{"id":72,"date":"2025-04-20T08:41:38","date_gmt":"2025-04-20T07:41:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/transiness.com\/?p=72"},"modified":"2025-06-17T08:42:16","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T07:42:16","slug":"what-does-the-april-2025-biological-sex-ruling-mean-for-transitioned-womens-advocacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/transiness.com\/?p=72","title":{"rendered":"What does the April 2025 “Biological-Sex” Ruling Mean for Transitioned Women’s Advocacy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Recently, the UK Supreme Court delivered a decision that’s caused considerable anxiety among trans women across the country. Headlines shouted that we\u2019ve been “banned” from women\u2019s toilets, hospital wards, and domestic violence refuges – but that’s not exactly true, at least for the moment. On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers strictly to biological sex. This ruling does not mandate our exclusion from single-sex spaces; it simply makes it easier for service providers to justify exclusion if they can demonstrate it’s both “necessary and proportionate.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where We Stand: Legal Protections<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Three core protections are currently under threat: the Equality Act 2010, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and the Human Rights Act 1998. Attempts to undermine Public Order and Harassment Laws are less likely to succeed, as they also protect cisgender people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Equality Act has already been weakened. Trans men now face heightened risks of exclusion from both men’s and women’s spaces – a situation trans women are painfully familiar with, particularly when seeking refuge from domestic or sexual violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One area often overlooked is the Gender Recognition Act’s reinforcement of Article 8 (right to privacy) under the Human Rights Act. When it comes to wards, hospitals, and other services, any attempt to force trans women into men’s spaces or to expose our histories without consent breaches these protections. If there is any part of the law trans women and activists need to urgently shore up, it is this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019ve heard of the “Sullivan Review,” you know that moves are already underway to strip trans people\u2019s privacy, as well as legal and medical rights. Hospitals have begun requiring patients to answer mandatory questions about gender identity even for emergency care. Know this: you are not legally required to answer such questions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenging the \u201cSafeguarding\u201d Narrative<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While cisgender women have won ground on the “safeguarding” narrative, this is not an area where there should have necessarily been an instant win. If we are to push back, and create an urgent and immediate appeal, using the “safeguarding” narrative for ourselves is a clear indication that as a persecuted, at risk, and threatened community, we have all the evidence we need for challenging being placed with men by raising awareness of OUR risks using currently available data.

Trans women experience a risk of sexual assault per year at around 10%, which is roughly 3\u20134 times higher than the cis-female rate (2\u20133%). In terms of violent crime, the risk is far greater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trans women experience 3.6\u00d7 the rate of violent crime that cis women do \u00b3.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Below is a snapshot of the best population\u2011level<\/em> data I’ve found today. Percentages differ because every study defines \u201csexual violence\u201d a little differently (rape only vs any unwanted sexual contact, hate\u2011motivated vs all motives, lifetime vs past\u2011year, etc.), but the same pattern emerges wherever we look: trans women are victimised markedly more often per year than cis women, and at least as often – sometimes more often – over a lifetime.<\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Country & data set<\/td>Time\u2011window & definition<\/td>Trans women<\/strong><\/td>Cis women<\/strong><\/td>Notes<\/td><\/tr>
United States<\/strong> \u2013 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (27,715 total, \u22489,700 TW)<\/td>Lifetime \u201csexual assault\u201d<\/strong> (rape, attempted rape or unwanted sexual contact)<\/td>37 % \u00b9<\/td>\u2014<\/td>Same survey found 47 % for all trans respondents \u00b9.<\/td><\/tr>
<\/td>Past 12 months<\/strong><\/td>10 % \u00b9<\/td>\u2014<\/td>Comparable national survey for cis women (next row).<\/td><\/tr>
United States<\/strong> \u2013 CDC NISVS 2016\/17 (random\u2011digit telephone)<\/td>Lifetime \u201ccontact sexual violence\u201d<\/strong> (rape, sexual coercion, unwanted contact)<\/td>\u2014<\/td>54.3 % \u00b2<\/td>Broader definition than USTS, so direct %\u2011to\u2011% comparison is imperfect.<\/td><\/tr>
<\/td>Past 12 months, same definition<\/strong><\/td>\u2014<\/td>5.3 % \u00b2<\/td>When you line up time<\/em> not definition<\/em>, trans women\u2019s past\u2011year risk (10 %) is roughly 2\u00d7<\/strong> the cis\u2011female rate.<\/td><\/tr>
United States<\/strong> \u2013 National Crime Victimization Survey 2017\u201118, re\u2011analysed by the UCLA Williams Institute<\/td>All violent victimisation<\/strong> (rape + sexual assault + robbery + aggravated assault)<\/td>86.1 incidents \/ 1,000 TW<\/td>23.7 incidents \/ 1,000 CW<\/td>Trans women experience 3.6\u00d7<\/strong> the rate of violent crime that cis women do \u00b3.<\/td><\/tr>
England & Wales<\/strong> \u2013 Crime Survey for England & Wales, year\u2011ending Mar 2024<\/td>Past 12 months sexual assault (incl. attempts)<\/strong><\/td>\u2014<\/td>2.6 % of women aged 16\u201159 \u2074<\/td>No gender\u2011identity question is asked, so we use cis baseline only.<\/td><\/tr>
Britain<\/strong> \u2013 Stonewall \u201cLGBT in Britain: Trans\u201d (YouGov poll, 2017)<\/td>Past 12 months \u201csexual assault\u201d<\/strong><\/td>11 % of trans respondents (majority TW) \u2075<\/td>2.6 % (CSEW figure above)<\/td>Same year & geography \u2192 trans women about 4\u00d7<\/strong> higher annual risk.<\/td><\/tr>
Canada<\/strong> \u2013 Trans PULSE Canada 2019 (2,873 respondents)<\/td>Sexual assault last 5 years<\/strong><\/td>26 % of trans & non\u2011binary women \u2076<\/td>9 % of cis women (2019 General Social Survey) \u2077<\/td>Trans women roughly 3\u00d7<\/strong> higher over the same period.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

(Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers for readability.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Effective safeguarding addresses problematic behaviours, not identities. Solutions like single-user cubicles, staffed facilities, and better lighting benefit everyone<\/strong> without discrimination. Blanket bans fail the proportionality test required by Equality Act Schedule 3 and breach privacy protections outlined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what do we know about the perpetrators of violence against trans women? Surprisingly little, it seems. In both the US and UK, police forces are not required to log an offender\u2019s ideology\u00a0and often leave the sex field blank. From what we’ve found, perpetrators are overwhelmingly a cisgender, white british man in his late\u201120s to late\u201140s.<\/strong>\u00a0He is as likely<\/strong> to be an acquaintance or partner\u00a0as a random stranger.\u00a0In the UK, he is more likely than not to use fists, a blunt object, and\/or a knife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crown Prosecution Service spreadsheets for the year to Mar 2024 list \u2248 4 in 5 defendants (79 %) as male<\/strong> in prosecutions flagged \u201ctransphobic hate crime\u201d. The remainder are female; the file shows no defendants recorded as non\u2011binary or trans. Crown Prosecution Service<\/u><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
CPS tables give a broad mid\u2011adult profile: about three\u2011quarters are 25\u201159 years old<\/strong>; 10 \u2013 12 % are 18\u201124; juveniles (under 18) and over\u201160s each account for < 8 %. Police FOI releases in North\u2011east and South\u2011Wales forces show the same hump\u2011shaped curve. Home<\/u><\/a>Home<\/u><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
In the CPS \u201cDemographic data\u201d workbook 2023\/24, White British defendants are 85 \u2013 87 %<\/strong> of trans\u2011hate cases; Black and Asian groups together make up ~10 %. Because ethnicity is self\u2011defined, small errors are possible. Crown Prosecution Service<\/u><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
The majority of incidents that escalate to court are not stranger attacks<\/strong>. Police case files and both Galop and Stonewall surveys show: intimate partners\/ex\u2011partners (~20 %), family or friends (~15 %), neighbours\/colleagues (~15 %)<\/em>, with the balance strangers. (This mirrors the pattern in homophobic hate crime.) Galop<\/u><\/a>Galop<\/u><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Police recording systems do not<\/strong> require an entry for political belief. Where courts or media report an explicit ideology, it is most often male\u2011supremacist, \u201cgender\u2011critical\u201d or far\u2011right<\/em>; but these make up a small minority of total charged cases<\/strong>. The 2023 Brianna Ghey murder, for example, involved two 15\u2011year\u2011olds with sadistic fantasies rather than organised extremism. The Guardian<\/u><\/a>Latest news & breaking headlines<\/u><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 England & Wales: police statistics show public\u2011order assaults (street, public transport, licensed venues) are the single biggest category<\/strong>, followed by assaults in a domestic<\/em> setting.\u2022 Bladed articles are the most common weapon; firearms are rare outside organised crime. The Guardian<\/u><\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Equality of safeguarding means protecting both cisgender and transgender women equally. It is unjust, improper and unethical to endanger transitioned women by both outing them, and exposing them to intimate spaces with cisgender men who are the main perpetrators of violence. It is astounding that this needs to be said out loud, but transitioned women are valued so little in UK culture today that our endangerment, heralded as “clarity” and “common sense”, is, in fact, brutality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

British Transport Police<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Both the reaction by, and reporting of British Transport Police’s almost immediate statement has been highly irresponsible. Headlines like “Trans women to be strip searched by male transport police after UK court ruling<\/u><\/a>“are misleading and harmful, especially for survivors of sexual and physical violence. Our correspondent, Liora, has been in contact with British Transport Police on a fact finding mission, in order to answer questions that many of you may be wondering. We know it’s not unusual for Police to target and harrass trans women, as we have seen in America, and we know of a highly significant case that is happening right now in the UK – the details of which I will share as soon as I am able. The chances of harassment, and cruel and degrading treatment by police, given this policy is huge, and I wouldn’t blame you if you never use the rail service again.

Here’s a copy of the e-mail sent by Liora:

Dear British Transport Police,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am writing on behalf of Transiness<\/strong>, an organisation dedicated to informing and supporting transitioned women: that is, individuals who have undergone gender-affirming hormone therapy (HRT) and\/or lower gender-affirming surgeries (e.g., vaginoplasty).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following recent reports regarding the British Transport Police’s approach to strip searches involving transgender women, we are seeking specific procedural clarification on behalf of our community. We really need clarity, as the announcement has caused considerable alarm and distress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, we request detailed responses to the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Determination of Gender:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n