In an exclusive interview with ITV News‘ sports editor, Emily Bridges, one of Britain’s best known trans athletes, says last week’s Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex has “painted more of a target” on the back of all trans women.
“It increases levels of vulnerability. You go out of the house thinking is this the day that someone is going to shout at me, attack me. Now maybe it’s heightened, but that is always the reality for a trans person and it has been forever.”
Bridges also believes the judgement stokes, what she calls, the toxicity and extreme views that frame the discussion on trans’ rights:
“The public expression on both sides has increased in intensity and vitriol. People are now feeling more comfortable to express hateful views. Not just trans people but about people of colour, immigrants, religious minorities and there’s been a massive rise in sexism.
“The things that are being said now wouldn’t have been dreamt of ten years ago, no one cared about us ten years ago. It’s manufactured, the general public don’t care about us, they care about being able to pay the rent or putting food on the table”
JK Rowling reportedly helped fund the campaign group that brought about the Supreme Court case, and celebrated their success by posting a picture of herself smoking a cigar with drink in hand under the caption “I love it when a plan comes together.”
Bridges recognises Rowling’s huge impact on the debate: “The reality is with how much money and how much political influence she has, she’s been able to point things in the way she wants. She’s seen like Messiah by the people who agree with her, similar to how Trump is seen by the MAGA crowd in America.”
On Rowling’s wealth, Bridges says: “That money could have been spent so much better. [It’s] just been used to hate on trans people. She’s obviously a billionaire, she’s got more money than sense.”
And what of the celebratory photo?
“There’s no way she doesn’t know that it looks kind of a bit super villainy.”
ITV News contacted Rowling’s representatives and they declined to comment.
Businesses and public bodies are now working through the judgement to unpick its implications and how it might affect their current policies. That inevitably includes same sex spaces such as bathrooms, changing rooms and in the case of the NHS, hospital wards.
Bridges says despite the ruling she will continue to use women only spaces: “I am going to keep using the spaces I’ve always used. I’m perceived as female in the street, I am greeted with ‘Miss’, I’m perceived as a women, I’m going to use a female changing room, I’m going to use a female toilet.”
But how about the women who feel intimidated or unsafe by trans women using their changing rooms, what about their feelings?
“I understand if you see someone you think is trans and you have a certain view, but how do you know who is trans? The policing of toilets which has already been happening, is if you’re not welcome in a toilet you’ll be asked to leave. That’s how it works.”
Is there another way? Bridges says not: “The solution is definitely not men’s toilets, women’s toilets, trans and disabled toilets. Segregation is not the way to go. It’s forcing us into third spaces and out of public life.”
Before Bridges quit competitive cycling when the sport changed its gender eligibility policy, she had dreams of competing at the Commonwealth Games and Olympics in Paris. She took part in research at Loughborough University on the impact on performance of a trans woman athlete whose testosterone levels are synthetically suppressed.
That research has yet to be published but Bridges says when it is, it will show that any inherent advantages from going through male puberty are nullified.
There are many scientific studies already published, and used by sports’ governing bodies, that have concluded the exact opposite.
But whatever the validity of the Loughborough findings, they are largely irrelevant given the way sport has leaned towards excluding transwomen from elite competition. So will the Supreme Court decision give those that run sport the licence to accelerate that direction of travel?
“They are already doing what they want. There are no trans women playing in elite world sport, at least from an Olympic sense. And that’s why it’s getting more grassroots. They’ve moved from Olympic, to national [sports] like cricket and hockey in the UK, and they’re going down to Parkrun, because they don’t have anything to talk about.”
Bridges and other trans women who are excluded from the female category in other sports could compete in an open category, but the former cyclist insists that is not a safe option: “You go through day-to-day life as a woman, you’ve got female on your passport but then you want to do sport and you have to go in the open category, that immediately outs you. It’s been regularly documented that men are the most hostile towards trans people and I don’t think it’s appropriate or safe to put trans women into that environment and out them against such a hostile group.”
The Football Association (FA), in new gender eligibility rules, has not introduced a blanket ban on transgender players taking part in the women’s grassroots game. They require trans women to have reduced testosterone levels, and reserve the right to exclude them on safety or fairness grounds.
It’s understood the FA’s lawyers are looking at the Supreme Court’s ruling and assessing whether it needs to adjust its policy as a result. Bridges is convinced they will now come under renewed scrutiny.
“They will now come under more pressure from the groups that are against trans inclusion in sport, and probably from the government and the so-called equality organisations. But I think it’s very important, especially in football because it’s like the British sport and in sport in the UK, it’s the only place that trans people have left.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.