Does the law say that trans women are women?

There’s a comment on Audrey Ludwig’s “Blog about Boxes” that seems to me to need a short post of its own. The full comment is

Can I ask a question about something I’ve seen claimed many times (including by senior politicians) – “the law states that transwomen are women.” Does the law actually say this?

The short answer is no: the law doesn’t define the terms “transwoman” or “trans woman” at all. 

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 does change some people’s legal sex. Obviously the law can’t change anyone’s biological sex. The fact that the law can’t mess with material reality is the point Canute was making when he forbade the tide to come in. But section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has the effect that some trans women (i.e. the very small number who hold a GRC – only a few thousand to date) are deemed for most legal purposes to be women, although exceptions apply.

The Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination (in various different contexts) on grounds of gender reassignment. That means that in those contexts where the Act has effect (employment, provision of public services, education etc.), it’s mostly unlawful to treat a person less favourably than you’d treat other people because they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone “a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”  If a person is somewhere on that path, it doesn’t matter whether they’ve got a GRC or not: they’re entitled anyway not to suffer discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. There are some necessary exceptions, but in general it’s obviously right that there should be a legal prohibition against discrimination on this ground.

But it’s important to note that that doesn’t mean that trans women are entitled to be treated for all purposes as if they were biological women. If a trans woman who doesn’t have a GRC wants to access a female-only space, and is refused access, that’s not discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, but discrimination on grounds of sex. She’s refused access not because she’s trans, but because she’s both legally and biologically male. That means she can lawfully be refused access any time it’s lawful at all to have a female-only space. In my view, it also means she almost certainly should be refused access in those circumstances. That’s because it’s only lawful at all to provide a single-sex space or service if there’s a good reason for sex segregation; but if trans women are admitted, it will cease to be a single-sex space.

If a trans woman who does have a GRC wants to access a female-only space or service, it’s still likely to be lawful to refuse, because of the exceptions that apply to prohibitions on discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.

In short, the Equality Act does recognise that although sex is usually a bad and arbitrary reason for treating people differently, there are contexts in which biological sex matters.

59 thoughts on “Does the law say that trans women are women?”

    1. “But section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has the effect that some trans women (i.e. the very small number who hold a GRC – only a few thousand to date) are deemed for most legal purposes to be women, although exceptions apply. Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender. ”

      Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender.

      This is in conflict with the EHRC guidance which in practice is unworkable. In a court of law the GRA would likely defeat the EHRC guidance. Especially as a GRC is like a contract between the State and GRC holder all made in good faith.

      1. For all ‘legal’ purposes. In fact, it is not legal to ask a person whether they have a GRC. Therefore it is obvious that the requirement to treat a person with a GRC as if they are the acquired sex applies only to people who are allowed to know whether a person has a GRC (employers, public authorities, etc). The GRA does not impose a duty on private citizens to treat a male as if he were a woman because he says he is. This is just not contemplated in the law and it was clarified in Parliament during the debates on the GRA Bill that it would not be the case. About 90% of ‘transwomen’ (category that does not exist in law) do not have a GRC, so they are legally males. Even those with a GRC are legally female for the purposes of the GRA, not in social interactions not regulated by the GRA at all.

        1. Is it really not legal to ask someone if they have a GRC? It’s not legal for someone who has gained that information in an official capacity to disclose it. But as ordinary citizens surely there are questions that may be inappropriate but are not illegal (unless part of a pattern or behaviour that constitutes harassment)?

          1. There’s nothing in the law that forbids asking someone if they have a GRC, although given the potential criminal liability imposed by s.22 of the GRA for disclosing that information (if received in an official capacity), it’s understandable that people would be cautions about even asking the question.

            In truth, though, it’s quite hard to imagine a situation in which a GRC would make a practical difference to anything. If an obvious male applies for a job restricted for good reason to women – working in a rape crisis centre, for instance – does it make any difference to his suitability for appointment if he wears women’s clothes and says that he identifies as a woman? I would say clearly not. And will it make any difference to the impact of his presence on service users if he has some paperwork (which by the way no-one is allowed to mention!) that says he is legally a woman? Again, clearly not.

            If there’s a good reason to exclude males from a particular role, or service, or space, it’s all but unimaginable that a particular male’s possession of a GRC would make it appropriate to make an exception in his case.

    2. “But section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has the effect that some trans women (i.e. the very small number who hold a GRC – only a few thousand to date) are deemed for most legal purposes to be women, although exceptions apply. ”

      Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender.

      Biology has no bearing whatsoever in th GRA. A person with a GRC will have a birth certificate stating the “new” sex. Making the EHRC guidance re female only space unworkable in practice.

      1. Karen Pattinson said:

        Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender.

        s.9 of the Act does indeed state that. That comes just before the sections and subsections that list the exemptions to that ‘for all purposes’ such as sport, succession, pensions and benefits, sex-specific offences (eg rape).

        1. s.9 GRA 2004 will also be subject to the ordinary rule that no Parliament can bind its successor, so any later law where it appears the necessary implication of a provision requires an exception (implied partial repeal) to be granted from section 9, that exception will apply.

          There is a respectable argument that the definitions of woman and man – i.e a human female and human male respectively = in the 2010 Equality Act perform just such a function, although the poor drafting (IMHO) of sections 9(1) and 9(3) GRA 2004 make that a debatable point.

      2. Sex or gender? Your comment isn’t clear as you have used the words interchangeably. Are the words interchangeable?

    3. However, the latest guidance makes no distinction over a GRC being held and Thanks to the TERF warriors now intersex people ( with genes of both sexes and those that long transitioned and look female or male) are now excluded from single sex spaces because of the likes of Karen White and other predatory males that used being a female or trans as an excuse to abuse women.

      The law is now extremely unfair and not in accordance of what The Equality Act 2010 intended and revised in 2012 which was inclusion of such women not exclusion which is now actively going to happen.

      It creates a hostile environment now for those with a GRC who are tarred with the same brush.
      For the record my own view is if someone newly transitions they should not be competing in womens or men’s sport if it gives them an unfair advantage as HRT takes many years to sap the strength and does sap if you have an intersex condition – namely you could never have had children at all even without HRT and have the diagnosis of it as well.

      We are heading for a cultural war against Transexual women and intersex who are not transgender and don’t identity as such but have been ruined by the self identification movement and bred such hostility that having happily co-existed with grudging acceptance those people now find they have now at all.

  1. That’s very interesting, thank you. In reference to this line: “a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”. Can this include just wearing gender typical clothes? Does “the process” have to involve medication, surgery etc?

    1. It’s not very clear what “a process … for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex” is supposed to mean, and so far as I am aware there is as yet no case law to tell us. But what is clear is that it’s not meant to be limited to medical treatment with hormones or surgery. Presumably what’s intended is matters of dress, grooming etc. The extreme position would be that all you have to change is your pronouns in order to be able to assert that you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. A more moderate position would be that you have to be genuinely seeking to live as a member of the opposite sex, including a genuine (even if not necessarily 100% successful) attempt to “pass” as such.

      In any event, it’s worth noting two things:

      1. You don’t have to modify your body in any way to claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

      2. You don’t have to modify your body in any way to apply for (and be granted) a Gender Recognition Certificate.

      1. The original reason NOT to require that a person undergo surgery in order to be protected was that some people would be unable to undergo surgery because of underlying health conditions. The assumption, though, was that they would WANT to if they possibly could. Now, of course this wording in the act is used by men with beards who have done absolutely nothing to their physical appearance but have simply asserted that they are women.

        1. Having experienced discrimination against me for saying at work, inter alia, that you can’t change sex and the Equality Act doesn’t cover gender identity (Employment Tribunal to come in June next year), I’ve thought quite a bit about this.

          I think the Equality Act does expect something much more than change of clothes or name.

