![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have been having a whole bunch of feels about the Supreme Court "biological sex" judgement and subsequent ghastliness from the EHRC and UK Government. I am aware that I'm in a much safer position than many trans people - I'm male, I easily pass as cis unless I choose to out myself or someone recognises the scar on my forearm as leading to phalloplasty, and I'm currently living in a civilised country with only occasional visits to the UK. But as well as being furious on behalf of those who are less safe than me, and in principal at the whole absurdity of it all, there is also genuine anxiety about how it will affect my life when I move back to London. Will I be left with a choice between outing myself and breaking the law whenever I want to use a public toilet or changing room? Will I have to wait longer for healthcare if I need hospital treatment, because they won't put me on either a male or female ward, and there are limited single-user rooms?
I find myself vacillating between wanting to be more visibly out as trans, both to increase the sense of "here is a person who is on your side" for other trans people, and to highlight the absurdity of the "woman means biological woman, like this person with a massive beard and a hairy belly and a penis and a low voice and no breasts or womb or ovaries*", and at the same time wondering whether it wouldn't be wiser to go back to being relatively stealth, so that if things continue to get worse by the time I come back I can fly under the radar if need be. At the moment I'm leaning towards greater visibility, but uncomfortably aware that that might change, and that maybe I shouldn't make myself so visible that I can't hide it in the future.
I'm also feeling a combination of impotence and something akin to survivor's guilt, as it feels like even though I've got a bunch of privilege that I ought to be able to weaponise somehow, and I'm somewhere safer in which to do so, there's not a great deal that I can do from over here, especially as I have very limited spare time and spoons around my studies, and I think that jeopardising them for the sake of activism probably wouldn't be the right choice. It took me until today to manage to write to my MP, but at least that's something.
Dear David Lammy,
I am writing to express my concern at the recent interim guidance issued by EHRC in response to the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of sex in the Equalities Act 2010. Whilst I also have concerns about the judgement itself, I recognise the authority of the court, and acknowledge that it should be followed unless and until either it is successfully challenged in the ECHR, or the law is changed, so I will leave those concerns to one side for now.
The issued guidance however goes far beyond the relatively narrow scope of the judgement in its decree that trans people MUST be excluded from single sex facilities, rather than that they MAY be. I am particularly alarmed by the claim that we can simultaneously be denied access to the facilities of our birth sex, and that the advice that mixed-sex facilities should be provided is qualified by "where possible." Whilst I have no desire, as a trans man who looks unequivocally male, to be placed on a female ward, I would certainly prefer it to having necessary medical treatment delayed, which seems like the inevitable result of restricting trans people to mixed-sex and single-user accommodation, which is of limited availability. I am also perturbed by the advice that organisations for gay and bisexual men, in which I have found support and community for many years, are now required to exclude me, despite the fact that none of them have ever shown the least interest in doing so.
Despite the assurance in the Supreme Court judgement that trans people remain protected by the Equalities Act, the responses to the judgement by the media, by government ministers, and by the EHRC have all shown a willingness to withdraw hard-won rights to public and private life, to healthcare, and to freedom of association, with a blasé disregard for the effects on our lives and our physical and mental health.
As one of your constituents, I would ask that you stand up to this tendency, call for the ideologically driven EHRC guidance to be withdrawn, and for any further implementation of the Supreme Court judgement to be conducted in consultation with trans-led organisations so that the law can be complied with in a way that mitigates the harm to trans people as much as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Sebastian Satkurunath
On the more frivolous side, I have new beard beads, which I'm quite pleased with.
*FTAOD, I absolutely think you can be a woman with all of those things, and with no intention to change any of them, but I find the inconsistency between the "sex is just common sense and defined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics. How absurd these people are who suggest that a woman can have a penis" and "oh, but sex is immutable and changing all of these characteristics doesn't actually change your sex" ridiculous and enraging.
I find myself vacillating between wanting to be more visibly out as trans, both to increase the sense of "here is a person who is on your side" for other trans people, and to highlight the absurdity of the "woman means biological woman, like this person with a massive beard and a hairy belly and a penis and a low voice and no breasts or womb or ovaries*", and at the same time wondering whether it wouldn't be wiser to go back to being relatively stealth, so that if things continue to get worse by the time I come back I can fly under the radar if need be. At the moment I'm leaning towards greater visibility, but uncomfortably aware that that might change, and that maybe I shouldn't make myself so visible that I can't hide it in the future.
I'm also feeling a combination of impotence and something akin to survivor's guilt, as it feels like even though I've got a bunch of privilege that I ought to be able to weaponise somehow, and I'm somewhere safer in which to do so, there's not a great deal that I can do from over here, especially as I have very limited spare time and spoons around my studies, and I think that jeopardising them for the sake of activism probably wouldn't be the right choice. It took me until today to manage to write to my MP, but at least that's something.
Dear David Lammy,
I am writing to express my concern at the recent interim guidance issued by EHRC in response to the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of sex in the Equalities Act 2010. Whilst I also have concerns about the judgement itself, I recognise the authority of the court, and acknowledge that it should be followed unless and until either it is successfully challenged in the ECHR, or the law is changed, so I will leave those concerns to one side for now.
The issued guidance however goes far beyond the relatively narrow scope of the judgement in its decree that trans people MUST be excluded from single sex facilities, rather than that they MAY be. I am particularly alarmed by the claim that we can simultaneously be denied access to the facilities of our birth sex, and that the advice that mixed-sex facilities should be provided is qualified by "where possible." Whilst I have no desire, as a trans man who looks unequivocally male, to be placed on a female ward, I would certainly prefer it to having necessary medical treatment delayed, which seems like the inevitable result of restricting trans people to mixed-sex and single-user accommodation, which is of limited availability. I am also perturbed by the advice that organisations for gay and bisexual men, in which I have found support and community for many years, are now required to exclude me, despite the fact that none of them have ever shown the least interest in doing so.
Despite the assurance in the Supreme Court judgement that trans people remain protected by the Equalities Act, the responses to the judgement by the media, by government ministers, and by the EHRC have all shown a willingness to withdraw hard-won rights to public and private life, to healthcare, and to freedom of association, with a blasé disregard for the effects on our lives and our physical and mental health.
As one of your constituents, I would ask that you stand up to this tendency, call for the ideologically driven EHRC guidance to be withdrawn, and for any further implementation of the Supreme Court judgement to be conducted in consultation with trans-led organisations so that the law can be complied with in a way that mitigates the harm to trans people as much as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Sebastian Satkurunath
On the more frivolous side, I have new beard beads, which I'm quite pleased with.
*FTAOD, I absolutely think you can be a woman with all of those things, and with no intention to change any of them, but I find the inconsistency between the "sex is just common sense and defined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics. How absurd these people are who suggest that a woman can have a penis" and "oh, but sex is immutable and changing all of these characteristics doesn't actually change your sex" ridiculous and enraging.
no subject
Date: 2025-05-01 05:35 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2025-05-01 07:58 pm (UTC)From:Good letter to your MP. The may vs must is something EHRC have overlooked amongst others.
no subject
Date: 2025-05-01 09:28 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2025-05-02 07:33 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2025-05-02 09:38 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2025-05-06 02:04 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2025-05-06 10:55 am (UTC)From:https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/05/why-you-should-be-worried-about-the-uk-data-bill-amendment/
The relevant Commons discussion will be tomorrow afternoon:
https://whatson.parliament.uk/commons/2025-05-07/
The relevant amendment is NC21, here:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0179/amend/data_use_rm_rep_0506.pdf
no subject
Date: 2025-05-06 02:01 pm (UTC)From: