HASTINGS STANDS WITH TRANS RIGHTS
East Sussex Women’s Rights Network may call the Supreme Court ruling a victory. For trans and non-binary people in our community, it is a brutal attack and we will not be silent, says Jenny Sutton.
I am an officer of Hastings and District Trades Council, and in collaboration with Trans Pride Hastings, I organised the protest held three days after the Supreme Court’s ruling in April. Over 250 people gathered for mutual support and in solidarity with a minority under attack. The trans and non-binary people there were visibly devastated at their rights being stripped away with such casual brutality.
Shamefully, a small group from the East Sussex Women’s Rights Network (ESWRN) intruded, unfurling a banner proclaiming that only those “born female” can be women. It was a crass display of triumphalism – kicking a vulnerable community while it was already under assault.
Their recent article in Hastings Independent Press (issue 283) repeats the same message: calling the ruling a “win for women” while painting trans inclusion as a threat. In reality, what they are doing is aligning – consciously or not – with the far right, whose whole strategy is to scapegoat minorities and divide us while the rich and powerful profit.
An Attack, Not a Clarification
ESWRN claim the ruling merely “clarifies” the Equality Act and does not remove rights from trans people. Let’s be honest: this is sophistry. The ruling strips protections by redefining who counts as a woman in law. It delegitimises trans and non-binary people and paints a target on their backs for every bigot and bully.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission rushed out guidance instructing schools, workplaces and community clubs to segregate trans people. For years, trans women have quietly used women’s facilities without issue. Now every trans person faces the humiliating choice of outing themselves repeatedly or breaking the law – because they are to be treated, first and foremost, as potential predators. That is not a “clarification.” It is a licence for harassment.
Safety, Dignity and Services
ESWRN argue the ruling protects women’s “safety, dignity and fairness” in rape crisis centres, hospital wards, changing rooms, school toilets and breastfeeding groups. They point to the real problem of male violence – but instead of addressing it, they weaponise it against trans women.
The facts are clear: trans women are not the threat. Trans women face far higher rates of abuse than the general population. Excluding them from women’s services leaves them more at risk, not less. To suggest their presence in a refuge or ward is a danger stigmatises a vulnerable group, while doing nothing to tackle the men who actually commit violence.
ESWRN also claim lesbians are “finally” protected. But feminism is not about policing who can call themselves a lesbian – it is about dismantling the structures of oppression that constrain us all. Reducing womanhood, or lesbian identity, to biology is not liberation. It is regression to the straitjackets feminists fought to throw off.
Children and Young People
One of the ugliest parts of ESWRN’s article is its attack on “gender-affirming care” for young people. They dismiss hormone blockers, binders and other treatments as dangerous. But major medical bodies worldwide recognise that gender-affirming care can be life-saving. Young people denied this care are at far higher risk of depression and suicide. Suggesting otherwise is not “fact-based”; it is misinformation that puts lives at risk.
Sport
Another recurring claim is that including trans women in women’s sport is unsafe and unfair. This caricature ignores that sporting bodies across the world already have guidelines balancing inclusion and fairness. It also ignores the diversity of women’s bodies. The idea that trans inclusion will destroy women’s sport is simply fearmongering – another wedge issue to divide us.
Who is Being Silenced?
ESWRN cast themselves as silenced victims – banned from stalls, called names, “de-platformed.” In reality, they have no shortage of platforms: they write in the local press, lobby politicians and access institutions freely. By contrast, it is trans and non-binary people who are vilified daily in the media, targeted by legislation, and stripped of basic dignity.
Being called a “TERF” is not remotely comparable to the violence and discrimination faced by trans people. The attempt to paint themselves as the persecuted party is a distortion designed to obscure who is actually under attack.
Culture, Religion and Division
ESWRN claim some women “from cultures that require strict sex segregation” will benefit from this ruling. This is disingenuous. Many Black and brown women, many Muslim women, have stood in solidarity with trans people, understanding that divide-and-rule tactics target all oppressed groups in turn. Playing cultures and communities off against each other is exactly how the far right seeks to divide us.
They also claim trans identities are based on “regressive stereotypes.” But what is truly regressive is forcing people into fixed roles defined solely by biology. Trans and non-binary people challenge those roles – expanding the possibilities of gender expression for everyone.