          That’s partly because (A) these would be attributes of gender not sex (many activists are therefore hoist on their own petard). Quite what non-physiological attributes there are of sex, I don’t know. Perhaps hormonal or chromosomal (might there be a gene therapy to change sex someday? Was the Act framed to cover possible future treatments?). But since sex is biological, the attributes must be too (and “sex” in an Act will have it’s natural language, biological, meaning unless otherwise specified).

          It’s also partly because (B) they hardly qualify as a process – the act seem to envisage something quite significant. It would be nonsensical to suggest someone could intend to change clothes and be protected until that was done- you’d just do it. Surely intent is included so that someone could ask for time off work in advance of medical treatments?That you intend to undergo a process means no biological-level change is needed for someone to be protected, but that level of change is still in mind – it must be intended.

          So it seems to me that only changing clothes/name/pronouns with no intention of anything else is not covered by the Equality Act protections. I.e. transsexuals are protected, but gender identity in general is not.

        2. The original 2004 reason might not be relevant anymore, as in 2017 this specific stipulation – that surgery can not be required for changing legal sex – was made by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Garcon and Nicot v France.

          (It also says that other requirements such as diagnosis can exist).

      2. The ‘living as a woman’ presupposes norms, and is met with a sign in the ‘chain of signifiers’ which relies on there being a background of norms to fulfil its purpose, to disrupt them and exert its own dominion.

  2. I’d be interested in where specifically, and also, if not allowed in a space, where they are supposed to go. While not agreed or disagreeing with any views expressed. I would agree that a trans woman has not had Gender reassignment surgery, they should not change in an open female changing room. However, as long as they live as a woman, they should be able to access the women’s changing area and change in a cubicle. They should also (as long as they are living as a woman full time) be able to access ladies toilets, as they use cubicles.

    1. Thank you for your comment. There’s plenty of scope for debate about what should actually be done about single-sex spaces – I have confined myself in this blog to explaining what I understand the law to be.

      1. Well, quite. But come to that – what are these “other” characteristics of sex mentioned in section 7, those that aren’t physiological?

      2. Good question. In practice, “living as a woman” appears to refer to conformity with consumerist gender stereotypes: dressing in women’s clothes, wearing high heels, using cosmetics etc. Even using surgery to make bodies conform better to male sexual fantasies.

        This neglects conpletely the fact that many women have not worn a skirt or high heels or cosmetics for decades. We prefer practicality and comfort. And wouldn’t dream of having surgery to make us more acceptable to anyone.

        We don’t live AS women: we ARE women. With all the biological problems and pains that entails.

        The narcissistic fantasy of living “as” a woman might be legally supported, but cannot make it real.

    2. I don’t speak for all men, obviously, but as far as I’m concerned, they are welcome to use the spaces assigned for those of their sex. But whatever, this is not a problem for women to solve.

      1. I don’t want to be changing in the same space as a former man. These are my rights as a woman and this is being totally ignored. People talk about discrimination against trans people but what about discrimination against women being forced to accept this. As a woman I don’t feel comfortable but no one seems to care about my comfort as a woman only the comfort of someone who is having gender reassignment. Where is the logic. Just give them their own space.

        1. A transgender woman is not a former man. She has always been a girl, then a woman, but in what she always felt was the wrong body.

          1. Being a girl or a woman is an embodied experience. We are one of the two sexes from conception, differentiated by gestational week 7, and encoded as F or M in every cell of our body, and even in DSD/Intersex conditions are still either one or the other. It is fallacious to assume that developmental stages, where people are affected by many, or always permanent.

          2. How on earth do you know? If they destransition can you then say they were never a transgender woman? By your token the whole issue becomes a pointless sematic abstraction.
            A transgender woman never becomes a biological women – and therefore by a reasonable definition, held by many, never becomes a woman at all (though reasonable people will accommodate them in their preferred gender). But to say they were never a man – that’s strange, what if they happily lived as a man and sired children?

          3. If this is the case what has a transgender woman transitioned from?

            If you think a trans woman was born a girl then on what basis would they be trans?

