A few weeks ago an anonymous person threatened to kill my friend. Her crime: being trans. This sort of thing is depressingly familiar to anyone who dares to be or support trans online. Away from the darker reaches of the internet, however, the so called “gender critical” (what I understand to be “anti-trans”) movement enjoys platforms in national media and access to the highest corridors of power. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, has even appeared to make high profile statements in support. This summer, however, the GC movement’s claims to legitimacy crumbled.
Judith Butler, a titan of feminist academia, argues that the movement enforces the patriarchal gender norms favoured by the religious and far-right. “Men” and “women” are confined to tightly defined stereotypes and anyone who deviates is punished. It would explain why GCs receive support from authoritarians like Vladimir Putin, and far right politicians like Giogia Meloni.
One might be forgiven for thinking the GC movement spent the summer trying to prove Butler right. In August high-profile GC figures launched an extraordinary series of attacks on female boxer Imane Khelif (who is cis, not trans). In a message to her 14.2 million followers on X/Twitter, J.K. Rowling appeared to accuse Khelif of being a “male… enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head…”. There doesn’t seem to be any real evidence for this beyond the fact that Kelif doesn’t (to some people) look “traditionally feminine”.
The controversy exploded after Khelif’s Olympic first round opponent, Angela Carini, claimed Khelif hit her too hard (this didn’t seem to be a problem for any of her other opponents). It was subsequently claimed Khelif had failed some form of “gender test”, administered by the International Boxing Association. The IBA is controlled by Umar Kremlev, an ally of Putin. It is not recognised by the International Olympic Committee due to failings of governance, transparency, and ethics. The alleged “gender test” occurred shortly after Khelif beat a Russian boxer and the test itself has not been disclosed. Carini, who has never won an international competition, was subsequently given $50 000 by the IBA, equivalent to the money awarded to the Olympic champion.
This isn’t the first time GCs have attacked cis women for not fitting a narrow archetype. In June Anna Harrold, winner of the Great West Run, was subject to a “barrage of abuse” by people claiming she was trans (she isn’t) apparently because she didn’t look “womanly” enough. Cis women have been harassed by GCs in public toilets for having short hair.
GCs claim to campaign for the “safety” of women and children. I’ve long suspected this was confined to the “right kind” of women and children. Kathleen Stock, a former trustee of the “LGB Alliance” (public statements of which include “adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality…”) appeared (to me) to suggest that it would be “more honest” for high-profile trans allies to publicly “declare” if they have trans children. Her post made no mention of obtaining the children’s consent. It seems reasonable to interpret this as a call for the public outing of certain trans children. Given “out” trans children have been murdered and 64% are subjected to bullying, it strikes me as, at the very least, callous. Joey Barton, one of the movement’s most high profile (and oft platformed) voices, will shortly stand trial accused of assaulting his wife. Donald Trump, who was found by a jury to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll, has increasingly made attacks on trans people a campaign talking point.
The GC movement has claimed a degree of legitimacy based on previous legal successes, notably the case of Forstater v CGD Europe, in which GC beliefs were declared “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Some seem to have interpreted this as a licence to persecute trans people. This summer three separate courts gave clear statements to the contrary. The Employment Tribunal upheld the sacking of teacher Kevin Lister after he equated being transgender (as one of his students was) with having a mental illness. The High Court upheld an order banning Joshua Sutcliffe from teaching children after he repeatedly misgendered a child in his care. In Australia, the Federal Court prohibited a dating app from discriminating against trans women. The message from the courts is clear: GC beliefs are worthy of respect, but GCs must also respect trans people.
The summer of court losses also undermines the movement’s claims to expertise. High profile GC activists often hold themselves out as experts. The courts made clear that many are no such thing. Maya Forstater gave “expert” evidence in the Sutcliffe case. The judge was “not persuaded that she is properly described as an expert”, noting:
“Ms Forstater explained that the use of non-preferred pronouns in this case might be due to cognitive dissonance. Mr Phillips was not, however, able to identify any medical expertise that she might have to opine on that issue.”
Helen Joyce, Director of Advocacy at the GC group “Sex Matters”, purported to give “expert” evidence in the Australian case. The judge said she:
“…does not have any formal education or qualifications even in biology, let alone in gender, sex or law… she is not an expert at all. She has no recognised expertise in any of the areas in which she expresses an opinion.”
In April the Cass Report gave a veneer of scientific legitimacy to the GC movement’s various claims. Both Labour and the Conservatives used the report as justification to prevent trans children from accessing puberty blockers (which, contrary to popular myth, do not prevent puberty but, rather, delay its onset). Cis children are still given access. The report was swiftly rejected by medical bodies around the world. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society said, in a joint statement, “Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions”. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists followed suit. The British Medical Association called Cass’ claims “unsubstantiated”. I’d argue the report was largely debunked by a Yale School of Medicine review.
The events of the summer exposed the GC movement as, in the words of UN Women, an “anti-rights movement” which “puts the rights and lives of LGBTQI+ people at risk by… falsely portraying the rights of LGBTIQ+ people as competing with women’s rights.” In the UK, the movement has never achieved genuine popular appeal (despite near constant coverage, most voters polled say they simply aren’t interested). Labour must consider whether, so early in its term, it wants to be seen as influenced by (what has not been revealed as), an extreme, fringe group.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
