The “JK Ruling”

The law of unintended consequences

Wednesday’s ruling in the UK Supreme Court took me by surprise, shook me to my core and left me crying for 24 hours. Then I gathered my shit together as they would say in the USA and began to think.

I have been going through life with a certain “happy-camperish” attitude that as a “transsexual” woman of some twenty-three years and counting, I am settled in what I knew from the age of five is to me, my natural state, and that with the exception of the odd one or two who might give me a second glance when I enter the ladies at a theatre or concert hall because I tend to dress more for the outdoors than in and satin clutch bags have never been my “thang” darling, I pass for female reasonably well.

I am 66 this year. I’ve known prejudice. When I was at my boys’ public school in a boarding house with the sons of non-commissioned officers and farmers, I was sometimes jokingly referred to as “queer”. What in my case they meant was that I didn’t conform to their stereotype of what a brutal and foolish 14 year old boy should be or how they should act. No, but to have told them that I was a girl on the inside would’ve been more than my life was worth.

It took me until I was 35-40 to reach a point where I consulted some (not so) professional people to get help with my dysphoria. Oh yes, they were happy to give me a prescription for hormones; yes of course, a couple of years down the line they’d sign me off for GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery) with “their” surgeon in Brighton. Yes, yes, I could have sessions of counselling with the psychologist’s unqualified side-kick, in her flat in Winchester. No. I smelt a rat and that rat was struck off the medical register a couple of years later. I meanwhile determined to live in my given role and “snap out of this”. I grew a beard, I started to take vocal coaching for my deep tenor / baritone singing voice (which I am still convinced could have been that of a professional, had that been my destiny). Then I took in lodgers, one of whom was a pretty 25 year old primary school teacher. I began to drink; heavily. I was deeply unhappy. I realised soon enough that if I couldn’t repair the error of birth then “wet brain” or a premature death was what awaited me.

Even though the waiting list to see them was, for those days, long (about six months) I waited to see the GID clinicians at Charing Cross. When the time came … and it wasn’t SO long, I met an elderly, non-descript man … nearing retirement, in no sense the polished performer, to whom I had previously entrusted my fate … who’d been doing this for years. I knew I’d get no nonsense and that he’d heard all the nonsense before. Eighteen months later this man retired and his young protégé Dr James Barratt (now President of the Association of Gender Identity Clinician’s) took responsibility for my pathway to happiness and success in my life.

I sold my house, moved into rented accommodation and used all the capital from the house sale and more to remove my facial and body hair, to feminise my skull (I am not talking a little cosmetic surgery here, but full-blown maxilofacial and cranial reconstructive surgery) in San Francisco from a man who had honed his skills correcting the effects of pubescent giantism in children. And he was good, very good. I came home and transitioned into my female role immediately and with confidence.

In 2004 I underwent Gender Reassignment Surgery, once again at the hands of the best the NHS (god love it!) could offer. He was the best in the country. Where some, who’d had the surgery delivered by his far friendlier colleague, experienced post-operative complications, I had none. I have never had an issue with his work. Not so much as a urinary infection. It’s perfect, save that once every six months I needed to have penetrative sex or dilate with plastic “penises” and I still do.

I am not a “girly, girl” and never claimed to be. I am just me. I am happy and when I look in the mirror the face that looks back is the face I always expected to see.

In 2010 the Equality Act introduced a right of any trans person to self-describe as trans and to proceed along the same pathway I had followed … or take a similar pathway but in the opposite direction … without medical supervision. Thinking back to my earlier experience of “supervision” it immediately struck me that this was an incredible legislative blunder. The Brown government (won no plaudits from me) thought it would enable children to present as their true selves; instead of which several male sex offenders claimed to be trans women in an effort to gain access to hormones (to chemically castrate themselves) or women’s penal institutions in an effort to perpetrate further offenses. It was a facile piece of drafting which fuelled the debate leading us to where we have arrived.