            I was born a girl can i then claim to be a trans woman? If not surely its because im female- and that the pre requisite to being a trans woman is to not female, but male.

            Just as the pre requisite for being a clothes horse is to be an inanimate airer not a quatriped mammal of the equestrian class.

            Which begs the question what is a woman if not an adult human female? How do you define woman to include male women and female women? Take away biological difference and what is left other than a difference in clothing styles and stereotypes of interests and personality traits?

    3. They could fight for their own spaces? Just like women did, and continue to do. Why should we have to accommodate? How about men accommodating the GNC males amongst their own cohort? I don’t care what a man thinks in his head, my own three little girls and all the other women who do not want a male in their space, should not be compelled to bear that burden.

      1. Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever sharing toilets with transwomen (or transmen for that matter).

        I don’t remember any earlier campaign by trans activists to be accepted into male toilets before they started demanding access to female facilities. But this shows it’s maybe more about validation and not ‘convenience’ per se.

        1. Does not matter if you have no problem, without a full GRC it is against the law for a trans male or trans female to enter the incorrect sex’s bathroom , this is to protect children and vulnerable adults against sexual predators of the opposite sex.

  3. I was pointed to this yesterday… Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission – Women and Equalities Committee – House of Commons, published 30 July 2019:

    This states, 7Balancing rights in single-sex services

    Box 5: Single-sex services under the Equality Act 2010

    Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)

    The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.

    Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

    The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

    Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

    Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

    I hope the EHRC will be publishing crystal clear advice in the near future.

    1. I query as to why the onus should be on the service provider. That is a failure of the legislation. The person demanding the right and the access should bear the burden of proof.

        1. The problem with this is that there is, in reality, no such thing as “fully transitioned”. A man can take hormones and have his genitals reconstructed so that they look more like a woman’s genitals, but that doesn’t make him a woman: it makes him a man with female hormones and surgically altered genitals.

          “Gender affirmation” surgery is essentially cosmetic: it changes appearances, but it can’t literally make a man into a woman or a woman into a man.

    2. What is the legal definition of ‘female’? Is an organisation who advertises as ‘female only’ but includes ‘self identifying females’ acting legally?

  4. Thank you Naomi, this is really clear and useful.

    I think it also needs to be recognised and communicated that the process of “refusing access” is not an individualised decision but an overall policy — whether in self-service type single & separate sex services (changing rooms and toilets) or places like hospital wards, dormitories and hostels where people book in. Policies and signage should make clear who is allowed to go where (and where there are alternative spaces which are not sex segregated).

    Men are not allowed into women’s changing rooms-by the general mechanism of the sign on the door, and the understanding of everyone to respect the sign — in discrimination lawyer terms you may see this as an individual being “refused access” but in practical day-to-day terms it is a general rule -just as the inside of public building are no-smoking areas: every individual who would like to smoke indoors is affected by this but it doesn’t mean every individuals should try it on until someone tells them to put it out.

    Currently we have doctors, and lobby groups telling male people who identify as women that they can and should be trying to ignore the sign (or ‘expand the bandwidth’ of what it means) and use women’s spaces unless they are “refused access” on an individual basis, rather than recognising that the sign means they are refused access.

    I think that it needs to be made clear to people attending gender identity clinics and as part of the GRC process, and to those delivering training to organisations and into schools etc… that using services provided for the opposite sex is not a right, and is not appropriate.

  5. I agree. My blog post set out my view of the law, but I also want to write a bit about what I think is reasonable.

    As you’ve written elsewhere, single sex spaces are a matter of consent. A woman who uses a women-only changing room consents to be in a state of undress in the company of other women. If that space is invaded by a person with a male body, her consent is overriden. She is likely to find that upsetting and humiliating, and reasonably so. Taboos about modesty are deeply-felt.