Solidarity and Resistance
I am proud to stand in solidarity with our trans siblings – in defiance and in hope. I am proud that my union, the NEU, alongside most other unions, has condemned this ruling and reaffirmed support for trans and non-binary people. In our schools, we have many trans and non-binary children. We have fought for and won practices that recognise every child’s right to define their identity. And we will fight tooth and nail to defend those rights.
Trade unions have always won by standing together. “An injury to one is an injury to all” is not just a slogan – it is the foundation of every victory. Solidarity means resisting every form of bigotry the ruling class uses to divide us. Attacks on LGBTQ+ people, migrants, Muslims, Black and brown communities, disabled people, are not sideshows. They are weapons of division, and we cannot concede an inch. Justice is not something to be rationed out; it is something we win collectively, or not at all.
Now is the time to build a united Left – bold, uncompromising, and determined to win a world where everyone can live in dignity, freedom and peace; a world where every person is free to define and celebrate their gender and sexuality without shame or fear.
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.
I wonder, is Jenny saying that trans and NB people are simply shunning gender stereotypes – “… but what is truly regressive is forcing people into fixed roles defined solely by biology. Trans and non-binary people challenge those roles – expanding the possibilities of gender expression for everyone.”
I can’t see the phrase ‘trans women are women’ in this article so perhaps there is hope for some common ground.
Certainly, rejection of sex stereotypes is a good place to start.
I’m all for rejection of sex stereotypes. And in my opinion the idea that because someone doesn’t meet the accepted stereotypes for men they must actually be a woman, or vice versa, is reinforcing the tired old stereotypes rather than rejecting them. Jumping from one box to another or sometimes between the boxes.
I think the only way to ditch the stereotypes altogether is to recognise that woman / girl / female & man / boy / male are purely terms used to describe biological sex as recognised at birth. Nothing else. And that how someone presents, their personality, tastes etc had no bearing on what sex they are.
Thank you HIP for publishing this article. I think that every word is nonsense but unlike the trans rights activists who have been busy on Facebook, calling HIP a “Terf Rag” and calling for subscribers and advertisers to boycott HIP, I believe in freedom of speech.
I am not one of the authors of All About Eve but am a member of East Sussex WRN and stand by that article. I know Jenny well enough to know that she holds her views as sincerely as we in WRN hold ours. I respect that she believes what she has written in this article but completely disagree with it.
I could do a point by point refutation but that would turn a comment into an article so I will limit myself!
The Supreme Court judgement was not an attack on trans rights. It just said that men who identify as transwomen cannot use single sex spaces designated for women. They are still protected from discrimination and harassment under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act.
It is not true that “a small group from the East Sussex Women’s Rights Network (ESWRN) intruded” on the Trans Rights demonstration. 2 women decided to go along and were joined by a 3rd whom they bumped into on the way. 1 woman was a member of WRN who went in a personal capacity. The other 2 were not members of WRN. It was not a WRN action.
“Gender affirming care” is a misnomer for what happens to gender questioning children and young people. The Cass Report highlighted the dangers of an unquestioning affirmative approach and “Time to Think” by Hannah Barnes (the book which detailed what went wrong at the Tavistock Clinic) showed that whereas less than 2% of children in the UK have an autism spectrum disorder, at Gids, more than a third of referrals presented with autistic traits. Clinicians also saw high numbers of children who had been sexually abused and had a history of mental illness.
Gender questioning young people aren’t suffering because they are not receiving “gender affirming care”; they are suffering because labelling them as trans is seen as the answer which leads to underlying problems not being treated.
Social affirmation not only makes it harder for young people to turn away from a trans identity if they feel it is not the answer, it puts them on the pathway to lifelong medicalisation, the use of highly damaging drugs (leading to problems such as osteoporosis and sexual dysfunction) and irreversible surgery.
“Watchful waiting” and support for their autism, underlying trauma and/or mental health issues enables young people to navigate their way through puberty. The overwhelming majority of patients treated like this no longer identify as trans as adult.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/19/time-to-think-by-hannah-barnes-review-what-went-wrong-at-gids
Dear Jenny
Some responses to the misinformation in your article:
Censorship
I read an article in the Hastings Online Times by Erica Smith that said just because Hastings Independent Press (HIP) published one article by WRN that they were burning copies of HIP, using it as cat litter lining, businesses were refusing to stock it and they called on advertisers to pull out. This is typical TRA bullying of free press which started with Stonewall’s “No Debate”. Women’s and girl’s rights aren’t bigotry or far right so educate yourself on who is actually marginalised in society.
