Women win – for once

And matters for both the two sexes – hugely

Two stories stand out from last week; they are peculiarly if intimately related. First, the ridiculous; then the sublime. The ridiculous, in case you were on another planet, was the all-women ‘space flight’ using Jeff Bezos’ much mocked phallus-shaped rocket to take six utterly shameless, self-regarding self -creations, not in the slightest successfully masquerading as the vast majority of women, on an eleven-minute vertical ride to the ‘edge’ of space (an entirely artificial line drawn up to define the theoretical ‘end’ of the earth’s atmosphere and the beginning of, quite literally, another dimension).

We’ll pass lightly over the enormous cost of this ill-judged venture, along with the indescribably large carbon footprint it left. The jaunt has been likened to the world’s worst hen party, with all that implies and the ‘girls’ didn’t disappoint in that regard. As more than one commentator has remarked, the whole sad sorry affair has set back women’s right by decades – but only if you care to give it any attention. Apart from the laughs it generated back on earth (I recommend Friday, April 18^th’s News Quiz on BBC Sounds for perhaps the best of these), all it achieved was to give six otherwise mediocre, wannabe humans a chance to show off their designer suits and make up. The yuk factor went totally off the scale; just like their confected, squealing, ham acted faux performances.

The other story, the sublime, has much more genuine heft. It was the victory for women in the UK at the Supreme Court. In a judgement, given by five old white men, the Court decided, in a wholly unremarkable statement of the bleeding obvious that women were, in fact and in law, women. Phew! At least now we know what we already knew but had apparently, in some quarters (stand up Keir Starmer), forgotten, or mislaid in (some of) our prehistoric brains.

The case involved, in the background, a worthy charity run by women called Sex Matters. Here’s what my wife and I wrote to them after the judgement was given: ‘Many, many congratulations on your win at the Supreme Court today. Both my wife and I believe the confected nonsense about gender/sex has become a circus in which the clowns have for too long been winning. Our sex is determined from the first cell division in the womb. Anyone that denies that biological fact is deluded or dangerous or both.

‘Once again, well done for standing up for fundamental rights for women, so much under attack right now.’

I’ll hand over to Sonia Sodha, an Observer leader writer for a fuller, balanced but critical comment on the Court’s decision.

Sonia Sodha

‘Middle-aged women are expected to fade into the background, to be apologetic for their existence, to quietly accept their lot. They’re not supposed to stick up for themselves, to enforce their boundaries, to say no. As a woman, these societal expectations have been drummed into me from day one. But still. The swell of anger and disgust that rose in response to the supreme court judgment last week that made clear women’s rights are not for dismantling – rights already won, that were supposed to be ours all along – has taken my breath away.

‘I was in court last Wednesday to hear Lord Hodge confirm that the Equality Act’s legal protections that were always intended for women are, indeed, reserved for women. He reiterated that trans people continue to have the same robust legal protections against discrimination and harassment as any other protected group, something I’ve always emphasised in my own writing. But men who identify as female – whether or not they have a legal certificate – are not to be treated as though female for the purposes of equalities law.

‘This is a hugely consequential clarification because, for the past 10 years, lobby groups such as Stonewall have misrepresented the law, telling public sector organisations, charities and companies that they must treat trans women as women.

‘Now the supreme court has made it clear: female-only services, spaces and sports cannot admit males, however they identify. Workplaces and schools must offer single-sex facilities; service providers do not always have to, though it may be unlawful sex discrimination for them not to do so.

‘This means it is never lawful to expect a female nurse to share changing facilities with a male colleague. It’s not lawful to tell a distressed female patient that the obviously male patient next to her in the female-only ward is, in fact, a woman and she is transphobic to question it. It’s not lawful to expect a female rape victim to take or leave a female-only support group that includes men. It’s not lawful to tell a woman required to undergo a strip-search that the male police officer doing it is actually female. It’s not lawful to expect teenage girls to play women’s football on a team with male players, or female boxers to box against men. Lesbians can have their own groups and associations without being bullied into admitting straight male members who – in an act of gross homophobia – self-identify as “lesbian”.

