Being trans in Britain takes the idea of ”you have to laugh or you’ll cry” to new, nightmarish levels. Before you meet Rishi Sunak, rest assured that I’m not being flippant: I don’t mean “laugh”, as anything is even remotely funny. I mean, it’s like having your jaw slack and slightly scoffing as if you can’t believe something you just heard. Sarcasm is actually a panicked attempt to disprove “something” and at the same time there is fear in your eyes. This kind of laughter.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear our Prime Minister insult trans people to score cheap political points (as does Sunak and business secretary Kemi Badenoch and others’ lack of self-awareness to level the same accusation at Starmer). Honestly, it wasn’t even a surprise that this happened in the presence of the mother of a murdered trans girl. I can’t imagine any trans person living in Britain over the past six-odd years has been surprised by the relentless, coordinated, cynical and very vocal attacks on not only our legal protections but also our humanity.
What surprised me and triggered the feeling of ridicule lest I be offended was the broader reaction. Starmer looked horrified. Political journalists openly stated that this was a terrible moment for the prime minister. In fact, this analysis was at least echoed throughout the rest of the day: Inside Downing Street. For the first time in years, a powerful public figure said something derogatory, wrong and inhumane about trans people, and everyone reacted as they should. Beyond a few publications parroting No 10’s defense of the comment, rather than ignoring or praising the evidence of anti-trans bias as “common sense”, the mainstream verdict was: this was unacceptable; worthy of the kind of outrage that requires a public apology; The inappropriateness of civil discourse in modern democracy.
Wait a minute, I thought, I don’t understand. How can it seem wrong to everyone when senior Tory and Labor politicians have been saying for months that a woman cannot have a penis? Journalists and commentators have been asking for a while, “Can a woman have a penis?” How can they react to the question without hesitation? and “What is a woman?” What were somehow the most pressing questions on the lips of reporters in this green and pleasant land?
Where were you when we were screaming into the void about the real-world dangers of the unchecked anti-trans biases that obsess so many right-wing politicians and their “gender equality critics” allies? Where was the condemnation in 2021 when the then health secretary, Sajid Javid, branded it “”?complete denial of scientific truthTo say that some – relatively few, of course – but some men have a cervix? How can you condemn Sunak’s pathetic attempt at humor but in the next breath frame the substance of it as a valid and urgent matter of public debate?
The objectification of trans bodies for political gain, as if we were not full human beings with minds, fears, hopes, ideas, families, jobs, histories, is unacceptable now, unacceptable then, and will never be acceptable. , futures and fundamental rights. Our humanity cannot be discussed in any civilized forum. We are no more fair to PMQ’s jokes than anyone else. But before Wednesday it seemed that the vast majority of politics and media agreed with us. For many years, transgender people had to deal with this brutal and destabilizing reality, and it was nothing short of a living hell.
One level, I get it. Everyone suddenly realized that they could be horrified by transphobic rhetoric because someone who loved a trans person was in parliament that day. I don’t want to dwell on how ill Esther Ghey must have felt. To give context to this piece, having to talk about him and his family, who desperately need to be left to grieve in peace, frankly makes me want to punch a wall. But it cannot be ignored – and it wasn’t at all – had Brianna’s mother not visited that day, Sunak’s noxious sarcasm would have passed without comment. That would be dehumanizing business as usual.
For the rest of the day, I spent the rest of the day cooking pesto pasta for my six- and two-year-olds and sorting laundry, texting with friends and fellow trans journalists, trying to make sense of it all. . The confusing outcry is not Sunak using us as his party’s favorite political football man.
Relating to: Sunak refuses to apologize to Brianna Ghey’s father over PMQs trans row
People smarter than me helped me get to the truth. If it’s wrong to insult and exploit a defenseless minority when someone’s mother is there, it’s not actually “wrong”, right? The fundamental choice to treat trans people as if we don’t matter or aren’t actually “real” will continue. Sunak’s real mistake was embarrassing himself and everyone else there. Consider the logic of toxic male jokes: It’s not wrong to make misogynistic jokes, that’s their logic; It’s just awkward and embarrassing to do this in front of your girlfriend, your wife, your mother… she’ll take it the wrong way. Therefore, content is good as long as you choose your target audience. When it comes to the humanity of transgender people, I think the socially acceptable audience is for PMQs: anyone with an internet-enabled screen can watch.
There is at least one more consequence that explains the uncharacteristic terror, the hints of genuine regret. This is the bond he forms with Esther Ghey, who is not only a parent but also unusually caring; our best. If the Conservative Party and its allies want to continue using and exploiting transgender people, they want you to believe that we are just an abstract concept. For this lie to be valid, they need to be careful not to remind you that it’s just a lie.
The worst thing they can do, the thing that will truly make them regret it, is to make it clear that we are actually human. We have mothers like Esther, fathers like Brianna’s father, Peter Spooner, and we are, in every sense, ordinary people who do not deserve to be insulted, exploited, or argued with, no matter who is in the room.
-
Freddy McConnell is a freelance journalist
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to email a response of up to 300 words for publication in our letters section, please click here.