As the shockwave of Wednesday’s bombshell Supreme Court decision has landed, we are now seeing the rapid erosion of some civil liberties in the UK. Although the court’s decision itself ruled on a fairly narrow part of Equalities Law, we are now seeing huge confusion as people pore over the full implications of the ruling and some seem to capitalise to restrict the rights of trans people, without regard of the side effects on the wider LGBT community, or women.

We have now seen initial responses from people like the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Baroness Falkner, which appear to be taking a worst case interpretation of the ruling which does nothing but erode hard fought rights for trans people, claiming that we should be excluded from spaces we have existed in without issue for decades.

The British Transport Police have been fast off the mark to change their policies regarding strip searching of trans people. Male police officers can now strip search women if they believe they are trans (regardless of what genitalia that person might actually have). As a councillor I have seen officers in my council take weeks at the fastest to fully evaluate the impact of changes like this before introducing them, so find it impossible to believe that this policy has been introduced as a result of careful consideration of the implication of the ruling given the speed at which it has been done. It is clear that systemic transphobia remains embedded high in many public institutions, which are now rushing to bring in policies which harm vulnerable trans women.

I have no doubt that we will see more transphobic policies introduced under the guise of this ruling, rather than as a result of any careful consideration of the implication of it. These policies will hurt not only trans people, but be harmful for society in general as an erosion of liberty. Women in particular will be hurt by these decisions, shamefully championed by transphobic hate groups which masquerade as “women’s rights” campaigners, when inevitably authorities may make a judgement about their sex which turns out to be wrong. This has happened in the US through other trans-exclusionary definitions of women in bathroom bans. Legal recourse after the fact for redress is no compensation, and will remain open only to those with the pockets to fund it.

Lesbians in particular are likely to be particular victims of this ruling. In the court’s ruling, they also defined what a lesbian is. The argument that it was necessary to exclude trans women from the definition of women to protect lesbian rights was sickening, especially given acceptance of trans women is highest amongst lesbians. For many lesbians, some of whom may currently be in relationships with trans women, or have been in the past or experienced attraction to trans women. The only person who knows their own sexuality is themselves, and to be a lesbian, or a gay man, or straight, is only for that person to determine. This is a core liberal tenet, that you must be free to be yourself, and not be conformed to a definition or label by government or legal authorities.

My girlfriend and I are very much in love. She is a lesbian in love with me, a trans woman. It is wrong for a court to try and make a ruling that eliminates her status of a lesbian, something she knows and is a core part of her identity.

This is why the LGBT community comes together as it knows attacks on one part of our community damage our own. It has been heartening to see the outpouring of response and solidarity for the trans community from the wider LGBT community, as well as many women’s rights groups who are fearful for further erosion of their rights.

I have also been surprised by the outpouring of love and solidarity by acquaintances, colleagues, friends and family members. Many of these people are not activists, nor have been particularly motivated by trans rights in the past, but they have seen the news and recognise it for what it is. An unfair decision that will only result in harm for people like me. 

And I think this taps into one of the underlying reasons for our success as a party. We speak to the British values of fairness, and oppose unfairness. Trans people are a small minority, and many people do not know a trans person. But for those that do, seeing this ruling, and the subsequent announcements by the EHRC commissioner that this means we should be excluded from using the toilets that match their sex, it activates that very British sense of unfairness and they bristle against it. This is why we must rise to the challenge, and why the party’s initial response, which fell so short of the mark, angered many.

My mother does not want her trans daughter to use a men’s toilet where I may be at risk. The colleagues of my trans friend when she goes to the office as an engineer will expect her to use the women’s bathroom as she always does, and when another trans friend who runs her own small business asks to use the loo when she goes on to a client site, will still be directed to the women’s regardless of what the court says.

We must be the party that stands up and against this erosion.

Party leadership must step up to the civil rights challenge, and as liberals we should be ready for the fight and to shore up our civil liberties against any erosion. It is a scary time to be trans right now. I am fearful for the future. But together we must resist.

* Chris Northwood (she/her) is a councillor in Manchester, deputy group leader of the Manchester Liberal Democrats and member of Federal Council.