Naomi Cunningham barrister and Amery and Mondon’s analysis of transphobia

Naomi Cunningham barrister and Amery and Mondon’s analysis of transphobia – OPINION

Naomi Cunningham has emerged as a prominent voice in debates around trans rights and the definition of a woman. A barrister by profession and acting for nurse Sandie Peggie in her Employment Appeal Tribunal case, Cunningham is also of the chair ‘Sex Matters’ an organisation which lists itself as a “human rights” charity. 

While celebrated by some as a champion for “sex-based” rights, a closer examination of her rhetoric and actions through the analytical framework provided by Fran Amery and Aurelien Mondon in their review of organised transphobia appears to reveal a pattern that aligns with their key concepts.

Amery and Mondon argue that organised transphobia increasingly employs strategies based on ‘othering’, where transgender people are constructed as fundamentally different and a threat to societal norms – an approach used against the gay community some forty decades ago.

This process involves exaggerating threats and relying on authoritarian tendencies that target marginalised groups. Cunningham’s consistent emphasis on a binary understanding of biological sex – as summarised in the Holyrood article (08/03/25) headlined, “Naomi Cunningham: I am filled with rage, and I have been lucky.”  appears to pattern “othering.”

By reducing the complexities of gender identity to a simplistic biological determinism, gender-critical discourse positions transgender people as deviating from a natural and established order of “normal” despite the fact that trans people were being identified in society thousands of years ago. 

Cunnigham’s refusal to use preferred pronouns further reinforces this binary. It can be seen as a deliberate act of denying the self-identified gender of transgender individuals, thus solidifying their status as ‘other’ in opposition to a perceived biological ‘truth.’ Cunningham is likely to have gay friends – there is no biology to prove “gayness” – they self-identify, too. Does she query their status as gay or lesbian?  

Probably not.

Amery and Mondon highlight the role of moral panics in the advancement of transphobic agendas. While Cunningham’s “cuddly” interview in Holyrood (authored by Mandy Rhodes) does not explicitly detail the construction of specific moral panics, the “grooming of children into mental ill-health and physical mutilation” echoes prevalent themes within anti-transgender rhetoric that aims to generate fear and anxiety, particularly around the well-being of children.

This kind of language, while presented as a genuine concern, often lacks empirical basis and serves to demonise transgender people and those who support their rights. Amery and Mondon argue that such tactics are central to the mainstreaming of transphobic politics.

Amery and Mondon also point to the reactionary nature of organised transphobia, which often relies on authoritarian tendencies and aims to divert attention from fundamental social inequalities.

Cunningham’s work, particularly her focus on what she defines as women’s rights in opposition to transgender inclusion, can be interpreted through this lens. By framing the rights of cisgender women as being in conflict with the rights of transgender individuals, she appears to contribute to a divisive narrative that distracts from broader feminist goals of equality for all.

Her strong alignment with gender-critical groups like Sex Matters (which has been vocal in its opposition to trans human rights) further situates her within a network actively engaged in reactionary political discourse invariably targeting trans women – just 0.2% of the population.  

The long-established American human rights organisation, the Lemkin Institute, made this statement about the gender-critical movement in November 2022:

“The gender critical movement simultaneously denies that transgender identity is real and seeks to eradicate it completely from society. Many gender critical ideologues identify themselves as feminists and believe themselves to be protecting women from men.

The movement, a centrepiece of right-wing ascendancy in the Western world, calls for discrimination against and harassment of transgender individuals and the transgender community through laws and policies that criminalise trans identity and trans life”.

Amery and Mondon also discuss the populist discourse of exclusion, where organised transphobia attempts to remove transgender people from the category of ‘The People’ by constructing a narrative that appeals to a perceived common sense or majority view. Cunningham’s repeated emphasis on “reality” and “truth” regarding biological sex resonates with this strategy.

By asserting that her understanding of sex is simply a statement of fact that “everybody on the planet knows“, she implicitly delegitimises transgender identities as being out of touch with this fundamental reality. This appeal to a supposedly self-evident truth is a hallmark of populist exclusionary discourse, as analysed by Amery and Mondon, which seeks to establish who legitimately belongs to ‘The People’ and who does not.

While the interview does not provide a detailed account of Cunningham’s personal journey into these beliefs, her statement that she is now “harder core” than she was initially could be seen as a personal reflection of a process akin to what Amery and Mondon term ‘peaking’, where individuals become increasingly entrenched in reactionary beliefs through engagement with the discourse and community.

Her acknowledgement of being part of a “powerfully interconnected movement” (some gender-critical lawyers have links to far-right evangelicals) and having received “extraordinary training” within her network underscores the social and discursive environment that reinforces and amplifies these views, a dynamic also highlighted by Amery and Mondon in their analysis of how transphobic beliefs are organised and sustained. 

The Holyrood article highlights Naomi Cunningham’s past successes in gender-critical litigation, and she is clearly a very good lawyer in the type of cases she specialises in – I am sure she will be a “go-to” lawyer for many EAT cases in the future.