    What some male commentators on this subject fail to grasp is what a rigorous training in fear women receive from an early age. We are taught that men are a source of danger. We are told it is our responsibility to keep ourselves safe from the ever-present risk of male violence. We learn to limit our freedoms. We try not to be out alone late at night. We learn to be alert to the possibility of being followed; not to make eye contact; to shut down drunken attempts to chat us up without provoking male rage; to walk in the middle of the road so that it’s harder to ambush us from the shadows; to conduct a lightning risk assessment of every other passenger on the night bus; to clutch our keys in one hand in case we need a weapon; to carry a pepper spray, or a personal alarm.

    We are systematically trained in fear.

    And then we are told that we must lay aside the fears we have obediently learned at a moment’s notice if a person with a male body asserts a female identity. Well, fear doesn’t work like that.

    1. Only a man would not understand this. It continues to astound me that female trans ‘allies’ are able to put their ingrained fear aside in order to appear kind and supportive. What is wrong with them?

      1. Maybe because we don’t want to perpetuate the myth that trans women are dangerous and will attack people in toilets for no reason, or are perverts pretending to be women so they can go into women-only spaces. Those are offensive stereotypes that are not backed up by any evidence.

        The underlying problem with ‘the fear’ is that the government and society make it a woman’s responsibility to keep herself safe rather than creating an impossible environment for men (or any person) who conduct all of the aforementioned acts of disrespectful to violent behaviour.

        People who want to conduct such acts against women will violate social boundaries like women-only spaces to do so, whether they are trans or not. You don’t need to be trans to do horrible things, and trans people are no more likely to do such horrible things that anyone else.

        1. I’m not aware of convincing evidence that trans people are more likely to do horrible things than anyone else – but male people undoubtedly are. A man can no more move himself out of the half of the population statistically much more likely to be violent by the performative words “I am a woman” than he can make himself less likely to suffer prostate cancer or to die of Covid by the same method.

          1. You realise that a transsexual person who has had reassignment surgery has a much, much lower risk of prostate cancer and a lower risk of dying from COVID due to a protective effect from Oestrogen. Conversely the risk of dying from breast cancer is much higher.

        2. The evidence of offending is clear that trans women have the same patterns of offending as males ie they are more likely to commit acts of violence, which differs from patterns of offending by women. Asserting you have a different sex doesn’t make it true.
          It is true that very few men actually assault other people. However, what we do know is when you have people in a vulnerable situation, you attract those who want to abuse them, and they will manipulate the system to gain access. Women are particularly vulnerable and the law is clear for example, only a male can rape another person. So we put in protections to minimise the risk, and one of those protections is single sex places. My sister has a severe learning disability and as such she is very vulnerable. She is in care and only women are permitted to care for her. That is right and I would be suspicious of any male who did not recognise her need, regardless of whether he identified as a woman. or not.

      2. I suspect, for many, it’s actually a fight or flight type reaction, only in this particular scenario it’s ‘freeze’ or ‘fawn’.

    2. Same for many men.

      What a lot of women need to start talking about, because it’s conspicuous by its absence, is that men don’t want women in their toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, etc, either.

      This should be a common cause, but Identity Politics is, as always, dividing and conquering….

  6. I hear about a ‘case by case basis’ all the time: you may have covered this even if in not quite those words.

    It’s often taken to mean each time an individual presents wishing to do something, but I’ve read it applies to organisations rather than to people. So a women’s hospital ward is the case, not the TW who says they want a bed on it. Is that right?

  7. Zia Faith Cruz asks (above) “You realise that a transsexual person who has had reassignment surgery has a much, much lower risk of prostate cancer and a lower risk of dying from COVID due to a protective effect from Oestrogen. Conversely the risk of dying from breast cancer is much higher.”

    That may be so (I don’t know), but it misses the point. I wasn’t talking about the effects of any particular medical treatment, but about the effect of a simple claim to be of the opposite sex.

  8. Considering the fact that trans women are actually women, it naturally follows that there should be no problem with them using “women only” spaces. If anybody does have an issue with this then they are saying that they do not believe trans women to be women and are therefore transphobic.