Sports
There are proven male advantages in sports which is why each major sporting body carry out sex testing. There are proven differences between men and women in sports for example see Lynne Pinches pool court case which she won against Ultimate Pool who have banned men calling themselves women from playing in women’s pool. This enables fair competition for women and girls.
Prisons
You say “For years, trans women have quietly used women’s facilities without issue.” Here’s the reality: 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, from the Ministry of Justice for all to see.
Children
There are a growing number of detransitioners and real harm has been done to children’s bodies, read Abigail Shrier’s book ‘Irreversible Damage’. The Cass review is why the Govt stopped NHS prescribing puberty blockers to dysphoric children. Many of whom are autistic, same sex attracted or have experienced childhood trauma which has caused dysphoria and they are likely to reject ‘trans’ post puberty.
Lesbians
In the For Women Scotland vs. The Scottish Ministers case heard by the UK Supreme Court, several lesbian groups and organizations were granted permission to intervene, including Scottish Lesbians, The Lesbian Project, and LGB Alliance.
If men were called lesbians in law this would have a detrimental impact on same sex attracted women including access to lesbian-only spaces, services, and support groups. Women don’t have penises.
Trade Unions
Trade unions have betrayed their female members so much to the extent that nurses have had to start their own trade union (Darlington Nursing Union) to ensure their right to female only changing rooms. The NEU is misogynistic, sexist and deserves no subs from women I hope they all leave.
Bodies are real, gender is a thought in someone’s head. Touch grass and hope you come back to reality.
Strong, factual & respectful responses to the main claims of Jenny Sutton’s statement – which is a veritable smorgasbord of misinformation, at best & obvious untruths!
You state “ But major medical bodies worldwide recognise that gender-affirming care can be life-saving. Young people denied this care are at far higher risk of depression and suicide. Suggesting otherwise is not “fact-based”; it is misinformation that puts lives at risk.” If you make such a huge claim about a highly emotive subject like the suicide risk to young people you have a duty to provide the evidence. The ‘study’ usually relied on does not stand up to scrutiny, being based on 27 out of 2000 self reports and the sample was not properly compared to factor out other risk factors. Or do you know of a different study which does prove your point? Shame on those who terrify parents into going along with unproven and risky interventions because they fear for their child’s life.
Well said – this is possibly the most heinous untruth from the script we hear trotted out by those who promote inflicting life-altering hormone & surgical interventions on children, using the fallacious claim that it reduces suicide.
It’s great to see this piece, but it misses some important points:
– Women’s rights matter too, the Equality Act was written to protect sex as a characteristic, not to erase it.
– Biology is not bigotry, recognising that humans cannot change sex is a simple biological truth, not hatred.
– Single-sex spaces exist for safety and dignity, women and girls have the right to privacy in changing rooms, refuges, hospital wards and sport. A male identifying as anything at all does not make them less of a threat to others.
– No rights have been lost by trans people, they remain protected under the Equality Act. What’s changed is clarification that sex means biological sex, ensuring women’s protections are upheld.
– Women ARE being silenced, dismissing concerns as “fearmongering” ignores genuine safeguarding, fairness and religious freedom issues.
– Every human ever born is either Male or Female. No DSD, no in-betweens exist. Everyone is always male or female and that cannot be changed.
– It is categorically untrue, and very unsafe to say that so called “gender affirming care” is life saving, in fact every quality study of these poor people finds that their state of mind is never improved by this care. And in fact they all have so many comorbidities that what they really need is Holistic, whole person mental health care. Never surgery.
Defending women’s rights is not an attack on trans people. Both can coexist, but only if the law recognises that sex is real and matters.
Biology is NOT Bigotry
An excellent post, Hastings Harry. Be nice to meet you sometime!
If you use the more accurate term Trans Identifying Man instead of the confusing term transwoman the reason why women need safe places based on sex not gender become more apparent.
Or even more accurate “Men no longer allowed access to women’s spaces”
Absolutely agree it’s a language problem, as if people are being manipulated and if you use the proper words suddenly it’s clear as day what is happening – allowing men into women’s private spaces
Thanks for publishing this article because it means the erroneous points made in it can be countered.
