbinary” does not exist at all in UK law & nor should it, the law deals with reality not game menus of character attributes.
Thank you for this article. I concur with its sentiments.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means that intact males who decided they were women since yesterday will no longer be admitted to women’s refuges, and intact male police officers who have registered as women will no longer be able to cavity search women.
I have no objection at all to trans women taking their path to self-realisation, whatever that means for them individually, and I think they should be included and protected. Unfortunately the fantasy that sex is a personal decision rather than an innate biological reality left women and girls vulnerable to predatory men who saw an opportunity in the claim to be women.
The ruling was a clarification, not an opinion; making clear what was meant by the law at the time it was written; and I am sure that clarification was correct. Trans people are also a protected group, and should remain so, but it is only realistic to see how blurring the definition of what ‘woman’ means makes biological women vulnerable to biological men in search of opportunistic access.
I’m glad to see that HIP has dared to report on how members of the East Sussex Women’s Rights Network have welcomed the positive outcome of the Supreme Court ruling in April that sex means biological sex.
I am not surprised to read the many comments dismissing HIP and ESWRN as transphobic and worse. It is par for the course these days. I think the mood is changing and ordinary people not caught up in this conflict are seeing more and more how empty and meaningless the gender identity ideology position is – not to mention vile and insulting the gender identity proponents are.
I thank those who have taken the trouble to point this out, even though it sometimes feels like their words are falling on deaf ears. Thank you, Maria MacLachlan, Dr Kate Coleman PhD, Sue Williams, Alan Henness, and others.