    I remember similar arguments levelled against gay people in the 70’s and 80’s. That gay men “weren’t real men”, and gay women “weren’t real women”. This discrimination needs to stop.

    1. So it is no problem for a male serial sexual assaulter to identify as a woman, so that he can be transferred to a womens prison and, with the blessing of the law, continue to sexually assault vulnerable women, exposing himself in the showers, complaining that he was being discriminated against when asked to shower on his own and there was nothing the women could do about it? I think most women know that this is not the norm, but, sadly there are a number of men who will take advantage of gender self-identifying for their own gratification and that is why women are desperately trying to protect women-only spaces. The conundrum is difficult, women could claim that, by denying us a right to women-only spaces the transperson is being cisphobic if transpeople are going to claim that we are transphobic. I do fail to understand why, if a man says he wants to live as a woman, he still wants to have a beard, dress as a man etc. I CAN understand not going through the surgery, due to the pain etc. but surely if you feel you are in the wrong body, you would want to take the hormones to change your outward appearance. The changing room problem is also difficult. I think most women would have little issue with transwomen using a female changing room providing they used a cubicle if they had not had surgery. It is when they parade themselves naked in communal areas that people are alarmed esp if there are children in the room- and tbh, most women don’t get their knickers off in communal areas, – have you watched us get changed at the swimming pool, struggling under towels to get our knickers? A sensible debate is required, and labelling all women who would prefer to protect women-only spaces for those that are biological women and those that claim that transwomen should not be able to compete against biological women are transphobic, does not help anyones case and tends to divide rather than unite.

      1. I’m genuinely shocked by the number of false assumptions in your reply. Trans women are not sexual predators walking around toilets and changing rooms looking to attack people. The truth is quite the opposite when you consider the danger that trans women face on a daily basis with regards to violence and sexual assaults. The truth is that transgender people are some of the most vunerable and marginalized people in society, caused to a greater degree by innacurate and irresponsible claims levelled against them. In addition to this, the vast majority of trans women seek hormone therapy and even GRS surgery to enable them to live as their true selves. In this modern society we require understanding and tolerance for vunerable minority groups, we should not seek to unfairly villify them.

        1. You completely fail to understand that this as a safeguarding issue @Joanne Tierney.

          Trans women are of course not all sexual predators, in the same way that teachers are not all sexual predators. But all teachers are required to undertake DBS checks, which is universally accepted as a proportionate and sensible safeguarding measure to protect the children and young people with whom they work. This is not least because children are vulnerable, and those who do wish to abuse and exploit them may be drawn to the profession or order to exploit them (as has happened numerous times, especially in the past when such safeguarding measures were not in place. See also priests in the Catholic Church).

          Banning male-bodied people from eg women’s changing rooms is, in just the same way, a sensible and proportionate safeguarding measure – to protect women from the small number of male-bodied people who would otherwise seek to exploit women’s vulnerability. These may be trans women (who seem to have a similar offending rate to men) or simply men who claim to identify as female with the intention of gaining access to women’s safe spaces to attack, harass and abuse women.

          If trans women do not feel safe (or, indeed, are objectively unsafe) changing in a men’s changing room, or in men’s toilets or prisons, then the issue lies with men! Why should women have to budge up and shut up (#NoDebate, what a n outrageous f***ing disgrace) and put their own safety at risk as a result?!

          Perhaps you could educate yourself a bit more with the following examples of trans women committing abhorrent attacks on women and children.

          Karen White, a transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted two inmates at a women’s jail and had previously raped two other women:

          Transgender woman sexually assaulting young girls in women’s toilets

          …and when convicted sent to a women’s detention centre:
          Trans sex attacker sent to female hostel

          Jessica Brennan convicted of multiple counts of child rape and sexual assault:
          Jessica Brennan: ‘Vile’ paedophile jailed for 22 years

          Depressingly there are many other examples.

          Of course these repugnant individuals are not representative of trans people generally any more than Harold Shipman is representative of GPs, but that’s not the point!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.