I’m going to stick to sport in my comment: The Supreme Court decision was indeed a victory for women, common sense and fairness.
Basically it comes down to the fact that women are physiologically different to men and legal protections for women are based on those physiological differences. We need women-only sports because men are bigger, stronger and faster – for example, the male athletic performance advantage is 10% to 30% in track and field. There are no medical interventions which equalise the difference. So if there were no women’s categories, women would never have the chance to shine. We wouldn’t be able to celebrate Dina Asher-Smith, or the Lionesses, or Emma Raducanu because they would not have achieved anything of note in their sport.
Some women are big and strong – heavyweight Olympic medal winning weightlifter Emily Campbell is a great example. She lifted in the 87kg+ category – the heaviest category for women. But male weightlifters in the second-lowest weight category – 65kg – lifted comparable weights. Big strong women are magnificent. They are not men by virtue of their size and strength.
Female/women’s categories are an inclusion measure – they include women in sport.
“Transwomen” are men. Male human beings. The Supreme Court made it clear that a TW is a man with the protected characteristics of Sex and of Gender Reassignment. Therefore a TW must be treated like any other man when it comes to women’s sport.
The inclusion of males in women’s sport just pushes women out and makes sport unsafe and unfair for women. Inclusion for TW – men – means exclusion for women.
It’s unfortunate that for so many years, the law was misstated and misrepresented. But please spare a thought for all the women whose dreams were crushed, who were injured by male players, who were having to shower and change with male players, or who just quietly gave up the sport they enjoyed.
Finally, female trans people are happy to compete in their sex class, whatever they identify as. Male trans people should follow their lead. Many do already. Be Bruce Jenner, not Blair Hamilton.
I’m sorry, this opinion piece seems fact free. Trans people haven’t had any rights stripped, they have the same as they’ve always had. The law HAS been clarified and unambiguously protects the rights of women and girls to have their own, single sex spaces, such as toilets etc. To me, this is merely emotive propagands.
Indeed. It really harms the mental health of young trans-identified people for people like Jenny Sutton to fearmonger, claim erroneously that trans rights have been “stripped away”, and generally to try and convince young people that the world hates them and wants them to disappear. It’s harmful and abusive to young trans-identified people to push this narrative.
The Supreme Court decision made it very clear that gender reassignment was still a protected characteristic under the Equality Act: you can’t discriminate against someone on the basis of them being trans. It just clarified that trans-identified people’s wishes don’t trump the rights of other people, including women. Trans-identified people still have the rights that all the rest of us do.
This opinion piece is meant to be a rebuttal to the recent WRN one but it provides no facts. To take one point – so-called gender affirming care for children and young people. It is not true to say that major medical bodies worldwide recognise that GAC can be life-saving. The Cass Review here in the UK, the HHS Review in the US, a Swedish Review (https://news.ki.se/systematic-review-on-outcomes-of-hormonal-treatment-in-youths-with-gender-dysphoria), among others all found low or poor quality of evidence to show that such a claim is true. Europe is taking a more cautious approach generally (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/) with even the Netherlands government requiring that the Dutch Protocol for puberty blockers (the originator of said treatment for GD) be reviewed. Similarly, Italy is also reconsidering such care with the main private hospital involved being investigated. Even Australia is starting to question what it’s doing. There is no recognised diagnostic system which can confidently predict which child will persist in a trans identity (with or without symptoms of GD) in adulthood, and which will not. There is growing evidence that GAC treatments like hormones and the surgeries, eg vaginoplasty and phalloplasty, cause actual harm. I would urge your readers to look these up as to what is actually involved – spoiler, it’s not good. So combined with the unknown risk of detransition and regret, all of this culminates in an unacceptable situation in which children and young people are being treated in a basically experimental way with no knowledge of how they might feel when they are adults. This alone should give us all cause for concern.
This is all a bit ‘reds under the beds’ hysteria, bizarrely and ironically, from the trade unions. Women want, need and deserve women-only spaces, and allowing in anyone who can simply say 5 words, ‘I identify as a woman’ to access that space, can and has been problematic.
