Read more at We Are Queer AF.

New digital IDs in the UK could be “catastrophic” for Trans+ people, who could be forced to out themselves when showing their ID – even if they don’t include a sex marker on them.

Keir Starmer announced the new scheme at a gathering of centre-left parties at the Global Progress Action conference. He said the move was designed to ‘crack down’ on people who don’t have the right to work in the UK getting jobs.

If the UK implements these IDs, it would join countries including Bosnia and Herzegovina, United Arab Emirates, China, Greece, France and Afghanistan.

However, within just hours of the announcement, he faced massive opposition to his ‘Brit Card’ system, with over a million people signing a parliamentary petition not to proceed. While we were monitoring the form, it was rising by around 200-300 new signatures every ten seconds.

The mock-ups shared do not include a sex marker, and only require name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photo. So far, Ministers have stressed there will never be a reason to carry IDs around or to produce them other than for work.

Implications of mandatory ID for LGBTQIA+ people

Keyne Walker, TransActual strategy director, tells QueerAF that even before the plans were announced anti-trans groups have already been lobbying ministers, civil servants and right-wing parliamentarians “to ensure that the single governmental record held lists trans people as their ‘birth sex'”. 

Walker believes this scheme could easily be weaponised and hijacked by MPs who are already trying to push anti-trans policies through Parliament. “It could provide the answer to the fundamental unworkability of bathroom bans… you don’t need to ask people to show their birth certificate if instead they have to scan an ID card to take a pee.”  

Trans legal researcher, Jess O’Thomson, warns that the policy could have a “catastrophic” potential even just with the risk that it outs Trans+ people who haven’t yet got the legal recognition they need ahead of applying for a job:

“We know that anti-trans campaigning groups are looking for any opportunity to strip back trans people’s rights even further. I have no doubt that these groups will push for digital ID to record “biological sex”, forcibly outing trans people, and pushing them further out of public life.

“The real worry is that our government might go along with them, or else an amendment to the legislation could be forced through. These IDs could be catastrophic for the queer community.”

The UK’s history of ID cards

The UK hasn’t had a nationwide mandatory ID scheme since WWII, which ended after Lord Chief Justice Goddard said in a high court that the continuation of the wartime ID card scheme was an “annoyance” to much of the public and “tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers”. Winston Churchill’s government scrapped them following the ruling and wider criticism over costs and police misuse – BBC

In more recent years, Tony Blair’s Labour government legislated for voluntary ID cards in the early 2000s, but the scheme was scrapped in 2011 by the Conservative-led coalition, which argued it was too costly and intrusive.

Analysis: Lists of queer people are incredibly vulnerable to being weaponised against us

“It is a big red flag when authoritarian governments that keep talking about putting people in camps start making lists of queer people,” Keyne Walker from Trans Actual remarked to QueerAF.

That, of course, is a big-picture view of this story – and we should be careful to see the news in its context at this stage, given there are scarce details on the scheme.

But the warnings from legal and privacy campaigners come amid a wider slide into authoritarian policies the UK has been adopting in recent years, including plans to make it possible to criminalise wearing a mask at Pride events.

Indeed, from reporting on queer news for the best part of a decade now, I know well that the privacy concerns about the danger lists of queer people can create, which we’re already hearing from campaigners are far from new. 

Privacy campaigner and founding member of QueerAF Kyle Taylor, says on the surface, digital ID cards may seem innocuous enough – but you need only look to history to see how easily marginalised groups become victims of state-sponsored discrimination or violence:

“The last thing you want is for the government to know who you are and where you are when they decide to, for example, make conversion therapy mandatory. Make no mistake, privacy is power and this puts everyone at risk. Especially our community.”

There has always been a present danger of bad actors weaponising central lists; it’s one of the reasons the Covid Track and Trace app was eventually decentralised amid opposition to how it could create a list of disabled people.

This is a development we should watch carefully, especially amid a growing focus and battleground on the right to privacy amid potential segregation of Trans+ people in public life.

To beat misinformation we need a well resourced queer led newsroom that can cut through the noise and get to the facts.

Our publisher is small, but mighty, and that’s because of some key principles in the way we produce news for you:

• Our newsletter always has been, and always will be, free of adverts. That keeps us focused on what counts, not what drives clicks
• Readers and members drive our news agenda, because that’s what our community deserves: news told both by and for us
• Investing in a new generation of queer journalists, and packing the media full of us, is the best way to address the issue in the sector. Meanwhile, we’ll model the change we want to see and prove it’s possible to do justice to our community’s stories

Journalism is an expensive craft. It takes all week to put together this newsletter, so you can catch up on the queer world in five minutes. And we do that alongside mentoring creatives and lobbying the media sector.

If you believe in our unique model and the change we’re bringing to the queer news sector, please upgrade today if you can – and help us continue to grow.

*This is being reported by The Independent on MSN.

