Male rapists can no longer claim to be women under landmark Supreme Court ruling after trans fiends sent to female jail
MALE rapists can no longer claim to be women under a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court.
Police forces are now expected to record criminals’ sex from birth – rather than their chosen gender.
It comes after the Supreme Court this week concluded that transgender women are not biological women under equality laws in a move hailed as a “victory for common sense”.
Currently, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) recommend forces ask suspects if they are “male”, “female” or “intersex”.
But it goes on to advice that gender is a “social construction” and therefore not a substitute for the term “sex”.
Despite the guidance, at least 12 police forces in the UK have allowed rape suspects and other sexual offenders to self declare their preferred gender.
This means that men can call themselves a woman and get recorded as such on official crime stats for violent sexual offences.
It is hoped the landmark ruling will end police recording rapists as women – even though the legal definition of the crime requires a penis.
The move is also expected to put a stop to male-born transgender inmates in female jails, The Telegraph reports.
A debate over suspects adopting their preferred gender after being charged was led by public outrage over the Isla Bryson scandal.
Born as Adam Graham, the double rapist changed gender and was sent to a women’s prison upon conviction.
Bryson was subsequently moved to a male prison following pressure on the Scottish government.
It also led to Police Scotland last year announcing that rape suspects would no longer be able to self identify as female.
In 2023, a new policy was brought in for the UK that stated transgender female offenders would no longer be held in women’s jails if they male genitalia or have committed sex crimes.
But latest prison service data for 2023/24 shows there were 295 transgender prisoners in England and Wales – with 51 in female prisons and 244 in male prisons.
Of the transgender prisoners in the male jails, 225 self-identified as transgender female, while 48 inmates in the women’s self-identified as transgender male.
Campaign group For Women Scotland went against the Scottish government to bring the row to the Supreme Court.
In an 88-page ruling, judges Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler found “the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”
Lord Hodge stated it was the unanimous decision of the court that “the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.
The top judge added that the Act still offers protection from discrimination for trans people.
It came following a long-running debate surrounding trans rights and women’s spaces led by several prominent activists.
What happens next for campaigners and female-only spaces?
- The Supreme Court ruling has clarified that organisations can lawfully exclude trans women from women-only spaces when it is necessary for safeguarding biological women.
- This decision provides a legal framework for institutions to create clearer, more defined policies regarding access to female-only spaces like domestic abuse shelters, gyms, changing rooms, and prisons.
- As a result, women’s rights groups are likely to push for stronger protections to maintain the integrity of female-only spaces, citing concerns over safety and fairness.
- The ruling could spark further legal challenges from trans rights activists, who may argue that the decision undermines their rights to access spaces in line with their gender identity.
- Public services like schools and hospitals will face pressure to reconsider how they handle access to gender-segregated facilities, potentially leading to the introduction of more detailed guidelines.
- The ruling also opens the door for more tailored safeguarding policies within women’s spaces, but these may lead to accusations of discrimination from trans activists if seen as overly restrictive.
- Women’s refuges and domestic violence shelters may introduce stricter policies to ensure that biological women’s safety is prioritised.
- Legal and public debates around the interpretation of “sex” vs. “gender” will intensify, with experts and lawmakers grappling to find a solution that satisfies both parties.
- The case is likely to set a precedent, influencing future legal decisions on the rights of trans people in relation to women-only spaces and potentially prompting more judicial reviews.
Harry Potter author and defiant feminist campaigner JK Rowling was among those who welcomed the decision.
She has been a long standing advocate for group For Women Scotland, which she is also believed to have backed with funding.
However, Rowling has also come under fire for comments made in the past towards trans people, with the author bravely standing firm in the face of online pressure.
In 2020, the esteemed author slammed the growing trend of replacing “biological sex” with “gender identity”.
Her stance, that declared “sex is real”, led to death threats, but also moulded her into a figurehead for the “gender-critical” movement.
Activists accused her of transphobia in 2020 when replying to an article with the headline: “Opinion: Creating a more equal post Covid-19 world for people who menstruate.”
She tweeted: “‘People who menstruate’. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
Rowling celebrated the win with an image of herself with a cigar and cocktail on board a luxury yacht.
She captioned the image “I love it when a plan comes together” in a nod to the A-Team.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said the decision will lead to changes in codes of conduct for the NHS and the prison service.
These changes will potentially affect areas such as hospital wards, changing rooms, and domestic refuges.
Chief Constable Rachel Swann, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s diversity, equality and inclusion committee, said: “I welcome the clarity that the decision at the Supreme Court has provided and we will be reviewing our policies and procedures in accordance with the outcome.
“We will need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies.”