What a disingenuous anti-woman article. VAWG is a continuing problem in many areas of society. To support an ideology which seeks to erode the protected spaces women sometimes rely upon as a result of that violence is shameful. To pretend that trans-identified males (transwomen) have lower rates of offending is inaccurate. Prison statistics tell us that transwomen retain male-pattern offending regardless of their identities. To imply that the variations in female bodies is an argument for including those who have gone through male puberty is absurd. Well done HIP for printing the original article. The opposition from people who are used to riding rough-shod over other’s needs is to be expected but that does not change the validity of women’s need for spaces which do not include transwomen.
Anti-woman article? Only anti transphobic women, of which surveys have shown are the minority. People always lie and say they speak for all women, I don’t remember that referendum!
Campaigning against women’s spaces becoming mixed sex is not transphobic. No one said the comment was speaking for all women. Women are entitled to form their own opinions and as women are not a hive mind, those opinions will differ. What women are not entitled to, however, is to consent on other women’s behalf to the abolition of sex segregated spaces when it is necessary and proportionate.
Incorrect. I refer you to the most recent yougov poll on the subject.
Actually, regular YouGov surveys show declining support for “transgender rights” as the public becomes increasingly aware of what those demands actually entail, both in terms of the conflict with women’s rights and child safeguarding.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425
But only a female born can be a woman. Once we talk in plain language and stop trying to give everyone a cognitive dissonance headache with invented language it really is simple. Everyone is either male or female. And everyone knows their sex. Sex segregation has worked for centuries and is necessary for safety, privacy and dignity. This is not about individuals, the lovely man who says he is a woman who wouldn’t hurt a fly, it is about a societal level protection gifted to women and girls.
Rather ironic given feminists throughout 70s 80’s and 90s demanded entry into male only clubs, societies, sportsand spaces having forced there way they now suddenly feeling unsafe your hypocrisy is quite startling. Hope all these groups can now throw woman out and I am a woman by your limited narrow view
Hi Doris, I think you have misunderstood. Feminists fought and are still fighting for women to have equality and equality of opportunity to participate fully in society.
I can’t think of a single instance where they campaigned to be allowed into men’s spaces where sex matters, ie men’s bathrooms.
In regard to sport, quite often women were not permitted to compete at all, I think at one point the FA banned women’s football for example.
Feminists won the right for women to participate and compete in sport full stop in some cases.
In addition the other spaces you mention, do you for example mean the right to access higher education, ie attend university?
Is that what you now wish for women, that they are thrown out of such places?
Once again WRN is farming on their twitter for out of town pile on comments.
Funny that, also on the All About Eve post, the negative comments all post around the same time.
Sex is binary, immutable and fixed at conception. There are two categories of human, male and female. All humans are born either male or female. No human being has ever changed sex. Sex is biological, not political. There is no such thing, in the real world, as “trans”. Gender identity ideology is just complete misogynistic, anti-children nonsense.
Funny how a lot of the anti comments all post around the same time. The same thing happened on the All About Eve piece.
Posts are moderated by HIP for to avoid abuse – and sometimes length. This means they are posted in batches.
On the “who is being silenced?” section of this piece – did Jenny Sutton not read the comments on the previous article this piece is attempting to rebut? There were trans “allys” and activists declaring that they’d no longer read the paper (over one article!), and even claiming that they’d got numerous shops and locations to stop stocking the newspaper altogether, for publishing wrongthink. How is this not at attempt to silence? The arrogance of these people in determining what the rest of us are allowed to read is staggering. Jenny et al need to educate themselves about how a free press in a free society works.
I’d like to address this comment in the article
“kicking a vulnerable community”
What an outrageously untrue claim! Vulnerable?
As a bystander in this debate here is what I have witnessed:
1. anyone who dares voice or post an opinion not 100% in line with trans ideology is shunned, ejected from online and offline groups, called foul names and bullied relentlessly by members of this so-called “vulnerable community”. Behind the scenes this “oppressed” group contact employers, trades unions or governing bodies and demand that they have their livelihood removed – just for stating an opposite opinion.
2. I see trans activists in black balaclavas and paramilitary gear turning up in mobs to intimidate every single gathering held by gender-critical women since 2017. I have seen men assault women for holding an opinion, or a banner, or, in the case of Maria MacLachlan, just for turning up at her very first meeting on the subject. Yes, a 60 year old grandmother and humanist celebrant, punched around the head by three huge, strong young men, members of this so-called “vulnerable community”.
