by consensus of the Trans Liberation Assembly

written by John Urquhart

editing by Pixee Bach & Helena Hyatt

First and foremost let us set out our stall. We are a party founded by a nonbinary person. We support trans people today. We supported them yesterday. Harmony both as a party and as a community of individuals will support trans people - always.

Thus this ruling has been a painful thing to witness. We have, as a collective, seen it from within and from without. It cannot be plainer that the violent rhetoric we have seen intensifying from the transphobic lobby almost from the instant the Supreme Court ruling dropped is deeply dangerous.

It is incredible to witness the highest judiciary in the land being weaponised as an implement of stochastic terrorism by way of ideological capture by a pernicious and vicious anti-trans lobby focused not purely on the hatred of trans people, but also, we observe, on the hatred of women more generally. 

The anti-trans lobby seek to erode the idea of self-determination itself. This sits at the very root of consent.  If we cannot choose who we are, and we are not to choose what we do with or become with our bodies, then where does the erosion of consent end?

We have seen in the United States of America how this leads to erosion of bodily autonomy - how it leads to women dying when a simple medical procedure could save their lives.

Given those who lend support to the transphobic lobby most vociferously and gleefully, this should give anyone pause for concern. “Mens rights” activists, literal Nazis, and other unsavoury sorts have not just attached themselves to the anti-trans lobby: they were there at its foundation. 

So it is that we highlight this lack of concern about the anti-trans activities of a variety of “charities” which contributed to the ruling as powerful evidence of that ideological capture mentioned earlier. We note also that the contributions were weighed heavily in the favour of the anti-trans lobby.

We can be confident in saying that Supreme Court has ruled in the way it has expressly because it has been effectively instructed to do so. Anyone reading between the lines can quite easily deduce this; so we have.

The ruling is also muddled and contradictory; it claims to not pick a side, yet it so clearly has. Most problematic in many ways is the handwaving distinction drawn between “biological” sex and “certificated” sex. Yet any attempt to define “biological” sex invariably falls back on birth certificates.

The ruling speaks of women’s spaces, but it is unclear what is meant by this. Is a women’s space a space where you tend to find women - or is it a space defined specifically by exemptions to the Equality Act?

The ruling tells lesbians how to run their communities and repeats anti-trans talking points, often using the very same language trans and nonbinary people will be accustomed to experiencing while encountering bigotry and prejudice. Further, the anti-trans talking points repeatedly raised do not in any way reflect the views and practices of the majority of the LGBTQ+ community. You could say it flies in the face of consensus - but that is precisely why we call the ruling one of “ideological capture”.

This ruling chills the atmosphere substantially for trans and nonbinary people, and that is why we called this an instance of stochastic terrorism by ideological capture. 

It is clear to us that the media will react to this by muddying the waters and making claims not in keeping with the ruling itself – we have already seen one institution, British Transport Police, make an entirely inappropriate decision around body searches of women based on a complete misunderstanding (we would say deliberate) of that ruling.

The media will, we are sure, claim that trans and nonbinary people are now not welcome in spaces in which, in truth, we are. And always will be. The reason we always will be is that the people within them have always welcomed us – they did before the ruling and they will after.

So it is that we call on the UK government to abandon their appeasement of hate and prejudice. This is not occurring in isolation, we observe. Instead, we urge the government to steer the ship towards a commitment to the protection of the rights of trans and non-binary people to safety, dignity, and healthcare. We call on politicians to stand firm and tall against these attacks; to show courage against the bad faith prejudice engaged in by the anti-trans lobby and to use their experience as clear communicators to not only say no to bigotry, but to communicate in clear and uncertain terms why such behaviour is dangerous and unacceptable.

We call on the Scottish government to challenge this by any means available.

We call on all allies to resist and stand with trans and non-binary people. We do not mean merely socially, nor just in terms of activism. We call on you to also do the work necessary to be ready in heart and mind equally to speak out without hesitation, boldly, when called upon in our defence. 

And we call on LGBTQ+ people to stand together and resist the divisional cries of some: we are greater than the sum of our parts when we are in solidarity with one another in spite of as well as because of our differences.

With love to all of our trans and nonbinary siblings; trans women remain women. Trans men remain men. Nonbinary people remain valid. Today, tomorrow, and always.