Here we go again. Typical British fudge, with a dash of paternalism. This time, the calculation appears to be that because those disadvantaged are the transgender community – a minority within a minority – the government can press on regardless and weather the resulting fuss.

How else to explain the extraordinary intransigence of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in the case of MB, a trans woman who should have been eligible for a pension in 2008 but for her religious scruples. She and her partner refused to divorce, then a precondition of obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) as same-sex marriage had not been introduced. Without it, she was forced to wait a further five years before obtaining her pension because she was still, in the eyes of the DWP, “a man”.

With the supreme court unable to make up its mind on how to deal with this issue – MB, not unnaturally, wants her extra five years of pension back – the case is now on its way to Europe where, it is likely, the DWP will lose. But not before squandering a small fortune on defending the indefensible.

How did we get here? And why, despite its claim to have granted “equal marriage” to the LGBT community, is the institution on offer such a second-rate cousin to the “real thing”, heterosexual marriage?

There was obvious logic to making the granting of a GRC dependent on divorce back in 2004, when the Gender Recognition Act was passed. Not to do so would mean the creation, de facto, of a tranche of gay marriages, as trans people who stay happily married to their (now) same-sex spouse gained a new legal gender.

Ten years on, all has changed. Gay marriage is on the statute books. But not equal marriage. That is government rhetoric. In fact, what passed a couple of years back is mostly equal. But different. There are technical differences around what constitutes consummation and adultery, in part, it would appear, because government legal advisers had some difficulty with getting their heads around any definition of “having sex” that did not involve inserting a penis into a vagina.

This, though, is small fry compared to what the government has done on pension rights. They are not the same. Or rather, the rights of a surviving partner are not the same: in fact, they are often significantly less. Here is one further frustrating twist of the knife for the trans community.

Because while one may now transition while remaining married, the government has introduced the spousal veto, giving non-transitioning partners the right to say no to their other half obtaining a GRC. Why? Ostensibly to protect spousal rights, although there is little evidence any spouses were asking for this. Yet nonetheless, the government has given spouses both the means and the motive to block their partner’s GRC.

It all seems a vicious brew of spite, bloody-mindedness and a determination that equal should not mean equal: the same toxic concoction that meant 10 years back trans people had to choose GRC or marriage. And one last twist of the knife: those that did divorce back then cannot have their marriage back, must pay a second time to marry, in exchange for pension rights that will not be backdated.

As for MB, she must wait some years more for a victory I am quite sure will eventually be hers. For the DWP has a long and tawdry track record of fighting losing battles on trans rights in Europe to the bitter end. The roof will not fall in.

Any legal precedent will apply to individuals who transitioned from male to female between 2005 and 2013, were married, were eligible to retire then and refused to divorce. Factor in that MB also had an interim GRC and the one expert in this area estimates that the number of cases affected by an adverse ruling might not even reach double figures.

In other words, the DWP is being cruel: defensive for the sake of being defensive, likely spending far more on resisting this claim than it would ever pay out if all possible similar claims had to be paid. And the government wonders why many in the trans community do not trust them.