3. I’ve seen loads of footage of members of the so-called “vulnerable community” turning up at women’s meetings, threatening women as they arrive, hammering on doors and windows to disrupt the event, and hurling abuse – and sometimes punches – at women as they leave.
4. Many venues have been threatened with arson and other violent acts, including the White Rock Theatre in 2018, just for letting a meeting room to a small group of women who hold a contrary opinion.
5. Everyone I speak to about the conflict between trans and gender critics agrees with the latter, but tell me they are too terrfied to say anything because they fear, and with good reason, that they will be attacked verbally and maybe physically, publicly shamed, called vile names, labelled “Nazis” and their businesses targetted and destroyed. The trans movement is absolutely determined to silence every opposing voice by a system of intimidation and threat.
This is how they can claim that the majority of the population agrees with them!
How can anyone argue, in the face of all this clear evidence to the contrary, that trans people are a “vulnerable community”? They have more unearned, undemocratic power than any tiny minority has ever had in the history of the UK.
I don’t understand your point, of course these things are done to transphobes, they are bigots and in a lot of people’s eyes, deserve the same as racists for spreading their rubbish. They are equivalent to the far right who also get no platformed and deserve the backlash. I am so glad that the majority of the under 45’s see this. The future is safe in their hands. Multiple surveys always show the majority of women support further trans rights in the UK except when it comes to sport. Lesbians are the most supportive group with over 90% support.
“..of course these things are done to transphobes…” What?You sound like a bovver boy, who were on the far right if you’re old enough to remember.
Charlie, are you unequivocally saying that it’s right for trans activists and allys to be violent towards women they don’t agree with, in order to prevent them speaking?
In most people’s eyes, those who want to allow males into women’s spaces are the bigots ad such a position denies the reality of female oppression. There is no evidence that those seeking to protect women’s rights are more likely to be far right. Indeed the extremist individuality of the gender ideology position is much more aligned with for right political persuasions.
This article opens with the opinion that
“ESWRN claim the ruling merely “clarifies” the Equality Act and does not remove rights from trans people. Let’s be honest: this is sophistry. The ruling strips protections by redefining who counts as a woman in law.”
But East Sussex WRN are exactly right to say that the ruling merely “clarifies” the Equality Act. This was exactly the point in contention: are women entitled to sex based protections on the basis of our sex? Or can some men claim those rights too?
This refusal to accept that woman = adult human female leads to the fracturing of a foundational category of society. It is not true that some men are women – but it is unsurprising that someone who accepts this false premise will find themselves defending a host of other untruths. For example, that it is fair for men to compete in women’s sport as long as they suppress their testosterone (as if this will have any impact on their greater height, increased lung capacity, and residual strength advantage). The logic fails to stack up too – if these “trans women are women” as claimed, why should they have to suppress their testosterone? The fact is, it’s a clear indicator that these people are NOT women and everyone knows it that the testosterone suppression rules were applied in the first place.
So by all means, let’s have the discussion. But let’s have it honestly, and without the smears, please.
As well as getting the Supreme Court ruling completely backwards, Jenny Sutton seems to assume that no one here has heard of the Cass Review:
“But major medical bodies worldwide recognise that gender-affirming care can be life-saving. Young people denied this care are at far higher risk of depression and suicide. Suggesting otherwise is not “fact-based”; it is misinformation that puts lives at risk.”
Wrong, all of it. And there’s no excuse for these delusions to persist in 2025. Medical bodies worldwide are closing down gender clinics and backing away from this ideology faster than you can say “class action lawsuit”. Thank God for Jesse Singal, Hannah Barnes and others for reporting on this utterly tragic scandal.
(Hastinger here by the way, TN35)
Dearest HIP, you never posted my reply to the other comment piece (free speech, huh?) so I’ll try again. It’s welcome that you’ve allowed Jenny’s response to be published online, though not so good that you didn’t think of that earlier so it too could appear in the print edition. Everyone seems keen to argue ‘facts’, so here they are as I understand them:
1) The Supreme Court ruling was on the interpretation of the Equality Act in relation to the Scottish Government’s guidance on the representation of women on public boards. That’s currently the only change in law.
2) The judgment however does impact on the general interpretation of the Equality Act, which the EHRC has to consider. The EHRC (unelected officials) has consulted on revised guidance and this is due to be considered by the Government and Parliament. Draft guidance has been issued, but this not binding and we’re still waiting for the final guidance to be signed off and made law. Parliament (elected by us) has criticised the EHRC’s draft guidance.
