TOP politicians and feminist campaigners hailed a “victory for common sense” today after the Supreme Court ruled that trans women are NOT women.
A panel of five judges sided with defiant campaign group For Women Scotland, and against the Scottish Government, declaring the concept of sex is binary.
Susan Smith and Marion Calder, Directors of For Women Scotland make a statement outside Britain’s Supreme Court following the court’s ruling that trans women are not women[/caption]
Women celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London[/caption]
Campaigners from For Women Scotland (FWS) outside the Supreme Court[/caption]
Hailing the landmark decision, Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch said: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.
“This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious.
“Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.”
Taking aim at Sir Keir Starmer, who previously suggested that women CAN have male genitalia, Ms Badenoch added: “The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end.”
A Government spokesman said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”
Hitting back at Ms Badenoch, a Labour source added: “This just shows why it was so important that Keir hauled the Labour Party back to the commonsense position the public take on these sorts of issues. He gradually moved the party to one that took the activist position to a serious, sensible one that protected women’s spaces while allowing for respectful debate.
“It’s one of the reasons the country felt Labour was safe to elect just a few years after the disaster of 2019.“
Scottish Tory Leader, Russell Findlay, said: “This is a victory for women across the United Kingdom and a victory for common sense.”
Tina Budge, the head of for Women Scotland, lauded the ruling as a “victory for women’s rights”.
Ms Budge said: “Trans people never had these rights to access women-only space.
“This was an overreach. Trans people are protected like anyone else is, but this clarifies women’s rights.”
I’ve suffered 20 years of hell fighting to prove trans women aren’t women & now I’m backed by the law – today, women won
By Julie Bindel
TODAY, women won.
To establish something everyone has known all along, and the great detriment of the years of activism, trial and error, torment and harassment many of us have faced for daring to demand women only spaces, and for refusing to accept that men can be legally considered to be a subset of women, as and when they fancy identifying as one.
I have had more than 20 years of hell from gender activists, since I dared to speak out about this in 2004.
But now, the highest court in the land has confirmed that a woman is a biological female, and that “certificated sex”, meaning a man with a gender recognition certificate, is not the same.
Men’s rights activists tended to not go berserk at the time we were setting up women only spaces because of the threat and reality of violence and sexual harassment.
When we campaigned for single sex spaces such as hospital awards and prisons, it was understood why they were needed.
And when feminists set up rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters to keep women and their children safe from deadly male violence, it was understood why we needed such provision.
Although some men became defensive when we said we could not share public bathrooms and changing rooms, with some telling us they felt labelled and assumed to be dangerous, in the main they understood that single sex provision was necessary because a sizeable minority of men pose a very real threat, and it’s the fear for women and girls that means that we have to have our own protected spaces.
Trans activists have repeatedly accused feminists like me of being ‘transphobic’ and bigoted when we say that we don’t want men in our spaces.
Trans women ARE men, and the law has now, at last, clarified this.
In an 88-page ruling Supreme Court judges Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler found that “the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”
Lord Hodge stated it was the unanimous decision of the court that “the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.
The top judge added that the Act still offers protection from discrimination for trans people.
The debate over trans rights and women’s spaces has been intensifying for years, with key legal challenges and public figures sparking a nationwide challenge against extremist woke views on gender.
But the issue exploded in 2020 when national treasure JK Rowling slammed the growing trend of replacing “biological sex” with “gender identity,” sparking outrage from the trans lobby.
Ms Rowling’s defiant stance – declaring that “sex is real” – triggered death threats, but also turned her into the figurehead for the “gender-critical” movement.
Then came Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor at Sussex University, who said that men can’t just declare themselves women, only to be bullied into quitting her job in 2021 by woke-mob protestors.
Ms Stock’s forced exit ignited fury, as many argued that freedom of speech and women’s rights were under attack, with feminists rallying behind her to defend the right to speak out on sex-based issues.
In 2019, tax expert Maya Forstater was axed from her job after tweeting that sex is biological, but in 2021, she won a huge victory when an employment tribunal ruled her views were protected by free speech.
What happens next for campaigners and female-only spaces?
- The Supreme Court ruling has clarified that organisations can lawfully exclude trans women from women-only spaces when it is necessary for safeguarding biological women.
- This decision provides a legal framework for institutions to create clearer, more defined policies regarding access to female-only spaces like domestic abuse shelters, gyms, changing rooms, and prisons.
- As a result, women’s rights groups are likely to push for stronger protections to maintain the integrity of female-only spaces, citing concerns over safety and fairness.
- Today’s ruling could spark further legal challenges from trans rights activists, who may argue that the decision undermines their rights to access spaces in line with their gender identity.
- Public services like schools and hospitals will face pressure to reconsider how they handle access to gender-segregated facilities, potentially leading to the introduction of more detailed guidelines.
- The ruling also opens the door for more tailored safeguarding policies within women’s spaces, but these may lead to accusations of discrimination from trans activists if seen as overly restrictive.
- Women’s refuges and domestic violence shelters may introduce stricter policies to ensure that biological women’s safety is prioritised.
- Legal and public debates around the interpretation of “sex” vs. “gender” will intensify, with experts and lawmakers grappling to find a solution that satisfies both parties.
- The case is likely to set a precedent, influencing future legal decisions on the rights of trans people in relation to women-only spaces and potentially prompting more judicial reviews.
