Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE RECENT RULING by the UK Supreme Court that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, trans women were not women and trans men were not men was the latest salvo in an ongoing campaign in that country to strip trans people of their rights.
It was a cause of celebration for some: champagne corks were popped and, notoriously, cigars were puffed. For others, and the trans community in particular, it was another moment, in a long line of such moments, of despair.
Since the ruling, which the Supreme Court hoped, it said, would provide clarity — and which has provided anything but — the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in Britain and a number of ministers have sought to fill the vacuum created by the judgement. The EHRC issued interim guidance stating that in workplaces and services that are open to the public:
“Trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex.”
The guidance goes on to say that…
“In some circumstances, the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities.”
Confused? That makes two of us. On Sunday, a UK government minister, Pat McFadden, told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that trans people are now banned from using the toilets of the gender they identify as. How any of this will be policed has not been made clear and, indeed, seems to lay the responsibility at the feet of individual service providers about who can or can’t use particular facilities.
How have we gotten here? Unless you’ve had your head in the sand — and, quite frankly, considering all that’s happening in the world, I wouldn’t blame you if you had — you can’t fail to have noticed the glut of stories about trans people and trans issues across the media for the last number of years. The vast majority of these stories have been negative.
I love it when a plan comes together.#SupremeCourt #WomensRights pic.twitter.com/agOkWmhPgb
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) April 16, 2025
Author J. K. Rowling, a staunch critic of what she calls ‘transgender ideology’, was criticised for her overt celebration of the Supreme Court ruling.
Moral panic is defined as a mass movement based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behaviour or group of people is dangerously deviant and poses a threat to society’s values and interests. Moral panics are generally fuelled by media coverage of social issues.
We are living through a moral panic around trans people. Using the admittedly not very scientific method of a Google search, the word ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ has appeared approximately 14,640 times the last month in the Daily Mail, 9,570 times in the Daily Telegraph, 1,033 times in the Times and almost 5,000 times in the Guardian. For the last year the numbers are even larger: 91,400, 60,920, 5,390 and 24,620 for the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Times and Guardian respectively.
While the UK ruling has no direct impact on Ireland, there have already been calls from certain quarters that we should follow suit. Sinn Féin Health Spokesperson, David Cullinane, in a since-deleted post on X, wrote:
“The Supreme Court ruling on the legal meaning of woman is a common sense judgment. The ruling found that for the purposes of equality legislation a woman means a biological woman and sex refers to biological sex.
“It also confirmed that trans people are protected under the equality legislation in a separate category of gender reassignment. The ruling needs to be fully examined in this State.”
He subsequently apologised after facing criticism from LGBT+ groups and opposition TDs. In the Irish Times, former Justice Minister Michael McDowell was one of the first out of the gates and wrote of “trans ideology” and the idea of a “6ft 3in man” participating in women’s rugby. These are scare tactics similar to what we’ve seen in the UK.
Back in the UK, a number of groups have already been moved into action based on the supreme court ruling and the EHRC guidance. Barclays Bank has said it will ban trans women from using its female bathrooms, and both the Scottish and English FAs have said they will ban trans women from playing women’s football, despite the fact that there are currently no professional trans women football players. It is, in effect, a ban on trans women playing the game even at a local and amateur level.
This, and the bathroom bans, should only be seen as what they are: an attempt to push an already marginalised group of people further to the edges of society. This will not just impact trans women, but any cisgender woman who doesn’t conform to some idealised standard of what a woman should look like. It can only be bad for society as a whole and for women, cis and trans, in particular.
The Gender Recognition Act (GRA) here in Ireland will be 10 years old this year. In that time, as of 2023, a total of 1,544 certificates were issued: 806 male to female and 738 female to male. We cannot, and must not, be complacent. The anti-trans victories in the UK will only spur on anti-trans groups here in Ireland.
It’s important to remember that the vast majority of people you hear talking about trans people are not trans themselves. When you see people celebrating the removal of rights from a marginalised group, ask yourself if these are really the people best placed to talk about trans people and their rights?
Aoife Martin is an IT professional and writer.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say