We are Watching Trans Rights Go Backwards

Photo Credit: © Ted Eytan

The UK Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation, has ruled that a woman is defined by being of a “ biological sex” in a landmark case that shows that the onslaught on trans rights in the past few years isn’t as isolated as we might have thought it was.

Campaign group For Women, heavily backed by notoriously anti-trans author JK Rowling, brought the case to the Supreme Court. The decision has been condemned by Amnesty International, citing concerns about the deterioration of trans rights and the conflict of the decision with human rights law.

As a result, legally recognised trans women can be excluded from same-sex spaces without consequence. LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has called it “incredibly worrying for the trans community.”

Just because this ruling hasn’t taken place in Australia, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t see it as a warning.

Australia’s understandings of international politics have typically included the mindset that whatever happens across the pond or to the Brits won’t harm us. But this aloof and often ignorant misconception fails to recognise our relationship with the rest of the world.

We tend to follow our neighbours. After the Howard government expressly prohibited same-sex marriage in 2004, the movement to legalise it lasted 13 years. No active change happened until the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the United States in 2015; two years later the same thing happened in Australia.

While this social victory can’t be 100% attributed to the US, they aren’t the only neighbours we are highly influenced by. Our law was based on and shaped by English law, and its presence is still felt in the court due to precedent. So it truly isn’t farfetched to think that we could be feeling a more substantial legal and cultural shift on our shores soon.

In the US, there has already been a documented rise in anti-trans bills since 2020. Trump has attempted to pass several executive orders restricting the definition of gender, stopping the selection of gender on passports and prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in women’s sports.

Luckily, Albanese’s term hasn’t proven to be too abrasive for trans rights. The National Health and Medical Research Council was commissioned to review and update the national guidelines on gender affirming medical care for young people, and government senators voted down multiple anti-trans motions in the Senate.

However, the upcoming election could change this. Opposition leader Peter Dutton has consistently voted against transgender rights. While he recently spoke out against Trump’s tariffs, Dutton still has a recorded history of following his playbook, critiquing so-called “diversity hires” and the “woke agenda.”

But while Albanese has taken some action, there is still a long way to go. Despite an election commitment made in 2022, the Sex Discrimination Act has not been changed. The Australian Law Reform Commission’s recommendations surrounding discrimination protections have been ignored, as the Labor Party claimed bipartisan support was needed before proceeding with legislative amendments.

This passive attitude leads to life-changing laws, such as the UK decision. Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, claimed the decision was not “a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another.”

Yet the reasoning behind the ruling relies on, and consequently, fuels distorted and empirically inaccurate stereotypes of trans women as intruders. There are also fears that it will lead to further revisions of the UK’s Equality Act that will further impinge upon trans rights.

From this side of the globe, we must continue to support trans rights and trans visibility.