The False Promise of “Protection”: Why the UK Government's Supreme Court Spin Fails Feminism and Trans People

 



The False Promise of “Protection”: Why the UK Government's Supreme Court Spin Fails Feminism and Trans People

The UK Government’s reaction to the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 has been widely framed as a win for women and for feminism. Ministers claimed the judgment brings “clarity” and upholds the “privacy and dignity” of women by affirming that “sex” in the Act refers to biological sex. But this framing is not just misleading—it’s dangerous. It weaponizes feminist language to advance a trans-exclusionary agenda, while ignoring the very real harms facing both cis and trans women alike.

Let’s be clear: this ruling does not protect women. It protects a political narrative.

It reinforces a false and damaging binary: that the safety of cis women and the rights of trans women are mutually exclusive. In doing so, it diverts attention from the systemic failures that actually harm women—underfunded services, unaffordable childcare, collapsing healthcare systems, and the state’s persistent inability to tackle male violence. Instead, we are asked to believe that trans people—especially trans women—are the real threat to women's safety.

This is not feminism. This is scapegoating.

And the roots of that scapegoating run deep. Across the US and parts of Europe, the rise in anti-trans legislation has been fuelled by right-wing, nationalist, and fundamentalist Christian movements. These groups promote a rigid gender order and use trans people as convenient “others”—a distraction from their broader agenda of authoritarianism, patriarchy, and cultural repression. The same rhetoric is now being echoed in the UK, cloaked in the language of women’s rights.

But trans people are not a culture war. They are our colleagues, our neighbours, our family members. They are survivors of violence. They are people seeking the same things all of us want: safety, dignity, and the freedom to be ourselves.

True feminism has always been about resisting control over our bodies and lives. That means rejecting policies that force trans people to “out” themselves just to use a bathroom, seek healthcare, or flee violence. It means refusing to be co-opted by the very ideologies that would strip all of us—cis and trans—of our autonomy.

Instead of drawing arbitrary lines around who is “deserving” of protection, we should invest in inclusive, trauma-informed services that meet people’s actual needs. We should fight for a world where no one has to choose between being safe and being seen.

If we truly care about protecting women, we must reject the false promise offered by this ruling. Because feminism that excludes is not feminism at all—it’s fear, dressed up as policy.

If this post resonated with you, please share it and help shift the narrative. Trans rights are human rights. Feminism is for everyone.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Manufactured Outrage and Scapegoating: The “Stillbirth Panic”

  Manufactured Outrage and Scapegoating: The “Stillbirth Panic” The recent controversy around trans inclusion in stillbirth discussions is a textbook case of manufactured outrage. It began with a single, cautious statement from Rebecca Graham of SA Health, who reassured a parliamentary committee that when she used the word “women,” this was intended to include transgender and intersex women. The purpose was simple: to avoid exclusion in policy language and ensure compassionate care for anyone affected. From that one line, anti-trans commentators rolled the story downhill until it gathered moss. What began as a footnote about inclusive terminology was exaggerated into claims that trans women were “invading” pregnancy and miscarriage support groups. The result is a culture-war narrative: supposedly, “men who think they’re women” are trying to rewrite one of the most painful experiences a woman can endure. There is no evidence for this. Trans women cannot conceive, and they are not...
Read more

Transwomen and Lesbians

 Transwomen and Lesbians 1. “Women rejecting men” as the underlying anxiety Against lesbians (especially mid-20th century) Lesbians were framed as: Women who “hate men” Women who are “afraid of proper heterosexuality” Women who refuse their “natural role” A lesbian wasn’t just someone attracted to women — she was a woman refusing male access . This was often treated as the real crime. Against trans men Trans men are framed as: Women “escaping womanhood” Women “opting out” of oppression Women “rejecting their sex” Again, the anxiety is not about identity but about female autonomy —specifically, women removing themselves from a category men are entitled to define, desire, or control. ➡️ In both cases, the outrage is less “what they are” and more “what they refuse to be.” 2. Erasure through reframing Lesbians Common claims: “They’re really straight women who haven’t met the right man” “They’re traumatised” “They’re just tomboys going thro...
Read more

Evidence for and Against

  1. What is the evidence that gender identity is innate / inbuilt (like sexual orientation)? A growing body of evidence—though not universally conclusive—suggests that gender identity has a biological and neurodevelopmental basis. Here are some of the key findings: 🔹 Neurobiological Evidence Brain Structure Studies : Some MRI and post-mortem studies have found differences in the brains of trans individuals that align more closely with their gender identity than their assigned sex at birth. For example: Zhou et al. (1995) found that a region in the hypothalamus called the BSTc (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis) in trans women resembled that of cis women. Kraemer et al. (2009) and others have similarly reported that trans individuals' brain connectivity patterns and structures more closely match those of their gender identity than natal sex. White Matter Microstructure : Some studies using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) have shown white matter patterns in trans...
Read more