On Trains, Disability, & "Biological Sex"
Disabled women know far too well what it is to fall outside society’s definition of womanhood. Solidarity to the trans community.
Every definition of “biological sex” I’ve seen leaves out plenty of cisgender1 women as well as trans ones. This is especially true for disabled women, who know far too well what it is to fall outside society’s definition of womanhood: biological, social, or otherwise. Disabled men, too. Disabled bodies defy and disprove biological markers of sex (and plenty of other normate societal delusions) every day.
The fact is, Wednesday’s horrific and unscientific UK Supreme Court ruling on “biological sex,” and its knock-on social-behavioural effects, will affect anyone with a perceivably non-normative bodymind.
***
While I waited in the station assistance office for a boarding ramp onto my train this afternoon, I had the misfortune of seeing the effects of the ruling in action: A mother and her young daughter entered the station assistance lounge just as the staff were taking me for ramp assistance to my train. The two said they’d queued for the women’s bathroom like everyone else, but when they got to the door, the cleaner denied the daughter entry. Why?
Her voice was “too deep.”
As I sit on my train writing this (and regretting not missing it to wait and see if the duo needed some bystander support), I wonder: What qualifies as a voice “too deep” to be a “biological woman?” Voice is not determined by “sex,” however you define it. I know plenty of women, trans or not, with deeper voices than some men I know.
What else might prevent women from being allowed to use a bathroom, in this new world where sex must be proven at the bathroom door? Too tall? Too flat-chested? Looking too masculine (you were in a rush and didn’t put on makeup this morning)? the presence of facial hair, as plenty of (cisgender) women have? (Especially those from negatively racialized backgrounds and/or who are disabled.)
If you’re a cis woman reading this, I encourage you to think about the consequences of such policing of your body, historically, now, and in the future. Who gains from there being a “right” kind of woman, decided and adjudicated by the State? Are you happy to submit to their standards and inspections? Do you feel safer now, I wonder?
And what is a “biological woman?” I invite you to try to define it. Are we talking about chromosomal sex? That would likely exclude women with Down Syndrome and other chromosomal anomalies. Hormone levels? Elevated testosterone affects 5-10% of women of reproductive age. Genitals, internal and/or external? I look forward to your categorisation of intersex people (who make up a larger portion of the population than trans people),2 anyone experiencing infertility, and those with congenital birth defects that affect genitalia.
Or is it none of those that make up “biological sex?” Is it something else? Some divine, alchemical combination of things that we’ll soon be enlightened with by … the UK Government bureaucracy?
Right. Excellent.
(And moreover, how many of us have actually had each of those “biological markers” tested such that we “know” (and can “prove”) that we meet every arbitrary measure of “our” so-called “biological sex?” Not me!)
(As an aside: it has always been strange to me that anti-trans activists are so against the idea of gender neutral/unisex bathrooms when they’ve been okay with us (disabled people) having them for decades. I can only conclude that this must be because we aren’t Real People with Real Genders, so our conditions of existence sit beyond the confines of the argument. (I did once accidentally guide a friend who is a blind woman into the men’s bathroom, having completely forgotten that normate bathrooms are gendered and one has to pick the “correct” one. My gender, for such purposes, has always been “Disabled.”))
***
On my way back to London, I nearly wasn’t allowed onto the train.
A member of station staff (wearing, I kid you not, giant Easter bunny ears) found me on the platform and chastised me for “not checking in with [her].” Because of this, she said, I “might not be able to get on [the train]”. I informed her that I’d “checked in” with her colleague (who, I recalled, was standing next to her at the assistance desk) and she said “Well, no one told me,” so I may not be able (meaning: allowed)3 to board. This litany of scoldings continued about five more times in the five minutes it took the train to arrive, at which point I boarded without issue; both wheelchair spaces were free, and onboard staff happy to assist.
My experience is not the same as a trans person, or a trans disabled person. But tell me: to what lengths must those with non-normative bodyminds go for our normate peers to concede to us that we have earned the privilege of dignity? To use their bathrooms? Board their trains? I suppose we must not only have the right paperwork and look and act a certain way — but also grovel, and be grateful for the opportunity.
(Unrelatedly, I must say, it adds an additional emotional dimension to having your rights challenged when the challenger is wearing Easter bunny ears.)
***
The reality is, I don’t know if the young woman at the train station was trans or not. And neither did the person who denied her access to a bathroom.
It’s a mystery to me how anti-trans activists see this ending, given the fact that trans people have always existed and will always exist. But I know that all women — trans and cis, disabled and not — are harmed by this ruling. As are those of every sex and gender.
Solidarity to the trans community. We’re here until we’re all free.
Meaning, essentially, “not trans”
It is estimated that 1.7% of the population are born with intersex traits, while 1% are trans.
According to the ORR’s 2024 benchmarking report, 24% of respondents reported not receiving the assistance they had booked. No statistics seem to be collected for people who exercise their right to request assistance without booking in advance (“turn up and go” (TUAG)).