The Covid lockdowns changed things for me. I was working from home full time. Now a lawyer, I did everything via video-conferencing. I found it easy (as anyone could under the stresses and fears abroad at the time). I gave up wearing make-up and my voice probably became a touch “browner” than it had been in years when I had been more “socialised”. I got comfortable with my circumstances and whereas I am only too happy to occasionally visit my clients’ offices, I don’t make a habit of it and I enjoy the fact that I can wear inexpensive clothes and make coffee when I choose.

I recently joined a choir and, such was my relaxed state, I immediately headed for the Baritone section, where the power of my trained voice was immediately obvious. I have “done” one concert performance with the choir (which is made up of four separate groups) who come together infrequently for concerts and the occasional full chorus practice. Listening back to the videos a couple of members had made of the performance I could clearly make out my own voice.

I recently booked a spa day.

Then … CRASH! …. the JK Ruling.

For those who aren’t aware … in 2020 Liz Truss appointed Lady Kishwar Faulkner, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Lady Faulkner is a long time advocate of recasting the meaning of “woman” to exclude women not assigned the female gender at birth. This excludes trans women and, recklessly, intersex individuals later assigned the female gender. But Lady Faulkner’s target has always been trans women. Lady Faulkner is not what you would call a “people person”. In 2023 there were more than 40 claims of bullying and harassment brought against her administration at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, many of which, it would appear cited her personal involvement in the bullying and harassment. An independent inquiry was launched. Channel Four reported on this abject state of affairs at the watchdog and the inquiry was “paused” by Lady Faulkner until the furore died down at which point it resumed. We were never (as far as I’m aware) told who the inquirer was, but in the October of 2023 Kemi Badenoch as Women’s and Equality Minister and someone who has historically ground the same axe as Lady Faulkner (to later be swung at the trans female community) shut down the independent inquiry, and appointed Faulkner’s acting deputy chair to conduct an internal inquiry which was over almost before it had begun, finding that the many and various claims were without merit but nonetheless avowing that lessons had been learnt.

This slight of hand (I am being kind) freed Badenoch and Faulkner up to pursue their long term goal of ostracising the trans women community and reserving “real” women only spaces for the apparent safety of women.

Hansard will attest to the fact that years before the JK Ruling, Faulkner had stood up in the House of Lords and asked a noble lord who was sponsoring an amendment to the Policing and Justice Bill for clarification … could he please confirm that to send a trans woman to a male prison … would NOT be illegal.

Channel Four also reported that Faulkner had referred to a trans woman’s appearance (a contestant on Brain of Britain who many would remember from Mastermind) as “a bloke in lipstick”.

What Faulkner and Badenoch now needed was a means by which to challenge the legal definition of “woman”. Step forward JK Rowling, beloved author of Harry Potter and Wizarding World novels and soon to be Baroness, no doubt, for services to “Equality and Human Rights” and her happy band of transphobes.

The case they brought (and bear with me here ‘cause I am still wading through the 88 page Supreme Court judgement) was based on the competency of the Scottish Courts to determine that protection given to women in the workplace should include trans women. Their argument ultimately boiled down to whether or not a company meeting a 50% quota of female non-executive board directors could “replace real women” with trans women … the inference being that the board in such an event would still then lack a single woman director.

Well … I know that the stats suggest that trans women are typically more than averagely intelligent, but good luck finding them in sufficient numbers in any workplace to comprise 50% of the non-exec board!

Nevertheless For Women Scotland described in the JK Ruling as a voluntary group of women’s and children’s rights activists but now set up as a Limited company (just in case massive costs might have been awarded against the impoverished, but hate-fuelled bunch) attracted £300,000 plus from “like-minded” women (£70,000 of which was contributed courtesy of sales of the interminable Harry Potter novels … by Lady Rowling) in order to pursue their cause through the strata of the UK legal system and on Wednesday last, it achieved its nefarious goal. The justices of the Supreme Court held that in the 2010 Equality Act “a Woman” is a person who, at birth was assigned the sex … female.

Now taxonomy (look it up) plays a great part in this. The Court distinguishes between Women who have a protected characteristic of being female by sex whereas trans women’s (note the lower case “w” of trans women) protected characteristic is their gender reassignment. It’s funny this, because I always thought that “sex” is a verb and “gender” is the noun, but my thinking has been put in its place by the highest legal minds in the land.

