1. United States
2. N.J.
3. Letter

I watched live as the Supreme Court announced it had ruled in favour of For Women Scotland's bid to exclude trans women from the definition of 'woman' within the Equality Act. In fact, I had to re-watch it and reach out to several contacts to truly comprehend the moment. Much like the Brexit vote ten years ago, it was a moment very few in the judiciary, political sphere or media anticipated - but it changed everything. We'd already planned to work with Jess O'Thomson to cover the decision, but it quickly became clear that a rapid turnaround was needed. As they write for us in a reflective piece for this special edition of the newsletter, "the decision caused panic", and the immediate discourse was being driven by anti-trans voices alongside a scrabble of journalists trying to understand its meaning. But without the necessary legal expertise, confusion and misunderstanding were widespread. While LGBTQIA+ charities and media quickly pulled together statements of concern, saying they would take their time to understand the ruling, with O'Thomson we published a comprehensive, accessible overview of the ruling in just six hours. It remains one of the most-read and most-linked-to pieces we've ever produced. It has been the go-to source for the LGBTQIA+ community, its leaders, and readers like you to understand this complex moment. It also picked up awards for its comprehensive, accessible and timely journalism. In the year since, we've closely followed the twists and turns, and worked with Amelia Hansford to bring you not only a full timeline of the events that followed, but everything that happened to lead up to the case, too. This long read, of which we feature a preview in this weekend's newsletter, is perhaps the only comprehensive resource that captures all that information in one place – and it, too, is written by a Trans+ journalist. Alongside our Milestones series, it adds to our growing archive that holds history to account and tells stories we've been denied. But the tireless work that's happened since the ruling is not lost on me. Anti-trans policies looked set to sweep in without challenge, leading to segregation of Trans+ people in public life in what would have been one of the most significant changes to human rights in the UK in modern times. But that is not what's happened yet. While the last year has been incredibly difficult, tenacious grassroots Trans+ organizations have sprung up, grown in size, and doubled down on fighting back – as Ri Baroche covers in this week's Queer Gaze. This week, "cruel and unworkable" EHRC guidance was scrapped, and though the new iteration could have its own problems, it is worth noting that without the work of people like you, alongside Trans+ activists, legal action, and solidarity from allies, we'd be far worse off. That's not to say there isn't more work to do. Last year, we were the only UK media outlet to commission a Trans+ journalist to cover the news. One year later, we were one of perhaps only three UK media outlets to commission a Trans+ writer to cover the anniversary. We've worked with three Trans+ journalists to reflect on this critical moment – and if there is one thing I've learned from working with these talented creatives this week, it's this: The fight back is strong, and progress is being made. Now it's up to all of us to ensure we continue that work and ensure Trans+ people are afforded the safe and happy lives they deserve, free of prejudice and discrimination. One year later: In this special edition of the newsletter, three Trans+ journalists bring together reflections, history, and accountability to examine the judgment that upended Trans+ rights in the UK. Scottish Labor: The party, which previously supported moves to demedicalise legal gender recognition, has pivoted to pledge segregation of Trans+ people in single-sex spaces in its manifesto. We explore this move and other news ahead of the UK local elections in May. Hungary: Right-wing and increasingly authoritarian leader Viktor Orban has been ousted in the country’s elections. We look at what the change in power means for the LGBTQIA+ community and Europe. Skip the doomscrolling and support queer creatives instead. We are QueerAF – and so are you. Supreme Court Decision one year on – 365 days of confusion, gaslighting, and fear. What now? One year ago, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom declared that, in its legal opinion, the definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 is restricted exclusively to what it calls ‘biological women’. On Wednesday, the 16th of April 2024, the nation’s highest court handed down its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers – a judicial review into the meaning of the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act – after nearly three years of legal proceedings. The Court declared that the terms must refer exclusively to ‘biological sex’, arguing it was necessary for the law’s protections to be “consistently understood.” They claimed this definition was not only “workable,” but could be “applied in practice” to single-sex spaces, meaning that service providers who wanted to rely on the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act would have to operate on the basis of “biological sex”. 365 days later, the ruling has solved nothing. A ruling that was designed to provide legal clarity has, according to an array of barristers, legal experts, and human rights lawyers, left service providers more confused than ever – and trans people more vulnerable than ever. Analysis published in August last year by European Law Monitor Managing Director Claire Bradley accused the Supreme Court panel of omitting key equalities legislation in its ruling opinion, while employment barrister Robin Moira White said it “wouldn’t survive a trip to the European Court of Human Rights.” It has also had huge implications for trans rights in the UK, effectively acting as a warrant to allow various groups to further erode the community’s freedoms. Multiple organizations, including most recently the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding, have chosen to exclude trans women over legal pressures, while numerous cases of anti-trans harassment in public toilets have been reported. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer even went as far as to declare his belief that trans women are not women. Reminiscing on the chaos of the past year, Oscar Davies, the UK’s first publicly recognized non-binary barrister, joined other Trans+ experts in saying that because of the Supreme Court, the law is now as ‘clear as mud’. “I’ve advised many individuals, many companies, as to the effects of the judgment, and it’s very sad and almost tragic to see the effect of what a decision from those within the top level of my profession has had on the daily lives of trans people,” they told QueerAF. Nigel Farage: The right-wing party leader said his party would back a ban on migrants arriving in the UK from receiving HIV treatment on the NHS. The comments have been condemned by groups including THT and NAT, with warnings that the policy would increase infections in the UK - The Independent Migrant investigation: A BBC investigation found advisers who offered, for a fee, ideas and support to 'falsify' records to show migrants were LGBTQIA+, regardless of their identity, to support asylum claims. Lesbians and Gays Support Migrants told QueerAF the reporting was homophobically biased, saying that it failed to include the context that cuts to legal aid systems are behind what has become a "thriving market for scammers willing to lie to people struggling to navigate a system intent on finding any excuse to reject and deport them."