Britain has become a dark mirror for trans rights

Mirrors are interesting objects: what others see as being left, mirrors show on the right. A dark mirror, then, shows a bleak alternate reality: one that’s the exact opposite of how everyone else sees it. Such is the case with UK gender politics today.

On one of my many visits to London, a friend took me to St Pancras Old Church. This is where Chevalière d’Éon (1728-1810) lies, a French diplomat, soldier, and spy. After working on assignment as a lady’s maid at a Saint Petersburg court, d'Éon lived the rest of her life as a woman and was officially recognised as such by King Louis XVI, who even paid for a new wardrobe of women’s clothes. This history makes d’Éon a trans icon, and there in the London rain, it felt profound to be reminded that trans people have always existed.

Stepping out of that old churchyard and back into current politics is quite jarring. Honestly, if trans people in Britain today were to get legal gender recognition from King Charles to return home with a bag of new clothes, Britain would be a lot more progressive than it currently is.

If trans people in Britain today were to get legal gender recognition from King Charles to return home with a bag of new clothes, Britain would be a lot more progressive than it currently is.

Instead, it is moving backwards, and the institutional dominoes that are now falling are making King Louis XVI look good in comparison. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that "sex" in the Equality Act should refer to "biological sex" – a term the ruling failed to define. Dismissing that this ruling is completely unworkable in practice, the judges wrote that this narrow case, which was about company board quotas, need not impact trans people’s lives. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for them to be proven wrong.

Less than two weeks ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) introduced its updated code of practice. In effect, the code says that, unlike 18th-century France, one cannot escape the sex they were assigned at birth, even if it was incorrect. Trans people are effectively barred from using toilets aligned with their gender, violating their human rights, and service providers must now somehow police these spaces based on appearance, undoing gains from third-wave feminism. And while the EHRC admits that trans women suffer from violence against women, it insists that they be excluded from victim support groups.

Defending the new code, the government insists that this approach ensures "everyone can access services safely, free from harassment, and with dignity.” Let me just say it: the government doesn’t know what “dignity” means, the Supreme Court has forgotten what “good law” is, and the equalities watchdog is driving exclusion. These are heavy accusations, but to escape from alternate reality, we need to call things by their name.

Let me just say it: the government doesn’t know what “dignity” means, the Supreme Court has forgotten what “good law” is, and the equalities watchdog is driving exclusion.

To understand how Britain found itself in a dark mirror in so little time, let’s look through the lens of intersectional feminism. (I mean, after reading Data Feminism, it’s hard not to!) Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins uses the concept of the “matrix of domination” to illustrate how oppression operates across four domains: the structural (laws and policies), the disciplinary (bureaucracies that enforce those laws and policies), the hegemonic (the media), and the interpersonal (daily lived experiences). Every single one of these domains is actively at play right now, working to oppress trans lives in Britain.

We already discussed law and policy. Now consider the hegemonic domain: the media. Amnesty recently outlined the outsized influence anti-trans organisations have on British journalism. Four UK newspapers published 17,000 articles on “trans issues” in just five years – averaging nine a day. Even the BBC helps distort reality by repeatedly referring to trans women as “biological males that identify as women”. In just a few years’ time, bullies became people with interesting voices to be heard, and hate groups became campaign groups with a worthy cause. In the dark mirror, bothsidesism is the norm. Stories of trans people thriving are one in a million.

Four UK newspapers published 17,000 articles on “trans issues” in just five years – averaging nine a day.

The inversion extends into healthcare, too. In the final hours of the Tory government, using an almost unprecedented emergency procedure, Victoria Atkins introduced a temporary ban on puberty blockers for trans under-18s, which Wes Streeting subsequently made permanent, when he could have simply let it expire. (Streeting just resigned, and his successor will no longer say that trans women are women.) There is no justification for why medicines deemed safe and routine internationally are somehow uniquely dangerous to British teenagers. The Cass Review, serving as political cover for these bans, was lauded in the UK, but has been torn to pieces by international scholars. Everywhere else, gender-affirming care is a medical matter, but in dark mirror Britain, it is a deeply political affair.

Everywhere else, gender-affirming care is a medical matter, but in dark mirror Britain, it is a deeply political affair.

In light of these developments, it should come as no surprise that the UK dropped from #1 in 2015 to #22 today on ILGA’s annual Rainbow Map, which ranks countries based on how well they protect the human rights of LGBTI+ people. Despite previously running on pro-LGBT manifestos, both Labour and the Tories have drastically reversed course. Theresa May’s gender self-ID plans were dropped by Liz Truss, and when Nicola Sturgeon passed self-ID in Scotland, it was blocked by Rishi Sunak. Keir Starmer fell in line. Ironically, the UK is slated to host the European International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT+) Forum in London next year. On closer reading, the government might realise it glossed over the word “against.” Indeed, in 2026 Britain, you can get married as a lesbian, but you might have to pee in the men’s room.

Back to the 18th century, then. After d'Éon moved to London, she was perhaps the first to discover the British obsession with gender. A public debate erupted about whether she was really a woman, and the London Stock Exchange even held a wager. She was invited to submit to a medical examination. She declined, stating that such an inspection would be dishonouring, whatever the result. A jury eventually decided that she was a woman, although mostly just to settle the payouts. And yet, after she died, she was medically examined anyway. The contrast with her experience in France couldn’t be starker.

We like to think that societies progress linearly, but in many ways, today’s Britain isn’t all that different from the time d'Éon made it her home.

We like to think that societies progress linearly, but in many ways, today’s Britain isn’t all that different from the time d'Éon made it her home: the questioning and debating of people’s gender in the public square, the need for medical justification, the humiliation. The matrix of domination is working overtime to keep the dark mirror in place. But mirrors can be broken, and it’s not too late to change course. 

I’ll be going back to St Pancras Old Church.