The papers: The day after the Supreme Court ruling
This report focuses on the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Mail, Mail on Sunday, Times, Sunday Times, Guardian and Observer, English print editions only.
It has been almost two months since I stopped publishing all the clips I collect, after a year of doing it weekly. I’m still clipping, still recording, but not publishing them all due to time constraints more than anything. Also, it’s not fun for anyone, me alt texting them all nor you having to look at them. The point was made and now it’s about documenting it all for the court cases that will most definitely come.
The last week featured in the Trans Agenda saw 79 clips and it was that which pushed me to take a break. So, it was great to find that the following week, when I finally caught up, had 79 as well. Welcome back.
The Supreme Court judgement was delivered on 16 April and 17 April saw the busiest day since I began recording the number of articles, coincidentally, on 16 April 2024.
In the year leading up to the judgment, I clipped 1,075 articles from the papers listed at the start of this post. The papers read by the judges on the Supreme Court and the political elite – the Telegraph and Times – accounted for 68.84%, nearly all of which were attacks based on lies, misrepresentations and the silencing of trans voices.
Even the Guardian and Observer, for all their liberal posturing, ran enough similar pieces that judges who like to think of themselves as progressive would still feel legitimised in siding with reactionary nonsense.
The day after the ruling, four papers ran 28 articles between them. It was front-page news in them all. There was no other story in the world that mattered more to them that day.
The Telegraph led with bold declarations: “Trans women are not women” and "We won! Our courts have finally said what our politicians refuse to," framing the judgment as a long-overdue vindication of so-called ‘common sense’ in what is now an infamous front page that Graham Linehan wore on a t-shirt as he appeared in court, charged with harassing a trans child. It will become their ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ to future generations.
The ruling, in their view, would usher in “huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance” and spark a “seismic” shift across “lavatories to sports”. It was, they insisted, the end of “years of fevered debate”. Their claims didn’t even stand up for 24 hours.
There was no ambiguity in the Mail either, why would there be? They had played their part in ensuring this result was delivered. Its front pages screamed "HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN... AND COMMON SENSE," with follow-up pieces celebrating “tears, cheers and toasts” outside the Supreme Court and insisting “an era of collective madness is over.” If only.
The narrative was clear: the battle had been won, the enemy - trans rights - defeated, and the “truth” of biological sex reinstated. For a time, at least.
The Times adopted a more formal tone but no less a celebratory stance. “Sanity restored,” it announced, hailing the court’s unanimous decision as a triumph over “faddish, destructive radicalism”. They warned of “chaos” in equality policies, declared the “end in sight for the supremacy of trans ideology,” and assured readers that women’s “safe spaces” had been legally fortified from people who were never a threat.
The Guardian framed the ruling as a potential reset, noting that “new battle lines” were being drawn, while political leaders may now “breathe a sigh of relief”. Its acknowledgement that the ruling may “have far-reaching impact on trans rights” was one of the few concessions to the lives most directly affected.
Since the ruling, however, their tone has changed significantly and it’s not quite clear if that is because they feel guilt for the role they played or the departure of the Observer’s Terfs and the ever-growing distance between editor Kath Viner and her staff. I suspect it’s a little of all three.
Years of groundwork went into delivering this ruling, and it was that as much as anything that the papers were celebrating. The only thing ‘clear’ however is that it will all be looked back on by historians and the queer community as a watershed moment in the UK and the names of those who gloated will fill the pages alongside the rest of fascism’s enablers.
I look forward to the day when I no longer have to write the Trans Agenda and, instead, it becomes a court exhibit and art installation.
Headlines from 17 April 2025
Cowards must be brought to book, Telegraph, Oliver Brown
Former FA chairman blasts football’s governing body over ‘atrocious’ transgender policy. FA and ECB warned of legal threat from court verdict. Top officials told they should ‘stand down immediately’, Telegraph, Tom Morgan, Ben Rumsby
Trans women are not women. Supreme Court’s ruling will see huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance, Telegraph, Daniel Martin, Janet Eastham, Hayley Dixon
From lavatories to sports, this ruling is seismic for women. Ministers poised to change the law after landmark judgment puts to bed years of fevered debate, Telegraph, Hayley Dixon
We won! Our courts have finally said what our politicians refuse to, Telegraph, Suzanne Moore
Trans women are not women. Supreme Court’s ruling will see huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance, Telegraph, Daniel Martin, Janet Eastham, Hayley Dixon
Trans activists lick their wounds and vow to force Labour into change, Telegraph, Daniel Martin
The women who led the push for victory. How three Mumsnet users, one sacked academic and a charity boss fought through dogma and death threats, Telegraph, Janet Eastham
Rowling’s friend claims she was barred by vet because of gender views, Telegraph, Telegraph reporters
Supreme court and the outbreak of common sense (cartoon), Telegraph, Blower
At last, some legal common sense, Telegraph, Kemi Badenoch
HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN... AND COMMON SENSE. As judges rule that women ARE defined by biological sex, will Labour finally act to protect their rights?, Mail, Sam Merriman, Harriet Line
TEARS, CHEERS AND TOASTS TO VICTORY. Jubilant scenes at Supreme Court as activists celebrate end of their seven-year battle, Mail, Sam Merriman
How Starmer transitioned from saying 99.9% of women don’t have a penis to wanting to protect women-only spaces, Mail, Harriet Line
Far too many liberals jumped on the trans bandwagon and betrayed women, Mail, Julie Bindel
An era of collective madness is over. This is not a ‘defeat’ for trans women, it’s an accurate reflection of who we really are, Mail, Debbie Hayton
JK’s barrister friend ‘banned from vets over gender beliefs’, Mail, Freya Barnes
Legal definition of woman ‘is based on biological sex’. Supreme court ruling may have far-reaching impact on trans rights, Guardian, Severin Carrell
‘Real issues now start’. New battle lines formed as judgment sinks in, Guardian, Jessica Murray
Politicians may be breathing a sigh of relief as clear ruling lets them dodge difficult questions, Guardian, Peter Walker, Severin Carrell
Equality policies in chaos as court defines a woman. Campaigners hail victory for biological sex. Legal backing for safe spaces for women, Times, Geraldine Scott, Sanchez Manning, Daniel Sanderson
Landmark ruling to affect work, sport, the NHS and education, Times, Sanchez Manning
End is in sight for the supremacy of trans ideology, Times, Janice Turner
Vets ‘expelled’ me because of my views, says barrister, Times, Jonathan Ames
The judge, dramatically lit and gazing poses the question “WHAT IS A WOMAN?” written in the top left corner of the frame. The skull he holds has long pink hair. The skull’s speech bubble reads: “TWO X, OR NOT TWO X, THAT IS THE QUESTION…” (cartoon), Times, cartoonist
Sanity Restored. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that the description ‘woman’ should be based on biological sex is a victory for truth over faddish, destructive radicalism, Times, comment