3) Trans people have always existed; we’re part of the wonderful variation of human existence. “Trans women are women, trans men are men” isn’t about biology; it’s about how we take our place in civilised society.
4) Nevertheless, the UK has always been a bit backward with regard to LGBT+ rights, which is why it took a European Court of Human Rights ruling to get the Gender Recognition Act. If the final EHRC guidance on the Equality Act goes the same way as draft guidance, it is almost certain the UK will end up with a ECoHR ruling against it too.
5) It’s true that gender critical views are protected by the Equality Act too – as a religion/belief. Think about that.
6) One final fact – Hastings Independent Press prides itself on being ‘left-leaning’, but chose to publish a full-page anti-trans hit piece in the issue right before Hastings Pride. Those in HIP who made that decision cannot have been unaware to how toxic such an article would be. This was a deliberate editorial decision to sow dissent and division. In short, Hastings deserves better.
Hi Steph- I am so sorry you have gone wrong in so many places, not least your idea that men’s wants are more important than women’s rights. To respond point by point:
1. Supreme Court ruling
“The Supreme Court ruling was on the interpretation of the Equality Act in relation to the Scottish Government’s guidance on the representation of women on public boards. That’s currently the only change in law.”
That is misleading. The ruling did not create a “new” law, it confirmed what the Equality Act has always meant since 2010: whenever the Act refers to “sex,” it means biological sex. This applies retrospectively to all provisions of the Act. The change is not limited to one Scottish case, it clarifies the law across the UK.
⸻
2. EHRC guidance
“The judgment however does impact on the general interpretation… Draft guidance has been issued, but this is not binding and we’re still waiting…”
Guidance may not be binding, but the law is binding now. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK; its interpretation is definitive. From now on, all legal references to “sex” in the Equality Act mean biological women and biological men. That is not draft, opinion, or waiting on sign-off. It is law.
⸻
3. Trans people and “civilised society”
“Trans people have always existed… ‘Trans women are women, trans men are men’ isn’t about biology…”
No, trans identities in their current sense have not “always existed.” Cross-dressing and gender nonconformity have always existed, but the concept of “born in the wrong body” is very recent, barely 15 years old. Trans women are male, and always will be. Saying “it isn’t about biology” admits the point: it’s about identity, not fact. Civilised society should be built on reality, not compelled belief in falsehoods.
⸻
4. LGBT rights, GRA, and ECHR
“…which is why it took a European Court of Human Rights ruling to get the Gender Recognition Act… likely to end up with an ECoHR ruling against it too.”
The Gender Recognition Act is already under scrutiny and may be repealed or rewritten. The ECHR does not override UK law, its rulings are only advisory, and the UK may yet leave the Convention altogether. Either way, sex-based rights under the Equality Act are secure, because the Supreme Court has confirmed their meaning.
⸻
5. Gender critical views as a belief
“It’s true that gender critical views are protected… as a religion/belief. Think about that.”
Gender-critical views are protected, yes, but not because they are “just a belief.” Biology is not belief. It is observable fact: humans are male or female, sex is binary, and immutable. The law protects people who hold this fact-based view precisely because it is rational and worthy of respect in a democratic society.
⸻
6. “Toxic” journalism
“…HIP chose to publish a full-page anti-trans hit piece… toxic… deliberate editorial decision to sow division.”
Views you dislike are not automatically “toxic.” The article simply represented mainstream opinion — that women’s sex-based rights matter and cannot be erased. Most people in Hastings, and across the UK, do not believe men can become women. Recognising this is not division, it is democracy. What is actually “toxic” is trying to silence debate, smear dissent as “hate,” and deny women’s rights in their own spaces.
To summarise:
• The Supreme Court ruling makes it plain: sex means biological sex in the Equality Act.
• Guidance may come later, but the law is already clear and binding.
• Trans identities are recent cultural constructs, not timeless realities.
• The ECHR cannot erase UK law.
• Biology is fact, not belief.
• Free speech and women’s rights are not “toxic.” They are majority views, and they are here to stay.
Dear Hastings Harry. Thank you so much for mansplaining the situation so thoroughly. Though I read your reply twice and I’m still not sure if you actually fully disagree with what I posted. But I’m not one to argue with someone so wedded to belief so I won’t. S.