This post is specifically aimed at disabled people, especially those who like myself subscribe to the social approach or model of disability. I fear many of my brothers and sisters have not realised how important this recent period has been.

I’m aware that this post might be viewed in various ways, so I’m going to be as clear and as candid as possible.

My starting point is the UK Supreme Court ruling that the term ‘woman’ in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex and not gender identity. All kinds of issues follow from this decision, for example, what implications does this have for people who are intersexed? Trans women and men are particularly impacted upon by this decision, but so too are others such as people who identify as non-binary. I say this because the discourses being voiced now call into question what ‘gender identity’ means.

The fear and anger within trans communities are understandable and justified. This ruling means the definition of ‘woman’ within the Equality Act has legally stripped trans women of the right to be viewed and accepted as women irrespective of whether they have transitioned or not. On top of this, the ruling imposes the belief that trans women are ‘really men’ and should be treated as such.

The UK Supreme Court has sought to claim that it has only clarified the legal view that ‘woman’ is defined as ‘a sex’ in biological terms, and has no ramifications for social implications that may exist. This, of course, is the court’s Pontius Pilate moment. Already the social implications are being seen with various institutions planning radical changes to policy, procedure, and practices. Male police officers will be able to body search trans women in custody.

I stand by my assertion that this ruling will lead to insidious apartheid conditions for trans people. Talk of ‘segregated provision’ is already under way. By now some of you may be questioning why this post is aimed at disabled people; well, here comes the rub.

During the nineteenth century, there were a series of moral panics around health, disease, poverty, and crime. The poor, especially those with impairments, were regarded as both a moral and physical threat to society and as a consequence charities and other institutions were deployed to remove them from ‘the public gaze’. To cut a long story short, this was the grounding for addressing disablement through the social construction of ‘disability as personal tragedy’ and the development of disablism. 

Mike Oliver offered insights into the dominant ideologies and practices via his ‘individual tragedy model’. He also developed an alternative model which situated ‘disability’ not as a personal characteristic or a measurable functional loss, but a social situation created by the organisation of society which produces disabling barriers. Hence, the social model of disability.

By the 1990s the push for anti-discrimination legislation had reached its peak. The ADL campaign was relaunched as ‘RIGHTS NOW’ and we had a private members’ bill called the Civil Rights Bill. Fearing that this social model based bill might pass, the Tories introduced their own bill with definitions from the body-fascist quackery stable of the World Health Organisation. They won, we lost, and yes, the DDA was a bloody defeat!

When Blair set up a Disability Task Force, Caroline Gooding and myself wrote a submission outlining necessary changes to fall within the social approach. It was rejected and despite advising our DPOs to withdraw at this point, they declined. The outcome was that the Equality Act retains the oppressive definition of disabled person:

According to the Equality Act 2010, a disability is defined as “a physical or mental condition that has a substantial and long-term impact on an individual’s ability to perform normal day-to-day activities.”

And here comes the link and consequences, in my opinion. If the definitions within the Equality Act 2010 are the justification of viewing certain groups of people in particular ways, then I believe this has knock on implications for disabled people. The EA works through seeing ‘disability’ as being impairment plus measurable functional incapacities. It rejects the radical social model and only uses an aspect of the International Classification of Functioning (WHO)

Every time I, and those who subscribe to the social model, have to answer: “do you have a disability?” we are placed in an oppressive situation. Is this not a similar situation because the law is imposing on us a definition of ‘who and what we are’ according to the State’s normative values; values and appraisals that oppress us!

The DWP and Liz Kendal are using this definition, ‘a disability is a physical or mental condition that has a substantial and long-term impact on an individual’s ability to perform normal day-to-day activities’, for their ‘Benefits reforms’. And who decides ‘substantial and long-term impact’ – the DWP’s “medical experts”, who else?

I tried to warn BCODP of the dangers, but to no avail. I can’t think of a more inappropriate name for a piece of legislation that beats the Equality Act.

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government EcoSocialism Elections Europe Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza Imperialism Israel Keir Starmer Labour Party Marxism Palestine pandemic Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America War