Sir Keir Starmer must embrace Donald Trump’s agenda by repealing hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line, sources close to JD Vance have told The Independent.

The warning came after the US vice-president suggested a UK-US agreement may be close, with the White House “working very hard” on it.

He told UnHerd: “I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.”

But allies of Mr Vance say he is “obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation” – including his view that free speech is being eroded in Britain – and that he will demand the Labour government rolls back laws against hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, as a condition of any deal.

The Independent was told: “The vice-president expressing optimism [on a trade deal] is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech. If a deal does not go through, it makes Labour look bad.”

Mr Vance’s recent speech to the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank was cited as an example of his views on Western culture and free speech being linked to securing an agreement.

“No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that,” the source close to the vice-president said.

It is understood that Britain has already offered to drop its proposed digital services tax as a means of getting a trade deal through. But the US wants to see laws on hate speech repealed as well as plans for a new online safety law dropped.

Labour has made it clear it is not prepared to go that far. A Downing Street source said the subject “is not a feature of the talks”.

However, the issue seems to be one of the main sticking points from the White House’s perspective.

Talks began last month after Sir Keir visited Mr Trump in the White House and intensified earlier this month with the tariffs announcement. While tariffs have been suspended for 90 days, the hope is that a deal can be done before they are brought into force.

Downing Street is aiming not for a traditional trade deal, but one focused on growth industries of the future, such as biotech and artificial intelligence.

Ministers insist this will not mean Britain has to accept imports of chlorinated chicken or beef with hormones, which have long been cited as concerns. However, they hope it will see most, if not all, tariffs removed between the two countries.

While Mr Trump’s trade secretary Howard Lutnick has taken a leading role in the talks with UK business secretary Jonathan Reynolds, the president announced at the start that Mr Vance would take the overall lead in the negotiations. UK sources have said he has been at the forefront of the tech side of the talks.

This has put the issue of free speech front and centre for Mr Vance and his allies in getting a deal with the UK.

The issue has become a central problem in UK-US relations since the summer riots when Mr Trump ally and X (Twitter) owner Elon Musk launched a vitriolic social media campaign against Sir Keir and his government, with people arrested over tweets.

It continued when Sir Keir visited the White House for the first time since Mr Trump took power and clashed with Mr Vance in front of the TV cameras in the Oval Office. The vice-president claimed that free speech was being undermined and also claimed that laws being brought in for online safety were an attack on US tech giants.

Most recently, the trial of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce for silently praying outside an abortion clinic has become a major issue in the US, with Mr Vance criticising the UK legal system over the case.

In his interview with UnHerd, the vice-president expressed optimism about the talks.

He said: “We’re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government.

“The president really loves the United Kingdom. He loved the Queen. He admires and loves the King. It is a very important relationship. And he’s a businessman and has a number of important business relationships in [Britain]. But I think it’s much deeper than that.

“There’s a real cultural affinity. And, of course, fundamentally, America is an Anglo country.”

Meanwhile, Mr Reynolds on Tuesday said he had been clear with US counterparts that he did not support Mr Trump’s approach on tariffs.

But he said there is a need in some instances to look at how to rebalance world trade to ensure greater fairness.

He said: “I don’t support the kind of approach to unilateral tariffs that the US has pursued. We’ve made that very clear to our US friends and colleagues, but there are issues as to how parts of trading works around the word, and there is a need to look at how we can do that fairly: how we can consider where in some cases countries are not operating to the same rules that we might expect here in the UK?”

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

*This is being reported by The Guardian

The UK supreme court has issued a historic and definitive ruling that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex.

In a decision that delighted gender-critical activists, five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).

The judgment could have far-reaching ramifications and lead to greater restrictions on the access for trans women to services and spaces reserved for women. It prompted calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

The UK government said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” for women and those who run hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges.

A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

The case was brought to the supreme court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.

Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.

That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said. However, trans women still have equal pay rights as women, and could have the right to be treated as women in some situations.

In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.

If “sex” did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”, it said.

The justices added: “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”

The ruling represents a significant defeat for the Scottish government. For Women Scotland had initially challenged legislation that allowed trans women with a GRC to sit on public boards in posts reserved for women.

Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, said his government accepted the court’s judgment. He said it clarified the limits of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced gender recognition certificates for trans people.

“We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” he said. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

The Scottish government defended its actions in the case, which it said were always guided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice. It said it would now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the ruling’s implications, since the legislation involved was passed by Westminster.

Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.

The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.

“We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.”

Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of the human rights group Amnesty International UK, which joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case, said the decision was “clearly disappointing”.

“There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment,” he said.

“The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.”

Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the legal action had been “a really, really long road”. “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said.

“Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the supreme court for this ruling.”

In a social media post, JK Rowling said: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the supreme court,” adding: “I’m so proud to know you.”

Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the EHRC that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”.

This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.

And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said it was pleased the ruling had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces, but would need time to fully understand its implications.

“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”