It would seem that I, and my like, despite our strenuous efforts to align our physical embodiment with and, not look out of place amongst, this ungrateful band of harpies, are persona non-grata in ladies loos and changing rooms and “other spaces where owners and operators can provide good reason why we should be excluded” … god help us … nail bars!?

James Barratt (ibid.) gave evidence to an earlier committee meeting in which he stated “non-fiction broadcast radio and televisual representations have varied between moderately poor and moderately good whilst print journalism has been moderately poor at best. There appears to be a persisting inability to distinguish between homosexuality, people who cross dress for any one of a large number of reasons including fetishistic and people for whom gender is the core issue. This difficulty in distinguishing one thing from another seems most marked in print journalism and low-end television.”

… well my dear sponsor … they’ve really gone for it this time.

The “low-end” media (you know who you are, Miss Hartley-Brewer) have to all intents and purposes characterised trans women as being nothing more than a bunch of fetishistic, cross-dressing, rapist perverts just longing to get inside the pants of a “real” woman in a toilet near you … soon!

I have some great gay female friends (not the trans hating kind, but reasonable, gentle folk) who might wish me to get inside their pants … but I’d probably no sooner think to ask than I would suggest that I attend my client’s offices every day of the working week (and believe me when I say it’ll be a cold day in hell, when I suggest any such thing).

So what are the outcomes here … can I bring a charge of sexual assault against any male police officer who decides that the JK Ruling gives him the right to stick his greasy maulers where only plastic penises have gone before? It’s a possible test case.

Will I be barred from the ladies changing rooms on the Spa day I have still to enjoy? Well if I am, then the business which presumes to make that call will either provide my “Woman” companion and myself with private changing facilities OR a full refund and I will slag it off on social media at every opportunity. It’s a possible test case.

There have been some useful interjections from trans men who of course draw attention to the fact that since 2010 have been able to self identify as being trans too which does not prevent men who were born men, identifying as trans men in order to gain access to ladies loos and changing rooms should they wish (in which event, I’ll bet they’re not just wishing to pee sitting down!):

Original audio

---

That’s right … unintended consequence of the JK Ruling 1: IF the government legislates that ALL trans folk should use the bathrooms to which their birth gender (let’s not refer to it as sex … that’s SO confused) would direct them then you will see FAR more masculine-looking creatures entering the Ladies and it will be SO difficult to distinguish between the true trans and the birth men (cis men).

Unintended consequence of the JK Ruling 2: Men such as Duncan Bannatyne will be able to dictate who is deemed a suitably womanly woman. I was talking to a well-intentioned neighbour about all this and she said “I was quite confused when I saw those people outside the Supreme Court, celebrating with champagne; I thought THEY were the trans women”! Well, yes, and the logical corollary of this is that if a police officer mistakes a woman in comfortable shoes (like myself but not REALLY like myself) as being like myself then yes, that woman might be strip searched, despite her protestations (we’ve ALL been there, honey!) to the contrary, by a male police officer.

Unintended consequence of the JK Ruling 3: Nobody wants a problem like Maria …

Where, in all of this pejorative determinism do intersex people sit? Do they get to pick and choose the loos and changing facilities (and nail bars!?) they use? Or are they ostracised by all for being insufficiently either.

Unintended consequence of the JK Ruling 4: IF legislation and guidance targets the trans woman community alone, then the government, the EHRC, the Conservative Shadow Prime Minister etc would be liable for claims of discrimination on grounds of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment … as the JK Ruling suggests is our only right. When a group’s freedoms are proscribed to the extent they would be (even if a third gender identified toilet or changing room created … precisely because the self description permitted by the 2010 Act would permit access to such a facility to be gained by any sexual or physical predator) then the Human Right “to a quiet life” … meaning a normal life without threat or compromise … would be impugned. And if such claims were to be upheld by our courts or by the European Court of Human Rights then I’d like to see Baroness Faulkner of Magravaine, Kemi Badenoch, JK Rowling and the other “haters” laugh that one off. Shame on them; Shame on them all.