But, there is more away from Amery and Mondon’s sociological view of transphobia, which in my city has a definition:

“The definition of transphobia is the dislike, prejudice, discrimination, denial of identity, hatred or violence towards people who identify as transgender or gender diverse”. 

In her Holyrood article, Rhodes spins gender-critical views as mainstream. That is highly contentious, with both UN Women and the Council of Europe making statements to the contrary.

It’s no surprise Cunningham admires her Sex Matters colleagues Forstater and Joyce, whose book I eventually read only to discover (perhaps not surprisingly) it had a very one-sided viewpoint and very arguable points. 

Cunningham’s last words in the Holyrood article were:

“And I now really know from the inside what it is to have a good war, because I’m having a good war“.

And indeed, it is a war.

A war that has seen trans hate crime rise circa 1500% in a decade, driven by the gender-critical cult.

It is a war that has driven parents of gender-questioning and trans kids to beyond despair because they can’t gain access to puberty blockers or even decent healthcare for their children. The gender-critical allege they are “safeguarding.”  Perhaps try telling that to a parent who lives just a few miles away from me and whose thirteen-year-old trans daughter is now having suicidal thoughts because their private healthcare provider can no longer access puberty blockers? 

A war that has taken trans lives. Just hours after Helen Joyce made her infamous statement to ‘reduce the number of trans people in a sane world’, a 22-year-old trans woman took her own life by jumping off a cliff.

Personally, I have experienced transphobia numerous times, most publicly when I was appointed CEO of a women’s health charity – the gender critical did not care about my CV – they cared I was trans. Helen Joyce described my appointment as “insulting and idiotic.” Fortunately for the charity, it has worked out well, and I am still volunteering for them. 

The negative is that my wife found the whole situation incredibly stressful; she developed cancer just a few weeks later and suffered an agonising death.

Transphobia stinks, and it doesn’t just affect individuals…. it affects loved ones, too. 

Looking at posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Mumsnet by gender-critical “feminists”, it is apparent that the hatred of trans women is at levels that can only be described as paranoia – often sitting at a computer all day, posting insults about and to trans women, and constantly misgendering.

A case in point is Cunninghams’ refusal to call Dr Beth Upton by her preferred pronouns, which reminds me of racists who use the “N” or “P” words when referring to black or Asian people. Black and Asian people do have different skin colour from white people, so is it ok to insult them?

Perhaps the gender-critical get some weird kick out of misgendering? There is undoubtedly evidence they get a big thrill, as this video, posted on social media, clearly demonstrates. 

I think most sensible people would agree that the employers of Dr Beth Upton and Nurse Sandie Peggie could have handled the apparent conflict differently. In my opinion, they should have noted that Sandie Peggie, like Cunningham, holds gender-critical views, which I personally feel are abhorrent but are obviously legally protected. Ultimately, the “thought police” don’t exist – rightly, we are all entitled to opinions.

Gender-critical people invariably argue that trans women should not use women’s single-sex spaces, that we can’t change sex, and that we are a danger to children. They claim we deny the realities of sex. That is fundamentally untrue for most trans people – all we ask is to be able to live our lives in peace and not to be discriminated against unfairly. 

Trans people argue that gender-critical people are prejudiced, bigoted and fascists and are vehicles to abolish LGBT+ human rights and women’s rights regarding bodily autonomy – as advocated by organisations like the Heritage Foundation, the authors of Project 2025. 

Whatever your position on these two statements, the obvious conclusion is there is no trust, empathy, or respect from either side. 

War it certainly is.

It’s not unreasonable for a cisgender woman to ask for a female nurse or doctor – we all understand that, but this principle goes much further. Black people have every right not to be cared for by racists, and trans people have every right not to be treated by transphobic gender-critical doctors or nurses. 

Many would argue that people who hold prejudices should not be employed in caregiving positions. Perhaps, they should be placed on official lists so we know who they are?

According to the Holyrood article, Naomi Cunningham is “warm, funny and extraordinarily self-deprecating” – perhaps she is, but I don’t consider misgendering funny – I think it’s disgusting. After viewing the video above, I hope many people will share my opinion. 

Ultimately,  many human rights organisations consider the global gender-critical movement to be a hate movement principally financed by the evangelical far-right, and this is being played out in Trump’s America as I type. 

Having taken one of the most challenging journeys in humanity, trans people have the right to be safe and respected both at work and within society at large … and the fact is we are not respected, nor are we safe, in or around gender-critical people.

Sadly, a young trans woman doctor, with her whole career in front of her, has found this out to her cost. She is not the “villain” as being played out by the right-wing press.

She is the victim of a disease that is endemic in the UK, within politics, the media and society at large.

Transphobia.

…………………………….

This opinion article was authored by Steph Richards, published on 16th March 2025, and last edited at 16:25 to give a broader opinion of transphobia than first published.