Ms Forstater’s win turned the spotlight on the debate, making her one of the most prominent voices in the fight for a clearer distinction between sex and gender.
In 2022 the next major showdown was launched when a women’s charity refused to admit a trans woman to a female-only refuge, claiming it was necessary to protect vulnerable women.
The charity argued that admitting trans women posed a risk to women’s safety, especially for those who had survived male violence, sparking massive protests and legal battles.
The case hit the Supreme Court in 2023, where the judges ruled that, in some cases, it’s perfectly legal to exclude trans women from women’s spaces to protect biological women.
The ruling sent shockwaves through the trans rights movement, with gender critics calling it a win for common sense.
Meanwhile, controversy surrounding trans women in female prisons hit a boiling point in 2022 when Isla Bryson, a convicted rapist, was sent to a women’s prison in Scotland, sparking outrage across the country.
Bryson, born Adam Graham, was convicted of raping two women before transitioning, but his placement in a female prison raised concerns that convicted male criminals could exploit gender identity laws to gain access to women’s spaces.
The Scottish government’s decision to house Bryson in a women’s prison was met with fierce backlash, with critics warning it set a dangerous precedent for protecting women behind bars.
In response to the outcry, Scotland’s Justice Minister was forced to reverse the decision and place Bryson in a male facility, highlighting the tensions between gender identity policies and safeguarding vulnerable women.
The case of Bryson is just one of several incidents that have brought the issue of trans women in women’s prisons to the forefront and paved the way for the FWS legal challenge.
Today’s dispute centred on whether or not somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act.
Scottish legislation mandates 50 per cent female representation on public boards.
FWS previously said that not tying the definition of sex to its “ordinary meaning” could have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights.
It could also have a profound effect on “everyday single-sex services” like toilets and hospital wards.
Lord Hodge set out the central question of today’s ruling.
He said: “Our role is to ascertain the meaning of the legislation which parliament has enacted to that end.
“The central question on this appeal is the meaning of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010.
“Do those terms refer to biologic women or biological sex?
“Or is a woman to be interpreted as extending to a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate?”
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed an appeal from the campaign group.
It ruled the definition of a woman and sex in the Equality Act relates to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
However Lord Hodge added: “But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another.
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association.
“Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”
It comes after a senior nurse was disciplined by the NHS for calling a 6ft convicted transgender paedophile “Mr”.
Meanwhile Sandie Peggie was suspended after she objected to Doctor Beth Upton using the women’s changing room at the A&E in Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on Christmas Eve 2023.
Elsewhere the International Olympic Committee is facing a lawsuit for allowing boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting to compete at the 2024 Olympics.
How did we get here?
The matter first came to court in 2022, when FWS successfully challenged the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 over its inclusion of trans women in its definition of women.
The Court of Session ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament‘s legal competence.
Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law.
What is the Equality Act 2010 and what does it do?
THE Equality Act 2010 brings together 116 different pieces of legislation to protect people’s rights and advance equality for all.
It replaces previous anti-discrimination legislation with a single law to make it easier for people to understand and comply with.
The public sector Equality Duty came into force on April 5, 2011, and applies to public bodies.
It replaces the three previous public sector equality duties – for race, disability and gender.
Equality Duty now also covers age, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion – including lack of belief – sex, sexual orientation and marriage and civil partnership.
Breaching the act can result in a fine ranging from £200 to £50,000.
This stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010.
It also specified that a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman.
FWS challenged this revised guidance on the grounds sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning.
Women’s rights campaigners said the Government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of “woman”.
However, its challenge was rejected by the Court of Session’s Outer House on December 13, 2022.
The Inner House upheld that decision on November 1, 2023 – but did grant FWS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
The appeal at the Supreme Court before Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler was heard last November.
After the two-day hearing, the judges said they would “take time to consider very carefully” before issuing their judgement on April 16.
When FWS’ legal argument was published ahead of November’s appeal, director Trina Budge said: “Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50 per cent men, and 50 per cent men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation.
“However, the ramifications of this case are much more far-reaching and all sex-based rights protected by the Equality Act are at risk.
“The stakes are high and the court’s decision will have consequences for everyday, single-sex services such as toilets and hospital wards.
“It will determine whether a pregnant woman with a GRC is entitled to maternity leave, what it means to be same-sex attracted, and whether a man with a GRC’s entitlement to join a group of lesbians takes priority over their right to freely associate with only women.
“Trans rights are protected under the separate category of gender reassignment but, to fully guarantee women’s rights, it is increasingly clear that a consistent, biological and factual understanding of sex is the only workable solution.”
During the hearing, Ruth Crawford KC, representing the Scottish Government, said a GRC affected a “change in legal status”.
She added that someone with a GRC “becomes recognised as belonging to, or becoming, the sex of their acquired gender”.
She added: “We submit there are only two sexes or genders, and a person whose sex becomes that of a man or woman in consequence of a GRC belongs to that sex, and will have the protection afforded under the Equality Act”.
The Scottish Government said they were unable to comment on live legal proceedings.
Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to define a ‘woman’[/caption]
Britain’s Supreme Court said the legal definition of a “woman” is based on a person’s sex at birth[/caption]
Women celebrate the ruling[/caption]
Susan Smith (R) and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland[/caption]