Writing in The Nation, Sophie Lewis delivers clarity about the UK Supreme Court judgement.

As of yesterday, Observer columnist and leader writer Sonia Sodha, LGB Alliance co-founder Malcolm Clarke, Rosie Duffield MP, For Women Scotland and many other very high-profile “Gender Critical” figures were still following Nicola Murray on X/Twitter.

Murray is one of Scotland’s best-known anti-trans activists; she was one of the key figures in the witch-hunt against Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman driven out of her job at a rape crisis centre in Edinburgh.

And as Edinburgh Live reported last week, Murray was arrested in 2022 for, and has now been found guilty of,  “a shocking campaign of physical and sexual abuse against four children” over a 20-year period, and placed on the sex offender’s register. The case was reported in other regional newspapers and in both The Sun and The Times, at least in Scotland. But the non-Scots who follow her on X will know about the case too, because she was posting about her trial while it was ongoing.

Imagine the immediate and ongoing outrage if Murray were a trans woman: the furious phone-ins, the condemnation in endless columns, the social media hashtags, the demands for the government to do something, the calls to place her in a male prison to protect women. But of course, she isn’t trans, so none of that is going to happen. The “gender-critical” movement wants you to hate imaginary monsters, not actual ones. And that makes it an excellent place for real monsters to hide.

Helen Belcher on the Supreme Court verdict and its horrendous aftermath:

The Supreme Court decision to effectively destroy the Gender Recognition Act and reverse the Equality Act has been described in newspapers as bringing “clarity”, which is ironic: it’s created anything but, and the anti-trans groups and their pals in the press have used the judgement to spread lies.

One of the biggest lies is that trans women are now banned from women-only services. While the Supreme Court verdict is incredibly anti-trans, it doesn’t go that far: it says that if a service provider chooses to exclude trans women, it can do so without breaking the Equality Act. But the Act still says that such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and blanket exclusion is unlikely to satisfy that condition. And trans people are still protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment.

That may well change, and the EHRC – whose head was given the job specifically because she’s a transphobe, whose own staff have accused her of deliberately setting out to undermine trans people’s rights, and who has made it very clear that she is using the equalities body to attack trans women – is certainly going to craft guidance to try and change that. But the guidance is currently unwritten and has to be approved by Parliament.

It’s also important to note that the Supreme Court decision is only about the Equality Act. There are many other pieces of legislation that affect trans people’s rights.

Just because bigots want something to be true doesn’t mean it’s true. Even if – especially if – it’s printed in the UK press.

That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court verdict isn’t horrific, at odds with the intention of both the GRA and the EA, and introduces more confusion rather than clearing it up: its definition of “biological woman”, for example, is effectively “we know it when we see it”. But be very wary of newspapers with an agenda parroting bigots’ wish-lists and pretending they’re law.

It’s still a very bleak day for trans people, and for cisgender people too: the British Transport Police have already announced that they will have male officers strip-searching trans women; under the Supreme Court ruling, that means an officer can now molest any woman and claim he did it because she looked trans. There will be many more such examples, and many more cisgender women singled out because they’re tall, or masculine-looking, or Black. And there will be more legal attacks not just on trans people’s rights, but on human rights more widely.

Here’s long-term human rights campaigner Jane Fae on the decision:

And this post is very good too: The UK Supreme Court destroys 20 years of legal rights for trans people in 20 minutes.

A superb piece by Morgan M Page on the Supreme Court shitshow.

I wasn’t surprised by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, as horrifying, incoherent and discriminatory as it is; the verdict was never in question after the court refused to hear from any trans people or trans organisations but rolled out the red carpet for multiple anti-trans hate groups. Much of the judgement appears to have been copied and pasted from those groups’ documents.

I’m getting very tired of saying this, but: the goal of the genital-obsessed weirdos is to eliminate trans people from public life. And the people funding them and celebrating their ill-gotten win won’t stop with trans people.

Ben Collins, owner of the satirical newspaper The Onion, summed up the anti-trans movement beautifully this week: it’s “welfare for losers”. He was talking about the latest example of the grift: amateur fencer Stephanie Turner, who ostentatiously refused to compete with a trans woman in a tournament. Taking a knee, Turner said: “I am refusing to fence you, because I am a woman and you are a man.”

Just days before, Turner competed in, and beat multiple men in, a mixed tournament.

Mixed tournaments are commonplace in fencing because it’s a sport of skill, not strength.

“It will probably, at least for the moment, destroy my life,” Turner lied to Fox News after accepting her first grift payment, a $5,000 “courage award” from the anti-trans XX-XY Athletics.

Turner is not an elite athlete; she’s a 31-year-old amateur competing in low-level events and her best days are probably already behind her. But as failed swimmer Riley Gaines demonstrates, it’s very easy to turn sporting mediocrity into a six-figure salary by demonising trans women on behalf of the evangelical right. As Ben Collins says, it’s welfare for losers – and it pays exceptionally well.

There’s a powerful piece in the New York Times by Massa Gessen: The Hidden Motive Behind Trump’s Attacks on Trans People. It argues that the Trump administration’s war on trans people has a goal, which is to “denationalise” trans people.

The message, consistent and unrelenting, is that trans people are a threat to the nation. The subtext is that we are not of this nation.

By making people “not of this nation”, you can remove all of the rights that apply to citizens of that nation.

We’re seeing exactly the same playbook here in the UK, partly because it’s being orchestrated by the same people and seeded via the press in the same way: an attempt to make trans people a group who are excluded from society, undeserving of the rights, freedoms and protections others enjoy.

Messe could make the familiar argument here – comparing the Trump administration to the Nazis and arguing that “if you don’t stand up for trans people or immigrants, there won’t be anyone left when they come for you” – but chooses not to:

It is undoubtedly true that the Trump administration won’t stop at denationalizing trans people, but it is also true that a majority of Americans are safe from these kinds of attacks, just as a majority of Germans were. The reason you should care about this is not that it could happen to you but that it is already happening to others. It is happening to people who, we claim, have rights just because we are human. It is happening to me, personally.