‘Why does this matter? Because this unlawful activity has all been happening in recent years, to the detriment not just of women’s safety, but our privacy and dignity. The judgment could not be clearer on the above, though that has not stopped a former supreme court justice, Jonathan Sumption, and a former cabinet minister, Harriet Harman, from taking to the airwaves to interpret the law incorrectly

‘In his remarks, Hodge cautioned against reading the judgment as a triumph of one group over another. That is entirely correct: The Equality Act balances conflicting rights, and the supreme court has simply restored the balance to where the law said it was supposed to be. Trans people have their protections, but now women’s protections, too, have been clearly ring-fenced on the same basis – all that left-wing feminists ever asked for.

‘But many pundits have misinterpreted this as meaning women should not celebrate a landmark legal victory in a case it was a travesty they ever had to fight. It’s a product of the rank misogyny embedded everywhere, from right to left. Can you imagine angry left-wing men railing against any other group that’s managed to secure their rights? Chastising them for not being gracious enough in victory? Me neither. The reaction to the judgment serves as an important reminder that, while the law is the law, our culture remains dead-set against women who say no to men. It’s how women’s and lesbians’ rights were so rapidly eroded by Stonewall and its allies in the first place, and why women have been bullied, hounded and sacked simply for trying to assert their legal protections.

‘The same people are ignoring the supreme court’s emphasis that none of this takes away from trans people’s existing rights, and are scaremongering and infantilising trans people as victims. Lloyds Bank wrote to all its employees to say it “stood by” and “cherished” all its trans employees. Several unions have organised an emergency demo in support of trans rights, giving the impression they are being rolled back. It’s easy to forget that all that has happened is that the supreme court has been clear that a male desire for validation does not trump women’s rights to single-sex spaces and services. That if you are a male police officer or nurse demanding to strip-search or carry out a smear test on a woman, the answer is no. Part of being a grownup is understanding that the world cannot always be structured around your own wants and needs. It’s not kind, compassionate or healthy to indulge a failure to accept that.

‘The judgment means trans rights activists are at a crossroads. Do they double down and try to argue that MPs must respond by dismantling women’s legal protections? Or do they put a stop to an ideological crusade that’s harmed not just women and lesbians, but the many trans people who aren’t dogmatic about gender ideology, and instead advocate for gender-neutral third spaces, open and female categories in sports, and specialist services for trans people, and against discrimination based on gender non-conformity? If they pick the latter path, they’ll find willing allies in women like me.

‘And finally, to the countless women who lost so much in fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be ours all along, there could be no happier way for me to round off my last regular column for the Observer than by saying: you are heroes. Pop those champagne corks. Celebrate as hard as you like. You deserve it.’

This week: Tim finished reading Simon Heffer’s Sing As We Go (it is nearly 900 pages long). Without underplaying Neville Chamberlain’s naivety, as well as vanity, which led him to be so guyed and gulled by Hitler, he comes across rather well. It was entirely due to him that Britain re-armed in time for the war. Heffer thus skewers the myth that we were ever likely to lose the Battle of Britain (we had far too many aircraft, a part result of Chamberlain’s foresight). Churchill comes out (of the 1920 and 1930s) rather tainted, in so drastically cutting the defence budget in the 20s, as Chancellor, in his frequently obnoxious stated views and through his choice of louche rich friends.

Quote of the week: On being told she couldn’t have some chocolate a young girl replied: ‘The dinosaurs didn’t get chocolate either and look what happened to them.’ (Anon)

Music of the week: Schoenberg’s Verklärte Nacht, an early work but inspiring in every aspect. The rough translation is transfigured night. Based on a poem by Richard Dehmel, it is a musical exposition of a man and woman walking through a dark forest on a moonlit night. The woman shares a dark secret with her new lover: she bears the child of another man. The stages of Dehmel's poem are reflected throughout the composition, beginning with the sadness of the woman's confession, a neutral interlude where the man reflects upon the confession, and a finale reflecting the man's transcendent acceptance (Verklärte) – and forgiveness – of the woman. There is an excellent version on Decca, Riccardo Chailly conducting the Deutsche Symphonie Orchestra of Berlin. As a bonus, you get his much later, and longer, choral work Gurrelieder.